I think it's the opposite actually. I think the moment you're consciously, systematically trying to optimize for "smartest and most ambitious" on a meritocratic basis is the point in which your respective field falls into decline and is relegated to slow, incremental improvements rather than revolutionary jumps. Primairly because "the smartest and most ambitious" are more about seeing that specific field as vehicle for wealth and prestige rather than actual passion. Many of the legends of the past were not good enough for the elite institutions of their time.

I mean really, it's the question of why this over preexisting patronage systems. And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired.

It's just one self-serving 1% attempting to ursurp another 1%. And they certainly aren't going to be solving your problems. They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump.

▲

JumpCrisscross 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Primairly because "the smartest and most ambitious" are more about seeing that specific field as vehicle for wealth and prestige rather than actual passion

...why? STEM programs have weed-out classes for a reason. Astrophysics PhDs, similarly, are not vehicles for wealth or prestige, but must (and do) filter out below-standards candidates early.

▲

Jensson 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired.

That wasn't created by the meritocratic elite, that was created by the "preexisting patronage systems" where rich pays to get their kids influential credential so that they can continue to have outsized influence on the country...

> They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump.

The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better?

	▲	corimaith 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		>The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better? I don't think it's better. But I don't think it's worse either. It's exchanging one elite for another with the similar incentives. But what I would object though is how the education system has been essentially appropiated as a system of elite differentiation (and social mobility) rather than improving the 80% as function of overall social welfare. Why are we caring about a handful of colleges compared the hundreds of others we have? The opportunity cost really is to better spend our resources and time pushing up the average, mediocre student rather than focusing on all these unproductive signalling mechanisms. And I think from there, that's where the real saviours will emerge.