Hacker News Reader

Comment by verylong | Hacker News Reader

I think these kinds of articles miss the point. Colleges and employers choose admission and hiring criteria specifically to favor the upper class. This isn't out of malice, and for the most part I think it is unintentional. The people at the top simple favor other people who are like them --- just as all of us do.

If lower class kids started excelling at the sort of social activities and extracurricular activities which help one get ahead, the criteria will wind up changing. Again, not out of malice or spite. Its simply a function of human nature to form groups and favor those from your group.

View on HN

I came here to say pretty much the same thing, but you beat me to it :)

The fact is that these elite jobs, while demanding, don't require particularly unusual talents. Many people can perform them. The supply is far greater than demand, which you can see, for example, in the number of people who apply for entry level positions at large financial firms, where many of the elite jobs are. It's similar at the elite universities, which could all easily fill their classes with valedictorians if that's what they wanted.

But yeah, it's pretty much what you said above. People like those who are like themselves and there are only so many spots available, so naturally they're going to pick people from similar backgrounds unless the candidate is lucky, charismatic, or significantly better than everyone else (which is unlikely when you're already choosing from an elite population).

Harvard is quite public with the fact that they reserve 30% year for "legacies". They don't even bother with the veneer of meritocracy. Just keeping the unwashed peasants away, you know

The Economist has had a couple of articles on how social mobility in the US is waay lower than it used to be and is now lower than in many European countries...

If they wanted the peasants away, they wouldn't charge zero tuition for peasants and keep 70% of the seats open. The legacies pay tuition for the peasants.

Affluent families also pay full tuition everywhere else, without getting special preferences.

Long story short - most colleges are about quotas these days, not pure meritocracies. But at least there is an egalitarian thought behind minority/diversity quotas.

There is nothing egalitarian about "legacies".

As European, I had never heard of the Legacy system before. This is kind of shocking, or at very least, at odd with my world view.

However, I understand a little better why racial quota have been implemented in the US.

I was going to comment that this had already happened, but I see scarmig had already gone into detail in another thread about how the rules had been changed to undermine Asian-Americans.

I'd maybe quibble about whether this falls under "malice" or not, seems to be pretty malicious to even have the fake meritocracy in the first place, never mind to continually alter it as people overcome the obstacles placed in their way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com