4 ms·

A Harvard legacy/donor/child-of-famous-person admission gets the same amount of prestige (and the same amount of "high relative standing") as someone that got t

A Harvard legacy/donor/child-of-famous-person admission gets the same amount of prestige (and the same amount of "high relative standing") as someone that got there by virtue of their intelligence and competence. The former isn't meritocratic but the latter is, and it's this distinction that shows why it's a mistake to conflate "high relative standing" with "merit".

cratermoon 5y ago
But that Harvard legacy/donor/child-of-famous-person student started with more prestige. So even if they don't gain any more, they are still ahead individuals who got there otherwise. Besides, the problem with merit is in how what is meritorious is defined. And coincidentally, the people who get to define what is meritorious are the ones who just happen to already be rich in the things they define as meritorious.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  If we're talking about job hiring, meritocracy is just defined as hiring the person who is going to be the most competent in the role. That's what people mean when they talk about meritocracy. This leads to the best outcome for the org and is the most fair for candidates since it means people aren't being discriminated against on irrelevant dimensions (such as how much Asian ancestry they happen to have). The old status quo of hiring only men was decidedly not meritocratic, given that less competent men were being hired over more competent women by virtue of gender. In higher education, when people talk about meritocratic admissions, what they mean is selecting students based on dimensions such as intelligence, character, capability for leadership, etc, and straying away from irrelevant dimensions that colleges currently consider such as race, how famous the parents are, etc. If we're critiquing meritocracy, we should adopt the definition that proponents themselves use, which is the above.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    > selecting students based on dimensions such as intelligence, character, capability for leadership Yes, and who gets to define what "intelligence" means and how it is measured? By what criteria are character and capability for leadership determined, and why? But most importantly, are these criteria really the best ones to use to determine academic success, or are they arbitrary and contingent ideas imposed by those who look at their own station, determine that it is best, and decide, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that their own attributes are what lead to their station? > we should adopt the definition that proponents themselves use But the proponents of meritocracy have defined it to mean just what they like. They have conveniently defined it such that they themselves are meritorious. In any case, the term of "meritocracy" is not a positive one. The word was coined in the 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy. The author, sociologist Michael Dunlop Young, was writing about a dystopia, one where intelligence and merit have replaced social class as the central tenet of society, and as a result society is stratified between a merited power-holding elite and a disenfranchised underclass of the less merited. Young was criticizing a society so ordered, not advocating for it. See "Down with meritocracy", by Michael Young, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      "who gets to define what "intelligence" means and how it is measured?" "best ones to use to determine academic success, or are they arbitrary" "defined it to mean just what they like" Intelligence is not arbitrary. It's been studied extensively in the psychometric literature as a construct that strongly predicts numerous outcomes including academic success and job performance. The SAT and its relationship to intelligence has also been studied. If we're selecting people who are going to lead the country or who are going to be making the next physics breakthrough, the criteria for that had better be strongly grounded in intelligence and it had better be evidence based (to the best of our knowledge/abilities). It's also untrue that they define it to mean what they like. The shift to somewhat more meritocratic admission decisions by considering the SATs has displaced the old boys club of WASP legacy admits and threatened to replace them with a second-generation Asian cohort. The only thing stopping full on replacement is racial quotas. This has been very bad for their status and it will only get worse if the shift to meritocracy continues. The establishment has always fought against meritocracy. The Jews were systematically excluded on a racial basis for a long time because of it. They would like nothing more than to prolong the status quo of blood, money, fame and connections leading to appointments. Why did President Xi's daughter and Obama's daughter get admitted, were they brilliant or more likely merely the children of the famous and powerful? Proponents of merit just believe that it's better for society (both for its prosperity and fairness) for the next Von Neumann or Ramanujan to be admitted instead. "By what criteria are character and capability for leadership determined, and why?" I don't know. The specifics of the criteria are not interesting to me, because reasonable people can disagree on the details. The mindset and overall aspiration is what I am interested in. I know the dimensions that I want them to consider (competence) and those I want them to ignore (race). Exactly how they weigh up and measure the former is an implementation detail. Not without risk of bias, mind you, but then again the same can be said for any criteria. "In any case, the term of "meritocracy" is not a positive one." I wasn't aware of that etymology, but if the author tried to frame it as a dystopia, then I disagree with that. Companies and governments need to be organized hierarchically in order to function. That means you're going to have to pick some way to sort people. If they think competence and intelligence is a bad way to pick that hierarchy, then what superior method are they proposing that won't lead to a worsening of the effectiveness of these orgs? Are they seriously proposing that not choosing hierarchies based on competence will lead to better-run orgs? That appointing people with 80 IQ to run our large companies will lead to any kind of outcome that isn't a disaster? That kids with 80 IQ can be sent to the Math Olympiad and win a medal?

cratermoon 5y ago

But that Harvard legacy/donor/child-of-famous-person student started with more prestige. So even if they don't gain any more, they are still ahead individuals who got there otherwise. Besides, the problem with merit is in how what is meritorious is defined. And coincidentally, the people who get to define what is meritorious are the ones who just happen to already be rich in the things they define as meritorious.

fighterpilot 5y ago
If we're talking about job hiring, meritocracy is just defined as hiring the person who is going to be the most competent in the role. That's what people mean when they talk about meritocracy. This leads to the best outcome for the org and is the most fair for candidates since it means people aren't being discriminated against on irrelevant dimensions (such as how much Asian ancestry they happen to have). The old status quo of hiring only men was decidedly not meritocratic, given that less competent men were being hired over more competent women by virtue of gender. In higher education, when people talk about meritocratic admissions, what they mean is selecting students based on dimensions such as intelligence, character, capability for leadership, etc, and straying away from irrelevant dimensions that colleges currently consider such as race, how famous the parents are, etc. If we're critiquing meritocracy, we should adopt the definition that proponents themselves use, which is the above.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  > selecting students based on dimensions such as intelligence, character, capability for leadership Yes, and who gets to define what "intelligence" means and how it is measured? By what criteria are character and capability for leadership determined, and why? But most importantly, are these criteria really the best ones to use to determine academic success, or are they arbitrary and contingent ideas imposed by those who look at their own station, determine that it is best, and decide, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that their own attributes are what lead to their station? > we should adopt the definition that proponents themselves use But the proponents of meritocracy have defined it to mean just what they like. They have conveniently defined it such that they themselves are meritorious. In any case, the term of "meritocracy" is not a positive one. The word was coined in the 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy. The author, sociologist Michael Dunlop Young, was writing about a dystopia, one where intelligence and merit have replaced social class as the central tenet of society, and as a result society is stratified between a merited power-holding elite and a disenfranchised underclass of the less merited. Young was criticizing a society so ordered, not advocating for it. See "Down with meritocracy", by Michael Young, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    "who gets to define what "intelligence" means and how it is measured?" "best ones to use to determine academic success, or are they arbitrary" "defined it to mean just what they like" Intelligence is not arbitrary. It's been studied extensively in the psychometric literature as a construct that strongly predicts numerous outcomes including academic success and job performance. The SAT and its relationship to intelligence has also been studied. If we're selecting people who are going to lead the country or who are going to be making the next physics breakthrough, the criteria for that had better be strongly grounded in intelligence and it had better be evidence based (to the best of our knowledge/abilities). It's also untrue that they define it to mean what they like. The shift to somewhat more meritocratic admission decisions by considering the SATs has displaced the old boys club of WASP legacy admits and threatened to replace them with a second-generation Asian cohort. The only thing stopping full on replacement is racial quotas. This has been very bad for their status and it will only get worse if the shift to meritocracy continues. The establishment has always fought against meritocracy. The Jews were systematically excluded on a racial basis for a long time because of it. They would like nothing more than to prolong the status quo of blood, money, fame and connections leading to appointments. Why did President Xi's daughter and Obama's daughter get admitted, were they brilliant or more likely merely the children of the famous and powerful? Proponents of merit just believe that it's better for society (both for its prosperity and fairness) for the next Von Neumann or Ramanujan to be admitted instead. "By what criteria are character and capability for leadership determined, and why?" I don't know. The specifics of the criteria are not interesting to me, because reasonable people can disagree on the details. The mindset and overall aspiration is what I am interested in. I know the dimensions that I want them to consider (competence) and those I want them to ignore (race). Exactly how they weigh up and measure the former is an implementation detail. Not without risk of bias, mind you, but then again the same can be said for any criteria. "In any case, the term of "meritocracy" is not a positive one." I wasn't aware of that etymology, but if the author tried to frame it as a dystopia, then I disagree with that. Companies and governments need to be organized hierarchically in order to function. That means you're going to have to pick some way to sort people. If they think competence and intelligence is a bad way to pick that hierarchy, then what superior method are they proposing that won't lead to a worsening of the effectiveness of these orgs? Are they seriously proposing that not choosing hierarchies based on competence will lead to better-run orgs? That appointing people with 80 IQ to run our large companies will lead to any kind of outcome that isn't a disaster? That kids with 80 IQ can be sent to the Math Olympiad and win a medal?