[parineum]

>The problem with building a meritocratic system is that everyone wants capable kids from poor backgrounds to raise to the top, but the elite doesn't want their average kids to fall down in society to their expected rank.

I disagree with the second half of this. I think it simply creates an arm race that the wealthy win. A rich family looks at what it takes to get their kid into Harvard and they do what they can, no matter the cost. A poor family simply can't compete on an otherwise equal footing. Even if we socialize all the advantages that the rich currently have, they simply do even more in response.

The real problem with a meritocratic system is that rich people from good schools with private tutors actually get a better education, that's what all the hubub is about. Poverty leads to worse education and worse educated people are less prepared for the more difficult course load of college. Through no fault of their own, they are less ideal candidates. That's the injustice.

It's cognitive dissonance to simultaneously recognize that injustice but not recognize that poor students are actually substantially less prepared for college at 18.

[andi999]

Might be good for society as a whole if the elite has at least to study hard. (not in terms of equality, but outcome compared internationally). A failed state is where the kids of rich ppl flunk school and still become leaders.

[Retric]

Innate intelligence is a huge factor in education. Rich parents can prepare their children very well, but it’s only changing the minimums. This is why elite schools always have an easy track to graduate they don’t want to dispel the illusion that their actually elite schools, but they also don’t want to turn away the children of billionaires etc.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> Rich parents can prepare their children very well, but it’s only changing the minimums.

If you need an example of this, take a look at the admissions scandal with Lori Laughlin, et al. No denying they were rich, but despite how rich they were, they could not tutor their kids way to a good SAT score and had to resort to outright cheating that was so blatant that they had to go to prison.

[Spooky23]

Poverty leads to fewer social connections and that follows the rest of the outcome.

People in a cohort fall into a bell curve. “Social lubricant” is why the dumb or less capable kid in a rich suburb ends up being some sort of professional in a nebulous job where the smart kid from a poor neighborhood feels like Starbucks or an LPN is a life changing job.

[crusty]

This just doesn't fit the evidence. I've wanted Freakonomics or similar to cover this for a decade but haven't really seen/heard seen anything...

If getting into top (TOP!) universities correlated with education/aptitude alone, the wealthy would pay more to get thier kids educated but the best teachers. But they don't do this, they pay to dollar for their children to get educated by the "best" schools. But what makes them the best schools is their ability to get more kids into better universities. If education were the critical component of these schools, they'd pay premium rates for the best teachers, but often the teacher salaries at these private schools are lower than those at the public schools they compete with in the area. That suggests that it isn't the education provided by the teachers that's the most important component of these schools. There's a whole stew of other factors that these schools rely on to get kids into top placements that had nothing to do with actual education.

[tibbetts]

Friends of mine work at these private schools for lower salaries than public schools. The reality is the job sucks a lot less. You get ~100% engaged students, supportive parents, and a school administration with minimal perverse incentives. Struggling students and discipline problems get filtered out and sent somewhere else. There a loads of qualified teachers, and really plenty of very capable teachers. There is no need for the schools to pay a premium to get the best teachers.

Imagine if 99% of programming jobs were on Win32 native apps using tools from 1998, and 1% of them were using modern tools on a modern Unix-derived stack? Would the 1% really have to pay a premium to get top 10% developers?

[jkhdigital]

I was about to compose this exact comment… thanks for saving me the trouble. In K-12 education, and especially elementary level, the job is at least as much about daycare as it is education. And well-socialized children makes the daycare part of the job a lot easier, so less stress = less demand for financial inducements (compensation).

[throwaway316943]

Best answer and a good metaphor. Paying more only goes so far in attracting talent. You need the job to be manageable, the environment needs to be at the least not actively hostile, and the system the job exists within to not be completely broken.

[jkhdigital]

Incentive alignment would help too. If only there was a socially and legally tractable way to pay teachers like sales reps…

[zhdc1]

> If getting into top (TOP!) universities correlated with education/aptitude alone, the wealthy would pay more to get thier kids educated but the best teachers. But they don't do this, they pay to dollar for their children to get educated by the "best" schools.

Simple! People receive a benefit from peer group connections (status) and quality-based assessments (in economic terms, reputation). If you are well educated and intelligent, on average, you will have access to more resources if you are also associated with high-status institutions, such as prestigious schools and high ranked universities.

The good news is that, under competitive conditions and provided that everything else is equal, being "good at something" (reputation) eventually leads to high-status attainment. So, if you happen to receive a good education but graduate from a less prestigious university, you have an opportunity to eventually recoup the difference in resource availability (on average & assuming that your production translates to the market).

Likewise, if you're a less prestigious institution, providing a superior education and employing people who do "good research" will eventually increase your prestige.

[tibbetts]

It can be difficult to overcome initial conditions and shine if you are locked out of the best opportunities. The bimodal outcomes for law school graduates are a good example. That’s not how the whole economy works, but it is a potential failure mode.

https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimodal-salary-distribution-c...

[zhdc1]

> That’s not how the whole economy works, but it is a potential failure mode

There are others. E.g., if you're line of work doesn't allow for high-status recognition (e.g., a blue collar job), being good at what you do will likely not allow you to benefit from reputation -> status transfer.

[fallingknife]

You are only considering salary and not overall quality of life. As one of my teachers at private school said, "you get paid a little less, but you don't have to worry about being robbed by your students in the parking lot."