You could be trying to say one thing while I hear something different. Do you think it is okay to elevate underrepresented minorities despite a lack of objectively measurable merit?
In the sense that you mean it - yes. But I would say that there is no such thing as 'objectively measurable merit' and that frequently the type of merit we measure when admitting applicants to the Ivy League isn't really merit at all but instead laundered privilege (whether on race or class or anything else). Some intelligent black girl who goes to a school that performs in the bottom third and takes the hardest classes available to her and has to work a job after school has basically no chance to make it to Harvard or Stanford or Cornell. Some intelligent Asian girl who goes to a private school and takes the hardest classes available and plays tennis and is on the debate team still has a decent chance. Who is more meritorious? We aren't really measuring merit at all, we're measuring likelihood to pass into the upper echelons of society.
And then to the extent that there are lots of white and Asian kids who have grown up in circumstances which allow them to signal in a way that the black girl above can't, I really don't have a problem with Harvard stepping in and fixing that.
>And then to the extent that there are lots of white and Asian kids who have grown up in circumstances which allow them to signal in a way that the black girl above can't, I really don't have a problem with Harvard stepping in and fixing that.
I would say that Asian culture has done a better job, on average, of preparing its children with good study habits, work ethic, and cognitive skills than Black culture has. Thus it bothers me that Harvard who are less well prepared because of their skin color.
The whole point of my example was to pose two people of equal intelligence with equal work ethic. I'll admit the Asian girl has a higher chance to succeed at Harvard but I don't believe that's due to her merit, it's due to being placed in a more challenging environment, something that is completely out of her control.
>I would say that Asian culture has done a better job, on average, of preparing its children with good study habits, work ethic, and cognitive skills than Black culture has.
1. Culture doesn't just emerge spontaneously, it's a response to environment. Asians and blacks have very different historical circumstances thus different cultures.
2. It's completely unfair to hold an 18 year old accountable to the 'culture of their race' (if there is such a thing). The 18 year old black girl didn't choose to be born into her culture any more than the 18 year old Asian girl chose to be born into hers. The black girl didn't choose to live in a poor area or have poor parents or go to a bad school just like the Asian girl didn't choose to live in a good area or have middle/upper-class parents or go to a good school. These things are irrelevant to merit and yet they all count for one girl and against the other. That's not really a merit-based system.
I agree that being placed in an environment that could be more challenging was out of her control. But, her choice to work hard, and do well in those things was her choice. In life she got dealt a straight flush but she played it well. Much like accusing someone of being admitted because a diversity initiative is an insult to their hard work and ability, accusing someone of their success being solely because of their privilege is an insult to their hard work and ability.
> 1. Culture doesn't just emerge spontaneously, it's a response to environment. Asians and blacks have very different historical circumstances thus different cultures.
Yes, they do have different historical circumstances. Remember, Asian Americans have not been treated great on the West Coast. They have still been able to do very well. Look at Jewish culture. They have been mistreated for over a thousand years and are still able to have good results. Were blacks mistreated and oppressed? Absolutely they were! That doesn't change the fact that 91% of Asian/Pacific Islanders graduate high school and only 76% of Blacks do [0]. If we don't focus the cause of that difference, there are always going to be more Asians with perfect SAT scores than Blacks with the same apply to Harvard.
>2. It's completely unfair to hold an 18 year old accountable to the 'culture of their race' (if there is such a thing).
I completely agree but you were advocating for Harvard to try and correct for that difference which I do not think they should do because it requires treating someone different because of their race.
>These things are irrelevant to merit and yet they all count for one girl and against the other. That's not really a merit-based system.
Example 1: Person A goes to Harvard and pulls a 4.0. Person B goes to community college and gets a 4.0. Both get business degrees. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an employer if you only have one job and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the job.
Example 2: Person A goes to an elite private high school and gets a 4.0. Person B goes to a very poorly ranked public high school and gets a 4.0. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an college administrator if you only have one acceptance letter to send and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the letter.
In my understanding, both example are a merit-based system. In example 2, person B had the deck stacked against them from the start. When we measure personal ability person A has a greater ability and thus more merit. Yet, I feel like you will disagree about this being merit-based.
Would you be willing to explain why you think the quality of school is irrelevant to merit? It would really help my understanding if you were able to put a working definition to your concept of merit.
Yes but the other girl gets dealt a shit hand and still plays it well. The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted.
>If we don't focus the cause of that difference
... I am focusing on the cause of that difference. I think the opposite here, that it is you who is failing to consider the cause of that difference.
>I completely agree but you were advocating for Harvard to try and correct for that difference which I do not think they should do because it requires treating someone different because of their race.
Yes, Harvard should correct for that difference because it is unfair to hold someone accountable for a culture they did not choose.
>Example 2: Person A goes to an elite private high school and gets a 4.0. Person B goes to a very poorly ranked public high school and gets a 4.0. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an college administrator if you only have one acceptance letter to send and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the letter.
>In my understanding, both example are a merit-based system. In example 2, person B had the deck stacked against them from the start. When we measure personal ability person A has a greater ability and thus more merit. Yet, I feel like you will disagree about this being merit-based.
>Would you be willing to explain why you think the quality of school is irrelevant to merit? It would really help my understanding if you were able to put a working definition to your concept of merit.
To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without. So take a feudal example. It's best to have a king who understands the duties of being a king. Most people in a kingdom will grow up with no real understanding of what is it to be a king. The king's firstborn son however, grows up in an entirely different culture. He will be cultivated from birth and given every advantage in order to turn him into the best king possible. Does that make bloodline aristocracy a merit-based system? After all, at the time of the king's death it is obvious that his son has received the best preparation.
Now, I think if you're a normal person something about that will bother you, it doesn't quite seem like merit. It seems like inherited privilege which has been converted into knowledge, but that knowledge isn't itself merit. I feel the same way about our current system. It is based on inherited privilege which takes place in the realm of knowledge and test scores but it doesn't really strike me as being 'merit.'
>The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted.
>To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without.
>but that knowledge isn't itself merit.
I don't get your definition of merit. The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy.
In the book Player of Games the Azad society plays a game called Azad. A person's rank in society is determined by how well they play the game in the "annual" tournament. People who are able to be better trained on the game perform better and thus have a higher rank in society. From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit.
If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Either way, what is your reasoning?
Yes, there are exceptions. But for most of history the crown prince, is in fact the best person to rule. All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition?
>From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit.
Correct. If in Azad society my parent's wealth or the high school I attended had a significant bearing on my skill at the game then I would say that is not a meritocratic system.
>If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic?
If it was able to remove environmental and structural effects then yes, that would be meritocratic.
>Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test?
Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.
I would say that it often has the same outcome as a meritocratic system. Suppose if every US election, after deciding the winner, they rolled a 20-sided dice and on a 1, elected the loser instead. This would be democratic most of the time but it would not be a democratic system. Similarly since a bloodline aristocracy uses bloodline as the deciding factor not merit, it is not meritocratic.
>Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.
I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit?
Doesn't that seem even a little bit condemnatory of your conception of merit? Your meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. That once in a while they differ isn't a great credit, it's damning with faint praise.
>I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit?
Then why call it a meritocracy? Call it a knowledgocracy or something of that sort. Again, I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without. The asian girl's advantage over the black girl is entirely from without so it shouldn't be considered - they should have an equal chance to be admitted.
I think there is a big leap from saying the crown Prince is most qualified to take the thrown and saying a meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. I think Prince Charles is probably most qualified to take the thrown but I don't want the British government to go back to mostly inherited positions.
>Then why call it a meritocracy?
Google defines a meritocracy as "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." So since it is deciding on ability which is dependent on training and experience it is still a meritocracy.
>I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without.
But what is that thing within? It seems like you have ruled out experience and skills because both of those can be bought by wealthy parents. Even hard work is something that can be taught. It seems like you mean something closer to potiential (future ability) than merit (current ability). Also, what do you look for as evidence of merit?