6 ms·

I've been on the equity side of the fence for a long time now. My conviction comes from the fact that I (as very-low-but-not-poor middle class) got a chance to

I've been on the equity side of the fence for a long time now. My conviction comes from the fact that I (as very-low-but-not-poor middle class) got a chance to go to a "wealthier" high school and that made all the difference in my life. There's such a huge gap in confidence, persuasion, and even believing in what one can realistically achieve based on who you are surrounded with. My college on the other hand had a mix of students from all sorts of backgrounds and that's where I first hand saw the huge difference this makes. Even those with good grades came across as extremely lacking in confidence. A variety of other factors then adds up to completely mask their talent. And because there's not a single interview (at least in our industry) that doesn't look at your communication and other soft skills, these students mostly hung back and didn't get the same internship or jobs that I could get. And I was in the exact same social background as them. These differences are now extremely huge after about a decade and a half. That's why I'm convinced that comparing two people works well only when the platform they are operating on is comparable as well. Otherwise, you are not-quite-but-close-to comparing just the platforms/social strata.

fsckboy 4y ago
you benefited from your spot in what you describe as a wealthy high school, and we read into that better teachers, more extra programs, etc. (not a challenge or a criticism) in general though (i.e. not in public school), taking a spot in a program denies that spot to somebody else. The human capacity for a sense of fairness and rooting for the underdog on the one hand says "great, it's nice that it happened for you!". But in the types of equity/equality decisions that are being made in general, what happened to the other person who didn't get the benefit you got? what if she was "better qualified" or "more deserving" or "would have benefited society at large more"?
prottog 4y ago
I'm happy that the story played out well for you. Did you get that chance to go to the "wealthier" school from a process borne of equity, or one of equality? I'd imagine the latter is something like, you tested into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of the means of your family, and the former something like, you were accepted into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of your test score based on some immutable characteristic of your family. One of the core tenets of classical liberal thought is that children should not bear the sins of their fathers, and I think from that stems a lot of support for public schools acting as an equalizer between children of higher-achieving and lower-achieving parents; because whether on the equality side or the equity side, most people agree that being born to a poor family, or one that does not value education, should not determine the entire path of your life, start to finish. But your view seems too pessimistic; from your belief that two people cannot be compared unless they are coming from an equal footing, it stands to reason that you also believe that there are basically no individual differences, only group differences. And that individual effort matters little in light of their background. Should we hire as a salesperson someone who lacks confidence and interpersonal skills, or a mason someone who is physically weak? Sure, nobody chooses to have a stammer or be asthmatic as a child, and those differences do compound over time and you end up with someone who finds it hard to make a sale or lift a concrete block. And I believe in giving people a chance. But at some point, individual efforts should matter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
commandlinefan 4y ago
> I've been on the equity side of the fence for a long time ... I got a chance to go to a "wealthier" high school I've never seen an equity advocate recommend taking wealthiness of high school into account when measuring who's most deserving of equity, though.

fsckboy 4y ago

you benefited from your spot in what you describe as a wealthy high school, and we read into that better teachers, more extra programs, etc. (not a challenge or a criticism) in general though (i.e. not in public school), taking a spot in a program denies that spot to somebody else. The human capacity for a sense of fairness and rooting for the underdog on the one hand says "great, it's nice that it happened for you!". But in the types of equity/equality decisions that are being made in general, what happened to the other person who didn't get the benefit you got? what if she was "better qualified" or "more deserving" or "would have benefited society at large more"?

prottog 4y ago

I'm happy that the story played out well for you. Did you get that chance to go to the "wealthier" school from a process borne of equity, or one of equality? I'd imagine the latter is something like, you tested into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of the means of your family, and the former something like, you were accepted into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of your test score based on some immutable characteristic of your family. One of the core tenets of classical liberal thought is that children should not bear the sins of their fathers, and I think from that stems a lot of support for public schools acting as an equalizer between children of higher-achieving and lower-achieving parents; because whether on the equality side or the equity side, most people agree that being born to a poor family, or one that does not value education, should not determine the entire path of your life, start to finish. But your view seems too pessimistic; from your belief that two people cannot be compared unless they are coming from an equal footing, it stands to reason that you also believe that there are basically no individual differences, only group differences. And that individual effort matters little in light of their background. Should we hire as a salesperson someone who lacks confidence and interpersonal skills, or a mason someone who is physically weak? Sure, nobody chooses to have a stammer or be asthmatic as a child, and those differences do compound over time and you end up with someone who finds it hard to make a sale or lift a concrete block. And I believe in giving people a chance. But at some point, individual efforts should matter.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

commandlinefan 4y ago

> I've been on the equity side of the fence for a long time ... I got a chance to go to a "wealthier" high school I've never seen an equity advocate recommend taking wealthiness of high school into account when measuring who's most deserving of equity, though.