We’re clearly being led by the very, very best:
The War on Merit Takes a Bizarre Turn
For years, two administrators at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) have been withholding notifications of National Merit awards from the school’s families, most of them Asian, thus denying students the right to use those awards to boost their college-admission prospects and earn scholarships. This episode has emerged amid the school district’s new strategy of “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.” School administrators, for instance, have implemented an “equitable grading” policy that eliminates zeros, gives students a grade of 50 percent just for showing up, and assigns a cryptic code of “NTI” for assignments not turned in.
Spectacular.
I have hopes that the lawyers sure to be hired by the families involves *are* fans of merit and are the best at what they do so they can sue this high school and its administration into oblivion.
5 responses to “The War On Merit”
Suits get paid by the taxpayer here. I prescribe metal cranium compression therapy behind an ear.
As with most things, not all, but most, there are two sides to every story. In this case we essentially have three groups of people “competing” for a limited number of seats in a classroom. The first thing to clearly define is exactly what are these seats in a classroom they are competing for? It is actually a market where a chance or step to gain greater wealth is sold. But to buy this step or chance you have to play a game that determines entitlement. If you are super rich, you almost automatically win your step. Because if you have rich influential parents you can, as a proven fact, be a C student and become the President of the United States. If you are super smart you are second in line and have to really work hard but they always have a few seats open for the one percent who are geniuses. The third group is everyone else who is not so rich or not so smart. What seats are left after the rich kids and geniuses have their pick are fought over. And all is fair in war and academia. This outrage over those who are just smart, not rich or geniuses, having to fight a culture war over an artificially limited number of seats is misplaced. People have different abilities and qualities of personality and academia should be clear about what they want to award their piece of paper for. And it should be open to all for free. The smartest and most driven earn the highest certifications while the rest of us advance as far as we can. The outrage should be about nonexistent true meritocracy and not some detail of the corrupt farce that exists.
I’m a bit unclear about your argument. Let’s assume your three groups seeking a limited number of spots in a prestigious university:
1) Not so smart, but rich
2) Not so rich, but smart
3) Not so smart, not so rich
For the purposes of the discussion, “smart” here also includes “driven” and “non-lazy” and “capable” and “sane” and “ambitious” and what all else would be useful.
OK, so how should society set things up? Here is my suggestion:
For Group 1, open as many spots as possible. Let the rich buy their way in.
For Group 2, open as many spots as you can. Aim your actual curriculum at this group.
For Group 3, steer them elsewhere. Perhaps the same *field,* but not necessarily the same *institution.*
In my system, Group 1 would flood in. Since they’re not so smart, they would pay up front thinking they are the elite… and promptly begin to flunk out, since the programs are aimed at the capabilities of group 2. You’ve got their money… and their absence. That money can go towards scholarships for Group 2.
Group 3 will not be burdened with the monumental headaches of the Group 2 requirements. They can go to easier, cheaper schools, and not be buried under a mountain of either debt *or* failure. Sure, they won;t have the glorious resume-stuffing of having graduated from Elite U… but they weren’t going to anyway. Give someone not capable of it a free ride to a school they are *going* to flunk out of, you stand a very good chance of making them quit higher learning altogether.
>Group 1 would flood in. Since they’re not so smart, they would pay up front thinking they are the elite… and promptly begin to flunk out . . .
But that’s the thing, they’re not buying a place in the school, they’re buying the *Qualification*, regardless of whether they are good enough, or not. Also, I’m sure the US has the equivalent of ‘The Old Boy’s Network’, so as long as they go to the right school, they’re minted . . .
> they’re not buying a place in the school, they’re buying the *Qualification*
“I went to Harvard” probably means something, but not near as much as “I graduated from Harvard.” I’m perfectly happy with rich folk bribing their way into school… but I’m not ok with them bribing their way into grades. So let them in, and then let them compete against students who are actually up to the standards. Let them learn that they are not up to the standards. let it be a financially useful lesson.
Poor people, though… do *not* fool them into thinking they are up to standards if they are not. In the end, the high capability students get an elite education; the less capable students, rich or poor, get a lower standard of education. It would be interesting for both rich and poor to end up in the same school… with the poor kids being a semester or three ahead of the rich kids because they started where they actually fit right from the get-go.