What Elite Universities Miss About Teamwork

In, But Not Of: A column

Photo by Dylan Gillis on Unsplash

Atlantic contributor David Brooks' scathing 2024 takedown of the Ivy League hits familiar notes in America's culture war symphony—he criticized the meritocratic sorting system that created a “Cognitive Elite” even as others lament its perpetuation of privilege. Yet while we obsess over ideology, we're missing something crucial: these prestigious diploma factories are churning out brilliant lone wolves utterly incapable of functioning as part of a pack. In their relentless pursuit of individual excellence, these institutions fail to teach perhaps the most essential skill for solving today's complex problems—genuine collaboration.

The problem begins before students ever walk through Widener Gate: no one is admitted as a team. Students secure entry by distinguishing themselves individually through good grades, unique accomplishments, and carefully crafted personal narratives that scream “exceptional individual”—precisely the metrics that Brooks identifies as part of the "sorting system" that universities adopted to identify the Cognitive Elite. Even recruited athletes, whose collaborative abilities may factor into their offers, ultimately secure their spots through individual excellence in their sports. Once on campus, the pattern only intensifies. The system rewards those who master the appearance of collaboration while maximizing individual achievement. Supposedly teamwork-driven clubs reveal the truth, filled as they are with Rhodes Scholar candidates who join five organizations as "President," pre-meds who treat volunteer work as a box-checking exercise, and finance hopefuls who view group projects as opportunities to build their "leadership narratives" for Goldman Sachs. Is it any wonder our most 'elite' graduates struggle to function in workplaces where actual teamwork—not just parallel play for adults—determines success?

I wouldn't go so far as to claim, like Brooks does, that the Ivy League "broke America"—that overstates our influence. But in their mission to identify and cultivate the "highest human trait" of intelligence through standardized tests and academic performance, elite universities do systemically overvalue so-called hard skills (IQ, technical proficiency, measurable achievements) at the expense of soft skills (grit, emotional flexibility, and, critically, collaborative ability). As Aristotle cautioned in his Nicomachean Ethics, "Education of the mind without education of the heart is no education at all."¹ This imbalance shapes not just education but our broader professional culture, creating workplaces where individual excellence is prized above true collaboration—a consequence of the meritocratic transformation that Brooks identifies, yet one that receives far less attention than ideological debates about standards and equity.

I've seen this difference firsthand. Before college, I was surrounded by a culture—both in my educational and athletic pursuits—where those same soft skills were paramount markers of success. My peers considered comparing grades or SAT scores impolite and self-interested. Our metric of success wasn't individual achievement but rather one's ability to fully invest in a shared mission. This isn't to diminish the value of individual excellence—indeed, developing strong personal capabilities is essential to making meaningful contributions to any team. But individual achievement reaches its fullest potential only when combined effectively with others. Leaders built this culture brick by brick, never seeking recognition for themselves—the antithesis of the achievement-broadcasting mentality pervasive at elite institutions. Entering college proved jarring precisely because this value system was inverted. Where Brooks describes universities "serving as society's primary sorting system, segregating the smart from the not smart," I experienced first-hand how elite schools foster a culture of "results for me" rather than "results for us." This isn't about politics or "wokeness" as many conservative critics would suggest, nor is it simply about economic inequality as progressive critics often emphasize. It's about an institutional structure that inherently rewards individual achievement over collective success—a direct consequence of what Brooks calls "the age of the Cognitive Elite." To be clear, individual excellence matters tremendously—brilliant minds with deep technical expertise solve critical problems and drive innovation. Yet even the most exceptional individual talent is amplified when paired with the ability to collaborate effectively. Silicon Valley's greatest innovations weren't born from lone geniuses but from teams in which individual brilliance was channeled toward shared goals. The military's most elite units don't succeed through collections of independent operators but through seamlessly integrated teams in which each member's skills complement those of the others. In contrast, our prestigious universities excel at developing intellectual horsepower but often neglect teaching students how to harness that power collectively—a deficiency that becomes glaringly apparent when these graduates enter workplaces where complex problems demand genuine collaboration.

This culture has very predictable effects in the workplace. Research shows that students from higher-ranked universities generate more conflict, engage in fewer non-instrumental conversations, and display less team commitment and identification with their teams. Yet we needn't accept a false choice between high performers and team players. I chose to participate on the varsity swimming team at Harvard precisely because it was one of the few spaces where collaborative success was genuinely valued. The swim team encouraged us to ask "how did we perform?" before "how did I perform?"—a stark contrast to the individualistic ethos dominating most campus spaces and an approach far more aligned with what successful organizations actually need. Hyperfixation on one's own performance was frowned upon as counterproductive to the collective mission of the team—a lesson conspicuously absent from most elite university experiences. This perspective is one I sought and believe I've found in my future workplace, where both qualities can coexist harmoniously. I look forward to experiencing the satisfaction of working intensely alongside colleagues who genuinely have each other's backs—where individual credit matters far less than collective success. In such an environment, who is right becomes inconsequential compared to what is right. The solution isn't abandoning excellence but redefining it.

While Brooks argues that “when universities like Harvard shifted their definition of ability, large segments of society adjusted to meet that definition,” we now need another shift—one that celebrates collaborative success in our elite institutions, not just in theory but in practice. That means reforming admissions criteria, campus recognition systems, and institutional values. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote as a student at Morehouse College, “Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.” King warned that “education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society,” a caution that resonates with our current predicament. Unlike many critics from both sides of the political spectrum who seem more interested in winning culture wars than proposing viable solutions, I'm suggesting a practical shift in how we define and cultivate excellence, one that balances individual achievement with the equally vital skill of effective teamwork. Here's what that might look like in practice:

First, admissions processes should evolve beyond the intelligence-based sorting that Brooks identifies as the foundation of the "Cognitive Elite." Universities should implement a Collaborative Character Assessment that requires three references to evaluate a candidate specifically on their teamwork abilities. Unlike traditional recommendation letters, these would use a structured format with specific questions about how the applicant handles disagreement, contributes to group success without seeking individual credit, and helps others improve. This approach would identify students who thrive in collective environments rather than just those who excel individually.

Second, universities should consider implementing Group Challenge Interviews, where small groups of applicants collaborate on solving complex, multi-faceted problems with no single correct answer. Trained observers would evaluate not just the outcome but specifically how candidates communicate, incorporate others’ ideas, and navigate disagreement. While UATX focuses heavily on standardized test scores for its "merit-first" admissions approach, this collaborative assessment would balance cognitive metrics with demonstrated teamwork abilities.

Third, universities should require Collaborative Portfolio Evidence, in which applicants submit documentation of genuine team contributions rather than just leadership positions. This could include project assessments from teammates, evidence of how the applicant helped improve group outcomes, and reflections on lessons learned from collaborative failures. Instead of just listing activities, students would need to demonstrate their specific contributions to collective success, counterbalancing what Brooks identifies as our unhealthy focus on individual achievement. This would help fulfill the second half of the inscription above Harvard's gate by preparing students to “Depart to Serve Better Thy Country and Thy Kind,” not merely to achieve personal distinction.

Fourth, universities should institute regular Team-Based Orientation Challenges with a structured curriculum specifically designed to develop and assess collaborative skills. These would establish, from day one, that the institution values collective problem-solving and would track students' development in these areas throughout their education, creating data that employers increasingly value.

This isn't about pushing any political agenda or dismantling elite institutions as some commentators suggest. It's about recognizing the reality that our complex global challenges increasingly demand collaborative solutions. Our most prestigious educational institutions must evolve to prepare students not just to stand out individually, but to stand together effectively in solving problems that matter. Brooks may suggest that the meritocracy "isn't working," but simply criticizing it without offering alternatives perpetuates the problem. The true challenge isn't dismantling meritocracy but expanding our definition of merit to include the ability to achieve excellence together. Only then will we produce graduates prepared for the collaborative work that meaningful progress requires. This would fulfill the classical ideal of paideia—education that forms the whole person for citizenship and collective flourishing, not merely individual advancement. Perhaps then the inscription above Harvard's gate would truly be fulfilled: students would enter to grow in wisdom and depart ready to serve their country and kind.

CINCINNATUS

1. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Joe Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2002.