4 ms·

I'd agree that the wording is pretty strange, but I would argue that if two applicants are exactly the same in every way, except that A's parents make $40,000/y

I'd agree that the wording is pretty strange, but I would argue that if two applicants are exactly the same in every way, except that A's parents make $40,000/year and B's parents make $500,000/year, A should be ranked above B in terms of merit because more than likely he/she has experienced more hardship, and been able to do just as well as B in spite of it.

ipince 15y ago
I do think that's what the author meant. I see the point, but on the other hand, it seems extremely hard to measure and account for. Unless the difference is abysmal, I don't think it would be right to discriminate based on socioeconomic background either.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Besides, in what sense is the "merit" conferred by having good genes better than the "merit" conferred by having rich parents? Via blind luck, person A happens to be born slightly smarter than person B, but with poorer parents. Person B is genetically disadvantaged relative to person A, but has a few more learning opportunities in childhood. By the time they both reach the age of eighteen, they're performing identically on the SAT (which is supposed to be a test of general intelligence). Why should we say that A's unfair genetic advantage is more meritorious than B's unfair financial advantage?
  - FaceKicker 15y ago
    Merit isn't necessarily free of any "luck" component. I would say that a smarter person "merits" admission over a less smart person, even though the smarter person didn't really earn the intelligence in any way because he/she was born with it. If you want to get into a debate on whether intelligence gives a person merit, you might as well ask whether being hard-working gives a person merit too, since being hard-working probably also has a genetic component. If you're a determinist, you could even extend this further by saying that everyone has the exact same merit, in that nobody had any control over anything they did, good or bad.

ipince 15y ago

I do think that's what the author meant. I see the point, but on the other hand, it seems extremely hard to measure and account for. Unless the difference is abysmal, I don't think it would be right to discriminate based on socioeconomic background either.

hugh3 15y ago
Besides, in what sense is the "merit" conferred by having good genes better than the "merit" conferred by having rich parents? Via blind luck, person A happens to be born slightly smarter than person B, but with poorer parents. Person B is genetically disadvantaged relative to person A, but has a few more learning opportunities in childhood. By the time they both reach the age of eighteen, they're performing identically on the SAT (which is supposed to be a test of general intelligence). Why should we say that A's unfair genetic advantage is more meritorious than B's unfair financial advantage?
- FaceKicker 15y ago
  Merit isn't necessarily free of any "luck" component. I would say that a smarter person "merits" admission over a less smart person, even though the smarter person didn't really earn the intelligence in any way because he/she was born with it. If you want to get into a debate on whether intelligence gives a person merit, you might as well ask whether being hard-working gives a person merit too, since being hard-working probably also has a genetic component. If you're a determinist, you could even extend this further by saying that everyone has the exact same merit, in that nobody had any control over anything they did, good or bad.