Two recent news items.
1. Research finds that the 'best' companies only recruit from the 'top' universities, which are very largely attended by children of the privileged. Bright children from under-privileged backgrounds aren't getting a look in.
2. Women authors are under-represented in winning top book awards.
I'm thinking that so few people get to win top awards or get the top jobs, by definition,, that it would be better for society generally to shift emphasis away from the importance of achieving either. Presumably, sending your children to expensive private schooling does carry some advantage... otherwise why pay for it? I went to a rough, tough comprehensive where surviving socially seemed much more important than doing well in exams. I have no doubt I would have done a lot better at school if the game being played there was 'academic achievement'. 'Top' companies are rarely created in order to facilitate social mobility - its not part of their remit. They must save time by going straight to the top universities, even though they may miss out on some bright commoners. To be concerned that the top jobs are equally available to all is to acquiesce to the aspiration of Capitalism. Well, what I mean is... its not a very Buddhist stance, for example. 'Working class children are far less likely to take up meditation' would be a more intriguing headline to me, given I believe that establishing a meditation habit is perhaps more likely to lead to a happy life than, say, getting a 'top' job. It is probably a whole lot more achievable also. High social status and economic wealth are sought after by very many people, it seems. We should not expect those in possession of those things to give them up easily - we should try to want them less for ourselves, and/or stop complaining, and/or have a revolution.
I have a similar feeling about women winning book prizes. It may be that the balance of power is still held by men in the literary world. It may be that male-to-male competition in the ancestral environment led to a generally increased competitiveness in male psychology, leading them to generally win more prizes. It may be a variety of these and other factors. Either way, what we might do as individuals is just not take prizes so seriously, or suggest that we do away with such prizes.
1. Research finds that the 'best' companies only recruit from the 'top' universities, which are very largely attended by children of the privileged. Bright children from under-privileged backgrounds aren't getting a look in.
2. Women authors are under-represented in winning top book awards.
I'm thinking that so few people get to win top awards or get the top jobs, by definition,, that it would be better for society generally to shift emphasis away from the importance of achieving either. Presumably, sending your children to expensive private schooling does carry some advantage... otherwise why pay for it? I went to a rough, tough comprehensive where surviving socially seemed much more important than doing well in exams. I have no doubt I would have done a lot better at school if the game being played there was 'academic achievement'. 'Top' companies are rarely created in order to facilitate social mobility - its not part of their remit. They must save time by going straight to the top universities, even though they may miss out on some bright commoners. To be concerned that the top jobs are equally available to all is to acquiesce to the aspiration of Capitalism. Well, what I mean is... its not a very Buddhist stance, for example. 'Working class children are far less likely to take up meditation' would be a more intriguing headline to me, given I believe that establishing a meditation habit is perhaps more likely to lead to a happy life than, say, getting a 'top' job. It is probably a whole lot more achievable also. High social status and economic wealth are sought after by very many people, it seems. We should not expect those in possession of those things to give them up easily - we should try to want them less for ourselves, and/or stop complaining, and/or have a revolution.
I have a similar feeling about women winning book prizes. It may be that the balance of power is still held by men in the literary world. It may be that male-to-male competition in the ancestral environment led to a generally increased competitiveness in male psychology, leading them to generally win more prizes. It may be a variety of these and other factors. Either way, what we might do as individuals is just not take prizes so seriously, or suggest that we do away with such prizes.
RSS Feed