1. A system of academic selection in public (state) schools, for all its defects and biases, is preferable to an "egaliatarian" system by which children are allocated to schools based on residence area or lottery. Yes, academic selection might give the middle class an advantage, but bright children from poor families would benefit as well, and the competition to get into selective schools would force children to study harder.
SOME Americans and Europeans have told me that "competition is not good for children". Nonsense. Everywhere in Asia, bright children thrive on competition. And in any competiiton, some people will always come out ahead. It's not unfair, it's just life.
2. I would prefer having a meritocratic House of Lords composed of (or elected by) the intellectual elite. It should be a counterbalance to popular sentiment and somewhat disconnected from the masses. After all, do the masses really know what is best?
Comments and feedback appreciated.
2007-06-18
15:52:26
·
4 answers
·
asked by
mmhmmm
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, I'm from Asia. Yes, I grew up in a competitive environment and am none the worse for it. Yes, I probably grew up in a society completely different from yours. Yes, my political views are probably completely different from yours (for example, I oppose Tibetan independence and can imagine you glaring at me).
And NO, I do NOT consider myself part of the "political elite". In fact, I want to have nothing to do with politics and leave it to people who know better than myself.
2007-06-18
15:58:21 ·
update #1
And just in case Americans misunderstand, the "House of Lords" is the upper house in the British Parliament. Don't worry - I wouldn't impose an artificial "aristocracy" on the US, but perhaps you could consider applying my idea of meritocracy to your Senate instead *wink wink* =p
2007-06-18
16:04:28 ·
update #2
America succeeds whilst Asia and Europe fail? Really, I can't stop my laughter.
2007-06-18
16:39:13 ·
update #3