[HN Gopher] What's so great about excellence? (1981)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What's so great about excellence? (1981)
        
       Author : insistent
       Score  : 19 points
       Date   : 2025-10-08 21:48 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (newrepublic.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (newrepublic.com)
        
       | tiahura wrote:
       | 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?
        
         | viccis wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | 11101010001100 wrote:
           | No, they will still have scholarships. Just not _all_ the
           | scholarships.
        
         | kace91 wrote:
         | 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?
        
         | pedalpete wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | SubjectToChange wrote:
         | 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."
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-10-09 23:01 UTC)