Razib and Charle Murray were just making observations to each other, both felt that scholars now tend to underperform in great deeds compared to scholars they had known when younger. They attributed this to the additional factor of hoop-jumping which is now included in the mix. Once there is a system, people can game it. The system of old boys' network plus meritocracy admits lasted until the 60s, at which point meritocracy asserted itself in Ivy League schools (and Little Ivies, Seven Sisters, Ivy Wannabees, etc) more fully, though never entirely.
Yet as soon as the combination of intelligence, extra points for parentage, creative spark, or special talent was in place, hoop jumping started creeping in. It is deeply related to conscientiousness, which is also valuable and perhaps the positive virtue of which gaming is the imitation. You still had to have the previous entrance characteristics, but when you add in conscientiousness/hoop-jumping/imitating intelligence as a criterion, the cutoffs for intelligence and talent must necessarily take a hit.
They know the hidden rules better than you do. They can smell them.
And we haven't even gotten to affirmative action yet.
1 comment:
I suspect the game goes both ways. Possibly by 1980 and certainly by 2000, the cognitive elite who drive admissions realized it was very valuable to admit a group of people who were beholden to them for their placement at those institutions and less of a threat to outshine their sons and daughters once admitted, than representatives of those other people who might have done well on an SAT test.
Post a Comment