Live data from Hacker News

Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

chronicle.com

141–150 of 307 posts

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#141
post #126

A bunch of commenters here have gotten fixated on two questions: (a) "meritocracy" and what it means or should mean and (b) whether the value of top colleges derives mainly from being exclusive. I think an interesting / illustrative case is the AMA as the credentialing authority for medical schools. An association of people in the profession, who have a clear interest in the supply of doctors being low, has a clear l…

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

If the parent's comment is true, I wouldn't trust the AMA to market itself honestly.

Ditto for legislative solutions. There's too much conflict of interest, susceptibility to lobbying, non-representation of marginalized groups or those who would be doctors but are not because of troubling practices, etc.

From Mises.org[0]

  To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formulated a two-pronged strategy for the labor market for physicians. First, use the coercive power of the state to limit the practices of physician competitors such as homeopaths, pharmacists, midwives, nurses, and later, chiropractors. Second, significantly restrict entrance to the profession by restricting the number of approved medical schools in operation and thus the number of students admitted to those approved schools yearly.

  AMA created its Council on Medical Education in 1904 with the goal of shutting down more than half of all medical schools in existence. (This is the Council having its 100th anniversary celebrated in Chicago this weekend.) In six years the Council managed to close down 35 schools and its secretary N.P. Colwell engineered what came to be known as the Flexner Report of 1910. The Report was supposedly written by Abraham Flexner, the former owner of a bankrupt prep school who was neither a doctor nor a recognized authority on medical education. Years later Flexner admitted that he knew little about medicine or how to differentiate between different qualities of medical education. Regardless, state medical boards used the Report as a basis for closing 25 medical schools in three years and reducing the number of students by 50% at remaining schools.
The article is thoroughly footnoted. One might take exception with specifics, but it seems hard to argue that the above is not approximately correct.

[0]: https://mises.org/library/100-years-medical-robbery

Edit: I see the downvotes, but don't see the justification. I know Mises is an often-unpopular resources, but the above article is well-researched. If there are problems with the line of reasoning, I'd love to hear your perspective on it.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using merit as a proxy for competence is where a lot of the trouble starts These debates tend to get diluted absent a specific meritocratic measure. With respect to college, I think the sole question to be answered by such a measure is probability of the admitee graduating. We are able, to some degree, to predict this. Given such a measure, it doesn’t make sense to give a seat to someone who has a 5% chance of grad…

> I think the sole question to be answered by such a measure is probability of the admitee graduating. A society where the only criteria for access to higher education is that one graduates - and then perhaps goes on to do nothing with their education, or even just maintains the status quo - is a failure in my book. If we wanted to look at their contributions to capitalism using a market measure (I'm not claiming thi…

[deleted]

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#143
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one wil…

But the smart people get networked into powerful circles. Lots of smart people get nowhere without having connections to people who control the money.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#144

We have lower-hanging fruit. If a college accepts students taking government-subsidised loans, or otherwise receives any federal funding, it should not be permitted to consider legacy [1] or institutional advancement for admissions. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

Why? I think legacy helps with the culture of a school. Legacy shouldn't get you in, but it should be part of the overall intention of class composition. If some 20% of people are good enough and have a family connection, I think it makes the institution stronger.

Sometimes maybe. Other times you have this story https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-16/qatar-pr...

Ultimately it reinforces a culture where influence can be passed to children.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#145
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays, the term is widely used in a positive way to describe 'creative minorities who bring real progress'. It is confusing to use the old opposing definition of the word 'meritocracy' when everybody else around you is adhering to the original meaning of 'merit'. Of course, whether or not we're able to accurately evaluate 'merit' is a decent question, but it is better to ask the question using metrics, than to try…

The point of the satire, and the point of TFA, is that measuring 'merit' is difficult, if not impossible, and a focus on 'meritocracy' will lead to promoting those that perform best at the measurable proxies to merit, not actual merit. It seemed worth pointing out that people are using a word conceived satirically to advocate for the very system that satire warned against . And it's an interesting bit of history.

Every good system need to strive to be a meritocracy, anyone arguing anything else is just talking nonsense. If it is impossible to determine who has more merit then every system is doomed to fail.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#146
post #23

Commenters bringing up "meritocracy" don't seem to realize that fair meritocracies rarely exist in society. Often, your merit allows your to accumulate more merit, making the merit function geometric rather than linear. When the merit function is geometric, all it takes is a small change of fortune to start a rapid rise or a rapid decline. "Turning 100 dollars into 120 is work. Turning 100 million into 110 million is…

We really need to interrogate the concept of meritocracy a lot more: "Many deride our meritocracy for not really working for the poor, for people of colour, for women; they see structural impediments to these groups as preventing a real meritocracy from flourishing. But I would put it to you a different way: What could be crueler than an actual meritocracy, a meritocracy fulfilled?" Because once we acknowledge that n…

This is obviously true. Nobody deserves to take pride in anything, whatever you consider "merit"; Mark Twain wrote an essay called "What is Man" arguing this. Everybody is a product of their environment.

On the other hand, remember what Roman Hruska said about needing some representation of mediocre people on the Supreme Court?

"We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."

...and people still make fun of it.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

If the parent's comment is true, I wouldn't trust the AMA to market itself honestly. Ditto for legislative solutions. There's too much conflict of interest, susceptibility to lobbying, non-representation of marginalized groups or those who would be doctors but are not because of troubling practices, etc. From Mises.org[0] To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formu…

Though I can believe there being a preference toward reducing competition, their argument is weakened by including homeopaths as maligned groups. Homeopaths are not competitors with physicians, as that would imply that homeopaths provide medical treatment. At best, homeopaths provide a placebo. At worst, they actively poison customers (e.g. belladonna teething tablets) and prevent them from seeking out actual medical care.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using merit as a proxy for competence is where a lot of the trouble starts These debates tend to get diluted absent a specific meritocratic measure. With respect to college, I think the sole question to be answered by such a measure is probability of the admitee graduating. We are able, to some degree, to predict this. Given such a measure, it doesn’t make sense to give a seat to someone who has a 5% chance of grad…

> I think the sole question to be answered by such a measure is probability of the admitee graduating. A society where the only criteria for access to higher education is that one graduates - and then perhaps goes on to do nothing with their education, or even just maintains the status quo - is a failure in my book. If we wanted to look at their contributions to capitalism using a market measure (I'm not claiming thi…

>> I think the sole question to be answered by such a measure is probability of the admitee graduating.

>A society where the only criteria for access to higher education is that one graduates - and then perhaps goes on to do nothing with their education, or even just maintains the status quo - is a failure in my book.

These two differing opinions showcase the problem with any meritocracy. That being - merit is ultimately subject to an opinion. This is not to say that a metric can be objectively used to determine merit (it can), it's that who's ultimately 'merrited' to determine what merits X?

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#149
post #3

College should be a meritocracy, it's just that we want people to be able to be able to afford it and not be shit out of luck if they can't go to it. This would also reduce stress as you don't have to worry about not getting into a college if you know your life is going to turn out fine either way. Why has this goal been malformed and twisted around to the point where people are coming up with any solution that doesn…

Meritocracy does not require strict ranking of individuals. Selecting cohorts instead of individuals is still meritocracy. You could use weighted probabilities, with higher scores meaning higher probabilities but still short of certainty, and it would still be meritocracy. The OP's point is that when measurement error is as large as it is for college admissions, using a simple lottery to narrow the cohort is as good…

> The OP's point is that when measurement error is as large as it is for college admissions, using a simple lottery to narrow the cohort is as good as any other method wrt getting the best students

Not really. Lets say every student scores within 10 percentage point of their true "merit". So if you only pick the top 1% scorers you actually could get students down in the top 11%. So why not just pick top 11% by random? Because when you pick a top 11% scorer you extend your range so you now could get as low as top 21%. Ranking them still matters quite a lot even if error range is larger than their pick range.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#150
FWIW in France until last year, admission to most universities (except the top ones) was through a draw ('tirage au sort à l'université'). It's been changed last year though not without controversies.

I don't know the historical context though about why and how it's been this way.

Post reply on HN