3 ms·

I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocra

I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocracy, why not? The root problem with aristocracy isn’t that it is forbidden for some sacred moral reason, it’s that it functionally doesn’t work well. Differentiation based on traits is not stable across many generations, and the commoners will always eventually generate individuals who are better along whatever dimensions than the aristocracy does. I don’t think we have to worry about this problem, so long as we prevent the actual corruption. If we are really looking at merit, the families will cycle out after a few generations (again, we do have to prevent the actual corruption).

BoorishBears 3y ago
> let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    Except there is a non-meritocratic force involved. These schools judge on extracirriculars for example: - low-income families are 3x more likely to have problems with their cost: https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_PayToParticipate.pdf https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_Pa... - many programs and activities that stand out aren't likely to be offered in poorer school districts - the time outside of school hours they take has a cost: it can be in terms of needing additional transportation, or changing childcare plans for example. College applications don't measure aspiration, they measure proxies for aspiration we've long known are flawed and heavily affected by wealth. Honestly it's telling that affirmative action was struck down which in turn is threatening legacy applications, and not the other way around, when it's well known historical fact legacy applications started out as a way to keep out immigrants: at the end of the day these schools have been putting their endowments ahead of what benefits society, and that's not really how things should work.

BoorishBears 3y ago

> let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
> let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  Except there is a non-meritocratic force involved. These schools judge on extracirriculars for example: - low-income families are 3x more likely to have problems with their cost: https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_PayToParticipate.pdf https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_Pa... - many programs and activities that stand out aren't likely to be offered in poorer school districts - the time outside of school hours they take has a cost: it can be in terms of needing additional transportation, or changing childcare plans for example. College applications don't measure aspiration, they measure proxies for aspiration we've long known are flawed and heavily affected by wealth. Honestly it's telling that affirmative action was struck down which in turn is threatening legacy applications, and not the other way around, when it's well known historical fact legacy applications started out as a way to keep out immigrants: at the end of the day these schools have been putting their endowments ahead of what benefits society, and that's not really how things should work.