This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You know why that'll never happen though. Society can't want equality and a meritocracy at the same time, despite espousing the virtue of both. Americans can't forever pretend that different subcultures in the US don't value things like education differently than others do. Because most people inherently know that merit has a tendency to cluster in homogenous pockets if given the green light and left unchecked. You won't get the goals of modern 21st century liberal and progressive sensibilities, so trying to achieve those objectives will always be a paradox at odds with itself.
I thought the OP was being too elitist. I can't speak to the institutional structure of Harvard, but I've had more than my fair share of interactions with Stanford University students. And at least from my interactions, there's a lot of high profile students, or rather, students with high profile backgrounds, that were not a result of their hard work and intellectual achievements. Meeting the daughter of a well to do small business owner certainly doesn't hurt, as far as getting your foot in the door goes; as no interaction I ever had with her left me with the impression she was exceptional by academic standards. She was certainly exceptional as far as the open doors and opportunities went.
Major universities have always sold themselves on their prestige, and to a large measure it was probably earned, historically speaking. But a hard and pure academic evaluation I think leaves something to be desired, when a person wants to come along and tell me you'll get a better 'education' at Harvard than you will at this second or third tier university. The only university that immediately comes to mind when a person wants to sell me on academic ability and intellectual talent is MIT. Background and extracurricular activities should not play as substantial a role in the selection process to strict educational requirements.
You won't find me disagreeing with anything you said, quite the opposite in fact! I'm well aware why the things I suggested are well outside the Overton Window (I did say I was day dreaming).
At any rate, while I haven't had the 'good fortune' to meet many Ivy league students, I've already had my fair share of awe inspiring encounters with people who are both tack-sharp and hard-working in other contexts, and I don't think Harvard has a monopoly on them. I'm no slouch in the brains department myself, but I'm intimately familiar with knowing that some people are still way out of my league. I just think normal means like "fuck hard exams that exert massive selection pressure" are more than sufficient to tease them out, no essays or similar nonsense needed.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn’t this the whole debate re equality of outcome v opportunity?
It got pitched in those terms back in the 80’s and 90’s in policy circles and shows like Free to Choose. It’s difficult to think the spectrum of that dialogue hasn’t shifted to a much more extreme form these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link