The Student Room Group

What is elitism and when is it OK in hiring?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by M1011
I think it's more along the lines of you can't answer them... nothing I've said is 'BS'.

I hate this childish attitude that everyone should be treated the same. We are all different and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. Why on earth should this not be considered by an employer if it has an impact on the job that person performs?

I find you ignorant, idealistic and clueless to be perfectly honest.


Well of course you'd say it isn't bs, you're the one who said it! It doesn't add anything to your argument and you're just doing an ad hominem by suggesting I'm too stupid to come up with valid replies. Maybe I'm tired, or maybe I just can't be arsed?

I don't believe that some people are inferior to others. I'm sorry if you feel differently. I don't see this as reason for you to call me ignorant, idealistic and clueless. You could have kept that to yourself tbh.

I can't stand people like you who think that just because things work a certain way, that it's right. For what its worth I think these employers and rich businesspeople you talk about are greedy and corrupt and wouldn't know morality if it hit them in the face.

End of discussion.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 41
It's understandable though. Why would you want someone mediocre doing a job when you could have someone with excellent intelligence?
Unless you were worried that they would do the job too well and usurp you.

Also, this sometimes works in opposite ways. For example, when my uncle was looking for someone to work in his warehouse, he rejected the more highly qualified people and went for people with fewer qualifications and a worse history, to give them a chance to do something positive.

Also, 1 and 2 are fine. 3 could be ok in some circumstances. 4 is not ok and 5 is racist. xo
(edited 2 years ago)
Reply 42
Original post by MrHappy_J
Well of course you'd say it isn't bs, you're the one who said it! It doesn't add anything to your argument and you're just doing an ad hominem by suggesting I'm too stupid to come up with valid replies. Maybe I'm tired, or maybe I just can't be arsed?


Well of course you would say it is BS, you're the one arguing against it. The point is you backed up that statement with nothing at all. Yet again you're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say you were to stupid to make a reply, I said that you couldn't because the points I made are undeniable (IMO anyway).

Original post by MrHappy_J
I don't believe that some people are inferior to others. I'm sorry if you feel differently. I don't see this as reason for you to call me ignorant, idealistic and clueless. You could have kept that to yourself tbh.


Sigh, words in my mouth again.. I didn't use the word inferior, nor do I believe human life should be valued on the basis of any of the previously mentioned attributes. However, should employers view certain candidates as superior? Of course they should. Maybe we should give everyone a go at every job right, just to be fair? Then going in for surgery can be like playing a round of roulette! Or perhaps we should give people who lack a strong mathematical ability control of investing your life savings? Does that sound fair? Yes these are random examples, but surely this demonstrates to you that employers should base their decisions on what people are able to do and not some delusion of fairness? I stress again, this is with regards to peoples ability to do the job, so not the colour of their skin or anything as baseless as that.

The reason I called you those things is because that is how you have portrayed yourself in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you were rude to me first when you dismissed my valid arguments as 'BS' that you couldn't be bothered responding to.

Original post by MrHappy_J
I can't stand people like you who think that just because things work a certain way, that it's right. For what its worth I think these employers and rich businesspeople you talk about are greedy and corrupt and wouldn't know morality if it hit them in the face.

End of discussion.


OK so here we hit the truth. It would appear you have some past grievances which has led you to these opinions. But can you honestly and justifiably pigeon hole 'employers and rich business people' as 'greedy and corrupt' in the same post that you claim nobody is inferior? It would appear you are the one who has the issue. I am saying employers have every right to view people objectively based on the value they can bring to a business, whereas you are saying employers are corrupt and everyone should be given equal employment opportunities. Perhaps we should all just join a queue and be allocated jobs on a first come first serve basis? Who do you honestly believe has this the right way around?
Reply 43
Original post by M1011
You're mistaking intelligence with knowledge. IQ tests don't require knowledge, it's all puzzle solving. Either you think that way or you do not. You can't draw upon practical experience and knowledge in order to know which image comes next in a sequence!

No but if you've practiced on IQ tests you'd be surprised at the improvements you'd make. I also think it's possible to improve the subconscious aspects of the mind through practice etc- just this takes longer than ordinary practice/ revision.


That's not to say you can't improve by practising the tests (although IMO this rather defeats the purpose unless you can practice in real life situations), but you will only improve so much as it is ultimately an aptitude test. Also Mensa does consider the age of children, they require lower scores to gain a place. So it is fair to say there is some leeway up until 16 (I believe, might be 14).


Yup, we probably do have a limit but it's likely most people get nowhere near the limits of what their minds are capabale of. Lol I probably sound like a JEdi saying this. Also to reiterate, I am suggesting that intelligence is intertwined with knowledge and practice and that it is impossible to disentangle them for the purposes of measuring IQ. I had taken up some serious mathematical studies (STEP mathematics papers) and I have found I've got a lot better at the logical type IQ tests- it brought to light new ways of thinking of problems and honed my problem solving skills.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by M1011
Well of course you would say it is BS, you're the one arguing against it. The point is you backed up that statement with nothing at all. Yet again you're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say you were to stupid to make a reply, I said that you couldn't because the points I made are undeniable (IMO anyway).



Sigh, words in my mouth again.. I didn't use the word inferior, nor do I believe human life should be valued on the basis of any of the previously mentioned attributes. However, should employers view certain candidates as superior? Of course they should. Maybe we should give everyone a go at every job right, just to be fair? Then going in for surgery can be like playing a round of roulette! Or perhaps we should give people who lack a strong mathematical ability control of investing your life savings? Does that sound fair? Yes these are random examples, but surely this demonstrates to you that employers should base their decisions on what people are able to do and not some delusion of fairness? I stress again, this is with regards to peoples ability to do the job, so not the colour of their skin or anything as baseless as that.

The reason I called you those things is because that is how you have portrayed yourself in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you were rude to me first when you dismissed my valid arguments as 'BS' that you couldn't be bothered responding to.



OK so here we hit the truth. It would appear you have some past grievances which has led you to these opinions. But can you honestly and justifiably pigeon hole 'employers and rich business people' as 'greedy and corrupt' in the same post that you claim nobody is inferior? It would appear you are the one who has the issue. I am saying employers have every right to view people objectively based on the value they can bring to a business, whereas you are saying employers are corrupt and everyone should be given equal employment opportunities. Perhaps we should all just join a queue and be allocated jobs on a first come first serve basis? Who do you honestly believe has this the right way around?


Inequality isn't about strengths and weakenesses, as you said, it is about some people being inferior to others.

By your analogies I don't think you understand what equality of opportunity means.

I'm going to bed.
Reply 45
Original post by MrHappy_J
Children and teenagers are not less intelligent than adults :facepalm: that's not how it works. in any case there are specialised iq tests for children of various ages in proportion to their stage of development. So a child wouldn't take the same iq test as an adult as that would be unfair.

If I'm 20 and I have a lower than average iq there is little i can do to change that.


I don't mean to get bogged down in the semantics of the word intelligence but...
I've seen teenagers and adults and they are less intelligent in a conventional sense. I know these specialised IQ tests are measuring a child's intelligence relative to his peers, but this is simply because that child would not be able to record a decent a score if they were made to do an adult's IQ test. Does this not unequivocally show a child is less intelligent than an adult?

However, kids are quicker at learning things due to the brain's plasticity at a younger age.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 46
Original post by MrHappy_J
..


Don't go to sleep :P. It also used to be the case that girls scored higher in IQ tests than boys but then iq tests were changed to redress this bias. Now you might argue that the Iq tests were unfairly suited to girls' strengths or you might say that girls are cleverer than boys. But the difficulties inherent in designing iq tests when there is a spectrum of different intelligence seems to render IQ tests as a limited indicator.

Coming back to the redesigned IQ tests for toddlers, I might again ask the question, how do I know that you are just not fiddling with the tests to suit your preconceived conclusion that iq is immutable over the years? Is this not similar to the case above where iq tests were redesigned so that they would fit the bias of the day ie. that boys were as smart or smarter than girls?

It seems like in designing Iq tests, to an extent, we already have to second-guess the conclusions of the test.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 47
Original post by Blutooth
Yup, we probably do have a limit but it's likely most people get nowhere near the limits of what their minds are capabale of. Lol I probably sound like a JEdi saying this. Also to reiterate, I am suggesting that intelligence is intertwined with knowledge and practice and that it is impossible to disentangle them for the purposes of measuring IQ. I had taken up some serious mathematical studies (STEP mathematics papers) and I have found I've got a lot better at the logical type IQ tests- it brought to light new ways of thinking of problems and honed my problem solving skills.


Well who am I to argue with your personal experience, fair enough :wink:

Now May the 4th be with you! (4 hours late, but had to be done) :smile:
Reply 48
Original post by MrHappy_J
Inequality isn't about strengths and weakenesses, as you said, it is about some people being inferior to others.

By your analogies I don't think you understand what equality of opportunity means.

I'm going to bed.


Sigh. So then you agree with me in saying a candidate with a higher IQ or better education etc (strengths) can be favoured over one without those attributes?

I think you've run out of things to say.
Reply 49
Ugh, why is everyone convinced that getting a job should be fair? It's a competitive world, may the best man win...

Interesting fact. I've been offered multiple graduate jobs (due to graduate next month), including offers from some of the most highly rated graduate employers. Yet when I applied for a part-time position at McDonalds during the summer, the elitist *******s rejected me at the application stage. The cheek of it! Didn't even get a blooming interview...

\Rant
Reply 50
Original post by a.partridge
just having 'standards' isn't really elitism or having a uni requiring CCC could be called elitist by CCD applicants (if they had the vocabulary) 1#,2#,3# (depending on whether 3 is judged fairly - who wouldnt take the awarding institution into account?)

#5 is ridiculous and yeah clearly getting into racism there

#4 is the only normal one left in it to be elitist

elitism to me would be having double/non logically justifiable standards like a 2.2 from oxford will do you but a 1st from Kings college london and no way...


harsh
Reply 51
OK well if McDonalds are requiring a first, or indeed any type of degree, I totally agree with you that is stupendous. A degree doesn't imply that person can do the job better, so why should it be a requirement. OK agreed. But... McDonalds doesn't require a degree! My witty little example (yes you're quite right that is most likely why they didn't give me a summer job) proves that they most certainly don't want a degree. So where's the problem? Can you give me an example of somewhere which is asking for something which you think is unrealistic in comparison to the role? :s-smilie:
Reply 52
Certain universities are known to provide a better education. That's not to say there won't be strong candidates from elsewhere, but it is an expensive process to sift through applications and conduct interviews. It makes business sense in many situations to narrow down the requirements to save on resources. Why receive 500 applicants from all universities and narrow that down to 50 for interview when you could receive 100 applicants from 5 universities and narrow that down to 25 interviews. Simplistic example I know, but that is why it is done. I'm not saying it's a great system, but it is an efficient one.
Something little known is that the term meritocracy was originally coined by Michael Young, founder of the Open University, as a pejorative. He wrote a dystopian satire called The Rise of The Meritocracy wherein the term had a meaning something like today's 'credentialism'. That was backfiring, then.

I mention this anyway because I think a runaway credentialism is in some industries doing more harm than good and is maintained largely for gatekeeping purposes that serve the interests of those inside the gates more than those affected by their work.
Reply 54
Personally I would accept 1-3, 4 if it was something quite specialist...not just 'used to black tie dinners' and obviously not 5!
Reply 55
Original post by Roger Mexico
Because the 60s and 70s are in any way relevant to current politics, right? Nice going, champ.


Unnecessary, "champ". & yes they are, "champ". Ignorance is obviously your best friend because if what you said was right then history would not matter to our modern society at all. And it DOES. History from the 40s is relevant to today - namely the NHS & welfare state. So go get educated. Nice going, "champ."
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 56
Interesting topic.

What I associate with the word elitism is = exclusive with respect to background rather than ability. It can be used in other ways but that's how I interpret the word unless it is made clear that something else is meant.

In that context I would say
1 is not elitist (because they measure IQ, not background)
2 is not elitist (because any smart person can get a 1 or 2.1 regardless of where they are from)
3 is borderline elitist (unless they have clear evidence that someone with a 1 or 2.1 from a uni not on their list is always less able than someone with a 2.1 from a uni on their list)
4 is elitist (because it measures background more than anything else, even more than you suggest - based on what you write they would probably not accept just anyone from the universities on their list, only well-off people who understand their rich clients)
5 is elitist (it is racist but also elitist because again it is about background)

Note that all of them are exclusive (with respect to ability), but only some are elitist (exclusive with respect to background).

Oh and as for "when is it ok?" - I'd be fine with 1-3 and borderline 4. (I think 3-5 limit themselves but that's their problem. I don't really care because I wouldn't really want to work for them anyway.)
(edited 11 years ago)
Can somebody explain to me what exactly is wrong with elitism?
Employers want to hire those best at doing the job - those people are likely to be the ones who have had a better education.
I fail to see what is wrong with this.
Original post by Blutooth
Don't go to sleep :P. It also used to be the case that girls scored higher in IQ tests than boys but then iq tests were changed to redress this bias. Now you might argue that the Iq tests were unfairly suited to girls' strengths or you might say that girls are cleverer than boys. But the difficulties inherent in designing iq tests when there is a spectrum of different intelligence seems to render IQ tests as a limited indicator.

Coming back to the redesigned IQ tests for toddlers, I might again ask the question, how do I know that you are just not fiddling with the tests to suit your preconceived conclusion that iq is immutable over the years? Is this not similar to the case above where iq tests were redesigned so that they would fit the bias of the day ie. that boys were as smart or smarter than girls?

It seems like in designing Iq tests, to an extent, we already have to second-guess the conclusions of the test.


i think youll find that boys used to score higher on those tests as they were suited to their particular strengths. hence why more boys than girls got into grammar schools.

Iq tests for children are adapted to their levels of cognitive understanding and not based on second guesses. They're obviously not going to have the same cognitive ability as adults.

I'm not going to be rude to you as I can see where you are coming from, but you seriously need to revise the concept of an iq and how they are constructed before you can debate properly about it.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by M1011
Sigh. So then you agree with me in saying a candidate with a higher IQ or better education etc (strengths) can be favoured over one without those attributes?

I think you've run out of things to say.


Again it appears that you do not know what equality of opportunity means. Not everyone has an equal opportunity of having a high IQ or getting a better education, that's my point.

Quick Reply

Latest