
A New Aristocracy [pdf] - foobarqux
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/News_&_Events/MarkovitsCommencementREV.pdf
======
hyperion2010
The problem described here seems to come primarily from the fact that nearly
every single "meritocratic" measure that we use is highly correlated with
income in large part because income is a VERY good predictor of future
success. Finding a predictor of future success that cannot be gamed by income
is exceedingly difficult and of vital importance of we wish to continue this
pseudoquantitative approach to measuring human performance as a criteria for
admission to ever more elite opportunities.

~~~
omonra
You're mixing things up.

Parental income can be seen as the result of parental traits that (if passed
to the offspring) will help them in life - intelligence & industry.

Ie the parents are rich because they are smart and work hard. Those traits are
passed to the children - who then follow suit.

------
ohazi
If you'd rather watch/listen:
[https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049](https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049)

------
forkandwait
Modern aristocracies perpetuate themselves across generations by training at
the school and in the family when young, and then so-called "competition" in
the market place. The anthropology/ sociology theory that looks at these
dynamics is generally known as Practice Theory:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory)

The current system has the dual advantages of plausible deniability (anybody
can, in theory, get into Stanford and become a master of the universe, but
family income and culture radically boost your SATs and character), and it
allows for new blood to enter the system more easily than when you needed a
pedigree.

~~~
rancur
I have friends that fuss when I use the term 'white privilege' but what you
describe is exactly what I classify as 'privilege'.

Buffett calls it the 'ovarian lottery'.

~~~
rce
There's nothing inherently white about privilege. In fact, whites are under-
represented at Stanford compared to the US population as a whole.

~~~
001sky
This is narrowly true, but broadly false. The concept of 'white privledge'
relates to the concept of 'white man's burden', which is european in origin.
Nobody debates that indians, japanese, and other asian societies aren't highly
adept at elitism.

------
jycool
"At Harvard College and here, at Yale Law School (two places where students
have skillfully and bravely compiled data that their Universities suppress),
as many students come from households in the top one percent as from the
entire bottom half of the income distribution."

Stunning. But no surprise you invest in your kids credentials if you can
afford it.

Can someone propose a way the free market can be considered fair without the
definition of 'fair' being defined as 'market-determined'?

~~~
shoo
One of the preceding sentences phrases it well:

> But although it was once the engine of American social mobility, meritocracy
> today blocks equality of opportunity.

This reminds me somewhat of the phrase "kicking away the ladder" that Chomsky
mentions, in a different context:

> Well, that’s what the intellectual property rights are for. In fact there’s
> a name for it in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political
> economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew
> Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and
> violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other
> people can’t do it. [1]

Here is my poorly paraphrased version of the idea:

    
    
      1. use whatever means are available to obtain
         a position of advantage (the ladder).
      2. now, let us change the rules so from this
         moment forth we shall compete upon our equal
         merits, without resorting to such ugly means
         as "ladders" to obtain advantage.
      3. note however, that i still remain in a
         position of absolute advantage, due to my
         previous use of the ladder, which you now
         cannot access.
      4. ho ho ho, "meritocracy" / "free trade" / etc.
    

[1] [http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-
kicki...](http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-kicking-away-
ladder)

~~~
rancur
sounds a bit like game theory...

that is also what I have independently observed, though not phrased as
eloquently.

.

(slightly off topic)

I have to say I'm very thankful to have found HN. I grew up in a decent,
moderately sized city (300k) going to a private religious school with children
whose parents were similarly strongly interested in the intellectual
development of their children.

I had access to all the sports teams. I played soccer through Varsity, played
with the golf team [but note I was not _on_ the golf team...lol], and
basketball in middle school. I played piano for 8 years. I attended one of the
top 5 schools of my field in the nation, and graduated into a small company
with other graduates from my school, MIT, etc. From 'good places'.

Because of this, education was always something I always took for granted. I
always valued it, but always took it for granted. Some of my education,
however, took humans for granted. Your value to society was sometimes
considered limited by what you could produce. Additionally, many of those I
highschooled and undergraduated with (mainly other purported Christians who I
have since determined were not living congruently with stated beliefs) held
little reservation filtering people out of their life based on, I'll call it,

'being dumb'.

This always bothered me. As fruit of my religion [mainly 'made in God's
image', combined with looking at the life Jesus lived] I believed in the
intrinsic value of the human, so I always sought to correct for it: because I
always tried my hardest, it never occurred to me how people could willfully
and knowingly not aspire themselves to something greater than what required
minimal effort. Everyone I grew up with did [though, in hindsight, for
different reasons than I], I did, and my parents did, so naturally I assumed
everyone else did, too. As such, I was regularly perplexed at the value
judgements certain colleagues would place on other members of humanity...like
me...because they miscategorized generational challenges I was facing as
'being dumb'. Damaging prejudice.

So I left that company, and struck out on my own. I have since discovered what
a rare breed my background nurtured, and now understand the wisdom in
filtering those you spend time with. Instead of a prideful superiority [which
I certainly observed], I exercise with a cautious respect for, and in
protection of, talent and time. I exercise without placing value judgements
_on_ the people I come in contact with, but I do judge the values _of_ the
people I spend time with. In this way I safely continue to respect their
humanity, and avoid pride. It's only since I moved and became aware of my need
to protect that I became aware of how hard it is to find knowledge seekers.
And so, when I come across someone from a different field but similar
excellence, who carries with them persuasive content helpful for advancement,
I am thankful. I also realized I need to stop spending so much time trying to
argue with people-- because most people aren't actually listening, aren't
actually seeking.

And so I am thankful to have found HackerNews, this article, and shared
insights like yours.

It's very important to surround yourself with excellence. You'll become the
ones you're around, and believe their idiocy, if you're not careful.

Be careful.

~~~
sillysaurus3
May I ask, would you consider a waitress talented? Based on your value
structure, I'm very curious to know how you'd feel about someone like a
waitress or a cashier.

Assume that this is their full-time job, and that they have no ability to
attend a university due to a series of unfortunate events which left them
saddled with debts they cannot hope to overcome unless they focus full-time on
overcoming them. So they take what jobs they can. Are they talented or
excellent?

It would seem that if one takes your value structure to heart, then you'll end
up rejecting anyone from your life who aren't among the lucky few -- as you
were -- of having no unfortunate events in their life, and would deem those
people not worth allowing into your life, as they certainly aren't excellent.

A friend of mine used to work in a coffee shop. They often told me about
people who would come in and act as if the workers existed only to serve them.
I found this hard to believe. I knew such people existed, but it seemed
improbable that that they were so common. Yet they were.

Is there a chance that if your mentality is to surround yourself with
excellence, then you'll end up forgetting how to respect those who aren't,
through no fault of their own?

~~~
rancur
depends, how well are they putting their talents to use? Are they challenging
themselves every day? Or do they not have energy to? Or are they lazy and
don't give a damn?

Regardless, I still seek to show love and smile and courtesy when interacting
with them, because they're human. That doesn't mean I have to spend time with
them as serious friends.

Salt and light...

------
yummyfajitas
It's interesting how this article undermines most modern narratives about
inequality while simultaneously maintaining a proper liberal mood affiliation.

According to the article, the "aristocracy" preserves itself by educating it's
children well and teaching them to succeed on their own merits. Even then,
those children must work extremely hard in order to maintain their position.
And there are no real barriers to entry; in principle, anyone can do this,
it's just that the wealthy are the ones who actually wind up doing this
(probably because they are the ones who recognize the value of it).

In short, the 1% are the 1% because they are better than the rest, and through
hard work and good parenting the same is true of their children.

Yet somehow, the article makes these exact same claims in a manner that will
probably avoid anger by left wing sorts. I'm impressed.

~~~
choppaface
The narrative assumes that working hard necessarily creates value and thus
merit, but that's not always true. For example, the Oracle Java lawsuit vs.
Google, or SCO vs. IBM were immensely expensive, surely involved many of these
grads, and yet created very little value to the majority of society. There are
plenty of other frivolous lawsuits out there.

This narrative only escapes liberal disapproval if liberals fail to question
the value of the legal process. So no better time to deliver this speech than
a Yale Law commencement.

~~~
kyletl
The narrative assumes that working hard necessarily creates value for oneself,
by investing in oneself as an asset. It makes no claims to one's effort
building value for society as a whole.

~~~
nanocyber
Exactly. As per my previous comment, the currency of merit being traded in the
orator's meritocracy is only defined within the Ivy Leauge-al community. The
currency of merit that SHOULD matter is based on the collective suffering of
humanity.

------
rhino369
Missed a huge chance to take on law schools for their absurd price structure.
They have been increasing tuition at break neck speed, even as lawyer salaries
have shrunk since the recession.

/bitter ass lawyer who's working at 1 am to pay dem SOFI bills.

~~~
shostack
Why do you think this might be? Hasn't demand for law degrees shrunk
considerably at schools that aren't top tier since students aren't getting
jobs?

~~~
rhino369
Demand has definitely shrunk but prices keep going up. The demand curve for
schools aren't rational.

~~~
kristianp
Is this just the top law schools?

------
paulsutter
The old-timey prose is more appropriate than the speaker can possibly imagine.
He still thinks law is an elite path to success, rather than the soul-
degrading billable hour hell it is.

He does get one paragraph /almost/ right. What a dick. Which is it? Is every
incentive wrong? Or is that thought a chicanery?

> I wish that I knew. I could tell you—and I would mean it—that when you find
> an opportunity to trade a little money or status for a lot of freedom, you
> should take it . . . you should take it every time. But that
> thought—although honest and heartfelt—is a chicanery, akin to insisting that
> the rat-race is over. The fact remains that, for each of you individually,
> all the forces that have brought you to this point remain in play. Every
> incentive is wrong.

------
teekert
It is very difficult to leave things to the free market that you can't
reasonably say no to. The same problem is true for health care. In a free
market there is a transaction when both (all) parties agree on a deal, every
party is free to say no. In education and healthcare a one-sided "no" means a
less secure future or even death respectively. It means rich will continue to
have better resources, live longer and be healthier. It means their children,
who did no work to obtain their wealth have better chances.

I think a system where the schools/colleges/universities etc are paid with
public money are more fair. Such a system provides a reset of opportunities
for every generation. I think it will even lead to a better market as I can't
imagine that "the top 1%" also provides the top 1% smartest and motivated
children.

Of course everyone is free to vote for their own system, I'm just saying I
would prefer to live in a country where I'm helped when I'm ill, no questions
asked and where I have the same chances as any other kid of my generation.

Can you really blame Walter White for cooking meth when his life is on the
line? Can you really blame a kid from a poor neighborhood when he ventures
into crime? They are born with less chances than a kid that was born in better
circumstances. The current American system judges and gives kids opportunities
based on what their parents earn in stead of on their motivation and
intelligence. It will be reflected in American markets. It will increase the
gap between rich and poor because both are on a self amplifying course.

And don't start about Darwinism, this is past that, this is Darwinism of
ideas: memes. And any brain can be "infected" by a meme, good or bad. Memes
are not restricted to a set of genes and they are much more at the root of the
economy than DNA is. And memes are perpetuated and destroyed by raising kids
and giving them quality education.

I like the speech, it nicely points out the downsides of the current system
for those on the inside of that system. Seems like the best way to start even
though the people outside the system will probably shrug at the elites so
called "problems".

------
ZoeZoeBee
It is funny how the parasitic Aristocratic leaches of yesteryear have re-
manifested themselves as blood sucking lawyers today.

------
cdi
What this article ignores is that intelligence is at least 60% inheritable,
and elite professionals are likely to merry other elite professionals. So
wealth factor is not the only factor in this situation.

There is probably an ongoing process of genetic fitness based stratification
of the society. At least to a certain degree.

------
waterlesscloud
OK. Sure. The deck is stacked against you. And me too.

And?

What now?

That's the only question that matters.

~~~
zachrose
Shuffle the deck?

~~~
sliverstorm
Converting metaphor back into real life, I'm pretty sure shuffling the deck
usually involves a whole lot of violence.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
Change on a massive scale has never been peaceful. We're at the precipice of a
new Era much like the Industrial Revolution, the masses of society are about
to see a paradigm shift.

