Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

I may be lost here but...

> Meritocracy is the idea that people get ahead based on their own accomplishments rather than, for example, on their parents’ social class.

> Here’s a clarifying stat: At two Ivy League schools that Markovits surveyed, “the share of students from households in the top quintile of the income distribution exceeds the share from the bottom two quintiles combined by a ratio of about three and a half to one.”

Just me or is anyone else reading this as "kids are getting ahead because of their parents' social status. Let me tell you about why having a system based on merits is failing us."? Because it doesn't seem like we're using a system based on merits (alone) if kids are getting so far ahead because of their parents' social status.

I know wealth brings more opportunities, but is this any different (in practice) than nepotism? I think a lot of us want a system where there is more social mobility, but framing a conversation around our society's meritocracy (which clearly doesn't exist and is admitted in the article) feels more like sensationalism and distracts from the root issues.

If the combination of high intelligence and high drive generally leads to gaining more wealth, and if those qualities are generally highly heritable, then we should expect rich kids to, on average, inherit their parents' intelligence and drive, and so do well in things that require intelligence and drive, such as school & work.

But that leads to other uncomfortable questions, that we'd all rather not discuss. And so, we desperately search for other answers.

While it is possible for that to be true, I think the general consensus is that it isn't. AFAIK there is a higher correlation between the school that one is placed in than the genetics. Evidenced by placing young low income children into schools that are generally attended by the wealthy tend to do much better in life. But there's always a clear correlation to health and future potential earnings to parents' wealth. I don't think there's enough genetic variation here, so it seems extremely reasonable that the causation here is environmental (i.e. growing up with more resources and advantages leads - unsurprisingly - to a better financial outcome).

It reminds me of how gas stations generally having the same prices can be interpreted in two ways:

1) Competition is almost perfect, so they are forced to sell at the market price.

2) Competition is almost non-existent, so they are forced to sell at the monopoly price agreed upon.

As far as the questions people debate about upbringing and resources, wouldn't (identical) twin studies be the way to go if you really want to know?

The most interesting yet uncomfortable of those is whether the regression towards mean drags everyone else up (as weakest actors are removed) or the kids of the rich down?

What's the magnitude of chance? Or of inherited genetics rather than social standing and wealth?

Yes and no. The most meritocratic institutions of higher ed in the US are probably CalTech and MIT. These are not perfectly proportional representations of the rich socioeconomic and demographic tapestry of the US or the world.

Even bracketing aside the effects of richer soil and tragic history, assortative mating being what it is, meritocracy generates un-meritocratic outcomes in the long run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com