Comments on: Equal Chances for Equal Talent

By: Cookies

Cookies — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:12:53 +0000

Good blog.

By: Not a controversy «

Not a controversy « — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:37:43 +0000

[...] (and I’m a freakin’ libertarian!). Ensuring perfect equality of opportunity may be a chimera, but given the United States’ legacy of institutional and social discrimination, a [...]

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:08:05 +0000

Stuart, you need more than a corelation to get a causal effect. Some countries may look equal simply because of the effects of the tax system on actual incomes and incentives for effort.

By: Tracy W

Tracy W — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:20:26 +0000

sus - in the case you describe, I actually feel sorry for those kids. Whatever their parents are giving them, it doesn't include the ability to stand on their own two feet, and write their own uni papers. My parents didn't buy me a car or a condo or a credit card, but at least I got enough of an education at school to get a degree without relying on my parents doing the work, and I can get jobs without my parents' help - things the young people you describe lack. (And of course, since I actually had to learn the material for my degrees, I have enough information stashed away in my head to allow for hours of mental occupation). I think you are wrong in asserting that these kids had everything. They strike me as seriously lacking.

Others, because of financial situations and/or geography did not. Do they not deserve a chance?

Well, there's a problem of scale here. We can't expect an entire society to function like the family in your example does, some people actually need to learn how to do things directly. Do you want every one in the country to be able to get through medical school with their mum doing all the work? What happens when mum drops dead - who will train the next generation if no young person ever needs to do their own work at university?

People say that it's due to lack of education that some folks don't succeed, yet they don't want to extend any help to those who are not in a position to get that education.

Who, exactly, are these people who don't want to extend any help to those who are not in a position to get that education? Government spending on schools strikes me as one of the most popular forms of government spending there is, and as stated above, scholarships are a common form of private charity.

I also note again that the 2 young people you describe are not apparently getting an education, instead their mum is.

By: jeannine

jeannine — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:53:17 +0000

One of the best solutions would be for higher education and training for all citizens.Access to unions for all and eliminate the unpaid internships{who but the wealthy can afford to work for free?}.

By: thisniss

thisniss — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:47:46 +0000

Equality of outcome is not measurable, nor attainable. Equal access to opportunity is easier to achieve. The clearest example you give is with a legacy student versus a merit scholarship student. The very existence of merit scholarships (and of “affirmative action” in, particularly, academic settings) is to counter-balance the inherent *unfairness* of “legacy” (or, as you would say, “network”) access to opportunities. That's not actually a difficult thing to explain, to measure, nor to implement.

Anyone who wishes to argue that it “hasn't worked” needs to review the past fifty years in our country. How many new members of the middle class were granted entry because they “earned in” via the commitment to equality-of-opportunity born in the civil rights era? Our middle class has grown more as a result of this commitment than at any other time in US history – and the necessity of “legacy” connections had diminished, until the reversals of the Heritage Foundation Supremes led by Scalia coupled with the “deregulation” fanaticism of the new Right leadership in Congress to cordon off access to opportunities for those outside their approved networks. And… here we all are again.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:00:07 +0000

Surely Plato did a better job of following this train of thought in The Republic? According to him, you need to raise the children of the powerful in orphanages to ensure that network effects won’t inefficiently assign powerful jobs to the (unqualified) children of the powerful.

Frankly, when something sounds stupid coming from Plato, it is doubtful it will sound smart coming from anyone else.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:29:54 +0000

it's *supposed* to be a “huge boon to kids with no connections or resources who are zoned to bad high schools”. (these are mostly minority schools.) in reality, we have seen a reverse white flight, where parents move and enroll their kids in a lesser performing school so that their student will be in the top 10%.

By: stuart

stuart — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:37:42 +0000

'True equality of opportunity is unachievable'
Noone claims it is achievable, however that does not mean its not a worthy goal

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:07:13 +0000

How terribly sad, rox.

Leaving aside third world countries for a moment and focusing on the country that we the people of the United States live in and are responsible for, I do believe that there are ways, both a touch socialist and coldly capitalist in nature, to better provide awareness of, and access to, opportunities to realize human potential throughout our population and that anything done to strengthen our greatest resource, our people, makes us a more competitive and successful nation.

Apparently, "fate" is too powerful a force for you. Perhaps we should all just forget our ambitions, weep about the fate of third world geniuses and wait for "fate" to determine the course of our lives.

Well, I'm sure that those of us with spines can find ways to discover and nurture our next generation of leaders, thinkers and athletes, wherever they happen to be born. The first question we must ask ourselves is do we want to maintain our competitive edge in the world? If you are a patriotic American, your answer should be yes. The next question, then, is how do we do that?

Well, there are many roads to Rome. But whining about fate on the side of the road gets you nowhere.

By: GU

GU — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:43:09 +0000

Hear, hear!

By: rox

rox — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:03:16 +0000

“thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered…either by themselves or others. But for the Civil War, Sherman, Grant, Lincoln and Sheridan would not have been discovered, nor risen to notice.” (Mark Twain, autobiography.)

“Captain Strormfield arrived in heaven eager to get sight of those unrivaled and unequaled military geniuses Ceaser, Alexander and Neopolian. but was told by an old resident of heaven that they didn't amount to much there as military genuses…….by comparison with a certain colossal military genius, a shoemaker by trade, who had lived and died unknown in a New England Villiage and had never seen a battle in his earthy life” Mark Twain, Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven.

the point being that opportunity is often unequaled to talent – and that fate has a way of deciding who is discovered and who is successful and who is powerful irregardless of talent. Mark Twain insisted when promoted as the world's greatest humorist that it simply wasn't true, that he had met the greatest humorist in a mining camp as a young man, who was illiterate and unknown. The best humorist never saw a stage and the best military genius never saw a battle. I think of this everytime I hear someone touted as the best at something. Maybe there is a child in some third world country that would be the worlds best athlete except he most probably will life and die undiscovered.

By: sus

sus — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:50:14 +0000

I know 2 young people from the same family.

One is in college right now. Her mother does all her papers. I mean all of them. They buy two sets of books every term so the mother can have a set. The internet is a great tool to email papers. They are paying lots of tuition right now. When she's out, I'm sure she'll be fine. But, she does very little in school. (or otherwise, as a luxury car, condo, credit card are also part of the deal.)

The other has graduated from school. Pretty sure it was the same deal. But, through his father's connections, he has a nice job. Oh, he still doesn't have to pay his bills, but still. Now, he is a great kid, so he probably didn't even need his father's connections, but, why not?

It happens. All the time.

These young people had everything. They went to good schools growing up. Others, because of financial situations and/or geography did not. Do they not deserve a chance?

People say that it's due to lack of education that some folks don't succeed, yet they don't want to extend any help to those who are not in a position to get that education.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:55:39 +0000

The only chance of equality existing is in a static state. I have 750 LP's but no turntable, so each LP has an equal chance, zero, of being played. I have 750 CD's and a CD player. No CD is playing now so each CD has a 100% chance of being selected, but once I make a choice, an end to the static state, equality is ended. Bob

By: Mark J.

Mark J. — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:36:43 +0000

No one could prove that the disadvantaged kids have less potential. I certainly don't think that or make that assumption. They do generally have less accomplishments, though that is a result of a lack of opportunities. Better schools have more AP programs, better teachers, more parent funding and less extra-curricular problems. That's just a sad fact of school inequality.

I agree with you that not getting into your dream school isn't actually that big of a deal. It feels like it to the kids who are denied their opportunity, but I am just fine with the 10 percent rule.

Maybe I was playing devil's advocate a bit. I certainly didn't mean to sound like I oppose the rule. I was just throwing it out there for discussion, to see if anyone had any thoughts on it vis a vis Wilkonson's article.