5 ms·

If we accept the premise of the article - that the population is sifting itself out by intelligence, then the better a country is at being a meritocracy, the mo

If we accept the premise of the article - that the population is sifting itself out by intelligence, then the better a country is at being a meritocracy, the more likely we are to see this stratification of the populace. It's funny then that the article comes right out and says the solution is to improve the prospects of smart disadvantaged kids. This will just accelerate the process, although it will at least slightly enlarge the meritocratic elite.

ceejayoz 12y ago
The article doesn't even use the word "intelligence". The premise of the article is that good education is available to some and not others, and that their children are more likely to also get good education, thus perpetuating the gap. This leaves plenty of intelligent and meritorious people with poor educations and thus poor prospects, which tends to carry over to their kids. The very opposite of "meritocracy".
- pash 12y ago
  No, the article doesn't use the word intelligence; it uses the words brains, brainpower, intellectual capital, talented, and clever instead. That's The Economist for you. The article more than once calls for improving the prospects of poor, clever children.† If you missed the emphasis on intelligence, I suggest you give the article another read. † — In Britain, where the article was published, clever is very nearly synonymous with intelligent (and more often used), by the way. Americans tend to use clever to mean something more like witty, inteventive, or even cunning.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Except the article is talking about how clever-but-poor kids don't succeed in the same way. A clever kid from a poor family with only shitty education available is going to be far more likely to remain poor. > The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. > The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents. > Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.
- putzdown 12y ago
  It uses "brains" and "intellectual capital," which I think can be comfortably glossed as "intelligence."
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    It also implies that brains and intellect don't matter as much as being in a family that can afford good schools, time with kids, tutoring, etc.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DamnYuppie 12y ago
To me it seems that it may not even be about education. While this is an interesting argument it more often seems that those from a privileged background will have more opportunities to succeed then their less fortunate peers. This is not at all related to their abilities at a given job or even their education but has far more to do with the peer group of their parents. It is this group that enables them to secure better jobs, rise through the ranks faster, or skip them all together. Privilege breeds privilege, not by genetics but by nepotism.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Rich kids getting off scott-free for things that will permanently ruin a poor kid's life is one example of what you're discussing. Can't count the number of DUIs among wealthy kids at my district's public high-school that never went to trial or resulted in much of any sort of punishment. Some white kid called one of the few black kids at my middle-school a nigger and they got in a fight. Somehow, only the black kid got sent to the principal's office. So the white kid walks by and taunts the black kid AGAIN at which point the black kid makes a bad decision blinded by emotion and grabs some scissors and chases the white kid down the hall. Black kid expelled and white kid... well I don't think anything happened to that POS.
- stolio 12y ago
  This is ridiculous. I've tutored them so I know, these rich kids with helicopter moms are hands down working harder than everybody else. They're taking AP courses they're not even interested in because that's their work ethic, they play sports and it's assumed they should get at least a partial scholarship. By senior year in high school they're ahead of their peers in life skills, emotional maturity, work ethic and academics. The parents raising these kids to be "bred for success" aren't leaving it up to the chance that they can cash in on nepotism, they teach these kids to work hard.
jgon 12y ago
Oh my god. I don't think you could have misunderstood this article more if you had tried. I can't even comprehend how you could read the article and come away with this conclusion. I can therefore only conclude that you either did not read the article at all, or that you read it entirely filtered through you preconceptions until you had built just enough evidence that what you believed already was correct. Then you rushed over here to comment about how everything is fine because society is sifting itself into the intelligent vs the unintelligent. I actually read the goddamn article so let me restate it for you here to make it clear for you: The new advantage in our economy is essentially education, although the article uses the 5 dollar word "intellectual capital". Because the amount of "intellectual capital" a person has is closely tied to the amount of actual capital their parents have, we are seeing increasing inequality on this front. Rich parents are able to provide stimulation and training for their child from birth by way of having more free time because they can afford it, or by having various tutors for their child. When their child reaches school, rich people get better schooling for their children due to America's insane school funding paradigm. Finally, when those children reach college, rich people are actually able to afford to send their children to good institutions, and receive preferential admission for their "legacy students". None of the above points to society filtering itself on some sort of intrinsic "merit" that a person is born with, leading to some grand meritocracy. Rather it points to a new type of capital being important in our system, and wealthy people being able to cultivate it for their children. Improving prospects for disadvantaged kids might just make them "smart", not that they are born smart and just held back by poverty. TL;DR: Two kids of equal potential will have their economic circumstances dictate just how "smart" they become, and in an economy predicated on being "smart" this will lead to inequality. America should work to allow both children to become as "smart" as they possibly can be.

ceejayoz 12y ago

The article doesn't even use the word "intelligence". The premise of the article is that good education is available to some and not others, and that their children are more likely to also get good education, thus perpetuating the gap. This leaves plenty of intelligent and meritorious people with poor educations and thus poor prospects, which tends to carry over to their kids. The very opposite of "meritocracy".

pash 12y ago
No, the article doesn't use the word intelligence; it uses the words brains, brainpower, intellectual capital, talented, and clever instead. That's The Economist for you. The article more than once calls for improving the prospects of poor, clever children.† If you missed the emphasis on intelligence, I suggest you give the article another read. † — In Britain, where the article was published, clever is very nearly synonymous with intelligent (and more often used), by the way. Americans tend to use clever to mean something more like witty, inteventive, or even cunning.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Except the article is talking about how clever-but-poor kids don't succeed in the same way. A clever kid from a poor family with only shitty education available is going to be far more likely to remain poor. > The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. > The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents. > Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.
putzdown 12y ago
It uses "brains" and "intellectual capital," which I think can be comfortably glossed as "intelligence."
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  It also implies that brains and intellect don't matter as much as being in a family that can afford good schools, time with kids, tutoring, etc.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DamnYuppie 12y ago

To me it seems that it may not even be about education. While this is an interesting argument it more often seems that those from a privileged background will have more opportunities to succeed then their less fortunate peers. This is not at all related to their abilities at a given job or even their education but has far more to do with the peer group of their parents. It is this group that enables them to secure better jobs, rise through the ranks faster, or skip them all together. Privilege breeds privilege, not by genetics but by nepotism.

wavefunction 12y ago
Rich kids getting off scott-free for things that will permanently ruin a poor kid's life is one example of what you're discussing. Can't count the number of DUIs among wealthy kids at my district's public high-school that never went to trial or resulted in much of any sort of punishment. Some white kid called one of the few black kids at my middle-school a nigger and they got in a fight. Somehow, only the black kid got sent to the principal's office. So the white kid walks by and taunts the black kid AGAIN at which point the black kid makes a bad decision blinded by emotion and grabs some scissors and chases the white kid down the hall. Black kid expelled and white kid... well I don't think anything happened to that POS.
stolio 12y ago
This is ridiculous. I've tutored them so I know, these rich kids with helicopter moms are hands down working harder than everybody else. They're taking AP courses they're not even interested in because that's their work ethic, they play sports and it's assumed they should get at least a partial scholarship. By senior year in high school they're ahead of their peers in life skills, emotional maturity, work ethic and academics. The parents raising these kids to be "bred for success" aren't leaving it up to the chance that they can cash in on nepotism, they teach these kids to work hard.

jgon 12y ago

Oh my god. I don't think you could have misunderstood this article more if you had tried. I can't even comprehend how you could read the article and come away with this conclusion. I can therefore only conclude that you either did not read the article at all, or that you read it entirely filtered through you preconceptions until you had built just enough evidence that what you believed already was correct. Then you rushed over here to comment about how everything is fine because society is sifting itself into the intelligent vs the unintelligent. I actually read the goddamn article so let me restate it for you here to make it clear for you: The new advantage in our economy is essentially education, although the article uses the 5 dollar word "intellectual capital". Because the amount of "intellectual capital" a person has is closely tied to the amount of actual capital their parents have, we are seeing increasing inequality on this front. Rich parents are able to provide stimulation and training for their child from birth by way of having more free time because they can afford it, or by having various tutors for their child. When their child reaches school, rich people get better schooling for their children due to America's insane school funding paradigm. Finally, when those children reach college, rich people are actually able to afford to send their children to good institutions, and receive preferential admission for their "legacy students". None of the above points to society filtering itself on some sort of intrinsic "merit" that a person is born with, leading to some grand meritocracy. Rather it points to a new type of capital being important in our system, and wealthy people being able to cultivate it for their children. Improving prospects for disadvantaged kids might just make them "smart", not that they are born smart and just held back by poverty. TL;DR: Two kids of equal potential will have their economic circumstances dictate just how "smart" they become, and in an economy predicated on being "smart" this will lead to inequality. America should work to allow both children to become as "smart" as they possibly can be.