undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMiner49er4y ago0 comments

It's pretty simple. A lot of kids don't have an opportunity to put in the time and effort. Some of them still do well despite this, and that shows they have great potential if given the opportunity.

Taking life challenges and starting points into account is more of a meritocracy, because you are accounting for the difficulty they had to get to where they are.

For example, say you have two kids with the same high SAT score. One kid has been given every chance to succeed - test prep, rich parents, best schools money can buy. The other kid was raised by a single parent in a poor neighborhood at a bad public school with no test prep or anything like that. They have to work a job to support their family. On paper they have the same score, but the 2nd kid clearly has more merit, in my opinion. They would likely surpass the other kid if given the same privileges they had.

0 comments

scarmig4y ago

There's always a lot of weird circumlocutions around "merit" and "opportunity."

In NYC, the poverty rate is higher among Asians than among African Americans or Latinos. In what way do the latter groups have "less opportunity"? Is it simply that Asian kids only succeed because they cheat by studying more?

derangedHorse4y ago

I think that’s a weird stat to try and provide an argument with. There’s been a huge influx of Asian immigrants to nyc in particular and high poverty rates makes sense if you’re grouping all these immigrants in one group because they’re from the same continent (which never made sense to me since even Americans see Indian people to be distinct from Chinese people for example). Thus I don’t think it’s fair to say other groups don’t have less opportunity based on that.

Also with regard to how other groups might have less opportunity, it could be a result of harsher institutional racism towards one group of minorities versus another even given the same socioeconomic circumstances.

mbg7214y ago

Your example lists two outliers, though. Nobody thinks the kid with the 1600 SAT score who gets passed over by the Ivy admissions committee is going to turn to a life of cannabis and government handouts; we're not that racist. That kid is exceptional and will always be considered as an individual. The squirmy mass of kids with average scores are more of a concern.

zozbot2344y ago

What do you mean by merit? Meritocracy is not about some kind of moral desert; it's a really, really inconvenient practice we put up with nonetheless (all those tests and credentials are no walk in the park!) because we think that higher-levels of responsibility (which are naturally well compensated) should be given to people with the most appropriate level of skills and competence, which are only developed via strenuous effort. One can say that the 2nd kid deserves to be helped just as much as anyone else in a similar social situation, but as a matter of fact they are surely not more competent.

Miner49erOP4y ago

That makes sense in some situations, but when looking for school applicants, wouldn't you want the student with the most promise?

sokoloff4y ago

For entrance exams for Thomas Jefferson Magnet High School, my answer is aligned with yours.

For college admission? My answer is way more aligned with GP's.

At some point theoretical potential must turn into demonstrated competence for it to have value and be rewarded. If that hasn't happened by SAT time, I'm betting against it happening in specifically the next 4 years.

rayiner4y ago

If the concern is about the kid who has to work a job to support a family, then by all means reserve slots for economically disadvantaged kids. But for the most part that’s not who we’re talking about. The median household income among underrepresented minority groups in the TJ attendance area is solidly middle class. Similarly, most of the racial gerrymandering at universities is targeted at underrepresented minorities from middle and upper middle class families, often affluent African immigrants.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse