@kollegeguy In a static society cream that starts at the top tends to stay around the top.
Problem is, mutual disloyalty between employee and employer means that employers have less incentive to invest in education and training for the employee – the employer who invests in the education and training for the employee may bear most of the costs but gain few of the benefits if the employee goes to a different employer afterward.
@PurpleTitan
What I said is that you do not absolutely require nepotism to be successful. However, to rise to the top, to those positions of power, you have to be either ruthless, have loads of connections, or both. We are seeing an increasing amount of business and political leaders who hail from wealthy, prestigious backgrounds. These people not only are guaranteed a good education lest they full on fail there schooling, but are also guaranteed a cooperate or governmental position straight out of college.
While one from the lower classes may slowly climb up, the children of the wealthy often have a shot right up to the top. And by “wealthy” I do not mean children of 200K, 300K etc. I speak of the multimillionaires and billionaires, who undeniably have so much considerable financial pull that there is no way they will not attend at least a state flagship.
@Pizzagirl
No doubt many small business, local governments, even the lower to mid positions of a major corporation do not care about your Ivy education(which is an embellishment, it will look better than everyone’s no matter what) but your qualifications.
The issue is - that the children of the wealthy can get access to this form of education much, much easier than the lower classes can. For someone born into poverty, getting into an Ivy is a Herculean effort. They do not have access to good schools, to tutors, they may have to work possibly damaging there studying, they may not have time for extracurriculars, and will obviously not get Legacy.
The problem with this is that Ivy educations provide both the pedigree and connections necessary to get into positions of power. Upper government, upper business, these are the positions that dominate society as a whole. Continued social stratification creates an “us vs. them” dynamic for both sides. The wealthy will also be free of student debt - so crippling for many that it can prevent a successful career period.
At the end of the day, the dominance of ivies in everywhere that, on a societal scale, matters, is fairly clear.
Wasn’t that what “homogenization” was created for?
“The issue is - that the children of the wealthy can get access to this form of education much, much easier than the lower classes can. For someone born into poverty, getting into an Ivy is a Herculean effort. They do not have access to good schools, to tutors, they may have to work possibly damaging there studying, they may not have time for extracurriculars, and will obviously not get Legacy.”
And yet, on CC, everytime a black kid from the ghetto with a 3.8/2100 gets into a school, someone whines that their own privileged kid with a 3.9 / 2300 was unfairly overlooked.
"The problem with this is that Ivy educations provide both the pedigree and connections necessary to get into positions of power. Upper government, upper business, these are the positions that dominate society as a whole. Continued social stratification creates an “us vs. them” dynamic for both sides. The wealthy will also be free of student debt - so crippling for many that it can prevent a successful career period.
At the end of the day, the dominance of ivies in everywhere that, on a societal scale, matters, is fairly clear."
You’re simply, absolutely wrong about the “dominance of ivies everywhere.” You’re taking your little northeast-centric view of the world and applying it everywhere. I don’t think you truly understand that there are many, many places where the people-in-power-positions were NOT Ivy grads, but instead attended either a state flagship or some other school. And guess what? These people are just as powerful in their worlds as the Ivy grads are in theirs. You don’t think graduating from Texas A&M or Ole Miss means more than an Ivy in certain well-to-do circles? Of course it does. Absolutely. And you’re also not understanding that there is great wealth in this country from professions / people where elite educations aren’t needed. The guy who owes the largest t-shirt company in the country. The guy who owns a chain of successful car dealerships. Etc. You really aren’t getting this. These people have just as much wealth but it’s just not as “public” as some other professions. But guess what? They’ve got the same exact amount of power.
After almost 30 years in corporate recruiting I can pretty much categorically state that the best alumni networks in the country are SMU and Notre Dame.
So if you want to talk nepotism… start there. Harvard and Yale’s old boy network can’t compete with those two schools. The days where having gone to Harvard get you hired by your squash partners uncle are over (long over. But the 2008 recession was the final nail in the coffin).
@mamalion said:
[QUOTE=""]
Earl, I think you need to read some more. You could read the critiques of the Bell Curve, there are many criticisms of that simple old book and its ideas, or if that is too hard, you might go back to rgosula's post #84 or mom2and #50 and think about their comments as appropriate to the large system of US education. You might also consider reading the World's Smartest Kids and How they got that Way, which I suggested earlier in the thread; it compares HS educations around the world.<<
[/QUOTE]
I have read the critiques of the Bell Curve and found them to be almost completely without merit. Historically, those who have most protested the Bell Curve have cited as evidence against it things which the book actually used to support its case.
No one knows how much of a child’s intelligence is determined by nature vs. nurture. Certainly nurture plays a role. But what exactly do you want to do to completely eliminate the nurture advantage that highly intelligent people have? Like many parents, I taught my children to read prior to their entering kindergarten; it was somewhat time consuming. Do you think it right that children like these should be forced to just sit in a classroom full of illiterate children as their kindergarten and first-grade teacher slowly “teach” them the material they already know?
What I am hearing from the extreme left is that we need to reform our schools in “Harrison Bergeron” fashion, to ensure that we have equal results for all. And yet, if my efforts to educate my offspring are to be frustrated at every turn, while society gives all of its efforts over to helping the children of crack addicts, why shouldn’t I just spend my days smoking crack as well? If all my efforts to help my offspring are to be negated, then why go to the effort?
As a final note, I find it pretty amazing that we all accept that if two really tall people marry and breed their offspring will usually – but not always – be above average in height. Yet some simply refuse to accept that if two people who are well above average in intelligence breed their offspring will also in most cases have an above average IQ.
Earl, obviously you have a high IQ. I guess this because you keep returning to IQ and insisting it is some sort of gold standard of human measurement. Most people here (who also have high IQs) are writing about how nurture as marked by social factors all but determines who gets into the aristocracy and meritocracy. High IQ doesn’t mean one goes to Harvard or Oxford or National University of Singapore; many, many, many other factors are in play. IQ is one measure, but far less important than, say, grit by all the research I’ve seen.
There are many studies that draw conclusions on nature, nurture, and intelligence (twin studies, nutrition studies, orphanage studies). They are looking at different things, but they all “know” as much about intelligence as the “Bell Curve.” So I am not sure what you mean by “No one knows how much of a child’s intelligence is determined by nature vs. nurture.” Do you mean it is not clear for a specific child?
I haven’t heard anyone arguing for equal education results for all, though countries who are higher ranked on testing do aim for high results for all. I am not sure why high expectations of all is a bad thing. Is this what you are suggesting?
@mamalion - I think maybe @EarlVanDorn is conflating a few issues:
- Intelligent and middle/upper-class parents often have kids who are poised to succeed because of the parents' efforts.
- Intelligent parents often have kids who are poised to succeed because of their parents' genetics for smarts.
- Well-connected/well-off parents often have kids who are poised to succeed because of historically unfairly distributed American opportunities and resources.
- Intelligent parents often have kids who are smart and who are trained to work hard - these kids may earn many of their academic rewards along the way by their own efforts.
Here’s the problem: #1, #2, and #3 give enormous advantages to some kids who did nothing per se to deserve them. In our economy, we are having a larger and larger split between the “winners” and the “losers” and some of us in this thread are concerned when more “winners” are pushing down “losers” because of unfair advantages. We see #1, #2, and #3 as analogous to inherited wealth, titles, and power in an aristocracy. This would be less of a problem if we had more SES mobility in the US, but we seem to have less than ever based on studies.
It is a distraction to look at #4 exclusively. Even if we completely discount the head start and family resources that allow these kids to “earn their own merit” it still does not address the first three issues.
In and of itself, equal educational outcome (apart from being extraordinarily unlikely) is not necessary. But our country was founded on the ideal of equal educational opportunity and social mobility through effort and ability. Not inheritance.
I don’t really see what’s so “unfair” about using my resources as a parent to help my child succeed - whether that’s the resources I could buy (private lessons, etc.) or the modeling of hard work and perseverance. Indeed, that’s why my H and I busted our butts these last 20 years - to be able to provide our kids with those resources. We didn’t do the private school or private tutor or private lesson kind of thing, but we did work hard to provide the opportunity to be full-pay and I for one won’t apologize for that advantage!
@Pizzagirl - everyone (almost) on CC is the kind of parent who worked hard and wants to help lift up our own kids by giving them every advantage we have. What is “unfair” is not that you worked hard, used your resources, etc. It is that honestly, there was a huge dose of luck in there for you with your opportunities, and for your kids with theirs. And we have now a growing divide in terms of who has what kind of luck, in a way that is perpetuating a pseudo-aristocracy. It’s not about any individual family - it’s about a social trend.
The 80’s called, want their bogeyman back.
@EarlVanDorn, your very last example is not very good. Height is something can can easily be measured and nobody will dispute the measurement.
Intelligence is more amorphous, and not as easily measured. Some people may assume it exactly means IQ, others that it is success, other will think it is something else. (But I agree it does vary, just not easy o measure). Ever notice how people seem more intelligent in their native tongue, and not so much in their second or third language? Will education improve your innate intelligence? Is there even something as innate intelligence. Educated people seem more intelligent. I don’t know the answer.
My opinion is that people at the top of the economic ladder believe that they deserve the position they are in because they believe they are better. They do not recognize the luck of having been born in the situation they are in, which really is quite random, if you consider the miracle that life is.
I for one believe that every race on earth has the same intelligence and potential for success at conception on average. What happens afterwards depends on the opportunities given. But in today’s world, success is not evenly distributed across race, the only explanation I have is that not everyone was given the same opportunities. Humans were interbreeding in Africa for millions of years, before moving out of Africa in the last tens of thousands of years and producing the superficial racial distinctions we see today.
@mamalion The role of genetics in IQ is unknown, except that it exists. The general view is that 40-80 percent of differences in IQ are due to genetics.
I agree with you that “grit” is important. I know lots of people who have what I would estimate to be a 100-105 IQ who nevertheless make loads of money. But unless you can argue that “grit” is more commonly found in those with low IQs than high ones, then you can’t say “grit” is important on a macro scale. As a practical matter, many of the qualities that cause success are more likely to be found in those with high IQs, since smarter people are more likely to see the value in developing these good traits.
Life is a numbers game. Research shows that people who make high scores on IQ tests are more likely to have good outcomes and less likely to have bad life outcomes than those with lower IQs. That doesn’t mean they are guaranteed success, nor that those with mediocre IQ scores are doomed to failure. IQ is far more important in determining group rather than individual outcomes.
The premise on which The Bell Curve is based is that our society has become increasingly stratified on the basis of cognitive ability, and the relatively new tendency of people with high IQs to marry and associate exclusively with their cognitive equals was beginning to produce a self-perpetuating and relatively closed cognitive elite, both as a result of genetics and the impact of parental resources. How, pray tell, is that different from the observation in The Economist article that started this thread?
@fretfulmother I have certainly conflated the issues you describe, and in listing them you have presented an excellent synopsis of The Bell Curve.
I would point out that with the exception of adoptions “luck” did not place us in our families. I am a genetic extension of my parents. My children are genetic extensions of me and my wife.
You suggest that it is “unfair” for children to have an advantage due to their parents’ efforts. Do you really think it unfair that I got some old Dick and Jane books and taught my children to read at an early age? Many parents take a real interest in athletics, and their children invariably turn out to be far better athletes than they otherwise would have been. Is this unfair?
Is it unfair that some have a higher IQ due to genetics? As John Kennedy said, “life is unfair.” Some people have the genetic advantage of being tall; some are athletic; some are genetically predisposed to be gregarious; some are born to be attractive; some are destined to have few health problems. However, proposals to “level the playing field” are fraught with peril.
Those who criticize The Bell Curve (without reading it) are often under the mistaken impression that Murray and Hernstein “celebrate” the emergence of a large and more static cognitive elite. Quite the opposite; they see it as a moral dilemma.
As I look around, and see so many young people following their parent’s footsteps, it’s pretty clear that when your family owns a business, knows a field or business, you have an edge. I see many doctors with kids going into medicine and if there is a private practice involved, I am seeing it passed down. Yes, inheritance of knowledge as well as goods happen.
@EarlVanDorn - I haven’t read The Bell Curve (I think someone else mentioned it, not me).
It’s not luck that you, having been born of your parents, have their genes (!) - the luck part is that you, as you, were born under those circumstances and another child was not.
I actually am not in favor of some general “leveling of the playing field” - it’s just that I do see a problem with inherited aristocracy when it comes up against what I feel are American values of equal opportunity. Seeing a dilemma is not necessarily a call for a particular solution, and indeed I do not have one in mind.
Obviously I read to my kids and teach them stuff all the time, but is it unfair? Oh, probably. At least no one will ever accuse me of giving them any athletic ability. 
unless you are prepared to argue that the barriers to entry in medicine are that you haven’t inherited a practice, I find this idea somewhat irrelevant.
There are SO MANY barriers to entry in medicine- an artificially low number of seats in medical schools, licensing, etc. that the small number of physicians who inherit a practice is likely a rounding error. And since most practicing docs these days describe their private practices as financial albatrosses (they are selling out to large med/management and hospitals in droves) it’s hardly the step forward it would have been in the 1930’s or so when a practice was a reasonably lucrative annuity.
The social capital that an upper middle class kid inherits is substantial- I won’t argue that. But whenever someone here puts forward the claim that it’s important for a lower middle class kid to understand that his professional options are not deciding between accounting and nursing, the “vocational police” jump down that poster’s throat to call him/her insensitive.
Ha! My husband is actually a physician who “inherited” his father’s practice - but inherited isn’t really the right word, he bought into the existing partnership the * exact same way * that a stranger would have bought into it. I don’t know a single doctor who would want his kids to go into medicine, much less hand down a practice. He’s now in solo practice and he’s a dinosaur. The wave of the future is selling out to hospitals or medical clinic management companies. This ain’t the way to pass down the family treasure, at all.
"What is “unfair” is not that you worked hard, used your resources, etc. It is that honestly, there was a huge dose of luck in there for you with your opportunities, and for your kids with theirs. "
Yes, there’s luck insofar as we weren’t born with chronic and costly illnesses, and things of that nature. And in the global scheme of things, we’re lucky that we’re Americans. OTOH, I for one am the daughter of a man who dropped out of high school, got a GED while serving in Vietnam, and later became a business big-shot, and I grew up in a 12-foot-wide rowhouse in Philadelphia that makes Archie Bunker’s rowhouse look palatial. And it took a heck of a lot of hard work to get where I am. There are very few people who are truly golden-spoon, inherited-everything these days.