4 ms·
Also, what is this “has become” language for? It implies that the this elite group is more self-reinforcing than it used to be, but there’s no evidence for that
by zamfi 5y ago
Also, what is this “has become” language for? It implies that the this elite group is more self-reinforcing than it used to be, but there’s no evidence for that. Harvard’s 1940s admission rate of 85% was certainly not a more meritocratic time.
The ratio you ask for is almost certainly decreasing over time, not increasing, right?
- an_opabinia 5y agoAdmissions rates mean a lot less than people think they do. Meritocracy - what you’re really saying is, the most qualified people get to do the thing with the scarce stuff - has risen. Anyway, historically, if you felt wronged by an educational institution, you made your own schools.
- m00x 5y ago> Anyway, historically, if you felt wronged by an educational institution, you made your own schools. Source on this? I doubt that spinning up a whole new school was ever this simple and accessible.
- lordnacho 5y agoSo for instance the story is that Cambridge University was founded by people who were disgruntled at Oxford. Also there's a number of institutions that were founded due to religious affiliation, IIRC UCL in London. Nowadays there's an entrenchment that makes it hard to just go and do your own uni. It's not illegal, but you need to find supporters who won't just say "hey why don't you just go to X existing uni". And there's already a uni for whatever speciality you're into, plus the big names that are the specialists for every subject.
- kansface 5y ago>The ratio you ask for is almost certainly decreasing over time, not increasing, right? Since the 40s, most likely. Since some time in between then and now, I'm not so sure.