This is what i love

[George Jefferson²]

The cream rising to the top was being applied to the big overall picture. Those who strive to achieve their goals, will have success. Some might have to striver harder, but if you want it bad enough and you apply that passion, you will have success.

Another thought. AA will not bother applicants like me. I am only trying to attend a top 50 school. There is a lot of room from entrance. However, I noticed on your LSN, you are still pending. The injustice will show if you do not get into your schools. At that point, the admission process is rediculous.

I am sure that none of what I am about to say applies to Red, but you do realize that people with great number sometimes get undermined by poor LOR's designed to sink them, previous illegal activities, mediocre statements or addenda or both. Though most top schools would love to accept a candidate with a perfect GPA and near perfect LSAT, they can reject anyone with relative ease, sleeping comfortably at night knowing they will still have a class of excellent students.

[JGB]

The big picture I speak of is after admissions. Could be ignorance, but I think that those that want to be a lawyer, will become a lawyer. If you are strong, you will make it and be successful. If you are weak, you will not.

[LitDoc]

A meritocracy only works if everyone begins with/on a precisely, completely equal playing field. Such a field does not exist: social, cultural, economic, political, religious, and philosophical differences among us disallow such a field. Power is not distributed equally, and the powerful always work to make this so.

And since the field is always already unequal, any argument advocating strict meritocracy -- the cream will rise, hard work will pay off, sink or swim, etc. -- is inherently and seriously flawed.

If you care at all about equal opportunity (that great American value), you cannot take seriously meritocracy.

[Sidenote: I like the new photo, red; and I, too, will refrain from messing with coquita.  ]

[trogdor]

equality is an elusive ideal that can never be actualized.  where do you draw the line?

[LitDoc]

I try not to draw a line of surrender in the pursuit of a worthy ideal.

[trogdor]

i'm not even sure pure equality is a worthy ideal, especially when imposed from above.  don't get me wrong; gross injustice isn't acceptable, but it certainly gets tricky from a philosophical as well as pragmatic perspective.

[LitDoc]

What do you mean, "pure equality"? I was talking about equal opportunity in my most recent post. I'm not talking about forcing everyone into plastic surgery so we can look alike, and imposing a national dress code. 

What in the world are you talking about?

[trogdor]

what is equal opportunity though and how do you get there?  with your equal opportunity ideal will everyone have the same financial resources?  will everyone have the same job opportunities?  who decides what factors are weighed when considering equality?  regardless though, this isn't a conversation i wanted to have. 

[LitDoc]

A meritocracy only works if everyone begins with/on a precisely, completely equal playing field. Such a field does not exist: social, cultural, economic, political, religious, and philosophical differences among us disallow such a field. Power is not distributed equally, and the powerful always work to make this so.

And since the field is always already unequal, any argument advocating strict meritocracy -- the cream will rise, hard work will pay off, sink or swim, etc. -- is inherently and seriously flawed.

If you care at all about equal opportunity (that great American value), you cannot take seriously meritocracy.

[Sidenote: I like the new photo, red; and I, too, will refrain from messing with coquita.  ]

if everyone began on the same playing field, and all cultural/environmental factors were the same, there's a high chance everyone would be equal...  meritocracy simply would not exist since there would be no discrimation criteria.  that post reminds me of sartre's criticism of the enlightened white man trying to make the (jewish in his argument) more like him, rather than appreciate him for his differences.  In essence, it's this philosophical stance that does more harm than good by denying or repressing the totality of his being.  ummm.. .what the hell do i know, that's probably a bad bastardization of his argument (engineering major here)..   doesn't meritocracy demand inequity?


the original argument was that adcomms actually *consider* the background of candidates rather than *assume* it to be such and such before applying a boost, and that the boost be relevant to the background.  There are two types of equity being considered.. Equity to the candidate and equity to society.  A blind URM boost does not achieve the first, but does address the latter.

Wha'?!? How would beginning on an equal playing field eliminate all discrimination criteria? And in what way am I trying to make anyone like me? Trust me: I'm as celebratory of difference as they come. The problem is not with difference; the problem is with Power imposing hierarchy onto difference. I LOVE that you're different from me. I do NOT love that Power (read: politics, culture, etc.) determines you to be "better" than me (or vice versa).

And yes, you're misusing Sartre if you're trying to say that he advocated some kind of "totality of being."

As for meritocracy demanding inequality -- yes, to some extent it does. Meritocracy imposes hierarchy (inequality). But in theory it does so in just fashion. If you did more work, or better work, you should be rewarded. Typically, we see this as "just reward." And, like I said, if we all started on an equal playing field, meritocracy might be somewhat defensible. The problem is that we DON'T start from a position of equality, so there is no entirely uniform way of measuring "accomplishment" -- making justice in our rewards extremely difficult.

For example, the LSAT. Standardized testing plays to particular approaches to learning, as well as to particular ways of thinking, as well as to particular backgrounds of learning/experience, as well as to particular criteria for "good" performance, etc. Anyone who does not begin from these particulars is at a serious disadvantage in taking the LSAT. Go to a crappy inner-city school, emerge from a subculture or subcommunity that has different ways of learning and different criteria for "good" performance, etc., and you're at a serious disadvantage in taking the LSAT.

So, the LSAT -- which is purported to be a uniform measure of ability, a meritocratic assessment tool -- is in fact seriously flawed in its measurement of "accomplishment" and cannot deal out just reward.

As for your delineation between equity to the individual and equity to society...I'm not sure I understand it, and I think it's suspect.

[JGB]

On my commute I thought of my statement about the "strong" and injustice. It sounded very close to, "Justice is in the interest of the strong"-The Republic

Provides an interesting spin.