3 ms·

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 co

by 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.
    - sixstringtheory 3y ago
      > the current purpose or intent … is to make society less meritocratic? Where’s the evidence that this is what the institution is currently driving at as its mission? Versus this being an emergent effect, subjectively?
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        "The purpose of a system is what it does"
        sixstringtheory 3y ago
        OK. But the problem here is that people disagree on what Harvard does. That has to be established before we can even work backwards to a purpose, assuming this framework you suggest is even valid, which I separately doubt. My a priori assumption of the purpose of a car is to transport people. Cars kill thousands of people each year. Is the purpose of a car then to kill people?
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        The 6 comments before accepted for discussion's sake at least a view on what Harvard does. Why stop now? The dominant purpose of a car is to use a system of car centered infrastructure. Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not?
        sixstringtheory 3y ago
        > Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not? Are we really gonna do this? My point was that intentions can be, and often are, different from outcomes. You don’t throw out babies with bathwater.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> Harvard ... gating function developed over time and is unfortunate. You're not quite arguing that it doesn't do that gating function. "The purpose of a system is what it does"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by amluto 3y ago

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.
  - sixstringtheory 3y ago
    > the current purpose or intent … is to make society less meritocratic? Where’s the evidence that this is what the institution is currently driving at as its mission? Versus this being an emergent effect, subjectively?
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      "The purpose of a system is what it does"
      - sixstringtheory 3y ago
        OK. But the problem here is that people disagree on what Harvard does. That has to be established before we can even work backwards to a purpose, assuming this framework you suggest is even valid, which I separately doubt. My a priori assumption of the purpose of a car is to transport people. Cars kill thousands of people each year. Is the purpose of a car then to kill people?
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        The 6 comments before accepted for discussion's sake at least a view on what Harvard does. Why stop now? The dominant purpose of a car is to use a system of car centered infrastructure. Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not?
        sixstringtheory 3y ago
        > Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not? Are we really gonna do this? My point was that intentions can be, and often are, different from outcomes. You don’t throw out babies with bathwater.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

> Harvard ... gating function developed over time and is unfortunate. You're not quite arguing that it doesn't do that gating function. "The purpose of a system is what it does"

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]