3 ms·

>But, her choice to work hard, and do well in those things was her choice. In life she got dealt a straight flush but she played it well. Yes but the other gir

>But, her choice to work hard, and do well in those things was her choice. In life she got dealt a straight flush but she played it well. Yes but the other girl gets dealt a shit hand and still plays it well. The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted. >If we don't focus the cause of that difference ... I am focusing on the cause of that difference. I think the opposite here, that it is you who is failing to consider the cause of that difference. >I completely agree but you were advocating for Harvard to try and correct for that difference which I do not think they should do because it requires treating someone different because of their race. Yes, Harvard should correct for that difference because it is unfair to hold someone accountable for a culture they did not choose. >Example 2: Person A goes to an elite private high school and gets a 4.0. Person B goes to a very poorly ranked public high school and gets a 4.0. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an college administrator if you only have one acceptance letter to send and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the letter. >In my understanding, both example are a merit-based system. In example 2, person B had the deck stacked against them from the start. When we measure personal ability person A has a greater ability and thus more merit. Yet, I feel like you will disagree about this being merit-based. >Would you be willing to explain why you think the quality of school is irrelevant to merit? It would really help my understanding if you were able to put a working definition to your concept of merit. To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without. So take a feudal example. It's best to have a king who understands the duties of being a king. Most people in a kingdom will grow up with no real understanding of what is it to be a king. The king's firstborn son however, grows up in an entirely different culture. He will be cultivated from birth and given every advantage in order to turn him into the best king possible. Does that make bloodline aristocracy a merit-based system? After all, at the time of the king's death it is obvious that his son has received the best preparation. Now, I think if you're a normal person something about that will bother you, it doesn't quite seem like merit. It seems like inherited privilege which has been converted into knowledge, but that knowledge isn't itself merit. I feel the same way about our current system. It is based on inherited privilege which takes place in the realm of knowledge and test scores but it doesn't really strike me as being 'merit.'

Veelox 8y ago
You have a very interesting world view. >The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted. >To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without. >but that knowledge isn't itself merit. I don't get your definition of merit. The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. In the book Player of Games the Azad society plays a game called Azad. A person's rank in society is determined by how well they play the game in the "annual" tournament. People who are able to be better trained on the game perform better and thus have a higher rank in society. From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Either way, what is your reasoning?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. Yes, there are exceptions. But for most of history the crown prince, is in fact the best person to rule. All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? >From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. Correct. If in Azad society my parent's wealth or the high school I attended had a significant bearing on my skill at the game then I would say that is not a meritocratic system. >If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? If it was able to remove environmental and structural effects then yes, that would be meritocratic. >Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.

Veelox 8y ago

You have a very interesting world view. >The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted. >To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without. >but that knowledge isn't itself merit. I don't get your definition of merit. The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. In the book Player of Games the Azad society plays a game called Azad. A person's rank in society is determined by how well they play the game in the "annual" tournament. People who are able to be better trained on the game perform better and thus have a higher rank in society. From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Either way, what is your reasoning?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. Yes, there are exceptions. But for most of history the crown prince, is in fact the best person to rule. All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? >From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. Correct. If in Azad society my parent's wealth or the high school I attended had a significant bearing on my skill at the game then I would say that is not a meritocratic system. >If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? If it was able to remove environmental and structural effects then yes, that would be meritocratic. >Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.