Why Does the U.S. Have the Best Research Universities? (2020)

Your definition of meritocracy to be related only to those that have political power is not a universal definition. Merriam Webster defines it as "a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated".

But let's go with just political power. Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

This, once again, owing to the exorbitant amount of money spent on healthcare both by the public and the government. A lot of people seem surprised that our government spends way more money on healthcare than a lot of other countries and yet the system disenfranchises the vast majority of its consumers.

In fact, US citizens subsidize the healthcare of other countries as well. The money we are forced to spend on absurd medicine costs goes directly into making it cheaper in other parts of the globe. The standard for treatment and care is decided in the US at the expense of her citizens, and then it is offloaded to the rest of the world where it becomes cheap. Doctors from other parts of the world go to medical school in the US, once again subsidized by citizens, and then go home and take that knowledge with them. If other countries paid their “fair share” it would likely result in total medical costs going down in the US.

If you need a pill, go to another country. If you need treatment for an extremely rare disease there is no better place than the US (supposing you can afford it). This isn’t so much a complaint despite myself being a victim of the system, but rather the reality of it. America subsidizes the cheap healthcare of the rest of the world. This is why, on a practical level, a system on par with Europe in the US is fiscally intractable. To both subsidize the world and continue to lead the standard of treatment and care, the taxpayer would be on the hook for an absurd amount of money. I’ve yet to see an accurate tax burden calculation but I’d imagine it would be several dozen trillion a year, or around a flat 800-1000% increase in current taxes along with trimming the budgetary fat.

No, I haven't said anything about my concerns nor did I intend to.

> DIE is also implemented all over the government

That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

> Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

Simply put the fact that you can slip to a pretty low bottom in the US (as opposed to the guaranteed safety net in some other countries) motivates those individuals capable of high achievement to produce the best research. This is why the US has basically the biggest companies, the best researchers, the most dominant pop-culture, etc. Basically, everyone knows that if you don't continue to pursue whatever it is, you can sink to the bottom, and there's not as strong a safety net.

It's also the source of America's constant 'self-improvement' and 'self-help' culture [2].

When people have a guarantee of a good life no matter what, they get complacent.

My explanation also explains why some of the most successful people come from such low backgrounds. For example, successful businessmen like Larry Ellison had some pretty tough childhoods. This makes sense, since those who've experienced such lows will naturally be more afraid of going back than for those for whom it's a more abstract concept.

As another example, this is why Arab countries have much higher rates of females in STEM, than more progressive countries. Simply put, the women know that a STEM degree is a ticket to a better life somewhere else, rather than staying in their own country.

[1] The US also has some of the worst outcomes. The distributions are much wider in the US than other countries in many aspects of life -- income, access to healthcare, education, etc.

[2] and yes these two things feed off each other

EDIT: Why downvote when you can engage? It's really quite strange in the modern day when you can have a musing, and instead of supposedly intellectually curious people engaging, you're just downvoted.

It is an allegation that has been determined twice by courts not to hold water.

People can allege anything, and they often do for political or pr reasons (politics being the real reason for this case, imho).

> Not sure what is the cause for your defensiveness

I have lived in Asian for 9 years of my profession life, and I am active in parts of the local Asian American community. My concern/defensiveness is that this claim of discrimination is widely repeated despite being refuted by the courts. I appreciate that you want people to read the case details themselves, but most people don’t do that, and they defer to people (like me and you) who do read the details for thought leadership.

In California, where I currently live, there are very real, irrefutable acts of discrimination happening against Asian Americans. These really need to be dealt with. Admissions at elite schools is not one of them, and repeating a claim on this topic that has not been supported by the courts or the case details (at least imho) is just adding fuel to the outrage fire as well as taking attention away from real discrimination that is happening.

That’s just my 2 cents. I don’t feel the need to persuade anyone in particular, but I really wish HN folks would discuss this topic in a more informed way. I add my contributions so that folks can see a more detailed/nuanced side to this issue that is rarely presented in the press. Do with it what you will.