3 ms·

It's just sad that a historically prestigious institution is essentially committing suicide by no longer even pretending to uphold the ideal of meritocracy. It

by bko 5y ago

It's just sad that a historically prestigious institution is essentially committing suicide by no longer even pretending to uphold the ideal of meritocracy. It served as a shining beacon to millions of immigrants who came to this country in hopes of sending their kids to a top university. They came to a country where your name or rank in life matters a whole lot less than most other places. They told their children to study hard, and score well on this one test and they'll have a future for themselves their parents could never imagine. I still believe western democracy, as embodied by America is a positive force on the world. At least when you compare it to the alternatives: China, Russia and the Middle Eastern countries. Our institutions of higher education are the envy of the world and we'll lose that as we abandon our ideals of objectivity, meritocracy and actual fairness. Other countries will fill the power vacuum and exert influence on world affairs in a negative way.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>It's just sad that a historically prestigious institution is essentially committing suicide by no longer even pretending to uphold the ideal of meritocracy. That's pretty melodramatic. But, maybe don't assume that, because they expand or modify their admission criteria or attempt to achieve some balance that is reflective of broader society, they're letting in waves of completely unworthy people. I mean, that's a pretty absurd notion, right? Their admission rate is a lowly 4.6%. They're getting the cream of the crop. Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. And, I would argue that we wouldn't want such a system that so overlooks the near limitless variables embodied by humans. Neither does Harvard. >I still believe western democracy, as embodied by America is a positive force on the world...we'll lose that as we abandon our ideals of objectivity, meritocracy and actual fairness... More melodrama. But, these "loftier" concerns are convoluted and contradictory. That is, if you really believe in western democracy and are concerned about it continuing to be a "positive force in the world", then you shouldn't want a monolithic group of people shaping that world. You should see the value of democratic participation by all groups.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  >Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. Harvard used to accept everyone who met their entrance requirements until the mid-1920s. More details here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/15/increasingly-competitive-college-admissions-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/15/increasingly-competiti...
cycrutchfield 5y ago
Sorry, your belief is that some easily gameable standardized test correlates well with merit, particularly at the higher percentiles of the distribution?
- gameman144 5y ago
  I mean, if it's "easily gameable", why doesn't everybody just game it? There exist real score differences in practice. You can say that it's "gameable" in response to time and resources spent studying, but that's actual learning, so of course that would result in higher scores. It's one thing to say "Some people don't have enough time/resources", but it's another to pretend that these tests carry no signal.
  - cycrutchfield 5y ago
    Studying for how to game the SATs is not actual learning, in the sense of being generalizable knowledge or skills. It is learning how to game the exam. It is also incredibly time and resource dependent, as you have surmised. Guess which strata of society tends to come out on top in that environment?
wavefunction 5y ago
Harvard as some sort of historical meritocracy? I really can't agree.

by bko 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>It's just sad that a historically prestigious institution is essentially committing suicide by no longer even pretending to uphold the ideal of meritocracy. That's pretty melodramatic. But, maybe don't assume that, because they expand or modify their admission criteria or attempt to achieve some balance that is reflective of broader society, they're letting in waves of completely unworthy people. I mean, that's a pretty absurd notion, right? Their admission rate is a lowly 4.6%. They're getting the cream of the crop. Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. And, I would argue that we wouldn't want such a system that so overlooks the near limitless variables embodied by humans. Neither does Harvard. >I still believe western democracy, as embodied by America is a positive force on the world...we'll lose that as we abandon our ideals of objectivity, meritocracy and actual fairness... More melodrama. But, these "loftier" concerns are convoluted and contradictory. That is, if you really believe in western democracy and are concerned about it continuing to be a "positive force in the world", then you shouldn't want a monolithic group of people shaping that world. You should see the value of democratic participation by all groups.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
>Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. Harvard used to accept everyone who met their entrance requirements until the mid-1920s. More details here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/15/increasingly-competitive-college-admissions-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/15/increasingly-competiti...

cycrutchfield 5y ago

Sorry, your belief is that some easily gameable standardized test correlates well with merit, particularly at the higher percentiles of the distribution?

gameman144 5y ago
I mean, if it's "easily gameable", why doesn't everybody just game it? There exist real score differences in practice. You can say that it's "gameable" in response to time and resources spent studying, but that's actual learning, so of course that would result in higher scores. It's one thing to say "Some people don't have enough time/resources", but it's another to pretend that these tests carry no signal.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  Studying for how to game the SATs is not actual learning, in the sense of being generalizable knowledge or skills. It is learning how to game the exam. It is also incredibly time and resource dependent, as you have surmised. Guess which strata of society tends to come out on top in that environment?

wavefunction 5y ago

Harvard as some sort of historical meritocracy? I really can't agree.