6 ms·

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?

by s5300 5y ago

thisarticle 5y ago
They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.
dahart 5y ago
The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...
- neltnerb 5y ago
  I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship. Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education. Still waiting on that social safety net though.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right? I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    > but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      No, I made a comparison between two options. And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me? There's no need to pretend there's an argument.
devwastaken 5y ago
Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.
- agar 5y ago
  I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this: > their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate. Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed. Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements." If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?

by s5300 5y ago

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?

They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”

epicureanideal 5y ago
Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.

dahart 5y ago

The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...

neltnerb 5y ago
I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship. Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education. Still waiting on that social safety net though.
- dahart 5y ago
  > I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right? I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  > but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    No, I made a comparison between two options. And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me? There's no need to pretend there's an argument.

devwastaken 5y ago

Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.

agar 5y ago
I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this: > their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate. Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed. Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements." If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.