2 ms·

your "first of all" case doesn't make an argument for "please, please, please don't use the word 'bubble'. ever." for your "second" case, you're saying resour

by exit 16y ago

your "first of all" case doesn't make an argument for "please, please, please don't use the word 'bubble'. ever." for your "second" case, you're saying resources can never be misallocated if they are allocated along college-admissions style meritocratic lines?

michaelochurch 16y ago
I was perhaps being a bit brash in that post. I thought the intentionally satirical and bloviating nature of it would come through. Last night I wrote a 3,500-word essay on the massive upcoming conflict, in the United States, between the intelligent and the powerful. (I'm not going to spam HN with links to my blog, but it's my most recent post.) I guess I am still amped up on adrenaline from last night. This would require another discussion, but college admissions aren't very meritocratic. There are a bunch of crypto-racist so-called "character" criteria (note: the "right" extracurriculars are only available at rich schools) that were shoved into the process in the 1920 to '60s and have been let to stay there. I'm going to mostly ignore that line of discussion because it's going to be 20 or 30 years before I have kids of that age, and until that point, I don't really care in the least about college admissions. College admissions are less corrupt than politics or the news media, but not by much; the corruption is far less damaging, though, because it's never been that hard for a smart person to get accepted into a good school. (Prestigious schools can be very hard to get into, but we have 200 or so good schools, including most of those state flagships the Republicans want to kill, in the U.S. We have excellent colleges and universities in this country and that's a huge asset.) Do I think a forceful, tectonic reallocation of resources to smart people would give us a better world? Yes, absolutely. I won't go so far as "resources can never be misallocated" in a meritocracy, because that level of perfection is impossible, but I think we'd have a far better world with smarter, more creative, more visionary, and more compassionate people in charge, instead of the spineless, morally debased, and anti-intellectual corporate strongmen who currently hold most of the cards.

by exit 16y ago

michaelochurch 16y ago

I was perhaps being a bit brash in that post. I thought the intentionally satirical and bloviating nature of it would come through. Last night I wrote a 3,500-word essay on the massive upcoming conflict, in the United States, between the intelligent and the powerful. (I'm not going to spam HN with links to my blog, but it's my most recent post.) I guess I am still amped up on adrenaline from last night. This would require another discussion, but college admissions aren't very meritocratic. There are a bunch of crypto-racist so-called "character" criteria (note: the "right" extracurriculars are only available at rich schools) that were shoved into the process in the 1920 to '60s and have been let to stay there. I'm going to mostly ignore that line of discussion because it's going to be 20 or 30 years before I have kids of that age, and until that point, I don't really care in the least about college admissions. College admissions are less corrupt than politics or the news media, but not by much; the corruption is far less damaging, though, because it's never been that hard for a smart person to get accepted into a good school. (Prestigious schools can be very hard to get into, but we have 200 or so good schools, including most of those state flagships the Republicans want to kill, in the U.S. We have excellent colleges and universities in this country and that's a huge asset.) Do I think a forceful, tectonic reallocation of resources to smart people would give us a better world? Yes, absolutely. I won't go so far as "resources can never be misallocated" in a meritocracy, because that level of perfection is impossible, but I think we'd have a far better world with smarter, more creative, more visionary, and more compassionate people in charge, instead of the spineless, morally debased, and anti-intellectual corporate strongmen who currently hold most of the cards.