AceAceBaby wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
I aced two of the interviews (IMO), did fairly poorly in one other and totally messed up the maths one entirely as I couldn't really understand the limp-handed professor to any great degree... which in fairness was largely down to the way that I had been taught - had he asked me to differentiate something I could do it, but he asked me about a practical application with finding out localised maxima and minima, and I mostly sat there going, "Huh?".
Perhaps you were asked about that specific subtopic and others because the Cambridge professor knew it was outwith your state school mathematics syllabus, thus justifying a genuine record of a poor interview?Unlikely... I went to a fairly decent grammar school. It would be pretty fiendish for them to have done it, and either way, I know a bunch of people from my class who would have known what he was on about. I was always just very lazy and coasted through education on my charm, wit, intelligence and good looks. Well, on one of the four anyway.
Also, MrChris:
Quote:
Definitions of meritocracy:
"Rule by those chosen on the principle of merit. The principle of merit is consistent with liberal theory and assumes equality of opportunity and occupational advancement based on achievement rather than ascription."
"Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth, family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. "
Craster wrote:
Mr Chris wrote:
Really? How about "On the contrary, the observed pattern is a natural outcome of meritocracy ". It most certainly is not. It's a result of rich people having access to better education.
But once again, you're putting your own stamp on the word 'meritocracy'.
I'm really not, though - see below.
Quote:
In a meritocracy, the one that benefits is the one who is the best candidate. It's not the one who could have been best if they'd been given more investment earlier in their lives.
Actually, it sort of should be.
Definitions of meritocracy:
"Rule by those chosen on the principle of merit. The principle of merit is consistent with liberal theory and assumes equality of opportunity and occupational advancement based on achievement rather than ascription."
That's not really applicable here though, is it? In places where we're specifically talking about those from backgrounds that are not equal, you can never have a true meritocracy.
Given that you cannot 'normalise' the background of an individual, you are left with the rest of the definition - "based on achievement", which favours those with a better 'education'.