We again come up against the difficulties created by mixing ethics & politics. "Fairness" has no objective content; it ignores the tautology that a capitalist economy is a capitalist economy.
Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:43 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Slate: "In College Admissions, Affirmative Action and Its > Critics Both Have The Same Problem" > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Joseph Catron <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Your thoughts? > > "If the powers-that-be think it's useful to ability-rank 18 year-olds for > pedagogical purposes, then perhaps that's correct. But the second stage of > the college sorting process where more resources are expended on a UC > Berkeley student than a community college student doesn't have any > justification. That unfairness permeates the entire system. And because the > system is unfair, there's no way to incorporate race (or not incorporate it) or > to replace race with class or geography or anything else that will produce a > fair outcome." > > http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_act > ion_and_its_critics.html > > > > > > I don't think this is factually correct. The assertion about "more resources are > expended on a UC Berkeley student than a community college student" is > confusing. Elite institutions *by definition* have more resources than non- > elite ones. What has that to do with fairness? Unless you want to argue (like > some PEN-Lers seem to do) that the very existence of elite institutions is > undesirable. > > > A better question may be to ask if elite institutions are disproportionate > beneficiaries of public subsidies. This is not at all clear to me. It is true that > elite institutions benefit from various tax-exemptions from their non-profit > status and it may make public policy sense to limit some of that. > > > But it seems to me more generally, that public subsidies, to the extent they > still exist, are progressive in their effect i.e. benefit non-elite and less > selective institutions more than elite ones. I may be incorrect about this, but > I'd like to see some evidence. > > > The real problem as I see it is that public subsidies are disappearing which > effectively weakens non-elite institutions that do not have vast private > resources and endowments. > > > -raghu. > > > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
