How the Ivy League Broke America

Article worth reading.<p>I think we have three fundamental problems:<p>1. We’ve created a society where people think that grades and test scores earn them the right to attend a given school. The goal of universities should be to improve society, in whatever vision it has. Grades are probably just one component of that.<p>2. Race is,unfortunately, a big deal. People are going to be racist or consciously have to try not to be or need policies to prevent one from being. The only place where people tend to be less racist is when racism leads directly and visibly to poor outcomes - most notably sports. Anytime you have to select people and how results are measured is unclear then racism will seep in.<p>3. There aren’t great output metrics for college. The prestige of a college is almost purely in its selectivity. Id love to know how well does a college do educating and academically average kid who is an introvert, but loves poetry.<p>That said I feel like the US college system has worked decently well. Not great, but it’s something we can build on.

I have found that grit, curiosity, and relationship building are far more important than memorizing facts and applying formulae.<p>Society needs to value those attributes if we&#x27;re going to solve the really hard problems.

TFA touches on the finding that highly intelligent students do not show a significant tendency to be more creative in their careers. Researchers on creativity doing historical surveys have observed that above average intelligence is not particularly correlated to significant creative achievements. The crucial factors are being at an auspicious confluence of ideas and being in a supportive social environment.

&gt; Generations of young geniuses were given the most lavish education in the history of the world, and then decided to take their talents to finance and consulting.<p>It has always struck me as an issue that the meritocracy poorly distributes the kind of talent it selects for around society, and instead concentrates it in a relatively small number or elite professions in the cities.<p>Thinking at a society level, especially in a democracy, society really does needs intellectual talent throughout. Having lots of smart farmers, smart factory workers, etc. is a good thing. Some of that has to with the professions themselves (smart farmers coming up with new farming methods and helping their neighbors farm better), but also democracy (smart farmers and factory workers organizing and effectively representing the interests of their peers).

I wasn&#x27;t expecting much from David Brooks, but it&#x27;s a surprisingly good article.<p>I think we&#x27;ve inherited conflicting conceptions of meritocracy. There&#x27;s an ancient conception that can be traced back to Plato&#x27;s Republic. The philosopher kings ruled for the sake of society, not for themselves. In Plato&#x27;s view, philosophers didn&#x27;t want the job of kings, would rather spend their lives in contemplation, and had to be forced into the unpleasant task of governing because the alternative was much worse, i.e., allowing the incompetent or immoral to rule. Plato&#x27;s Republic was socialist, not capitalist. Even the raising of children was shared by the community.<p>Although capitalism is inherently an economic system rather than a moral system—the laws of supply and demand merely descriptive—it has unfortunately taken on a moral sheen. Under this newer conception of meritocracy, those who acquire greater wealth <i>deserve</i> it (morally speaking), due to their greater merit. Wealth is a reward, poverty a punishment. It almost feels as if some people believe that the so-called &quot;Invisible Hand&quot; of the market is God making choices, evaluating the goodness or badness of mortals.<p>I don&#x27;t think anyone disputes that our leaders, our doctors, our scientists, ought to be the most qualified people for the jobs. What I personally would dispute is that these people also deserve to be much wealthier than everyone else. I believe that merit is at least partially inborn; it certainly seems that way in my case, and I immediately excelled relative to my peers at a very early age, without even &quot;trying hard&quot;. On the contrary, it was quite easy for me and a struggle for them. I don&#x27;t think that accidents of my birth—genetics and&#x2F;or family social standing—somehow justify gross inequality in society. I don&#x27;t think my &quot;merit&quot;, whatever that is, makes me deserving of financial success. Perhaps capitalism is the best, most efficient economic system, and rewarding merit is a decent means to an end, but we should never forget that rewarding merit is not the ultimate end, not a moral imperative. The economic system ought to be for the benefit of the masses, not just for the lucky few.