8 ms·

Holding university entrance exams earlier seems like a recipe for disaster that would hurt disadvantaged students the most. This may be just my experience, but

Holding university entrance exams earlier seems like a recipe for disaster that would hurt disadvantaged students the most. This may be just my experience, but the older you get, the more time you get to catch up with students from better families. Coming from a working class background, I only started to study actively in high school (the culture I grew up in discouraged and actively mocked boys who read books or liked maths) which means that had the entrance exam be held at the beginning of high school, I would not have done as well as I did at the ned of high school. The problem with building a meritocratic system is that everyone wants capable kids from poor backgrounds to raise to the top, but the elite doesn't want their average kids to fall down in society to their expected rank. One of the jobs of the elite schools is to prop us these average kids and to make them seem smart to outsiders: anyone who has studied in an "elite" university has a story about the rich kids who spend their days partying, intending to only pass the easiest classes in the school because that's all they need - their parents have already arranged an entry-level job for them.

summm 5y ago
That culture is everywhere in schools, not limited to poor people, also in middle class. These kids are suffering, and thus culture needs to be fought. Instead teachers and society are lazy and say "lol whatever boys will be boys, let's just let this kids suffer and waste more time until they are grown ups and then maybe the bullies catch up academically" Is that what you are proposing?
inglor_cz 5y ago
There isn't much meritocracy in the system, at least as far as I can see. In Czech we have a saying "the wolf has eaten, but the goat remained whole" for situations like that. The American elite wants to be seen as anti-racist, which means elevating at least some kids from the ghettos to the Ivy Leagues etc. At the same time, the American elite is still mostly white and does not want to jeopardize future of their own offspring, and many of those offspring are indeed average. It seems to me that the current way to square those two interests is to raise tuition really high, combine it with legacy admissions (even an average kid of rich parents will be able to thread the needle there) and raise higher admission obstacles for Asians who would otherwise qualify in high numbers on knowledge alone.
- watwut 5y ago
  The from ghetto don't go to Ivy League. These are middle and upper class blacks studying there. Like really, not every educated black rose from ghetto.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Yes exactly. And also dumb down public schools by not teaching advanced classes and getting rid of magnet schools like the Democrats are doing in multiple states. While of course still teaching those classes at the private schools that upper middle class and above can afford. Gotta keep those smart poor people in their place.
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    This is fairly new. Magnet schools and accelerated classes for smart poor people used to be something that we considered good, because we want at least a few smart people getting educated. Now that "smart poor people" generally means "people of asian descent," we're changing course and getting rid of all of those programs.
  - okaram 5y ago
    Do you have a ref for any state that is eliminating magnets? I hadn't heard ...
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyregion/nyc-schools-admissions-segregation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyregion/nyc-schools-admi...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- tomp 5y ago
  A disproportionate percentage of the US elite is also Jewish. Yet they, as a society, seem to have mostly overcome the tensions that have plagued Jews and white non-Jews in Europe for a very long time. What makes you think that the US "melting pot" culture cannot overcome other obstacles (currently IMO mostly exemplified with the rising Asian "elite")
parineum 5y ago
>The problem with building a meritocratic system is that everyone wants capable kids from poor backgrounds to raise to the top, but the elite doesn't want their average kids to fall down in society to their expected rank. I disagree with the second half of this. I think it simply creates an arm race that the wealthy win. A rich family looks at what it takes to get their kid into Harvard and they do what they can, no matter the cost. A poor family simply can't compete on an otherwise equal footing. Even if we socialize all the advantages that the rich currently have, they simply do even more in response. The real problem with a meritocratic system is that rich people from good schools with private tutors actually get a better education, that's what all the hubub is about. Poverty leads to worse education and worse educated people are less prepared for the more difficult course load of college. Through no fault of their own, they are less ideal candidates. That's the injustice. It's cognitive dissonance to simultaneously recognize that injustice but not recognize that poor students are actually substantially less prepared for college at 18.
- crusty 5y ago
  This just doesn't fit the evidence. I've wanted Freakonomics or similar to cover this for a decade but haven't really seen/heard seen anything... If getting into top (TOP!) universities correlated with education/aptitude alone, the wealthy would pay more to get thier kids educated but the best teachers. But they don't do this, they pay to dollar for their children to get educated by the "best" schools. But what makes them the best schools is their ability to get more kids into better universities. If education were the critical component of these schools, they'd pay premium rates for the best teachers, but often the teacher salaries at these private schools are lower than those at the public schools they compete with in the area. That suggests that it isn't the education provided by the teachers that's the most important component of these schools. There's a whole stew of other factors that these schools rely on to get kids into top placements that had nothing to do with actual education.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    You are only considering salary and not overall quality of life. As one of my teachers at private school said, "you get paid a little less, but you don't have to worry about being robbed by your students in the parking lot."

summm 5y ago

That culture is everywhere in schools, not limited to poor people, also in middle class. These kids are suffering, and thus culture needs to be fought. Instead teachers and society are lazy and say "lol whatever boys will be boys, let's just let this kids suffer and waste more time until they are grown ups and then maybe the bullies catch up academically" Is that what you are proposing?

inglor_cz 5y ago

There isn't much meritocracy in the system, at least as far as I can see. In Czech we have a saying "the wolf has eaten, but the goat remained whole" for situations like that. The American elite wants to be seen as anti-racist, which means elevating at least some kids from the ghettos to the Ivy Leagues etc. At the same time, the American elite is still mostly white and does not want to jeopardize future of their own offspring, and many of those offspring are indeed average. It seems to me that the current way to square those two interests is to raise tuition really high, combine it with legacy admissions (even an average kid of rich parents will be able to thread the needle there) and raise higher admission obstacles for Asians who would otherwise qualify in high numbers on knowledge alone.

watwut 5y ago
The from ghetto don't go to Ivy League. These are middle and upper class blacks studying there. Like really, not every educated black rose from ghetto.
fallingknife 5y ago
Yes exactly. And also dumb down public schools by not teaching advanced classes and getting rid of magnet schools like the Democrats are doing in multiple states. While of course still teaching those classes at the private schools that upper middle class and above can afford. Gotta keep those smart poor people in their place.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  This is fairly new. Magnet schools and accelerated classes for smart poor people used to be something that we considered good, because we want at least a few smart people getting educated. Now that "smart poor people" generally means "people of asian descent," we're changing course and getting rid of all of those programs.
- okaram 5y ago
  Do you have a ref for any state that is eliminating magnets? I hadn't heard ...
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyregion/nyc-schools-admissions-segregation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyregion/nyc-schools-admi...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
tomp 5y ago
A disproportionate percentage of the US elite is also Jewish. Yet they, as a society, seem to have mostly overcome the tensions that have plagued Jews and white non-Jews in Europe for a very long time. What makes you think that the US "melting pot" culture cannot overcome other obstacles (currently IMO mostly exemplified with the rising Asian "elite")

parineum 5y ago

>The problem with building a meritocratic system is that everyone wants capable kids from poor backgrounds to raise to the top, but the elite doesn't want their average kids to fall down in society to their expected rank. I disagree with the second half of this. I think it simply creates an arm race that the wealthy win. A rich family looks at what it takes to get their kid into Harvard and they do what they can, no matter the cost. A poor family simply can't compete on an otherwise equal footing. Even if we socialize all the advantages that the rich currently have, they simply do even more in response. The real problem with a meritocratic system is that rich people from good schools with private tutors actually get a better education, that's what all the hubub is about. Poverty leads to worse education and worse educated people are less prepared for the more difficult course load of college. Through no fault of their own, they are less ideal candidates. That's the injustice. It's cognitive dissonance to simultaneously recognize that injustice but not recognize that poor students are actually substantially less prepared for college at 18.

crusty 5y ago
This just doesn't fit the evidence. I've wanted Freakonomics or similar to cover this for a decade but haven't really seen/heard seen anything... If getting into top (TOP!) universities correlated with education/aptitude alone, the wealthy would pay more to get thier kids educated but the best teachers. But they don't do this, they pay to dollar for their children to get educated by the "best" schools. But what makes them the best schools is their ability to get more kids into better universities. If education were the critical component of these schools, they'd pay premium rates for the best teachers, but often the teacher salaries at these private schools are lower than those at the public schools they compete with in the area. That suggests that it isn't the education provided by the teachers that's the most important component of these schools. There's a whole stew of other factors that these schools rely on to get kids into top placements that had nothing to do with actual education.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  You are only considering salary and not overall quality of life. As one of my teachers at private school said, "you get paid a little less, but you don't have to worry about being robbed by your students in the parking lot."