3 ms·

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower (2008)

64 points by acheron 12y ago

danielweber 12y ago
I teach young men who must amass a certain number of credits before they can become police officers or state troopers, lower-echelon health-care workers who need credits to qualify for raises, and municipal employees who require college-level certification to advance at work. Credentialism to the core. Some of them come to me at the conclusion of a course and matter-of-factly ask that I change a failing grade because they need to graduate this semester or because they worked really hard in the class or because they need to pass in order to receive tuition reimbursement from their employer. This breaks my heart. Why are we doing this to people?
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's a combination of classism and cargo culting. Instead of embracing the lower middle class, and acknowledging that everyone performs a role and has value in society, we embrace our contempt for them and their work but convince ourselves that if they go through the same motions as Harvard or Yale grads they'll be able to rise above their circumstances.
  - intopieces 12y ago
    Boy did you say it. The contempt for working people in this society is palpable: "You don't want to end up flipping burgers, do you?" Morever, if you choose to forgo that option and aim for a higher paying job, you get: "Why don't you get a job? You too good to flip burgers?" The working class can't win.
  - cafard 12y ago
    To qualify as middle class one requires more or less steady employment, or money behind one to provide the cushion that this employment would. If the embrace of that lower middle class does not include a wage that covers living expenses and some left to save, then it is practically indistinguishable from contempt. I imagine that I am agreeing with you on this.
SagelyGuru 12y ago
Perhaps a little too literary presentation for my liking but the basic thesis is as sound as it is sad. As someone who taught in those "lucky" science departments, I must say that the experience was not that much different or better. Deficiencies in the basic skills and oversupply of the sense of entitlement. Those inabilities to write a coherent sentence or a research paper are just as serious handicaps to computer scientists and professionals. Sometimes it extends even to an inability to write a coherent line of code.
henrikschroder 12y ago
It's very likely we'll see a post-labour society in our lifetimes, one where automation has eliminated the vast majority of jobs, and our society has hopefully transitioned into one where having a job is no longer necessary to achieve happiness or decent living conditions. And here is yet another policy that goes in the opposite direction, that will make the transition worse, that drums into people that "College guarantees a great career!", with the unspoken backside that if you can't make it through college, you are a failure as a person. I don't know what to do, how do we reverse all this damage? I'm not sure replacing "college for everyone" with "or vocational school!" is a solution either, we'll automate all those jobs away, too!
stegosaurus 12y ago
This really resonates with me for reasons I find difficult to articulate. Meritocracy seems to be similar to democracy in that it's better than the alternative (nepotism), but seemingly falls short of the mark. A person who happens to be adept at mathematics, by whatever means (perhaps they've been taught well, perhaps they have innate talent, perhaps they had good nutrition as a child) will generally end up with a higher earning potential, and so generally will end up with a more comfortable life. A better life, for lack of more accurate terminology. To me, that seems like a peculiar form of social darwinism. People do not control these traits to a huge extent. I... rather, we at HN, are better than some of our peers at mathematics, at algorithmic problem solving. No doubt about it. You can probably find someone in your life that you'll always be better than, in that particular field. We will be richer than some people purely by virtue of history, by virtue of events no longer within our individual control (if they ever were). Human capital. I struggle to reconcile that with wanting to reward people for the value they add to society. This is one of the reasons I've been swayed towards supporting universal basic income. I just can't see that it's right for people to be thrown on the scrap heap simply because they happened to be born with the wrong talents, the wrong preferences, or simply an inferior toolset. It seems to me that it's just the logical progression from helping those with a disability. It might be a necessary evil for the talented to earn more. I don't believe it's necessary for those less fortunate to struggle to meet basic requirements like shelter.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

64 points by acheron 12y ago

I teach young men who must amass a certain number of credits before they can become police officers or state troopers, lower-echelon health-care workers who need credits to qualify for raises, and municipal employees who require college-level certification to advance at work. Credentialism to the core. Some of them come to me at the conclusion of a course and matter-of-factly ask that I change a failing grade because they need to graduate this semester or because they worked really hard in the class or because they need to pass in order to receive tuition reimbursement from their employer. This breaks my heart. Why are we doing this to people?

rayiner 12y ago
It's a combination of classism and cargo culting. Instead of embracing the lower middle class, and acknowledging that everyone performs a role and has value in society, we embrace our contempt for them and their work but convince ourselves that if they go through the same motions as Harvard or Yale grads they'll be able to rise above their circumstances.
- intopieces 12y ago
  Boy did you say it. The contempt for working people in this society is palpable: "You don't want to end up flipping burgers, do you?" Morever, if you choose to forgo that option and aim for a higher paying job, you get: "Why don't you get a job? You too good to flip burgers?" The working class can't win.
- cafard 12y ago
  To qualify as middle class one requires more or less steady employment, or money behind one to provide the cushion that this employment would. If the embrace of that lower middle class does not include a wage that covers living expenses and some left to save, then it is practically indistinguishable from contempt. I imagine that I am agreeing with you on this.

SagelyGuru 12y ago

Perhaps a little too literary presentation for my liking but the basic thesis is as sound as it is sad. As someone who taught in those "lucky" science departments, I must say that the experience was not that much different or better. Deficiencies in the basic skills and oversupply of the sense of entitlement. Those inabilities to write a coherent sentence or a research paper are just as serious handicaps to computer scientists and professionals. Sometimes it extends even to an inability to write a coherent line of code.

henrikschroder 12y ago

It's very likely we'll see a post-labour society in our lifetimes, one where automation has eliminated the vast majority of jobs, and our society has hopefully transitioned into one where having a job is no longer necessary to achieve happiness or decent living conditions. And here is yet another policy that goes in the opposite direction, that will make the transition worse, that drums into people that "College guarantees a great career!", with the unspoken backside that if you can't make it through college, you are a failure as a person. I don't know what to do, how do we reverse all this damage? I'm not sure replacing "college for everyone" with "or vocational school!" is a solution either, we'll automate all those jobs away, too!

stegosaurus 12y ago

This really resonates with me for reasons I find difficult to articulate. Meritocracy seems to be similar to democracy in that it's better than the alternative (nepotism), but seemingly falls short of the mark. A person who happens to be adept at mathematics, by whatever means (perhaps they've been taught well, perhaps they have innate talent, perhaps they had good nutrition as a child) will generally end up with a higher earning potential, and so generally will end up with a more comfortable life. A better life, for lack of more accurate terminology. To me, that seems like a peculiar form of social darwinism. People do not control these traits to a huge extent. I... rather, we at HN, are better than some of our peers at mathematics, at algorithmic problem solving. No doubt about it. You can probably find someone in your life that you'll always be better than, in that particular field. We will be richer than some people purely by virtue of history, by virtue of events no longer within our individual control (if they ever were). Human capital. I struggle to reconcile that with wanting to reward people for the value they add to society. This is one of the reasons I've been swayed towards supporting universal basic income. I just can't see that it's right for people to be thrown on the scrap heap simply because they happened to be born with the wrong talents, the wrong preferences, or simply an inferior toolset. It seems to me that it's just the logical progression from helping those with a disability. It might be a necessary evil for the talented to earn more. I don't believe it's necessary for those less fortunate to struggle to meet basic requirements like shelter.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]