4 ms·
> the G&T system selects, however imperfectly, for merit and effort. This is true but doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether meritocracy results in
by munchler 1y ago
> the G&T system selects, however imperfectly, for merit and effort.
This is true but doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether meritocracy results in a fair, healthy society. I think this is a nuanced issue with reasonable arguments on both sides, but the author simply assumes the answer is yes without actually addressing the question.
- bko 1y agoI don't know where this extreme egalitarian belief that it's bad to let smart people excel is coming from. How is it not healthy? Even Marxism, an extremely egalitarian system of belief has a phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." People focus on the second part of the phrase, but the first part explicitly states we should strive to work up our individual ability and potential. Denying that is an entirely new concept that likely never existed prior to the last 50 years or so.
- liveoneggs 1y agoit comes from valuing "Equity"
- danaris 1y ago....no, pretty much by definition, "equity" means giving everyone what they need to do well. You may be confusing it with "equality of outcomes"?
- sickofparadox 1y agoIn education, the effects of striving for equity in the US have amounted to a ridiculous level of Harrison Bergeroning within the public school system, which is partially responsible for the collapse in trust in schools.
- liveoneggs 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_equality it's the 'E' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
- munchler 1y agoThe question isn't whether "it's bad to let smart people excel". Obviously, we never want to actively stop anyone from exceling. The actual question is whether smart people should receive a disproportionate amount of a finite resource, like education. This imbalance creates a potential runaway effect in which one group grows ever more successful at the expense of other groups.
- yesfitz 1y agoCan you expand on how gifted program students receive a disproportionate amount of education?
- munchler 1y agoG&T programs are potentially disproportionate in terms of attention from the best teachers/classes, access to high-end resources, pipelines to the best colleges, etc. If those were available to everyone who could benefit from them, then there wouldn't be such competition for them. Source: Am a parent of a G&T student and I see the intensity with which parents push their kids into the program.
- yesfitz 1y agoI think the word "potentially" is carrying a lot of weight there. Do you have any sources that these things happen and/or that they negatively impact students outside of those programs? The argument I've heard previously is that G&T programs remove peer role models from classrooms, which lowers the class's average behavior and achievement. I was a G&T student for 5 years (2nd through 6th) and have close relationships with people who were educators then administrators in a G&T program.
- Zigurd 1y agoThe hint is in the name. "Meritocracy" was coined to lampoon the concept.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoWell, but you're going to have an "ocracy" no matter what you do. So what kind of "ocracy" do you want? Incompetentocracy? Randomocracy? Celebritocracy? Nepotocracy? We're not going back to aristocracy (which essentially was nepotocracy). So what do you have that's better than meritocracy? What's wrong with letting the more talented be the ones who run things?
- Zigurd 1y agoYou seem to assume that "randomocracy" is a ridiculous idea. Google "sortition." it is difficult to buy outcomes in sortition. Post Citizens United I wouldn't bet against it performing better.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoSortition is (perhaps) fine for things like Congress. For running, say, the FDA? No, I want people who actually know medicine and biology there. For running the Pentagon? I want people with actual military experience there. For running the State Department? I want people who actually know diplomacy and international relations.
- munchler 1y agoNo one seriously disagrees with that. The question is whether the State Department should be run by people who showed diplomatic aptitude in kindergarten due to nature/nurture advantages and were thus subsequently groomed for those roles to the exclusion of others.