5 ms·

" defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case, or spreading rumors and damaging others' reputation." I actually doubt this, maybe there was somethi

" defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case, or spreading rumors and damaging others' reputation." I actually doubt this, maybe there was something missed in the communication? Also the 'aristocracy' is definitely gone. Entrance to the 'Grande Ecoles' is competitive, not based on nobility. But yes, once you're in, you're 'set' and they do protect each other, it's similar to Oxbridge and Ivy League to some degree.

brianberns 7y ago
My Ivy League school wasn’t anything like this.
razakel 7y ago
>But yes, once you're in, you're 'set' and they do protect each other, it's similar to Oxbridge and Ivy League to some degree. Just two weeks ago the headmaster of a prestigious private school in the UK claimed that the rise in Oxbridge admissions from students educated at state schools was a form of "social engineering" and likened it to anti-Semitism. >Privately educated pupils in the UK are also being accused of dominating the top jobs and stifling social mobility Huh, it's almost as if... they actually do. "Meritocracy" for these people really means "quis paget entrat". https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/head-likens-criticism-of-private-schools-to-antisemitic-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/head-liken...
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > "quis paget entrat". Um, what? Only one out of three of those is actually a word.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Privat...
marvin 7y ago
I don't think I missed anything in communication -- we're both reasonably articulate and know each other very well. Paraphrasing, there was an assignment that stretched over a few weeks, where students were supposed to try to start rumors about each other, and report back any such rumors that took root. There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not". It doesn't require abnormally critical skills to imagine what sort of societal power structures such an education is meant to support.
- tlear 7y ago
  The first is thing is pretty horible, it is however an interesting thing to learn as you WIll encounter people who do this in your career. Second is probably the best way to learn about a topic and how to debate. Take something you abhore and defend it. It is an incredibly useful skill. People from US and Canada in general are absolutely terrible at it, this is why in debates vs British or French they usually loose. I remember going to Monk debate where head of Green Party of Canada got absolutely annihilated, they got under her skin, made her completely loose it to the point moderator had to cut her microphone. It was sad. Be a Nazi for a day, then if you ever debate one you will have a huge advantage.
- adolph 7y ago
  No, I think you need to characterize the structures that would support. For example, the latter sounds like an ideological Turing test [0]. I think training using this method broadens one’s empathy for and ability to engage with those who hold positions other than one’s own. 0. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...
- zdragnar 7y ago
  > There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not". Unless the positions were somehow inherently dangerous (i.e. advocating violence or similar) that's how you learn to debate. It forces you to consider viewpoints that don't align with your gut instinct. In the US, high school debate competitions all revolve around a single topic, and you alternate rounds between defending and opposing it. One such topic I recall a lot of people struggling with (compared to other topics) was "An oppressive government is better than no government" or something along those lines. Now, if the debate were something like "Women deserve to be paid less than men" I can understand being exceptionally uncomfortable being forced to defend that position.
cosmodisk 7y ago
"defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case" This is a very interesting thing, especially if taught methodically. I used to do it for fun to see how far I can push(always admitting at the end). Very very few people remain with their initial barriers/values,therefore can be substantially manipulated relatively easy.

brianberns 7y ago

My Ivy League school wasn’t anything like this.

razakel 7y ago

>But yes, once you're in, you're 'set' and they do protect each other, it's similar to Oxbridge and Ivy League to some degree. Just two weeks ago the headmaster of a prestigious private school in the UK claimed that the rise in Oxbridge admissions from students educated at state schools was a form of "social engineering" and likened it to anti-Semitism. >Privately educated pupils in the UK are also being accused of dominating the top jobs and stifling social mobility Huh, it's almost as if... they actually do. "Meritocracy" for these people really means "quis paget entrat". https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/head-likens-criticism-of-private-schools-to-antisemitic-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/head-liken...

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> "quis paget entrat". Um, what? Only one out of three of those is actually a word.
- mcguire 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Privat...

marvin 7y ago

I don't think I missed anything in communication -- we're both reasonably articulate and know each other very well. Paraphrasing, there was an assignment that stretched over a few weeks, where students were supposed to try to start rumors about each other, and report back any such rumors that took root. There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not". It doesn't require abnormally critical skills to imagine what sort of societal power structures such an education is meant to support.

tlear 7y ago
The first is thing is pretty horible, it is however an interesting thing to learn as you WIll encounter people who do this in your career. Second is probably the best way to learn about a topic and how to debate. Take something you abhore and defend it. It is an incredibly useful skill. People from US and Canada in general are absolutely terrible at it, this is why in debates vs British or French they usually loose. I remember going to Monk debate where head of Green Party of Canada got absolutely annihilated, they got under her skin, made her completely loose it to the point moderator had to cut her microphone. It was sad. Be a Nazi for a day, then if you ever debate one you will have a huge advantage.
adolph 7y ago
No, I think you need to characterize the structures that would support. For example, the latter sounds like an ideological Turing test [0]. I think training using this method broadens one’s empathy for and ability to engage with those who hold positions other than one’s own. 0. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...
zdragnar 7y ago
> There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not". Unless the positions were somehow inherently dangerous (i.e. advocating violence or similar) that's how you learn to debate. It forces you to consider viewpoints that don't align with your gut instinct. In the US, high school debate competitions all revolve around a single topic, and you alternate rounds between defending and opposing it. One such topic I recall a lot of people struggling with (compared to other topics) was "An oppressive government is better than no government" or something along those lines. Now, if the debate were something like "Women deserve to be paid less than men" I can understand being exceptionally uncomfortable being forced to defend that position.

cosmodisk 7y ago

"defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case" This is a very interesting thing, especially if taught methodically. I used to do it for fun to see how far I can push(always admitting at the end). Very very few people remain with their initial barriers/values,therefore can be substantially manipulated relatively easy.