undefined | Better HN

0 pointslettergram6y ago0 comments

> I know that promoting affirmative action is tantamount to blasphemy on this site, but let's be honest here.

Yes, let's be honest! I was from one of those locations where "adversity" would have benefited me. Worst school district in the state, low income, etc.

I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive. I pulled myself out of that situation. People in similar situations don't. I don't think everyone can, but they have an equal opportunity to. All they have to do is study or even just work hard or join the army / navy and do their 20 years.

I understand equal opportunity, but at this point we are forgoing equal opportunity and have been for a long time. By setting limits, calculating scores based on hardship, etc. We are doing the opposite of making it equal opportunity by definition.

> additional context to the scores students receive

Most people lack motivation to get out of their situation and improve, because either they are happy with it or they don't have drive. If they don't have drive, they likely wouldn't succeed anyway and they are taking the spot of someone with said drive. If they are happy - good for them. I’m sure they’d be happy to take a hand out, but they are taking someone else’s spot more deserving.

0 comments

CydeWeys6y ago

> I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive .

It seems logical and reasonable to give more help to those who need it more. And realistically, you're always going to be way better off by maximizing your own success (even if it means you might get less help) than by minimizing your own success and maximally relying on help. A life lived solely on assistance isn't really a pleasant one.

roenxi6y ago

> It seems logical and reasonable to give more help to those who need it more.

It does, but that is because all the counter-arguments are complicated and sound mean-spirited. That approach, when tested, sometimes works out absolutely terribly.

Liberty and assuming everyone has an equal capacity to better themselves is the winning philosophy.

Helping people who need it is a lousy strategy. Giving them opportunities is a great strategy. However, the opportunity needs to be to show that they will work hard for a goal, not shoehorning them in to university. Nobody needs a degree to succeed. They need safe shelter, clear/consistent/unbiased rules, food and a system that allows accumulation of capital. A good universal level of high school education. The basic foundational things that underpin a civilised society.

> And realistically, you're always going to be way better off by maximizing your own success

Most people don't actually work that way, I don't have a statistic but based on anecdote I'd expect most people to minimise risk. People who optimise for success are quite rare.

bufbupa6y ago

So I'm curious, do you believe we should switch to a communist economic model as well? Allocate resources based off who "needs it more" seems to be flirting with that ideology. A life lived solely on assistance is better than a life toiled for no gain it would seem.

wetpaws6y ago

Should we increase the score for people who are less intelligent and have worse grades on average? They would need it more.

intended6y ago

>If they don't have drive, they likely wouldn't succeed anyway and they are taking the spot of someone with said drive.

I promise you that I know people who, in a short few months, who burn the light out of the brightest soul.

Make them that test subject’s parent and I’ll give you a sure shot to medicority and a life of emotional issues.

Anecdote is never data. On a large enough scale of human data we see that programs that improve basic things like food, interaction with parents and teachers - all improve student outcomes.

Unsurprisingly - these are also things that better off families tend to take care off and spend their resources on.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse