4 ms·

> I'm not so sure. These institutions have an embedded narrative. For universities it's that they are meritocracies, where class/race/gender/etc do not matter.

by darawk 8y ago

> I'm not so sure. These institutions have an embedded narrative. For universities it's that they are meritocracies, where class/race/gender/etc do not matter. For the justice system it's that everyone is equal before the law and the guilty will be punished. Do they have that narrative though? We already have affirmative action, which is the explicit inclusion of race/gender/class in admissions criteria. We are already a long ways from pure meritocracy. > I don't think these institutional narratives are superfluous. While it's naive to expect the institutions to live up to the narratives, the narratives end up serving as ideals. And I don't think the institutions can exist without those ideals. Two things: 1. I think you're overindexing on the importance of these narratives a bit, but you're right, they're important. 2. More importantly, this policy wouldn't destroy those narratives. You can make the scale very steep such that you have to pay quite a bit to get your average student in, and the steepness of that curve will be determined by the eliteness of the institution. You have the same meritocratic rules, they're just tempered by money.

gnud 8y ago
Some of the idea behind programs like affirmative action is that because of race/class/gender, some people score lower on various exams than they could. They were not given equal opportunities - and so to judge them equally during admissions would not be fair. I think affirmative action is tricky, because we single out some reasons for 'sub-potential' performance, but we ignore a lot of others. But even if I think it's tricky, I tend to be in favor of it. My biggest issue with these programs is that they should really have some built-in "off-switch", when the program should be dismantled because there's no longer a pressing need for it. I don't think we're there yet, but hopefully we will get there - and then what?
- darawk 8y ago
  Ya, I wasn't trying to argue for or against affirmative action in that comment. Just trying to point out that it's already not driven purely by intellectual merit. I agree on the off-switch issue as well. It's the problem with subsidies of any kind - they might be useful for a time, but at some point, we want to get rid of them...but they tend to be permanent.
leftyted 8y ago
> Do they have that narrative though? We already have affirmative action, which is the explicit inclusion of race/gender/class in admissions criteria. We are already a long ways from pure meritocracy. I think affirmative action is a bad idea for exactly this reason. It has eroded the narrative. It's trendy for left-wing types to argue things like "Harvard isn't a meritocracy" or to sneer at the idea of a meritocracy altogether (don't get me started on the right-wing types). > More importantly, this policy wouldn't destroy those narratives. You can make the scale very steep such that you have to pay quite a bit to get your average student in, and the steepness of that curve will be determined by the eliteness of the institution. You have the same meritocratic rules, they're just tempered by money. I think doing this in the open would be a disaster. What won't destroy the narratives is implementing your idea in the background. This has already happened to some degree. Most students at Harvard don't pay very much. Their education is subsidized by rich families one way or another. But I don't think that's a good thing. Somewhere along the line our institutional narratives have become cliched in people's minds. Maybe this will lead us to a wonderful new world where we can be perfectly rational and implement ideas like yours. But I doubt it. I think if we lose the institutional narratives we're going to lose the institutions. Maybe the new institutions will be better, who knows? (I'm not optimistic).
- darawk 8y ago
  > I think affirmative action is a bad idea for exactly this reason. It has eroded the narrative. It's trendy for left-wing types to argue things like "Harvard isn't a meritocracy" or to sneer at the idea of a meritocracy altogether (don't get me started on the right-wing types). I too hate those people passionately. I'm all for meritocracy in general. I'm just also for pareto-optimal outcomes in resource-constrained environments. > I think doing this in the open would be a disaster. What won't destroy the narratives is implementing your idea in the background. This has already happened to some degree. Most students at Harvard don't pay very much. Their education is subsidized by rich families one way or another. Ya it's definitely already a thing in the background. And maybe that's the right level for it, i'm not sure. Though I think we could basically be providing free tuition to say, 75% of students by opening it up to people who aren't willing to donate a building, but could pay say 500k/year. Which is quite a large group of people, especially when you consider international students. > But I don't think that's a good thing. Somewhere along the line our institutional narratives have become cliched in people's minds. Maybe this will lead us to a wonderful new world where we can be perfectly rational and implement ideas like yours. But I doubt it. I think if we lose the institutional narratives we're going to lose the institutions. Maybe the new institutions will be better, who knows? (I'm not optimistic). That could be. But I think a big part of the problem right now is that we don't treat education enough like a financial investment. The narrative around it is already too imbued with some moral character that it doesn't really have. We have people going into debt to earn degrees in poetry or psychology, in part because of this odd narrative that a college degree magically endows you with the ingredients for success - regardless of what that degree is in. I think dosing that with a degree of financial realism might be a benefit.

by darawk 8y ago

gnud 8y ago

Some of the idea behind programs like affirmative action is that because of race/class/gender, some people score lower on various exams than they could. They were not given equal opportunities - and so to judge them equally during admissions would not be fair. I think affirmative action is tricky, because we single out some reasons for 'sub-potential' performance, but we ignore a lot of others. But even if I think it's tricky, I tend to be in favor of it. My biggest issue with these programs is that they should really have some built-in "off-switch", when the program should be dismantled because there's no longer a pressing need for it. I don't think we're there yet, but hopefully we will get there - and then what?

darawk 8y ago
Ya, I wasn't trying to argue for or against affirmative action in that comment. Just trying to point out that it's already not driven purely by intellectual merit. I agree on the off-switch issue as well. It's the problem with subsidies of any kind - they might be useful for a time, but at some point, we want to get rid of them...but they tend to be permanent.

leftyted 8y ago

> Do they have that narrative though? We already have affirmative action, which is the explicit inclusion of race/gender/class in admissions criteria. We are already a long ways from pure meritocracy. I think affirmative action is a bad idea for exactly this reason. It has eroded the narrative. It's trendy for left-wing types to argue things like "Harvard isn't a meritocracy" or to sneer at the idea of a meritocracy altogether (don't get me started on the right-wing types). > More importantly, this policy wouldn't destroy those narratives. You can make the scale very steep such that you have to pay quite a bit to get your average student in, and the steepness of that curve will be determined by the eliteness of the institution. You have the same meritocratic rules, they're just tempered by money. I think doing this in the open would be a disaster. What won't destroy the narratives is implementing your idea in the background. This has already happened to some degree. Most students at Harvard don't pay very much. Their education is subsidized by rich families one way or another. But I don't think that's a good thing. Somewhere along the line our institutional narratives have become cliched in people's minds. Maybe this will lead us to a wonderful new world where we can be perfectly rational and implement ideas like yours. But I doubt it. I think if we lose the institutional narratives we're going to lose the institutions. Maybe the new institutions will be better, who knows? (I'm not optimistic).

darawk 8y ago
> I think affirmative action is a bad idea for exactly this reason. It has eroded the narrative. It's trendy for left-wing types to argue things like "Harvard isn't a meritocracy" or to sneer at the idea of a meritocracy altogether (don't get me started on the right-wing types). I too hate those people passionately. I'm all for meritocracy in general. I'm just also for pareto-optimal outcomes in resource-constrained environments. > I think doing this in the open would be a disaster. What won't destroy the narratives is implementing your idea in the background. This has already happened to some degree. Most students at Harvard don't pay very much. Their education is subsidized by rich families one way or another. Ya it's definitely already a thing in the background. And maybe that's the right level for it, i'm not sure. Though I think we could basically be providing free tuition to say, 75% of students by opening it up to people who aren't willing to donate a building, but could pay say 500k/year. Which is quite a large group of people, especially when you consider international students. > But I don't think that's a good thing. Somewhere along the line our institutional narratives have become cliched in people's minds. Maybe this will lead us to a wonderful new world where we can be perfectly rational and implement ideas like yours. But I doubt it. I think if we lose the institutional narratives we're going to lose the institutions. Maybe the new institutions will be better, who knows? (I'm not optimistic). That could be. But I think a big part of the problem right now is that we don't treat education enough like a financial investment. The narrative around it is already too imbued with some moral character that it doesn't really have. We have people going into debt to earn degrees in poetry or psychology, in part because of this odd narrative that a college degree magically endows you with the ingredients for success - regardless of what that degree is in. I think dosing that with a degree of financial realism might be a benefit.