Success is comparable. If you are comparing yourself to Gates daughter or Chelsea Clinton then sure, you will most likely not surpass their “success” due to the luck they achieved straight out of the womb.
But if you work reasonably hard, show up to work on time, etc you should have a pretty decent life…it all depends on your attitude. Now, you might get terribly unlucky and suffer some unforeseen issue but on average, I believe you will do quite well.
I am not really sure what the issue is in this thread re: merit? As regards college admissions though, if the issue is a disagreement with considering merit in admissions, I disagree with that and think it should be considered much more than it is currently. Especially when the achievement is independent/objective…like USAMO or AIME…
Put it another way, your parents’ circumstances and choices in large part determine what limits to (potential) achievement you may face, but whether you will approach or run into such limits is based on your own ability and motivation.
But note that parents’ circumstances and choices impose limits beyond high school graduation, most obviously in terms of how much they are able and willing to pay for your college (or any other post-secondary) education.
Have to disagree with this. My daughter made herself an athlete. She was a tiny, skinny thing when she first started playing. Even through high school she was pretty small (5’ 1") but she went to strength and conditioning work outs, started running, did extra to improve. Nature or nurture? Well, she’s adopted so I think it is more nurture but she also has a natural drive to accomplish things.
Could she have been a college basketball or volleyball player? No, she’s too short. Some things are determined by genetics, but she had a choice to develop the skills she needed to do ‘her’ thing. She did this with music too, while she enjoyed it, and definitely with academics. She was very driven.
Genetics plays an enormous role in so many aspects of life, especially in academics. No doubt a willingness to work hard and perservere in the face of difficulty - “drive” and “grit” - is also highly dependent on one’s genetics. We are stuck at the question whether this is “fair.”
Perhaps the answer lies in moving away from whether it is “unfair” that some enjoy inborn advantages. Does the society overall benefit from a system in which the most capable are sustained and rewarded? Like democracy, perhaps our system is the worst possible, except for all the others.
To me it sounds like some of y’all are saying that some people are born genetically inferior. Is that what you mean? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying, like certain people or certain groups of people are genetically inferior to other people or other groups of people.
So is your view that we shouldn’t encourage those who do well, for whatever reason, and we should endeavor to make sure everyone is equal?
We should discourage and eliminate the exceptional? Usain Bolt should have had weights strapped to him as it was unfair that he was better than anyone else could become?
I prefer to try to make everyone the best they can be. And that doesn’t mean putting slow runners in the Olympic sprinting programs because they really, really want to.
From what I understand, about 2% of people are adopted. So for the vast majority of people, your parents are determined at birth. And depending on the circumstances of the adoption, that itself is a huge determination of your life going forward that essentially was made by your parents. Same is true of divorced parents. Kids don’t typically get a say in whether their parents divorce or remarry (and if they do to whom they remarry). They also don’t get to pick if their parents die or are single parents (and ultimately there are no single parents – just one parent that doesn’t support their kids). How about this: You don’t get to pick your parents? Is that better?
I never said genetics or parents were the only factors. So citing other factors doesn’t make the factors I did cite bunk (complete or otherwise).
I disagree with this. Intelligence, athletic ability, musical/artistic ability, etc play significant roles in success of people. And luck is just another part of something that isn’t earned. Hard work makes a difference between where you fall on your personal spectrum/range.
My statement wasn’t about being a coach or sportswriter. I was about being an elite athlete. And raw talent is necessary but not sufficient.
Again, I was talking about being an elite athlete.
[quote]Ever hear of “Eddie The Eagle” who ski jumped for the UK at the
Olympics?[/quote]
Ever hear that exceptions don’t disprove the rule?
I think people are born different. Doesn’t make anyone better or worse as a person. Do you think we are all born with the same aptitudes for everything? And we all have the same ceilings in everything determined only by how hard we work at it?
She was an elite athlete in her sport, played in the NCAA tournament twice, was named to the coaches’ elite team. She’s trying out for a national team this fall.
You do have to do the sport your body is built for but you can make it better. She couldn’t have been Lebron James playing in the NBA, but then again, I doubt Lebron could play lacrosse (or be a gymnast or ice skater).
Academically, she was very far behind her peers. She couldn’t read until third grade, and that made her slow in other subjects too. She did the work, slow and steady.
BUT he got in because he worked hard to get in! He saw something he dreamed of and went for it and he made it happen. Was he the best in the world, no, but best in his country? Well for a time he was at least at the Olympic level!
I think this thread has strayed from its original premise and I’m sorry if I played a part in that. I think that 1Rubin was hoping to have a discussion about leveling the playing field and how kids who have a head start through built-in advantages of socio-economic status, etc, seem to be deemed worthy of “merit” while kids who do not have those built-in advantages of high SES, etc, often are not deemed worthy of “merit”.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of the history. He got in because he knew he would be the only Nordic jumping competitor for England. As such, he was the de facto representative by just showing up. The Olympic rules have been changed to disallow competitors who are grossly below world standards from doing that. It is referred to within the IOC as the “Eddie the Eagle Rule.” So no, he didn’t work hard to make it happen. He showed up, when no one else did and was an international embarrassment.
@twoinanddone Sorry. You indicated your daughter made herself an athlete but you did not say an elite athlete. Though tiny and skinny doesn’t necessarily mean she didn’t have athletic talent (and I suspect she did) to become an elite athlete which most people do not have. But even if she is an exception, that doesn’t disprove the rule. Not sure why it is controversial. Majority of people do not have the athletic ability to become an elite athlete (in any sport) no matter how hard they work.
@sweetgum. I don’t think the thread strayed. I think what is being discussed is part and parcel of what the OP raised (at least how I read the OP).
You misunderstood what I meant. He had a dream. He made it happen. It doesn’t matter how good he was. I am very familiar with his story.
He wanted to be in the Olympics and it’s a lot of work to get to the Olympics. I mean I’m not a ski jumper either and I would be daunted if I had to figure out the hoops to jump through to even begin to make that happen. He did work hard! His goal wasn’t to become a gold medalist. His goal was to be in the Olympics ala the Jamaican bobsleigh team. He just wanted to be a part of it and he made it happen through grit and determination, not through his genetics or his parentage.
And he wasn’t an embarrassment. He was much beloved!
What confuses me about this argument is that not everyone who is born into a “head start” gets merit aid. All people who get merit aid have to work for it, and without it many of those with a “head start” couldn’t afford college. People who are low SES and work for it get additional aid not available to “head start” people for whom merit is the only aid available. And that’s great that they get funding they need.
But college remains financially out of reach most people, including “head start” people, without some kind of aid. The competition for merit aid is fierce. I get that merit aid is easier to chase when you have resources, but merit money is hard to come by for everyone, and need based aid is completely out of reach to some.
The assumption that merit money goes to people who didn’t earn it doesn’t follow.
He got in because no one else in the country did it.