3 ms·

I'm reminded of an article that David Brooks wrote a decade ago, about the Organization Kid. Parents nowadays raise their kids to respect organizational authori

by scarmig 14y ago

I'm reminded of an article that David Brooks wrote a decade ago, about the Organization Kid. Parents nowadays raise their kids to respect organizational authority with the expectation that that's not only a way to get ahead but in fact the only way to get ahead. You take tests that provide a rational ordering of who is better than who, you do as many extracurricular activities as you can to prove that you're more well-rounded than the typical person on your resume, and you listen to the people around you to not do anything wrong. If you do these things and the right internships and get good grades, you get to go to the best med schools or financial or legal firms or grad schools. And thus you're granted a starry lifestyle, with the expectation you won't rock the boat too much or make things difficult within the organization. When you look at the crimes of people in finance, government, academia, wherever, they're not particularly unique. If you're part of that system, you can easily see them as just doing their jobs. Of course GS screws its clients, what else are you supposed to do? That's the point of the organization. Of course you over hype your scientific results, how else will you get the next grant? Etc. My suspicion is that this is setting up a period of reckoning which won't be too pretty for people who have planned out every step of their lives.

rayiner 14y ago
The problem with this line of thought is that the trend has been towards a breakdown of all of these organizations. You think parents taught their kids to respect organizational authority less in the 1940's and 1950's? Of course not! Indeed, it was a far better bet half a century ago to go to the best med schools and law firms and grad schools. That was an age of monopolies and guilds and white upper class privilege. It was back when blue-blood white kids didn't have to compete against striving asian immigrants to get a seat at Harvard, back when getting into that top med school or top law firm or top investment bank was a ticket for life instead of just an opportunity to strive some more.[1] I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures. In a world where what mattered is who your parents were and where you went to school and where you summered, there was substantially less incentive to fake outputs than one in which your outputs are carefully measured and compared against the outputs of your counter parts. Not that I think a meritocratic world isn't better than the one we left behind. But I find that misconduct arising from the pressures of meritocracy better fits the available data than the theory you present. [1] In 1965, a lawyer at a large firm might bill 1200-1600 hours per year, versus 1800-2200 today. This increase has been the result of the breakdown of long-term client relationships and the consequent increase in the competition for business and for rainmaker partners with business. What do you think that this increase does to the incentive structure vis-a-vis misconduct? Can you see how the same basic story has played out in many different fields, including academia?
- craigyk 14y ago
  On a similar note, it's interesting how many great historical scientists were wealthy enough that they were able to pursue something like research as a leisure activity. Even non-rich guys, like Mendel, otherwise had quite a bit of time for contemplation. Scientific research is fickle, it's no surprise that people push things when their livelihood relies on consistent successes in an endeavor that is 90% failures.
- Retric 14y ago
  Put another way in a huge compeditive landscape the people at the top generally cheat in one way or another. Yes people at Harvard are smart but at some point the only way to pull 30 hour days in high school is to fake something. Because there are a lot of smart hardworking people that don't get in.
  - thetabyte 14y ago
    You can say that again. It was definitely disheartening for peers of mine I knew to be frequent cheaters get accepted into a college I was rejected from. This is made worse by how absolutely rampant it is—to the point the reporting it seemed futile. I actually had high ranking peers inform me that they didn't believe I had never cheated in high school. They actually could not understad the concept. The social risk for reporting any time of cheating is quickly amplified when you realize: * It's more common in high school to cheat than not to cheat * Administration has no time to pursue cheaters except in the most widespread and obvious circumstances * It's very hard to prove cheating outside of an anecdotal "This is what I saw" story, and there is no court system for high school students Honestly, it sucked. P.S. Based on an American public high school experience. And, for what's it's worth, ~300 in the College Board Top 1000 Challenge Index schools.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I don't think that's the case at all. "Smart" and "hard working" are relative terms. Most "smart" kids aren't taking quantum mechanics in high school and most "hard working" kids aren't putting in 14-15 hour days in high school. You don't have to cheat to get to the top--you just have to have your shit together when other kids are focusing all their efforts on getting laid. That said, the incentive to cheat is certainly much higher these days, between the 15 hour days and rigorous course loads, than it was 50 years ago before SAT tutors and numbers-based admissions; back when just being able to pay the $$$ for a top preparatory school basically guaranteed admission into Harvard and Yale: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=009f88615723fab0&ex=1159070400 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html... ("That year [1950] 278 students from elite prep schools applied to Harvard and 245 were accepted. The acceptance rate from Exeter and Andover was 94 percent.").

by scarmig 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

The problem with this line of thought is that the trend has been towards a breakdown of all of these organizations. You think parents taught their kids to respect organizational authority less in the 1940's and 1950's? Of course not! Indeed, it was a far better bet half a century ago to go to the best med schools and law firms and grad schools. That was an age of monopolies and guilds and white upper class privilege. It was back when blue-blood white kids didn't have to compete against striving asian immigrants to get a seat at Harvard, back when getting into that top med school or top law firm or top investment bank was a ticket for life instead of just an opportunity to strive some more.[1] I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures. In a world where what mattered is who your parents were and where you went to school and where you summered, there was substantially less incentive to fake outputs than one in which your outputs are carefully measured and compared against the outputs of your counter parts. Not that I think a meritocratic world isn't better than the one we left behind. But I find that misconduct arising from the pressures of meritocracy better fits the available data than the theory you present. [1] In 1965, a lawyer at a large firm might bill 1200-1600 hours per year, versus 1800-2200 today. This increase has been the result of the breakdown of long-term client relationships and the consequent increase in the competition for business and for rainmaker partners with business. What do you think that this increase does to the incentive structure vis-a-vis misconduct? Can you see how the same basic story has played out in many different fields, including academia?

craigyk 14y ago
On a similar note, it's interesting how many great historical scientists were wealthy enough that they were able to pursue something like research as a leisure activity. Even non-rich guys, like Mendel, otherwise had quite a bit of time for contemplation. Scientific research is fickle, it's no surprise that people push things when their livelihood relies on consistent successes in an endeavor that is 90% failures.
Retric 14y ago
Put another way in a huge compeditive landscape the people at the top generally cheat in one way or another. Yes people at Harvard are smart but at some point the only way to pull 30 hour days in high school is to fake something. Because there are a lot of smart hardworking people that don't get in.
- thetabyte 14y ago
  You can say that again. It was definitely disheartening for peers of mine I knew to be frequent cheaters get accepted into a college I was rejected from. This is made worse by how absolutely rampant it is—to the point the reporting it seemed futile. I actually had high ranking peers inform me that they didn't believe I had never cheated in high school. They actually could not understad the concept. The social risk for reporting any time of cheating is quickly amplified when you realize: * It's more common in high school to cheat than not to cheat * Administration has no time to pursue cheaters except in the most widespread and obvious circumstances * It's very hard to prove cheating outside of an anecdotal "This is what I saw" story, and there is no court system for high school students Honestly, it sucked. P.S. Based on an American public high school experience. And, for what's it's worth, ~300 in the College Board Top 1000 Challenge Index schools.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I don't think that's the case at all. "Smart" and "hard working" are relative terms. Most "smart" kids aren't taking quantum mechanics in high school and most "hard working" kids aren't putting in 14-15 hour days in high school. You don't have to cheat to get to the top--you just have to have your shit together when other kids are focusing all their efforts on getting laid. That said, the incentive to cheat is certainly much higher these days, between the 15 hour days and rigorous course loads, than it was 50 years ago before SAT tutors and numbers-based admissions; back when just being able to pay the $$$ for a top preparatory school basically guaranteed admission into Harvard and Yale: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=009f88615723fab0&ex=1159070400 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html... ("That year [1950] 278 students from elite prep schools applied to Harvard and 245 were accepted. The acceptance rate from Exeter and Andover was 94 percent.").