6 ms·

Let's just drop meritocracy all together. Everything is subjective, right? Seriously though, I'm worried about our future as a spieces. The knowledge and techn

Let's just drop meritocracy all together. Everything is subjective, right? Seriously though, I'm worried about our future as a spieces. The knowledge and technologies we have developed, which require nurturing. We nurture modern civilization by making sure the smartest get into positions where they can express their intellect. Part of that process needs to be keeping rigours standards in place when it comes to education.

tzs 9y ago
Nowhere does the article say they are lowering standards. They are just changing how they handle students who need extra preparation in English or math. Before: give them standard English and math tests, and if they do not pass make them take a year of non-credit remedial classes before letting them take any credit glasses. After: everyone can take credit classes. For those that need extra work in math or English there will be programs that work concurrently with or as part of credit classes to catch them up on math or English.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > Nowhere does the article say they are lowering standards. They are just changing how they handle students who need extra preparation in English or math. Just re-read the sentence dispassionately. You do realize that these are people who would flunk TOEFL if the TOEFL was a requirement the way it is for foreign student? Why are we accepting people who fail basic English into a university that has English as a primary teaching language? What are going to be the classes that these students would be taking concurrently with "Expressing yourself in paragraphs 49"? All of the soft sciences require papers that are graded. So they are out. Hard sciences? Nope, they are require algebra and our students cannot do basic algebra ( let us not pretend that universities have math proficiency requirements for admissions - it is just basic algebra and some geometry plus ability to reason ) or do basic problem solving. So I guess those classes would be yoga and basket weaving. And in just 6-7 years ( these people won't graduate in 4 ) we would be wondering why is that we are having so few people getting jobs in STEM fields.
rodgerd 9y ago
> Let's just drop meritocracy all together. Everything is subjective, right? You mean it sarcastically, but you are literally correct. What has "merit" in so-called meritocracies is entirely subjective.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Unfortunately not. The reason meritocracy has “won” over the last 200 years is those societies that didn’t embrace it lost the wars that were fought.
  - chongli 9y ago
    This is so completely wrong. Wars are won and lost for many, many reasons. Food, resources, location, coincidence, weather, politics, sheer luck. This is the sort of crap people complain about whenever the meritocracy comes up. Sorry, but merit is not whatever you want it to be after the fact when you point to something that succeeded. That's called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Yes wars have been won and lost for many reasons over history, but since the development of meritocracy (last 200 years) those societies that have embraced it have won all the important wars. Do you really think the nobility just rolled over and gave the middle classes all the power because they asked nicely? Edit. Actually that is exactly what merit is. Meritocracy is not rule by the just, but rule by those most likely to be winners. It just happens that given the opportunity the “winners" are most likely to be found within then middle class.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Can you give examples of societies that have embraced meritocracy? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
        9y ago
kashkhan 9y ago
college and other education should be about adding learning to the recipients and not about measurement. People should learn things as they want, and not be required to meet arbitrary standards and degrees to obtain societal benefits. A hundred years ago ~1% of the people went to college. Now it's more than 50%. The societal function of college has changed.
- xupybd 9y ago
  Measurement is a huge value add. It's proof to employers that you know the basics. It's something that you can use to get a job. Learning for the sake of learning is great and all but you also have to put food on the table.
  - kashkhan 9y ago
    how many employers give job offers based on GPA? GPA or any other grades is bad proxy for actual ability and employability. Humans are good at studying for evaluations and measurements. But colleges that teach for that are a waste of time.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 0x10101 9y ago
  "People should learn things as they want, and not be required to meet arbitrary standards and degrees to obtain societal benefits." Then don't ask me to pay for you to do so. Check some books out of the library. People are paying a lot of money to universities in exchange get a better life for themselves. If it doesn't improve their skills in any measurable way, we should try something else.
  - kashkhan 9y ago
    thats ok. we are in a transitional phase. Most of what you learn in college goes to waste anyway. College proves that you can start something and finish it. Like you can do engineering, but even graduates of MIT need years in industry to learn the actual skills needed for their jobs.
tnzn 9y ago
Actually meritocracy is bullshit really. How can you measure merit ? By the outcomes ? Are you seriously believing outcomes measure merit ? If so I have bad news for you. As for the argument that society will collapse because of the democratization of education and degrees and whatnot,it's at least a hundred years old argument. In France the right-wing has been whining about it for 50 years (especially regarding math) and we still have mathematicians that are among the best in the world.
- 0x10101 9y ago
  Outcomes on realistic tests of performance, yes. I think you are thinking of "merit" as some intrinsic property of a person as opposed to measured performance. Some things are hard to measure, but many things are not. Putting people into positions based on the best estimates of how well they would perform is meritocracy. What is your system for selecting people for positions if not by how well they would perform at the positions? What this typically devolves into patrimonialism or clientelism...where positions are given to related persons, friends, or in exchange for political power.
- Nickersf 9y ago
  Your last paragraph is filled with a lot of ideologically loaded terms. "Democratize", "Right-wing"... Okay here's a good example: A company hires and pays a person to do job a, said person has skills and knowledge of topics x and y and gets the job done using skills x and y. The same company hires person b, who doesn't have skills x and y, but still has the accreditation. Person b, doesn't get the job done, still gets paid and the company did not have the problem solved, or service/product to sell. Further, if we don't set rigorous standards for admission and graduation the smarter people have their accreditations devalued. Additionally, employers and other agencies will not know who they are getting. The idea lowering standards so 'anyone' can get into anything is dangerous, and creates chaos. It's anti-progressive.
tnzn 9y ago
Actually meritocracy is bullshit really. How can you measure merit ? By the outcomes ? Are you seriously believing outcomes measure merit ? If so I have bad news for you. As for the argument that society will collapse because of dumbing down education and whatnot,it's at leasta hundred years old argument.
tnzn 9y ago
Actually meritocracy is bullshit really. How can you measure merit ? By the outcomes ? Are you seriously believing outcomes measure merit ? If so I have bad news for you. As for the argument that society will collapse because of dumbing down education and whatnot,it's at leasta hundred years old argument.
tnzn 9y ago
Actually meritocracy is bullshit really. How can you measure merit ? By the outcomes ? Are you seriously believing outcomes measure merit ? If so I have bad news for you. As for the argument that society will collapse because of dumbing down education and whatnot,it's at leasta hundred years old argument.
VLM 9y ago
Subjective is not an allowed thought with respect to politics, see recent events at google. My suspicion is loosening STEM requirements is a reaction to tightening political belief requirements. My point is its not so much a weakening, as its a redirection back to the traditional place of a college for indoctrination of theology. In a community of extreme political intolerance, algebra matters very little compared to political purity.

tzs 9y ago

Nowhere does the article say they are lowering standards. They are just changing how they handle students who need extra preparation in English or math. Before: give them standard English and math tests, and if they do not pass make them take a year of non-credit remedial classes before letting them take any credit glasses. After: everyone can take credit classes. For those that need extra work in math or English there will be programs that work concurrently with or as part of credit classes to catch them up on math or English.

notyourday 9y ago
> Nowhere does the article say they are lowering standards. They are just changing how they handle students who need extra preparation in English or math. Just re-read the sentence dispassionately. You do realize that these are people who would flunk TOEFL if the TOEFL was a requirement the way it is for foreign student? Why are we accepting people who fail basic English into a university that has English as a primary teaching language? What are going to be the classes that these students would be taking concurrently with "Expressing yourself in paragraphs 49"? All of the soft sciences require papers that are graded. So they are out. Hard sciences? Nope, they are require algebra and our students cannot do basic algebra ( let us not pretend that universities have math proficiency requirements for admissions - it is just basic algebra and some geometry plus ability to reason ) or do basic problem solving. So I guess those classes would be yoga and basket weaving. And in just 6-7 years ( these people won't graduate in 4 ) we would be wondering why is that we are having so few people getting jobs in STEM fields.

rodgerd 9y ago

> Let's just drop meritocracy all together. Everything is subjective, right? You mean it sarcastically, but you are literally correct. What has "merit" in so-called meritocracies is entirely subjective.

danieltillett 9y ago
Unfortunately not. The reason meritocracy has “won” over the last 200 years is those societies that didn’t embrace it lost the wars that were fought.
- chongli 9y ago
  This is so completely wrong. Wars are won and lost for many, many reasons. Food, resources, location, coincidence, weather, politics, sheer luck. This is the sort of crap people complain about whenever the meritocracy comes up. Sorry, but merit is not whatever you want it to be after the fact when you point to something that succeeded. That's called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Yes wars have been won and lost for many reasons over history, but since the development of meritocracy (last 200 years) those societies that have embraced it have won all the important wars. Do you really think the nobility just rolled over and gave the middle classes all the power because they asked nicely? Edit. Actually that is exactly what merit is. Meritocracy is not rule by the just, but rule by those most likely to be winners. It just happens that given the opportunity the “winners" are most likely to be found within then middle class.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Can you give examples of societies that have embraced meritocracy? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
      - 9y ago

kashkhan 9y ago

college and other education should be about adding learning to the recipients and not about measurement. People should learn things as they want, and not be required to meet arbitrary standards and degrees to obtain societal benefits. A hundred years ago ~1% of the people went to college. Now it's more than 50%. The societal function of college has changed.

xupybd 9y ago
Measurement is a huge value add. It's proof to employers that you know the basics. It's something that you can use to get a job. Learning for the sake of learning is great and all but you also have to put food on the table.
- kashkhan 9y ago
  how many employers give job offers based on GPA? GPA or any other grades is bad proxy for actual ability and employability. Humans are good at studying for evaluations and measurements. But colleges that teach for that are a waste of time.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0x10101 9y ago
"People should learn things as they want, and not be required to meet arbitrary standards and degrees to obtain societal benefits." Then don't ask me to pay for you to do so. Check some books out of the library. People are paying a lot of money to universities in exchange get a better life for themselves. If it doesn't improve their skills in any measurable way, we should try something else.
- kashkhan 9y ago
  thats ok. we are in a transitional phase. Most of what you learn in college goes to waste anyway. College proves that you can start something and finish it. Like you can do engineering, but even graduates of MIT need years in industry to learn the actual skills needed for their jobs.

tnzn 9y ago

Actually meritocracy is bullshit really. How can you measure merit ? By the outcomes ? Are you seriously believing outcomes measure merit ? If so I have bad news for you. As for the argument that society will collapse because of the democratization of education and degrees and whatnot,it's at least a hundred years old argument. In France the right-wing has been whining about it for 50 years (especially regarding math) and we still have mathematicians that are among the best in the world.

0x10101 9y ago
Outcomes on realistic tests of performance, yes. I think you are thinking of "merit" as some intrinsic property of a person as opposed to measured performance. Some things are hard to measure, but many things are not. Putting people into positions based on the best estimates of how well they would perform is meritocracy. What is your system for selecting people for positions if not by how well they would perform at the positions? What this typically devolves into patrimonialism or clientelism...where positions are given to related persons, friends, or in exchange for political power.
Nickersf 9y ago
Your last paragraph is filled with a lot of ideologically loaded terms. "Democratize", "Right-wing"... Okay here's a good example: A company hires and pays a person to do job a, said person has skills and knowledge of topics x and y and gets the job done using skills x and y. The same company hires person b, who doesn't have skills x and y, but still has the accreditation. Person b, doesn't get the job done, still gets paid and the company did not have the problem solved, or service/product to sell. Further, if we don't set rigorous standards for admission and graduation the smarter people have their accreditations devalued. Additionally, employers and other agencies will not know who they are getting. The idea lowering standards so 'anyone' can get into anything is dangerous, and creates chaos. It's anti-progressive.

tnzn 9y ago

VLM 9y ago

Subjective is not an allowed thought with respect to politics, see recent events at google. My suspicion is loosening STEM requirements is a reaction to tightening political belief requirements. My point is its not so much a weakening, as its a redirection back to the traditional place of a college for indoctrination of theology. In a community of extreme political intolerance, algebra matters very little compared to political purity.