Meritocracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

serious answer.

-In Sports, you practice every day for a race or game. That is considered hard work.
-In Academics, you study and practice every day for a test or a course. That is considered hard work.

-In Sports, it is cheating to take drugs or give the athlete a head start of 10 minutes.
- In Academics, it is affirmative action to give a student a place in a college, course even with astounding poor grades and abilities, ahead of academically high performing students. Everyone knows what it means.

Keep telling yourself that you’re better because you know the test questions.

There was a reason that colleges are moving away from said tests! Because people are cheating!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ my question was inspired by the arrogance and entitled poster who wants to eliminate young scholars.

Didn't say eliminate young scholars, but to eliminate the bonus for being in young scholars. I don't think there is a separate bonus for this, but not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look. Turn off the Tik-Tok. Turn off the video games. Don't spend ALL your afternoons on the playground. Go home and crack a book for a few hours a night practicing the hard subjects and turn in your assignments. This isn't magic. And above all STOP MAKING EXCUSES.

Why do you pretend to know what other students do in their free time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

That's not the right analogy. studying and test prep is analogous to personal trainers and individual coaching. The athlete still has to put in the work. Plenty of UMC parents of young athletes spend tens of thousands on their kids.

Using Steroids would be analogous to using calculators on a non-calculator test.

DP. There is some legitimacy to the steroid analogy in a couple of ways:

1) Excessive test prep for young children, while effective to the end of securing admissions outcomes, can be damaging because of the opportunity costs of both being in an appropriate academic environment for their actual talent level (many prep kids are accelerated beyond their abilities) and of participating in other activities that are healthy for the development of young people (athletics, the arts, non-STEM endeavors, unstructured free play, and yes, even video games, many of which develop problem solving and optimization skills).

2) Engaging in this damaging behavior, when it's effective in securing admissions outcomes, incentivizes others to do the same as almost a cost of admission. In much the same way, many baseball players felt that they had to damage their bodies and futures with steroids in order to keep up with the players who were already doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

serious answer.

-In Sports, you practice every day for a race or game. That is considered hard work.
-In Academics, you study and practice every day for a test or a course. That is considered hard work.

-In Sports, it is cheating to take drugs or give the athlete a head start of 10 minutes.
- In Academics, it is affirmative action to give a student a place in a college, course even with astounding poor grades and abilities, ahead of academically high performing students. Everyone knows what it means.

Putting aside for a moment the folly of you actually knowing who is a high performing student along every possible dimension, why is it that you believe that academic performance should be the only metric upon which students are accepted to elite schools?

The schools are businesses and they are making business decisions. If admitting your child were a good business decision, they'd do it. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

serious answer.

-In Sports, you practice every day for a race or game. That is considered hard work.
-In Academics, you study and practice every day for a test or a course. That is considered hard work.

-In Sports, it is cheating to take drugs or give the athlete a head start of 10 minutes.
- In Academics, it is affirmative action to give a student a place in a college, course even with astounding poor grades and abilities, ahead of academically high performing students. Everyone knows what it means.

Putting aside for a moment the folly of you actually knowing who is a high performing student along every possible dimension, why is it that you believe that academic performance should be the only metric upon which students are accepted to elite schools?

The schools are businesses and they are making business decisions. If admitting your child were a good business decision, they'd do it. End of story.

!!!!! this is the point i've been wishing someone would make!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

Prep for tests, like the SAT or GRE or in class tests, is similar to personal training in sports.

Prep for tests like the NNAT, CoGAT, WiSC is like using steroids or performance enhancers.

Some pro athletes are there due to a crazy work ethic and native ability. Some pro athletes are just insanely good and rarely practice.

Some academically advanced folks are smart but need tutors or summer prep and the like to Ace advanced classes. Some academically advanced folks can take the class as offered and crush it.

Very few average folks are going to excel in advanced academic or professional sports even with crazy levels of prep or practice.

[Anonymous]

I just remember that the person who coined/popularized the term "meritocracy" meant it as a negative thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

In sports, it's usually pretty obvious - which is why sports are so popular.
In academics, I'd say getting all the questions right on a hard math test shows merit -- I mean just look at the curve in the class scores. This can't be a serious question?

It is a serious question.

In sports it’s clear, if you take performance enhancers it’s cheating.

In school is nebulous. You take performance enhancers in the form of test prep and other services, and it’s considered hard work.

Prep for tests, like the SAT or GRE or in class tests, is similar to personal training in sports.

Prep for tests like the NNAT, CoGAT, WiSC is like using steroids or performance enhancers.

Some pro athletes are there due to a crazy work ethic and native ability. Some pro athletes are just insanely good and rarely practice.

Some academically advanced folks are smart but need tutors or summer prep and the like to Ace advanced classes. Some academically advanced folks can take the class as offered and crush it.

Very few average folks are going to excel in advanced academic or professional sports even with crazy levels of prep or practice.

This person gets it.

In a similar vein with respect to the prior TJ admissions process, prep for the ACT Aspire Reading and Science could be considered similar to personal training while prep for the Quant-Q would be akin to steroids.

But guess which one was (based on the data) the primary separator in admissions outcomes both at the semifinalist and offer level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

You can differentiate talent from cogs in the machine by holistically looking at a lot of information. GPA, courses taken, test scores, major achievements, essays, and recommendations all considered holistically and with consideration for the kid's personal circumstances would lead to the best outcomes. Ignoring or minimizing courseloads, recommendations, test scores, and achievements because not all kids may have had equal access is absurd and will lead to a lot of mediocre kids being admitted into elite programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ever changing diverse and fluid world, why are some fighting for rigidly and narrowly defined merit achievements?

What is a true achievement anyway?

How can we differentiate talent from cogs in the machine?

You can differentiate talent from cogs in the machine by holistically looking at a lot of information. GPA, courses taken, test scores, major achievements, essays, and recommendations all considered holistically and with consideration for the kid's personal circumstances would lead to the best outcomes. Ignoring or minimizing courseloads, recommendations, test scores, and achievements because not all kids may have had equal access is absurd and will lead to a lot of mediocre kids being admitted into elite programs.

Highly pro-reform but largely agree with this.

The key is that you actually have to look at the applications through a holistic lens rather than assigning a point value or rubric to each individual metric. That way lies madness. As weird as it sounds, objectivity in admissions processes lead to poor outcomes.