3 ms·
> If there are sufficient candidates in the well-off rubric why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? 1. You get better prepare
by hourago 3y ago
> If there are sufficient candidates in the well-off rubric why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena?
1. You get better prepared people. Any society based on nepotism is doomed to fail.
2. You get different views on how to solve problems. People with different background have different experiences that give a wider view of the world.
3. It is fair. Injustice is a bad way of running a society.
> At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure.
Everybody in a society has a right to a good life. That someone does not get a tenure does not mean that their life has ended, there are many possibilities in life and governments have to provide safety nets to help people to get back on their feet.
- foobarian 3y agoI agree with your points. However, I think we still have the problem that there is too much supply, and pushing more people into it does them a disservice. Yes, it helps the scientific establishment re: points 1. and 2. As for 3., perhaps true, but I'm not sure it helps those individuals and thus conflicts with the next point that "Everybody in a society has a right to a good life." This may be colored with a US-centric point of view because social safety nets are not great, and if they existed to a greater extent maybe my criticism would be mitigated and it would be fine to push against the market. But without that I think many people are better off pursuing opportunities more appropriate for them.