TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) -Part II

History, religion and culture
Post Reply
harimau
Posts: 1819
Joined: 06 Feb 2007, 21:43

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) -Part II

Post by harimau »

I am sure most persons looked at the 34-page article by Prof George Hart, referenced in another thread, and decided not to read it.

Well, here is another one of those too-long articles.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/559130/

This article talks about how the middle class in the US, whom the author calls the 9.9%, has gamed the system in such a way that they retain their position in the economic hierarchy and how difficult it is for the poorer 90% (the billionaires and the super rich make up the remaining 0.1%) to rise above their station in life. In particular, the tax breaks that is seemingly available to all but in practice is utilized to the maximum extent by the 9.9% and admissions to top universities perpetuate the stranglehold this group has on its position in the economic strata and prevent the upward mobility of the bottom 90%. The author states that the claims of meritocracy are bogus and self-serving and if someone goes to a better high school and on to a better university, it is all due to the purchasing power of the 9.9%. Given access to same quality high schools and universities, he claims, will shatter the claim that the 9.9% made it entirely on merit.

In the Indian context, it will mean that Brahmins cannot claim that they rose above others because of meritocracy. We got to where we are by gaming the system! We deserve to be brought down several notches so that all persons may have equal opportunity.

But reading the article carefully, the author demands that top universities abolish legacy quotas so that children of alumni are not automatically preferred over other applicants. In the Indian context, this would mean that the so-called "creamy layer" should not be eligible to utilize the opportunities afforded by reservations but compete in the open category.

Interesting concepts that are thought provoking, if one uses one's brain for thinking! :lol:

In related news, several newspapers recently reported on bias in admissions to Harvard University. Using statistical analysis, it has been shown that Asians are under-represented and Whites are over-represented when measured by academic and extra-curricular achievements in high school. Admissions counselors at Harvard give lower marks for "personality" to Asian students while giving higher marks to Whites, thus skewing admissions in favor of Whites. In these instances, the admissions counselors have not met the applicants face to face. But Asians fare as well as Whites in assessment of their personality in face to face meetings with upperclassmen who assist in the admissions process. The sttistics show that Hispanics, Blacks and members of the Native American Indian tribes have a far better chance, (that explains Elizabeth Warren :lol: ) getting closer to near certainty for Blacks, of getting admitted to Harvard but Asians suffer discrimination. You can search Washington Post or New York Times for this information.

I am reminded of University of California Berkeley facing the same charges some twentyfive years ago where the Asian quota was illegally fixed to be twenty seven percent. The excuse was that the University had an obligation to have a diverse student body and pure meritocracy would have meant that UC Berkeley would have a predominantly Asian student body. I also remember one of the Regents of UC Berkeley, himself a Black man, opposed the 10% quota for African-Americans, preferring that they should compete on an equal footing.

Why is this relevant for us, you may ask. It is relevant because your children and grandchildren will face this unspoken discrimination when seeking admission to Harvard.

Post Reply