29 ms·
Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people. That's a common enough platitude, but I'm not c
by hugh3 16y ago
Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people.
That's a common enough platitude, but I'm not convinced that it's true.
Or rather, it's the sort of thing we like to pretend is true for the sake of a functioning society (since nobody likes to discuss exactly who is worth more than whom) and everybody goes along with it. We'll admit extreme cases (like Beethoven is worth more than some bum on a street corner) but shy away from discussing it in any further detail lest we wind up obliged to cut that bum up to give his organs to someone else.
I don't have a problem with this as a thing we all pretend is true, but I do have a problem with the assertion that it's genuinely true.
(Unfortunately in order to even have this discussion I have to put on my Nietzsche moustache and step outside the boundaries of polite society.)
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoI imagine the author genuinely believed that being a graduate of an elite school no longer means as much.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- epo 16y agoThey may not be more valuable in an "all men are created equal" Orwellian sense. In practice however they are given benefits, chances and advantages denied to others and so find their path through life eased. It is of course still up to them to exploit these advantages.
- napierzaza 16y agoI feel like the author tries to make an argument against an elite paradigm while still having trouble getting outside of it. "Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people." He would be better off saying that Graduates of elite schools can also be stupid, lazy and talentless. Instead he still reinforces the distinction that you're elite, or one of those three. Either way he comes out and says just that before or after the above quote.
- aik 16y agoI believe the "platitude" is in all senses practical in that assigning worth is only easy and fully accurate posthumously. Also, no person is so one-dimensional that they can be accurately summed up by the singular adjectives "stupid", "talentless", or "lazy" -- that's just not a realistic situation. A lot of famous people throughout history were in fact poor bums on the street, and are now held in very high regard by all social classes (perhaps it can even be argued that the elite place more worth on them than the lower classes, ironically).
- GFischer 16y agoYou mean like Diogenes? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope