Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That kid deserved a break and when he finally got one, he made the most of it.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't hurt to give a person a hand UP, rather than a hand OUT. Too many people confuse these two things in their thinking.
As for the rest of what that woman was espousing, it sounds hopelessly PC to me. The middle road is always preferential to riding in on a high horse. Just MHO.
Very inspiring story. Giving a person with the ability to succeed the requisite chance is a very good deed, at least in my religion.
As a sort of moderate liberal, I feel a certain responsibility to distance myself from this silly academic dribble. Privilege theory is the new Marxism of the left. Much like the Marxists of 30-40 years, they have a taken some true and well meaning ideas and turned them into a dogmatic ideology that ultimately just undermines their cause.
It is very true that the world is far from a perfect meritocracy. Success in life is a mix of factors: hard work, personal responsibility, smart decisions and things we cant control: who are parents are, where we we were born, what we look like, what race/gender/sexual orientation we are, etc. We all have a mix of advantages and disadvantages. Some are tangible like the wealth and connections of our parents, others are less tangible (impact of positive/negative stereotypes.) Some disadvantages spring from deep historical injustice: black people being disadvantaged by the legacy slavery/Jim Crow, while others are more idiosyncratic: your dad was a drunk and your parents divorced or your parents immigrated from a poor county.
Since life isn't a perfect meritocracy, I think we should take some steps to level the playing field somewhat (a basic safety net, mass education/training, targeted efforts to recruit people from disadvantaged backgrounds, efforts to fight discrimination, prudent access to grants/loans for people who can't get family assistance for things like college, starting a business, buying a home, etc.)
Obviously, these aren't a silver bullet or sweeping as the professor would like. But, I think it has more chance of getting enacted and doing some good.
As a sort of moderate liberal, I feel a certain responsibility to distance myself from this silly academic dribble. Privilege theory is the new Marxism of the left. Much like the Marxists of 30-40 years, they have a taken some true and well meaning ideas and turned them into a dogmatic ideology that ultimately just undermines their cause.
The trouble is whether from being conscience-stricken or otherwise people take it seriously. People are unwilling, to take the free market seriously. They take the relatively minor quibbles from your next paragraph to prove that all decks are tilted. and the elites at universities feel qualified to control the tilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
It is very true that the world is far from a perfect meritocracy. Success in life is a mix of factors: hard work, personal responsibility, smart decisions and things we cant control: who are parents are, where we we were born, what we look like, what race/gender/sexual orientation we are, etc. We all have a mix of advantages and disadvantages. Some are tangible like the wealth and connections of our parents, others are less tangible (impact of positive/negative stereotypes.) Some disadvantages spring from deep historical injustice: black people being disadvantaged by the legacy slavery/Jim Crow, while others are more idiosyncratic: your dad was a drunk and your parents divorced or your parents immigrated from a poor county.
See above. The free market is not perfect but it's the best there is. As far as "the legacy slavery/Jim Crow" there have been groups more savagely disadvantaged that are generally successful, i.e. Jews. The Holocaust was far from the only time the Jews were set upon. They were placed on the "trail of tears" (to borrow the analogy that is allegedly holding Native Americans back) too many times to retell.
the legacy slavery/Jim CrowSince life isn't a perfect meritocracy, I think we should take some steps to level the playing field somewhat (a basic safety net, mass education/training, targeted efforts to recruit people from disadvantaged backgrounds, efforts to fight discrimination, prudent access to grants/loans for people who can't get family assistance for things like college, starting a business, buying a home, etc.)
Obviously, these aren't a silver bullet or sweeping as the professor would like. But, I think it has more chance of getting enacted and doing some good.[/quote]Those steps are usually eminently reasonable. However certain groups (or their leaders) want far more, mainly so the leaders can rake off some of the largess. Ms. Putnam, the professor referenced in the OP is a shining example; well-paid for producing drivel.
The tenure system in academia promotes "mediocracy". The vast number of tenured faculty, at least in the social sciences, are mediocre at best and, yes, largely male. On the other hand, at very the top-end, all the women and men I have worked with have been truly exceptional, but again the men prevail in numbers.
I wonder what Angela's response to the fact that Asians have much higher percentages with bachelors and masters that the three other groups below them. I wonder if she recognizes that affirmative action is a thing (that doesn't really work despite the best intention, e.g. California and prop 209).
The trouble is whether from being conscience-stricken or otherwise people take it seriously. People are unwilling, to take the free market seriously. They take the relatively minor quibbles from your next paragraph to prove that all decks are tilted. and the elites at universities feel qualified to control the tilt.
See above. The free market is not perfect but it's the best there is. As far as "the legacy slavery/Jim Crow" there have been groups more savagely disadvantaged that are generally successful, i.e. Jews. The Holocaust was far from the only time the Jews were set upon. They were placed on the "trail of tears" (to borrow the analogy that is allegedly holding Native Americans back) too many times to retell.
the legacy slavery/Jim CrowSince life isn't a perfect meritocracy, I think we should take some steps to level the playing field somewhat (a basic safety net, mass education/training, targeted efforts to recruit people from disadvantaged backgrounds, efforts to fight discrimination, prudent access to grants/loans for people who can't get family assistance for things like college, starting a business, buying a home, etc.)
Obviously, these aren't a silver bullet or sweeping as the professor would like. But, I think it has more chance of getting enacted and doing some good. Those steps are usually eminently reasonable. However certain groups (or their leaders) want far more, mainly so the leaders can rake off some of the largess. Ms. Putnam, the professor referenced in the OP is a shining example; well-paid for producing drivel.
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I dont have time to engage on every point right now. But as a general response, I would say let's not pretend dogma, ideological extremism, and opportunism is solely a problem of the left. I would actually argue the problem is worse on the right. Not to turn this into a discussion on Donald Trump, but the liberal movement has never rallied behind a candidate that is as fact free and needlessly mean spirited as him. Liberals have so far been more successful at keeping their fringes contained to college campuses and little read blogs.
Trying to make everything a racial issue is reductive and dogmatic, but so is constantly trying to dismiss the role of racism and other structural inequalities.
Angela Putnam, a Pennsylvania State University-Brandywine professor thinks college faculty need to do more to undermine their students' belief in "meritocracy" and the value of "hard work" (link). Her view is that meritocracy entrenches white power and privilege. See “Working Hard” Is A White Lie, According To Penn State-Brandywine Professor (link to article). The two articles both come from what some would call right-wing websites. I personally found the rhetoric to be conclusory, and not likely to persuade many people outside the Internet echo chamber. Thus, I visited Ms. Putnam's website (link to main website) and associated blog (link to blog). I will post a few excerpts , and keep them brief enough to stay within posting rules. Excerpts:
An abstract from one of her seminars (link) states "Three ideological discourses emerged before, during, and after the seminar – Liberal Pluralism, Meritocracy, and “Reverse Racism.”"
It is quite difficult for any institution with academic rigor and selective admissions to be other than a meritocracy. That is just common sense. However, not all professors exercise common sense or even coherence. As much as I criticize right-wing websites, I find the so-called "work" of Angela Putnam to border on incoherence. She argues that "every white person—no matter how rich or poor, old or young, educated or uneducated, can and should step up and work toward dismantling systemic racism and fight for equity and social justice." She gives no suggestion as to how that "dismantling" would occur.
Other professors even argue that white civility towards blacks is somehow racist. Two professors at University of Northern Iowa, C. Kyle Rudick and Kathryn B. Golsan "say classroom 'civility' promotes 'white racial power'" (link) & (link to paywalled article).
Perhaps their answer is in a less restrained, even violent and/or chaotic academic environment that prevails in many schools and much of society. I actually believe that the merit system is time proven, works and benefits all.
I had a hard time staying focused through the drivel, but am I reading correctly that she's basically saying people of color don't work as hard as white people?
The tenure system in academia promotes "mediocracy". The vast number of tenured faculty, at least in the social sciences, are mediocre at best and, yes, largely male. On the other hand, at very the top-end, all the women and men I have worked with have been truly exceptional, but again the men prevail in numbers.
Call it what you will.
This is very true, especially in fields that have traditionally been viewed as the provenance of men - engineering, mathematics and the sciences. When I was in high school my physics teacher announced his policies on women and grades. On the very first day of class, he announced that women do not have the intellectual capacity to study physics. Therefore, a woman could never receive a grade of "A" in his class. On the flip side, he said that no matter how dismal her test scores were, he never would give a woman a grade of less than C. We were so handicapped by our "smaller" brains. Oh, GRRRRRR!
Well, despite my tiny little brain my grades and GRE scores got me an admission to the PhD program in climatology at my state university. The professors and the students - except for me - were all male. One might think that at the university level, teachers would be more open minded. I am here to tell you that they are NOT. A woman must work twice as hard as a man to get any recognition from her colleagues. It takes anywhere from two to six years to obtain a doctorate in the sciences. Never mind the intellectual rigour that is required, a woman must also navigate thru the waters of sexism and prejudice. I was told that I really shouldn't have been accepted to the program since in all probability, I'd just drop out to get married and have babies. Oh, GRRRRR, AGAIN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul
If meritocracy is bad and racist, was is a fairer system to use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
Communism!
Works so very well.
This all or nothing, black and white thinking gets us exactly nowhere. The Atlantic Monthly has published a couple of very good articles on the pros and cons of meritocracy. Here's an excerpt from one of them:
The paradox of meritocracy builds on other research showing that those who think they are the most objective can actually exhibit the most bias in their evaluations. When people think they are objective and unbiased then they don’t monitor and scrutinize their own behavior. They just assume that they are right and that their assessments are accurate. Yet, studies repeatedly show that stereotypes of all kinds (gender, ethnicity, age, disability etc.) are filters through which we evaluate others, often in ways that advantage dominant groups and disadvantage lower-status groups. For example, studies repeatedly find that the resumes of whites and men are evaluated more positively than are the identical resumes of minorities and women.
Very true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
