What’s so great about excellence? (1981)(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
What’s so great about excellence? (1981)
https://newrepublic.com/article/108017/whats-so-great-about-excellence
18 comments
I wonder how many people receiving awards used them to actually free up time for what they do best?
I also wonder - what if the foundation did this for just promising people? Would they muck up potential with money? Does having all your needs all of a sudden taken care of help or get in the way?
maybe the real question is - what is the best way to stimulate people of art, science, etc
I also wonder - what if the foundation did this for just promising people? Would they muck up potential with money? Does having all your needs all of a sudden taken care of help or get in the way?
maybe the real question is - what is the best way to stimulate people of art, science, etc
> John D. MacArthur got rich by selling one-dollar life insurance policies through newspaper ads during the Depression. “Dubious” is how Parade magazine charitably described this scheme in 1976, by which time MacArthur was a self-made billionaire...The net effect of John D. MacArthur’s entrepreneurial life and philanthropic afterlife, then, will have been to take one dollar each from a large number of poor and ignorant people, assemble the money into somewhat larger amounts, and give these piles to a very few members of the prosperous, educated elite.
Similar arguments to be made in education. Why focus scholarships on the most successful? Shouldn’t they go to the marginally unsuccessful, that with a little help, would be successful?
It seems like you have misunderstood the author of the article.
The point of the MacArthur Foundation is basically to launder the MacArthur name in the eyes of the public. So that when people see "MacArthur" they associate it with prestige and — more importantly — the excellence of its recipients, not its sleazy origin. Hence why recipients are only chosen when they have proven that their names are useful for the MacArthur Foundation.
In your example, the MacArthur Foundation wouldn't be giving out scholarships to high performing students, they'd be giving money to people like Donald Knuth. In other words, people who have already shown that they didn't need the money to be successful and don't really need the money to continue performing at a high level. Of course, it isn't a complete waste, but it doesn't go towards developing the next Donald Knuth. The MacArthur Foundation isn't "promoting excellence", it's "celebrating" the excellence in which it took absolutely no risk in developing. As the author says "The enterprise is not merely silly, but snooty: an exercise in invidious distinction for its own sake."
The point of the MacArthur Foundation is basically to launder the MacArthur name in the eyes of the public. So that when people see "MacArthur" they associate it with prestige and — more importantly — the excellence of its recipients, not its sleazy origin. Hence why recipients are only chosen when they have proven that their names are useful for the MacArthur Foundation.
In your example, the MacArthur Foundation wouldn't be giving out scholarships to high performing students, they'd be giving money to people like Donald Knuth. In other words, people who have already shown that they didn't need the money to be successful and don't really need the money to continue performing at a high level. Of course, it isn't a complete waste, but it doesn't go towards developing the next Donald Knuth. The MacArthur Foundation isn't "promoting excellence", it's "celebrating" the excellence in which it took absolutely no risk in developing. As the author says "The enterprise is not merely silly, but snooty: an exercise in invidious distinction for its own sake."
I agree with the reasoning in principle, but I think the 2006 Canadian Olympic hockey team.
The Canadian hockey team is a bit like the US basketball team. When we take the ice, it's highly likely we're going to win.
In 2006, the coaches decided to build the team from players who never really got a fair shot. The thinking was that we have the great coaches, and these players just never got a shot.
We (Canada) lost in the quarter finals, and when asked why, the coaches said that even though the players had as much talent as the A team. They didn't have the commitment to win. They didn't show up to practice, or practice as hard.
These were the "marginally successful", that just needed a bit of help.
Sure, it's only one anecdote, but an interesting reference point.
The Canadian hockey team is a bit like the US basketball team. When we take the ice, it's highly likely we're going to win.
In 2006, the coaches decided to build the team from players who never really got a fair shot. The thinking was that we have the great coaches, and these players just never got a shot.
We (Canada) lost in the quarter finals, and when asked why, the coaches said that even though the players had as much talent as the A team. They didn't have the commitment to win. They didn't show up to practice, or practice as hard.
These were the "marginally successful", that just needed a bit of help.
Sure, it's only one anecdote, but an interesting reference point.
"They didn't showing up to practice. If they did show up to practice, they weren't practicing hard. If they did practice hard, they didn't have the commitment and drive to win. Trust us, we did everything right, it's the players (we chose) who let everyone down."
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
Sounds a little like victim blaming. You had a proven formula which includes people whos job it is to make critical assessments, change 1 variable, then blame the variables you didn't change when the experiment goes poorly?
[deleted]
I disagree, I think what they are saying is that the now understand how that variable impacts the overall system in ways they weren't expecting.
I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting financially locking out high academic performers from higher education? It's not like being successful in high school magically solves the problem of modern college tuition.
No, they will still have scholarships. Just not all the scholarships.
Financial aid is available for many, many students, and targeted at those unable to pay. They may be called scholarships, or bursaries, or tuition fees waivers, or whatever. A LOT of money (or equivalents) is given to students who are not in the top 10% of performers.
Scholarships for the best students are given partly to obtain or retain those students to the institution. If I have offers from Harvard and Princeton, but one will give me $20K, that influences my choice and that school gets a star student. That’s competition.
Those same schools ALSO subsidize places for students who are unable to pay. Of course some students are in both categories.
Scholarships for the best students are given partly to obtain or retain those students to the institution. If I have offers from Harvard and Princeton, but one will give me $20K, that influences my choice and that school gets a star student. That’s competition.
Those same schools ALSO subsidize places for students who are unable to pay. Of course some students are in both categories.
Wild pitch, but maybe we give everyone an education since we need educated people to have a functioning modern society?
but then where will republicans get their future voters?
the problem for any approach is that you don't have a good rule for guessing potential: is a student at 0.8x average someone mediocre at their best or a genius limited by external factors?
> Why focus scholarships on the most successful?
Scholarships are about picking up people most likely to do great and giving them a chance. It is not just a medal for past achievements, it is to that they achieve more in the future.
> Shouldn’t they go to the marginally unsuccessful, that with a little help, would be successful?
There actually are programs like that although Trump closed some of them. Programs designed to teach at-risk youth marketable skills. There is (or was) also help for students with various learning disabilities. The two are not in opposition. These things exist, but are under constant attacks from the right.
Scholarships are about picking up people most likely to do great and giving them a chance. It is not just a medal for past achievements, it is to that they achieve more in the future.
> Shouldn’t they go to the marginally unsuccessful, that with a little help, would be successful?
There actually are programs like that although Trump closed some of them. Programs designed to teach at-risk youth marketable skills. There is (or was) also help for students with various learning disabilities. The two are not in opposition. These things exist, but are under constant attacks from the right.
Many of the so called foundations/prizes out there are mere influence-peddling schemes by perversely calling attention to the organization while appearing to confer accolades on the already famous and who don't need it. Thus they become gatekeepers and shape public opinion on what is great/good vs. what is not.
Most truly great achievers are intrinsically-motivated (see SDT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory) and hence care more about their work/domain then recognition from clueless organizations. The best example would be Grigori Perelman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)