You ask a nice question - why no female fencing team? Well if a) there are students who want to form it and b) they will be good enough competitors for similar teams ok, but imposing it just because a male fencing team exist is stupid.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
>Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
See, here lies the problem. Define: excellence. As I have maintained, excellence is not tied well with SAT scores or GRE scores or papers or citation counts. I think excellence is very personal. If I am a economically disadvantaged student, but held my own in a violent high school in a bad neighborhood, worked a job but still scored good grades; much better than my peers. Did well in SATs without having any money for extra SAT training. If I resisted peer pressure to join a gang while focusing on my studies, I would think I did a pretty excellent job at my life. To compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair.
>There are bright people, there are dumb people.
In your mind which likes to simplify things. Not in the world there aren't. If you think you are smart because you are really good at Math, I would like to introduce you to my friend who is an exceptional soprano.
>Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition.
There are no natural repartitions. Only artificial ones imposed by the complex societies. I am not blaming the society, just saying that we could improve it to be much fairer and to aspire for anything less would be unfortunate.
>To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
We agree, just not on the definition of excellence.
> compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair
It sure is. But life itself is unfair. If you resisted all the pitfalls that society or the environment put in front of you, good for you, but I'm sorry it is not what matters.
What can you produce ? Can you outcompete others who do not have had such obstacles ? If you can, then yes I call that excellence, if you can't that personal growth/karma/name it the way you want.
As you said - "much better than my peers" - that's good, but we are all in a big pond called mankind. The way I see it, some people think they deserve something just for the randomness of their birthplace, or for not screwing up.
Sorry they don't. There are a lot of people on this earth who may have surpassed even greater problems, yet did not make it.
Trying to improve or fix society means making the situation even more complex, with artificial restriction - thus even more unfair in the end.
Bright people come in all shapes and colors. A soprano, a sport pro, a math wiz - bright people in different areas. They all reach for excellence.
I don't believe I'm smart. I just believe I'm doing my best to become excellent in one specific domain, and I don't want to be judged on anything but my performance.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.