4 ms·

Per your first argument, even granting that admissions is meritocratic / fair for the sake of argument, the education you receive, networks provided, and simple

by sf_rob 8y ago

Per your first argument, even granting that admissions is meritocratic / fair for the sake of argument, the education you receive, networks provided, and simple prestige of the school all provide advantages that you will not find to such a degree at a lower tier school. Tuition subsidies adds an additional major advantage of not having the drag of loans slowing your future economic growth. Again, I understand that society is full of these self reinforcing advantages and that I benefit from many (including a public academic scholarship); the critique is merely incremental. Per "it will make more of a difference to those who are not "fine without it"". Sure, but it would make more of a difference if needs based and scaled broadly (not sure what restrictions exist on the funds for this aim). Although this line of argument admittedly unravels into base utilitarianism when followed.

dunpeal 8y ago
This argument is fascinating, because you are in effect arguing that people should be rewarded according to their lack of privilege: "we should give these subsidies to students from 'lower-tier schools' rather than students from 'top-tier schools' who are already well on their way to success". This is the "social justice" argument. Now let me ask you this: If you get sick and require surgery, would you rather be treated by the smart, skilled, hard-working doctor who succeeded in everything he tried, including being accepted into a top school? Or maybe you'd prefer the under-privileged doctor, who never did well academically, and only got into a lower-tier school, but managed to graduate thanks to your social justice subsidy? Your argument seems to make society more just and equal, but you support it because it is convenient to appear as just person, and you are isolated from the repercussions of your proposal. In reality, your policy will prefer and encourage mediocre doctors over excellent ones, you just hope it won't affect you. Thankfully, American society is structured in such a way that a top school like NYU can muster the funds required for the subsidy, and thus we will have more excellent doctors, instead of more poor ones.
- sf_rob 8y ago
  That is the least generous take of my argument and not conducive to a productive discussion. Never did I make an argument about social justice or the removal of merit from the system. In fact, I was making an elitist argument, that those with great merit will do fine without a subsidy of their tuition and that the market will award them with or without this fund.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    I did not mean to offend you, and apologize if I misread your comment. Either way, I disagree that the better people will always prevail, no matter the circumstances. By definition, a stronger candidate will succeed where a weaker will fail, but that will only apply up to a particular challenge differential. If you keep shifting resources to the weaker candidate, the stronger will fail or give up, eventually. On a personal level, I came from an underprivileged background myself, and succeeded due to stronger drive and working harder than most people I grew up with. But there were many points when I wanted to give up, and I know how close I was to ending up in the same failure mode as they did. Finally, even if your argument was correct, and these medical school candidates would succeed "regardless", the point of these scholarships is to make sure they choose medicine as the field to apply themselves and succeed in. Sure, they'll be successful regardless: they'll just make a great career in investment banking, and leave medicine for those who have less options. Society wants great doctors, so it pays the most qualified individuals to undertake a course of training and application in medicine. Makes sense, I think.

by sf_rob 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

This argument is fascinating, because you are in effect arguing that people should be rewarded according to their lack of privilege: "we should give these subsidies to students from 'lower-tier schools' rather than students from 'top-tier schools' who are already well on their way to success". This is the "social justice" argument. Now let me ask you this: If you get sick and require surgery, would you rather be treated by the smart, skilled, hard-working doctor who succeeded in everything he tried, including being accepted into a top school? Or maybe you'd prefer the under-privileged doctor, who never did well academically, and only got into a lower-tier school, but managed to graduate thanks to your social justice subsidy? Your argument seems to make society more just and equal, but you support it because it is convenient to appear as just person, and you are isolated from the repercussions of your proposal. In reality, your policy will prefer and encourage mediocre doctors over excellent ones, you just hope it won't affect you. Thankfully, American society is structured in such a way that a top school like NYU can muster the funds required for the subsidy, and thus we will have more excellent doctors, instead of more poor ones.

sf_rob 8y ago
That is the least generous take of my argument and not conducive to a productive discussion. Never did I make an argument about social justice or the removal of merit from the system. In fact, I was making an elitist argument, that those with great merit will do fine without a subsidy of their tuition and that the market will award them with or without this fund.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  I did not mean to offend you, and apologize if I misread your comment. Either way, I disagree that the better people will always prevail, no matter the circumstances. By definition, a stronger candidate will succeed where a weaker will fail, but that will only apply up to a particular challenge differential. If you keep shifting resources to the weaker candidate, the stronger will fail or give up, eventually. On a personal level, I came from an underprivileged background myself, and succeeded due to stronger drive and working harder than most people I grew up with. But there were many points when I wanted to give up, and I know how close I was to ending up in the same failure mode as they did. Finally, even if your argument was correct, and these medical school candidates would succeed "regardless", the point of these scholarships is to make sure they choose medicine as the field to apply themselves and succeed in. Sure, they'll be successful regardless: they'll just make a great career in investment banking, and leave medicine for those who have less options. Society wants great doctors, so it pays the most qualified individuals to undertake a course of training and application in medicine. Makes sense, I think.