5 ms·

> This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. I think you missed the point of the article, which was "Harvard exists to make society less merit

by lapcat 3y ago

> This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. I think you missed the point of the article, which was "Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic, and it does that while subsidized by everyone else." > Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. The author discusses this: "The hardest part of Harvard is getting in." "High-stakes college admissions means that much of the value of a college degree is determined before students even start college. If you must mark and sort young people, gross, but OK. But why do it at 18 rather than 22?" On a personal note, I was accepted to an Ivy League school (though not Harvard) as a high school senior, but my family couldn't afford to send me there, so I had to go to a state school instead. My classmate and friend was accepted to MIT but also had to go to a state school because of money. This was decades ago, so perhaps things have changed recently, but my higher education was gated on my family's wealth, i.e., lack thereof. Was it a "meritocracy"? No fucking way.

RC_ITR 3y ago
>The hardest part of Harvard is getting in. This is always such an interesting argument people make when nearly every 'next step' after undergrad is more selective than Ivy League schools. Tier-1 Tech/Banking/Consulting/Law School/Med School all reject plenty of people from Harvard because they didn't do a good enough job there. Plenty of Harvard grads languish. It's true that getting a degree is simple once you're in, but doing something with it still has capability-based gates.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >It's true that getting a degree is simple once you're in Historically, that was at least somewhat true of undergrads in general. But wasn't necessarily the case for the top law schools and Big Law still, as far as I know, has something up an up or out career ladder.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  If they only accept the very best academically there is probably a bias: it may not be that 'simple' to get a degree once you're in but since those who are in are very good they have a high graduation rate.
amluto 3y ago
The “Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic” idea is repeated a couple of times, and the article doesn’t seem to make any argument at all that it’s correct. An alternative hypothesis, entirely consistent with the author’s arguments, is that Harvard exists to educate its students (and to do research and have fancy sports and pretty buildings and cultural events, etc), that it’s quite good at this but not necessarily substantially better than its lower class competition, and that its gating function developed over time and is unfortunate.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > its gating function developed over time and is unfortunate. It seems like you're mistaking the article for some kind of historical origin hypothesis? Harvard as it currently exists has the function of making society less meritocratic, while society continues to subsidize Harvard in various ways. How Harvard came into existence originally and its function in the 17th century are not particularly relevant to the argument.
  - amluto 3y ago
    No, I’m reading the text of the article as written. It says: “Harvard would still be an organization designed to reduce meritocracy…” “Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic” These are statements about Harvard’s purpose or intent, not about its effect. And I think it’s more likely that the original intent, as well and the present intent of those involved, is to foster meritocracy: admit the best students (for some, fairly clearly extremely flawed, concept of “best”), give the best ones the best grades (again, there are flaws here), and hopefully let the best ones succeed. The article argues that it fails at this, and perhaps even that it can’t succeed, but the article states, without justification, that it was not intended to succeed.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > These are statements about Harvard’s purpose or intent, not about its effect. Yes, the current purpose or intent. Harvard was established 387 years ago; what was its original purpose or intent? I don't know. In fact, I don't care. It's not relevant to the current argument. Institutions change over time, and we're talking about hundreds of years at Harvard.
gonehome 3y ago
> “On a personal note, I was accepted to an Ivy League school (though not Harvard) as a high school senior, but my family couldn't afford to send me there, so I had to go to a state school instead. My classmate and friend was accepted to MIT but also had to go to a state school because of money.” This does fit my hypothesis that the outliers at state schools are likely undervalued in the market by recruiters. The averages at selective schools are a lot higher (work a few career fairs where you ask basic technical questions and this is obvious), but everyone is competing over them and the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Since the actual education product isn’t that different (though there is some difference), there’s probably opportunity in trying to recruit the best students from state schools companies tend to ignore.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 3y ago
  > the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Being middle class is an extenuating circumstance? ;-)
  - colingoodman 3y ago
    This word choice surprised me as well. The average Big 10 tuition for nonresidents is approaching $40,000. It is better for in-state tuition, but locking students into wherever they happened to grow up also seems unfair.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
      Maybe states are paying them for locals so there is more graduates staying in the state and paying good taxes?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      In my case, I attended a Big 10 school specifically because I was a resident, so the tuition was in-state.
gnopgnip 3y ago
The Ivy League schools have extensive financial aid now. Stanford for instance will have zero cost for people from families making $150k or less, no need for student loans.
- q1w2 3y ago
  The issue is that about 15% of every incoming class at Stanford is there through nepotism, not merit.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Looking back, that's not a bad life lesson to get into your system early. I think it's also important for those to not place too much of their worth in college and realize that there are many "Stanford qualified" students who don't get into Stanford for one reason or another.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pers0n 3y ago
Exactly, I had to go to a junior college and transfer later on due to funds. Plus driving to and from out of state is expensive so I was stuck being a commuter at local institutions. Not to mention some kids that are good at sports can’t afford to play either and possibly get a scholarship. That’s life though, but most of the upper class and higher don’t realize it.

by lapcat 3y ago

RC_ITR 3y ago

>The hardest part of Harvard is getting in. This is always such an interesting argument people make when nearly every 'next step' after undergrad is more selective than Ivy League schools. Tier-1 Tech/Banking/Consulting/Law School/Med School all reject plenty of people from Harvard because they didn't do a good enough job there. Plenty of Harvard grads languish. It's true that getting a degree is simple once you're in, but doing something with it still has capability-based gates.

ghaff 3y ago
>It's true that getting a degree is simple once you're in Historically, that was at least somewhat true of undergrads in general. But wasn't necessarily the case for the top law schools and Big Law still, as far as I know, has something up an up or out career ladder.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
If they only accept the very best academically there is probably a bias: it may not be that 'simple' to get a degree once you're in but since those who are in are very good they have a high graduation rate.

amluto 3y ago

The “Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic” idea is repeated a couple of times, and the article doesn’t seem to make any argument at all that it’s correct. An alternative hypothesis, entirely consistent with the author’s arguments, is that Harvard exists to educate its students (and to do research and have fancy sports and pretty buildings and cultural events, etc), that it’s quite good at this but not necessarily substantially better than its lower class competition, and that its gating function developed over time and is unfortunate.

lapcat 3y ago
> its gating function developed over time and is unfortunate. It seems like you're mistaking the article for some kind of historical origin hypothesis? Harvard as it currently exists has the function of making society less meritocratic, while society continues to subsidize Harvard in various ways. How Harvard came into existence originally and its function in the 17th century are not particularly relevant to the argument.
- amluto 3y ago
  No, I’m reading the text of the article as written. It says: “Harvard would still be an organization designed to reduce meritocracy…” “Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic” These are statements about Harvard’s purpose or intent, not about its effect. And I think it’s more likely that the original intent, as well and the present intent of those involved, is to foster meritocracy: admit the best students (for some, fairly clearly extremely flawed, concept of “best”), give the best ones the best grades (again, there are flaws here), and hopefully let the best ones succeed. The article argues that it fails at this, and perhaps even that it can’t succeed, but the article states, without justification, that it was not intended to succeed.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > These are statements about Harvard’s purpose or intent, not about its effect. Yes, the current purpose or intent. Harvard was established 387 years ago; what was its original purpose or intent? I don't know. In fact, I don't care. It's not relevant to the current argument. Institutions change over time, and we're talking about hundreds of years at Harvard.

gonehome 3y ago

> “On a personal note, I was accepted to an Ivy League school (though not Harvard) as a high school senior, but my family couldn't afford to send me there, so I had to go to a state school instead. My classmate and friend was accepted to MIT but also had to go to a state school because of money.” This does fit my hypothesis that the outliers at state schools are likely undervalued in the market by recruiters. The averages at selective schools are a lot higher (work a few career fairs where you ask basic technical questions and this is obvious), but everyone is competing over them and the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Since the actual education product isn’t that different (though there is some difference), there’s probably opportunity in trying to recruit the best students from state schools companies tend to ignore.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lapcat 3y ago
> the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Being middle class is an extenuating circumstance? ;-)
- colingoodman 3y ago
  This word choice surprised me as well. The average Big 10 tuition for nonresidents is approaching $40,000. It is better for in-state tuition, but locking students into wherever they happened to grow up also seems unfair.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
    Maybe states are paying them for locals so there is more graduates staying in the state and paying good taxes?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    In my case, I attended a Big 10 school specifically because I was a resident, so the tuition was in-state.

gnopgnip 3y ago

The Ivy League schools have extensive financial aid now. Stanford for instance will have zero cost for people from families making $150k or less, no need for student loans.

q1w2 3y ago
The issue is that about 15% of every incoming class at Stanford is there through nepotism, not merit.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Looking back, that's not a bad life lesson to get into your system early. I think it's also important for those to not place too much of their worth in college and realize that there are many "Stanford qualified" students who don't get into Stanford for one reason or another.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pers0n 3y ago

Exactly, I had to go to a junior college and transfer later on due to funds. Plus driving to and from out of state is expensive so I was stuck being a commuter at local institutions. Not to mention some kids that are good at sports can’t afford to play either and possibly get a scholarship. That’s life though, but most of the upper class and higher don’t realize it.