3 ms·
> 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 aristocrac
by 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 agoExcept 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.