Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quote Meritocracy Unquote

braythwayt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#101

Post by turtle4 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #96
Jare wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it? In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Physical limits and other regulations even things out but, particularly in computer and digital products and services, physical limitations are less and less important.

In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Could you explain this claim?

He's saying in an absolute meritocracy, things are only awarded by merit. Given the choice between awarding a contract to company A or company B, once A has already shown to have more merit than B, all future work would logically go to A, and B would die out.

Presuming that A doesn't do something to demonstrate they don't deserve merit any longer, why would you ever go with a proven inferior (B) option, or an option that is unproven altogether (C)? Hence, a trend toward a single dominating entity.

In reality, I think things are more nuanced, of course. No one awards purely on merit, as you also have timing, capacity, and costs to balance. I'm not really aware of any market that you could consider a -true- meritocracy to the extent of the GP comment. And maybe I misread the comment altogether, but that is my understanding.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#103

Post by mindcrime »

nhaehnle wrote: post #78
mindcrime wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if you believe the narrative that some people seem to be promoting (not raganwald, mind you, I'm generalizing a bit here), they'd have you believe that going to a State school is like a career death sentence or something... the narrative seems to be "Ivy League or you might as well commit suicide, unless you're the rare lucky chump like Zuckerberg or Gates". I'm just pointing out that things aren't quite s…

> the narrative seems to be "Ivy League or you might as well commit suicide, unless you're the rare lucky chump like Zuckerberg or Gates". Both of which actually did go to Ivy League schools, so they are actually counterexamples to what you are trying to say. They may not have graduated, but to focus on that is to miss the point. The point is that these Ivy League schools come with networks, which are more important…

The point is that these Ivy League schools come with networks, which are more important than the education itself. When you are part of such a network, you are more likely to be considered for high-ranking positions.

I don't disagree with that, but I think the value of that may be overstated. That's all I'm saying. Again, I would not try to tell somebody to not attend an Ivy League school... what I'm saying is that there is plenty of evidence that one can attend a non-Ivy League school, even the oft-derided "State university" and still have a good chance at an amazing career. Not just a good career mind you, but amazing, as I would consider making it to the level of "S&P 500 CEO" to be pretty dang amazing.

So, if you're just starting out, just out of high-school, and you know that you absolutely want to be CEO of a S&P 500, or Fortune 500 company one day, then by all means, do everything in your power to get into Harvard or Stanford or Yale or Princeton or Brown or Columbia or something. It can't hurt. BUT... if you're willing to accept, say, only being CEO of a multi-million dollar company that nobody has ever heard of, you certainly aren't out of the running if you go to a State university. And, as seen above, you aren't even out of the running for the S&P 500 gig either. Maybe you'd have to work a little harder, or have a little more luck to get there, but it obviously can be done.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#104

Post by mindcrime »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #63
mindcrime wrote: post #31

First of all, I absolutely agree with the general sentiment of this article. And I don't mean to nitpick, but I just want to point out something about this bit: But we don’t ask why they know their stuff. How did they get into a good university? Depending on exactly how you define "good university", I contend that the importance of this may be overstated. For the sake of argument, let's go with the idea that to many…

This is bad statistics. You're cherry-picking the state schools to consider (plus what Evbn said). The S&P 500 has ~500 CEOs, so some random deviation is to be expected. (This is purely a methodological comment; I haven't looked at any data either way. I agree, at least, that going to a state school should not mean that your life is over.)

I'm not cherry-picking anything, I'm just relating what's in the study. And while all state schools may not be equivalent that isn't the point... the point, at least the point I was getting at is this: There is an existence proof (multiple ones, actually) that you don't need to have attended an Ivy League school to become the CEO of an S&P 500 firm.

The bigger point I'd also make, going along with my reply to somebody else about how "the world is a lot bigger than the S&P 500" is that there no reason at all to think that not attending an Ivy League school means you won't be able to have a great career, even being a CEO or whatever. You might just be CEO of a sock manufacturing firm that nobody other than the employees and owners has ever heard of. But that's still a pretty damn good career compared to a lot of the alternatives. :-)

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#105

Post by Jare »

turtle4 wrote: post #101
yummyfajitas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Could you explain this claim?

He's saying in an absolute meritocracy, things are only awarded by merit. Given the choice between awarding a contract to company A or company B, once A has already shown to have more merit than B, all future work would logically go to A, and B would die out. Presuming that A doesn't do something to demonstrate they don't deserve merit any longer, why would you ever go with a proven inferior (B) option, or an option…

You read it correctly, thanks a lot of clarifying my terse comment. Naturally, no market is going to behave perfectly like this, but I think it's important to understand where the natural tendency points to, and what kind of elements will alleviate, smooth or otherwise disrupt the absolute winner-takes-all nature. If you are going to say deliver a new product, you need to understand that unless your product has something superior to the competition or you can subvert the meritocratic dynamics (say, through marketing & PR), it will likely die because there's no reason NOT to choose a competitor.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#106

Post by mindcrime »

jaimebuelta wrote: post #80
mindcrime wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if you believe the narrative that some people seem to be promoting (not raganwald, mind you, I'm generalizing a bit here), they'd have you believe that going to a State school is like a career death sentence or something... the narrative seems to be "Ivy League or you might as well commit suicide, unless you're the rare lucky chump like Zuckerberg or Gates". I'm just pointing out that things aren't quite s…

"... unless you're the rare lucky chump like Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison" is a better example

Fair enough, I was thinking in terms of "graduated from an Ivy League school", but point taken.

Anyway, that I could have chosen a better example doesn't negate the point, that you can certainly be very successful without having attended an Ivy League school.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#107

Post by raldi »

thewarrior wrote: post #82

After reading the article , uncomfortable thoughts began to float into my consciousness . A sense of unease at having to confront the hypocrite within . We as a species have progressed so far and have built up such complex societies that life seems far removed the Darwinian struggles of the jungle . Perhaps stemming from an innate sense of fairness or hoping to maximise societal potential we try and impose our own me…

Out of curiosity, why do you put a space before the period at the end of your sentences? It makes them hard to read, and confuses word-wrap.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#108

Post by raldi »

regal wrote: post #83

The article has some good points. However, it loses a lot of credit by waving off Donald Trump's successes as being the result of a monetary investment not accessible to the many. Trump's real success comes from the education available to him via his father and his father's company, also not accessible to the many - but how many children have successful businessmen birthed who never surpassed or even matched their fo…

I think you've totally missed the point of the article. It's not saying Trump is bad at real estate, but rather that there might be a million people who are even more talented at it, but will never discover that fact.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#109

Post by JacksonGariety »

EliRivers wrote: post #90
JacksonGariety wrote: post #57

The tl;dr at the bottom is elegant. I might start doing that.

In the old days that's what we used to call a summary. If you like that sort of thing and think you might like to do it yourself, reading up on how to write essays and the like will be very informative.

I'm not talking about the summary itself, I'm more referring to the way it sits on the page:

"Broadly speaking:" Blockquote Italics Line underneath

The summary is also well written.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#110

Post by lingben »

Donald Trump is NOT successful investing in real estate. His projects go bankrupt left and right and his net return overall has been abysmal when compared to others who really are great investors.

Trump is good at two things: image and self-promotion.

Post reply on HN