So I was told yesterday that there is a term for people who send in grad-school apps like mine. "Snots", aka people with high GRE scores but low grades. The characteristics include arrogant idiots who think they can save the world and who haven't done the work and probably won't be able to cut it. Oh, and they're likely male, but women are over-represented in the social sciences, so that really isn't a point in my favor either.
Well. I dusted up the shatters of my self-esteem and glued them back together appropriately, and since there was a lot of glue involved, the end result is that my ego has swelled a bit since, you know, people of my characteristics are arrogant egotistical dicks. So.
( Here is my arrogance: )And as a side note, if you are going to use a much-researched sport as an example of a meritocracy, why are you using
baseball? Lots of research and data - yes, that is a good reason. Lots of personal knowledge by the prof - also good. The fact that baseball is an American sport, and cuts through the societal constraints in our society - gr- wait a minute, what about the Cuban immigrants playing on American teams? Or the fact that the U.S. is regularly routed by Japan at the world stage? I guess my complaints come down to -
why not use soccer? Yes, a baseball star performs individually (apparently? I don't know much about baseball), and thus isn't hindered by his team. But if you use American football when your examples run out...why not use a sport that pulls in people from
every nation in the world? A sport that is recognized on the international stage, where players are traded between countries on a regular basis, and where stars come from every country imaginable. Is baseball more of a meritocracy than soccer? I honestly don't know. But the fact that in your example you are ignoring the entire rest of the world, and glossing over the international aspects of baseball
within the example, and claiming something is a meritocracy without looking at the constraints that
do exist...speaks to your own bias. Soccer can be played
anywhere, using nothing more than an inflated ball. Baseball requires a set number of players, doubles the equipment, and has a heck of a lot more space. How many kids in the ghetto have access to a baseball diamond? How many kids in the slums of Lagos, or Rio, or Moscow have access to a football? There's your data, and your 'meritocracy'. You can't even
begin to have a society based upon 'merit' when a huge portion doesn't even have access.
And if I really want to place myself on opposite theoretical sides of this argument, I'd like to point out one more thing. That 'huge portion without access'? How many
girls play baseball, Mr. Professor?