I’m beginning to think drawing straws is more fair.
Just like math/science, your initial conditions set your future course in life. If our goal is to provide equal opportunity than we can’t overlook that.
In a different time, the fact that the wealthiest people went to the best schools and ended up with the best positions and highest paying jobs would have been taken for granted. We now try to sell ourselves as a meritocracy, but this meritocracy is easily gamed with wealth.
Furthermore, there may be a “gifted” few who are born with natural talents and abilities. But these few are still relying on chance of the right conditions at their birth.
The last group that we aspire to reward are those that in spite of poor initial conditions and no innate talent succeed through hard work and determination. However is this a valuable goal? It would disadvantage those born in better circumstances which is no fault of those individuals. We harm some to better others, which is ethically problematic.
You cannot (a) measure talent and (b) not have it related to income.
One way to get rich is to be smart. As a result, rich people are likely to have genes that cause higher IQ, which they pass on to their children. (There is evidence for this.) They also have more books around the house, and spend more on teaching their children. And in other ways they are likely to provide an enriched environment. As a result, their children will on average be smarter than other people's children by the age of 18.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about inequality. For example, we should try and provide enriched environments for poor children. We should also try to design tests that capture "innate talent" rather than "expensive education".
But if you try to create a measure of talent that is not related to income, you will fail, and if you try hard enough, you will effectively cease to measure talent.
Discussed in a Wall Street Journal editorial: "Inconvenient Facts for the War on Testing: College admission based on personal essays helps affluent students."
April 4, 2021
https://archive.is/8TvzE#selection-133.5-169.31
Just like math/science, your initial conditions set your future course in life. If our goal is to provide equal opportunity than we can’t overlook that.
In a different time, the fact that the wealthiest people went to the best schools and ended up with the best positions and highest paying jobs would have been taken for granted. We now try to sell ourselves as a meritocracy, but this meritocracy is easily gamed with wealth.
Furthermore, there may be a “gifted” few who are born with natural talents and abilities. But these few are still relying on chance of the right conditions at their birth.
The last group that we aspire to reward are those that in spite of poor initial conditions and no innate talent succeed through hard work and determination. However is this a valuable goal? It would disadvantage those born in better circumstances which is no fault of those individuals. We harm some to better others, which is ethically problematic.