Posted on 04/20/2020 8:06:15 AM PDT by karpov
Is meritocracy just? Just a short time ago, it was commonly accepted that it is the fairest way to determine who wins and who loses in the competition of college admissions. Now, it is one of the most hotly debated questions in higher education. Some believe it is just, as it encapsulates the American dream of “work hard and achieve your educational goals.” Others, however, believe meritocracy is inherently unjust and view it as a cut-throat system rigged against the lower and middle classes.
So, how much should innate intelligence and academic performance factor into who gains admittance into college? Some answer that it should have everything—or at least almost everything—to do with getting into college. After all, it seems highly intuitive that colleges should admit only those students who are the most likely to flourish on their campuses while maintaining high standards.
But a growing number of people wonder whether other non-cognitive factors such as students’ extracurricular activities, life experiences, and ethnic backgrounds should be given greater weight. Others reject the concept of merit-based admissions altogether.
These issues and more were discussed and examined at a February 19 panel event at UNC-Chapel Hill, organized by the university’s new Program in Public Discourse.
The event, entitled “Meritocracy in Higher Education,” featured four panelists: Anastasia Berg, editor of The Point, New York Times columnists Ross Douthat and Thomas Chatterton Williams, and New York University professor Caitlin Zaloom.
Williams was the only participant who supported meritocracy. The others raised three main objections against meritocracy. The first was offered by Zaloom. She prefaced her objections by stating that “meritocracy is the way into higher education—and really— government.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Hello depression, Comrades!
They don’t exactly come out and say it but it seems fairly obvious that they feel meritocracy is racist. If the world is built around the idea that hard work and intelligence matters for success, then white people will be disproportionately successful (and Asians even more so). That’s a huge crime to these people. They want Equal Outcomes so that lazy, stupid people can rise to the top just as easily as smart, driven people.
Peter Principle
I’m confused.
If using innate intelligence is racist, doesn’t that imply that some races are less intelligent, on average, than others?
And if so, wouldn’t that imply that perhaps they shouldn’t go to college if they don’t have the level of intelligence required to utilize it?
I suppose it’s racist of me to even think about such things...
If it weren’t for Double Standards, the ‘Rats would have no standards at all.
You’re thinking too much. You should follow the lead of the academics on the panel and not think at all.
Kleptocracy, of course.
Merit be rayciss!
Bingo. “Hard work and study” is getting the “You didn’t build that” treatment.
A kid who spent his week going to class, reading the material, taking lecture notes, researching, practicing what they’ve learned should be elevated above the kid who did the minimum to slide by. They’re not the same and their future success will not be the same.
I think we have it backwards.
I think that the students selected to go to the “prestigious” universities should spend their second year at an inner city community college and their third year at a rural agricultural college.
I’ve always believed that Middle Class Americans were safe from a national aristocracy because all Americans were raised in similar circumstances.
That’s not true.
There are many Americans who believe they are aristocrats.
That needs to be wiped out.
Aristocrats have no regards or concerns for the non-aristocrats. Aristocrats don’t mind thinning the herd of non-aristocrats.
One fundamental bit of the Leftist worldview, is the idea that environment and nurture is everything, that genetics has nothing to do with ability. It therefore follows that any statistical racial difference in achievement MUST be entirely due to racism.
More on that point —
One could attempt to argue that “intelligence” is somewhat related to genetics.
But “hard work” isn’t genetic, it’s cultural. It’s a social value that you either learn or don’t learn.
Success in life tends to come through intelligence and hard work — but if you had to choose only one of those, the value of hard work exceeds the value of intelligence. There are a lot of smart people working at Starbucks. There are a lot of rich people who simply worked their ass off.
So, circling back, if success were about genetics and IQ, then there wouldn’t be much you could do about it. But that isn’t the case. Success is about the value of hard work — and a demographic group either embraces that value or does not. That can be changed. People have control over that aspect of their lives.
Academics who wanted to do some good would not emphasize the “unfairness” of success. They would emphasize how groups that may be marginalized can turn that around for themselves.
“ Just a short time ago, it was commonly accepted that it is the fairest way to determine who wins and who loses in the competition of college admissions. ”
Second sentence. Complete BS.
Aren’t they a little late on this? Affirmative action has been in use in college admissions for about 50 years.
Hello Idiocracy.
“I like money!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.