Don’t agree, I think it’s a very good list of well intentioned advice.
Eg try to become an apprentice to someone talented. This would indeed be extremely valuable to anyone trying to learn a skill. The author then goes to great lengths giving advice on how to land a position like that when young.
I think I read somewhere that people who apply to Harvard and don’t get in end up having similar incomes to those who did get in. So I at least think elite schools often are “taking credit” for the pre-existing high quality of their admits, and they often don’t provide much value add these kids couldn’t get elsewhere.
I mean, it is clearly the case that ultra-selective schools are benefiting a lot from the preexisting quality of their students, and they wouldn't obtain the same outcomes by taking a random high school senior.
But the students who apply to Harvard and fail to get in probably go to schools that are only a little less prestigious than Harvard, instead. Like, I didn't apply to Harvard, but I did apply to Princeton -- and got rejected. I went to Williams College instead. If my income is similar to a Princeton's student's post-graduation, is that because I did it all on my own, or is it because Williams is also a highly prestigious school that provides similar benefits to Princeton, albeit perhaps a bit less?
Also, without context, the smartest people at Harvard could end up being career poets, while the rejected applicants could all end up as MIT engineers and Wharton business majors. While an extreme example, even the elite universities have academic focuses, attract students interested those, and accept students based on how strongly they want those interests represented in the student body.
You're getting it wrong, it's that people who get in, but don't go, have similar outcomes. That suggests that a lot of the value of the signal is in the inital filter, which seems like what you're saying.
>> people who apply to Harvard and don’t get in end up having similar incomes to those who did get in
No. People who apply to Harvard and do get in, but decide to go to some other college do as well as those apply to Harvard and do get in and go to Harvard.
The ability to get in to Harvard predicts outcomes, actually going there does not predict outcomes.
He suggests we should increase the number of spots at top schools. Perhaps. But I’m reading “End Times” by Turchin and this suggests “elite overproduction” is a major source of cultural instability. Maybe that’s wrong, but if so it would add an important reason to instead focus on the well being of “the productive class”, perhaps through expanding trade schools etc.
> “elite overproduction” is a major source of cultural instability
I'm ambivalent about Turchin's work, but there are corroborating theories on this; see the idea of "change merchants"[0], which posit that as more people (and especially more people with higher social rank and influence) deal in the virtual as opposed to the physical, there is an increasing amount of personal incentive on those involved to make sure that things change rapidly.
I guess if learning a trade could guarantee the kids a future (or at least make it look like guaranteed) I bet many people would go that way without any need for extra nudges. Picking up the trade of your parents was earlier a pretty fine plan in life. But today we are where we are and political influence seems like the only safe bet... "bet" because learning to gamble it is.
This is from a German perspective but learning a trade in Germany can be a ticket to good income and good life.
There's unfortunately the perception that trades are worth less than academics in Germany from a societal standpoint. I suspect it's somewhat similar in the US. That's part of the reason why we have a massive shortage of any skilled tradesperson in Germany. If you're an electrician or plumber you can basically pick your work.
The other part of course being that the apprenticeship salary and treatment is utter shit.
My brother completed an industrial electrician apprenticeship recently. Right out of the gate he received offers for 50-60k salaries. In Germany that's a really good salary.
It's about the same in the US, where being in the trades isn't exactly widely and highly regarded, but it will get you a middle-class lifestyle. The difference is that for the most part it's a lot harder work than an office job with an equivalent pay; you don't get paid if you don't work, you will have to work in 120ºF attics in the middle of the summer, and it will leave a toll on your body after decades.
Wow okay then the government (I know, the horror) would only need to work on the image issues and smoothing out the first steps. Or the trade schools need, or whoever cares about people getting a safe and very useful job - we all, I guess. (insert rant about traditional parties getting out of touch with such basic needs thus leaving room for extremists to grow)
It’s stunning that the left fought for decades for racial equality and free speech, only to do an abrupt about face.
But to stick to the current topic: these required dei statements are definitely ideological litmus tests, and the people promoting these are not “on the right side of history”, but authoritarians.
It was never about "free speech" but rather "how can we justify what we say to gain influence". Once sufficient influence has been acquired it is necessary to prevent opposition from wielding the same tool that gave you power. The common man may have been convinced that "free speech" was an ideal but ultimately they were being used or manipulated.
It makes more sense when you realize it's not the same left. The old left was much more on the hopeful/practical side of marxist thought focused on the economy as the alleged pathway of oppression, which gave them a focus on unionization and equal rights. The new left is much more influenced by the butt hurt, due to the utter failure of the system in the face of free market, decedents of old school marxism that has generalized marxist thought processes (i.e. critical theory) to all sorts of different alleged pathways of oppression. The new left comes much more out of the university and the legal profession and many of the different versions don't really like each other because critical theory doesn't give you coherent results and as such things that form the foundation of one version are considered abhorrent in another (i.e. put a critical race theorist and a queer theorist in a room and compare and contrast what the same base idea and reasoning system manifests as). The moderate center left is much more alienated under the new regime and is increasingly homeless as well because the new left isn't as willing to compromise its vision in return for incremental improvement (I think that's because it's not as unified a thought process as it was when it wasn't generalized but that's just my opinion)
I have similar extended family. They are very entitled and lazy. When they are given things, they don’t take care of them and they basically go to shit. They aren’t mean spirited but somehow lack all drive to take care of themselves. Without our social safety net, they’d either live off of family or simply die.
This is true on both sides of my family. Somehow my parents both are hard workers and have thrived, relatively speaking.
If individual effort doesn't produce commensurate rewards people learn to minimize effort instead of maximize reward, though individual variation will exist.
Isolated laziness is an individual foible, but wide-spread laziness is a market failure.
Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated, ie that people could not preferentially help their own children? Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?
in most european countries, university is mostly free. and they offer financial support for those who need it (because you still have to pay for food and rent if you can't live with your parents), which effectively does eliminate the ability for parents to help their children get into a good university.
> Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated
I don't know. I do think the world would be better off if we eliminated homelessness, hunger, student loan debt, medical debt, and political campaign financing. These are some of the worst consequences of economic inequality in society.
> Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?
Well, I personally don't think that so-called "meritocracy" is fair or ideal. I was born with some advantages over the majority of people, and my academic talents started to show at a relatively young age (with no "hard work" — it was easy work!), but I don't think I "deserved" to be born that way, nor do I think that I "deserve" more money than other people as a result of my advantages.
I understand capitalistic supply and demand, and that may be a decent economic system. It's not an inherently ethical system, however.
why does everything have to be a dual. in life practically nothing is. I can both be biased towards my children's success, and still understand that as a society we're all much better off giving some opportunity to the generally downtrodden.
Eg try to become an apprentice to someone talented. This would indeed be extremely valuable to anyone trying to learn a skill. The author then goes to great lengths giving advice on how to land a position like that when young.