<p>If someone could exhibit only one of these qualities, which one would make people DESERVE (in your mind) to go to the most selective colleges?</p>
<ul>
<li>How hard they work in high school.</li>
<li>How naturally intelligent they are.</li>
<li>How much they will eventually help society because of their education.</li>
<li>How much of their childhood they're willing to sacrifice to EC's they don't like.</li>
<li>How many actual accomplishments they have (ie starting a business, running a political campaign, or being published somewhere prestigious, not winning some award).</li>
<li>How good of a leader and how charismatic they are.</li>
<li>How high their grades will be and how many leadership positions at ECs they will have at the potential college.</li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t believe that anyone is inherently more deserving of anything than anyone else. In my mind, an illiterate criminal is equally “deserving” of going to a selective college as the next Einstein. The capacity to work tirelessly, for example, does not exist in a vacuum – it is a product of our genetic makeup and our upbringing, which we can exert no control over. The same principle applies to all other personal characteristics. I associate the notion of “deserving” something with the idea that free will exists, and both are spurious conceptions. However, if the question is who should be admitted into such institutions, the answer is the people who will make the most of their education – thus, the third criterion is paramount (how much they can benefit society with the education they receive).</p>
<p>Ah, I expected someone would make that argument, although I’m surprised it was in the first reply! Indeed, nobody has control over their genetic makeup, but by your argument, nobody is ever “deserves” anything, and I find that a very suspect notion. While free will may or may not exist, it seems paramount to me that we operate as if it does exist, given that the universe appears to function in a manner in which free will exists. It seems ludicrous to me to claim that nobody is responsible for any of their actions when it at least seems as if we can determine our actions, and that is EXACTLY what you are saying when your argument is carried to its logical conclusion.</p>
<p>As for your second point, your statements contradict each other. In my mind, the student who choses the seventh option “makes the most” out of his education, because “making the most” is a very self-centered notion. The utilitarian third option, however, is a much more selfless conception: “whatever benefits the most people the most is the best.”</p>
<p>Your criteria have a bit of overlapping and understatement going on. It could be reduced to:</p>
<ul>
<li>How hard they work in high school AND how naturally intelligent they are</li>
<li>How much they will eventually help society because of their education.</li>
</ul>
<p>Now it just so happens that these two are often concurrent qualities</p>
<p>That said, I agree with begoner on both points.
First, no one deserves it - “There, but for the grace of God, go I”
Second, getting high grades is not making the most of your eduction - “The great aim of education is not knowledge but action”</p>
<p>If you assume that we can determine our own actions, you must also assume that the universe does not operate according to a consistent set of principles or that human thoughts are exempt from the laws which govern the universe. To some extent, I agree that we can “determine” our actions insofar as our actions are dictated by the interactions of various particles in our bodies rather than extraneous forces; however, we don’t have the luxury of “choosing” what we will do. In the end, we’re simply machines – amazingly complex biological machines, granted, but still subject to physical law as computers are.</p>
<p>Also, when I say “making the most of something,” my frame of reference isn’t a particular individual, but society as a whole. I can “make the most” of my money by donating it to charity, for example, even though that won’t necessarily benefit me.</p>
<p>Your opinion is just using some big words that vaguely back up your thesis that humans are like computers and machines. It seems very disturbed in my opinion.</p>
<p>I know this is way off-topic, but I have made several posts about this before.</p>
<ol>
<li>The universe is a closed system (no divine intervention), so all internal parts operate by a set of rules, beginning with the first reaction - i.e. the Big Bang. This implies a completely deterministic view of life; everything does happen for a reason. Randomness does not exist, and the past (in ways known and, mostly, unknown) completely shapes the future.</li>
<li>When scientists study human traits - not just physical traits, but intangible ones as well - they factor in two types of variables: genetics and environment. The scientific dichotomy of nature versus nurture leaves no room for individuality, free will, or the concept of “deserving”.</li>
</ol>
<p>Is it a coincidence that those 2 points complement each other?</p>
<p>I completely agree. The two points necessarily complement each other because the scientific method does not allow one to attribute something to a magical, unobservable force like free will or God. Thankfully, we’ve progressed past the point where mental imbalances or diseases like schizophrenia were thought to be consequences of a person actively and freely choosing to act insanely (or being demoniacally possessed). However, people will continue to persist in believing that free will exists until technology evolves to the point where we can accurately predict someone’s future from birth. And until then, we’re stuck with the repugnant notion that people can “deserve” something (personally, nothing disturbs me more than the idea that someone can “deserve to die” or that the rich “deserve” to be wealthy because they earned their fortune, but I digress).</p>
<p>those who are deserving are those who will use the facilities, faculties and opportunities to better someone whether themselves or others and who will actually use them–those that dont- dont deserve them no matter how smart they are</p>
<p>I think the person who truely loves education and intellect for what it is, not just some poster board for your wall that you can brag to your friends about and that will look good on your resume, deserves entrance into the “top” (notice the quote) universities.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think only the people who REALLY want to go to college and want to make the best of their experience should be allowed to go. Forget GPA, SAT, ECs, and all that. Some people (like me) just don’t bond well with high school life so they seek college as a way to make up for it.</p>
<p>I think those who SHOULDN’T get into colleges are the ones who just apply to like 20 schools and see where they can get in (usually they have high SATs and GPA so they get cocky). I hate them because they ruin other people’s chances, since they don’t pick the very specific colleges that they actually want to attend.</p>
<p>In my view those that are most likely to succeed after university, bring something to the college community and impact society are most likely the candidates most sought for, by the elite institutions and rightfully so.</p>
<p>You get into any college because the college wants you - that you possess some combination of traits that the school is looking for. “Deserving” is an abstract concept that has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>No they can’t, and you’re completely missing the point of the question. I’m asking you whether you think people who are naturally intelligent OR people who are less intelligent but work harder DESERVE to go to college. I’m naturally intelligent but don’t work hard, so I naturally learn that way, but I can certainly understand that argument that hard workers deserve to go more than people like me.</p>
<p>Unless one had no choice (i.e. parental pressure or cost-loss benefit), I don’t think anyone who did an EC even though they hated it should receive recognition of doing it. You have to like your extracurriculars or else why are you taking up space?! You lack true passion for the activity and even if you excel in it, the girl sitting on the bench while you’re on the starting team who LOVES the sport means more to the idea of exploring your passions than you are any day. </p>
<p>I disagree, and I really don’t think any of us here are qualified to have this conversation. Free will goes to the root of a number of philosophical, biological, and physical issues. If legions of PhD’s can’t figure this one out, I think it’s safe to say that we (for the most part high-school and undergraduate students) cannot say that free will does not exist. I think ruling free will out because “I can’t see where this comes from” is similar to saying that our senses cannot be trusted, that reason does not work, or that induction is not a valid philosophical system. All three of those are legitimate statements, but they leave us with a useless world view from which we can determine absolutely nothing. If you think that every step you take might be walking into an invisible bottomless pit… very well, enjoy your life of fear while I enjoy my life is confidence in basic principles.</p>
<p>Either way, for the sake of this question, assume that “free will” and “deserve” are valid concepts, please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The use of “making the most of something” that I am most familiar with is “enjoying something as much as possible,” but fair enough.</p>
It seems very disturbed in my opinion.</p>