`Best’ Is About `Us’
Why don’t we express and follow clear principles on what sort of inequality is how bad? Last week I suggested that we want the flexibility to use inequality as an excuse to grab resources when grabbing is easy, but don’t want to obligate ourselves to grab when grabbing is hard.
It seems we prefer similar flexibility on who are the “best” students to admit to elite colleges. Not only do inside views of the admission process seem to show careful efforts to avoid clarity on criteria, ordinary people seem to support such flexibility:
Half [of whites surveyed] were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state. When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions—apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (more)
Matt Yglesias agrees:
This is further evidence that there’s no stable underlying concept of “meritocracy” undergirding the system. But rather than dedicating the most resources to the “best” students and then fighting over who’s the best, we should be allocating resources to the people who are mostly likely to benefit from additional instructional resources.
But this seems an unlikely strategy for an elite coalition to use to entrench itself. If we were willing to admit the students who would benefit most by objective criteria like income or career success, we could use prediction markets. The complete lack of interest in this suggests that isn’t really the agenda.
Much of law is like this, complex and ambiguous enough to let judges usually draw their desired conclusions. People often say the law needs this flexibility to adapt to complex local conditions. I’m skeptical.
Somehow we have got to do many things differently, do them much more ably,and do all of them simultaneously, collaboratively and fast. Ready or not,like it or not, we are presented with a planetary emergency.This is the timefor making necessary behavioral changes by thinking globally and actinglocally. Science and common sense will give us direction. What we cannot dois sit on the sidelines. No, we cannot afford to sit this one out. All handsare needed on the deck at this critical moment in the history of ourplanetary home. Our generation is simply not stepping up to the challengesbefore us. The consequences of our failures appear colossal and profoundwith regard to the prospects for future human well being and environmentalhealth. The very last thing a responsible person is to do in suchcircumstances is consciously and deliberately choose to remain silent, Ibelieve. Are we not participants in and witnesses to yet anotherpreposterous failure of nerve? When are the leaders going to speak out in anintellectually honest way and act with a sense of moral courage? Howterrible are things going to have to become on Earth beforethe-powers-that-be begin to talk about and do the right things, according tothe lights and best available knowledge they possess? Whatsoever is real andtrue must be acknowledged if we are to respond ably to climatedestabilization, pollution, biodiversity loss, resource dissipation,environmental degradation and overpopulation,but the manufactured ‘nothingis wrong’ reality is well-established and those who speak truth to powerare consistently marginalized and ignored. It is difficult even to imaginehow much can be done in such unfavorable circumstances. Still our effortsare vital because the-powers-that-be are living in a fool’s paradise, andthe stakes are such that the things that are not being acknowledged willlikely destroy life as we know it on Earth. We know how to stopoverpopulation humanely.The gravity of this and other looming human-drivenglobal threats are understood and could be confronted with a long overduedetermination to do what is necessary. All of the world’s human resources,including overrated intelligence and technology, need to be deployed inorder to overcome the emerging and converging wicked problems loomingominously on the horizon.The-powers-that-be could save the world if theyacted with the intellectual honesty, moral courage and power they possess tosound alarm bells, forcefully warn the world, and call out loudly andclearly for changes toward sustainable lifestyles and right-sized corporateenterprises. But most of the necessary changes are unlikely to happen,The-powers-that-be want to maintain the status quo, come what may. They lackthe moral courage and the imagination to save the world we are blessed toinhabit as a fit place for habitation by children everywhere and cominggenerations.
"If we were willing to admit the students who would benefit most by objective criteria like income or career success, we could use prediction markets. The complete lack of interest in this suggests that isn’t really the agenda."
...or that it's never seriously been considered. I'd guess that admitting the students who could benefit most from college is at least a factor that goes in to a typical admissions officers' decisionmaking.