5 ms·

No, we don't, but the alternatives are worse. Universities at least apply some meritocratic standards. If we bypass universities, there will be some other gate

No, we don't, but the alternatives are worse. Universities at least apply some meritocratic standards. If we bypass universities, there will be some other gatekeeper, it will be worse: mostly an "old boys network" and corrupt, pay-to-play advancement.

consensus1 1mo ago
Seems like the country was more competently governed before the current university system, though. If its job is to gate keep incompetence out of leadership it is failing spectacularly.
- estearum 1mo ago
  When you consider the complexification of any single industry over the last 50 to 100 years, then multiply that by every single other industry, then multiply that by the newly complex interactions between industries, then consider that the government must keep some degree of handle on all of that complexity, and consider that they must do it with a smaller headcount per capita (even before Trump) than ever before, against better-funded and more sophisticated "adversaries" (people/orgs trying to evade government management) than ever before ... It seems very possible to me that the managers of said system are far better than ever before and still fail to produce spectacular results.
- hackyhacky 1mo ago
  > before the current university system, When was that? Harvard was founded in 1636.
mishellaneous 1mo ago
where i come from, university admissions are determined exclusively by performance on an exam you take after high school. it's meritocratic, and the work it involves is much more sensible IMO: no leadership/well-roundedness/whatever theater, and in the ideal case, it only lasts 1 year. also, this grind is barely meritocratic. all these extracurricular activities show is you had a solid family supporting you. it's literally impossible for a poor kid to participate in this. they can pick up a book, OTOH. yes, it'll be harder, it'll take longer, and they won't do as well as the rich kids with test prep, but they are given the opportunity to try.

consensus1 1mo ago

Seems like the country was more competently governed before the current university system, though. If its job is to gate keep incompetence out of leadership it is failing spectacularly.

estearum 1mo ago
When you consider the complexification of any single industry over the last 50 to 100 years, then multiply that by every single other industry, then multiply that by the newly complex interactions between industries, then consider that the government must keep some degree of handle on all of that complexity, and consider that they must do it with a smaller headcount per capita (even before Trump) than ever before, against better-funded and more sophisticated "adversaries" (people/orgs trying to evade government management) than ever before ... It seems very possible to me that the managers of said system are far better than ever before and still fail to produce spectacular results.
hackyhacky 1mo ago
> before the current university system, When was that? Harvard was founded in 1636.

mishellaneous 1mo ago

where i come from, university admissions are determined exclusively by performance on an exam you take after high school. it's meritocratic, and the work it involves is much more sensible IMO: no leadership/well-roundedness/whatever theater, and in the ideal case, it only lasts 1 year. also, this grind is barely meritocratic. all these extracurricular activities show is you had a solid family supporting you. it's literally impossible for a poor kid to participate in this. they can pick up a book, OTOH. yes, it'll be harder, it'll take longer, and they won't do as well as the rich kids with test prep, but they are given the opportunity to try.