1. I haven’t seen his essay, and I agree that effort does not necessarily equate to high quality. Although the appendix suggests the content might be solid, the admissions committee has its own rubric. Does the essay meet those standards? That is what ultimately determines the score.
2. Even setting the essay aside and looking solely at his attitude, if I were on the admissions committee, I would also vote to reject him. He appears entirely too non-compliant. He may possess a good command of knowledge, but his personality is clearly ill-suited for the university environment. Admitting a student like that would likely just invite trouble.
However, I disagree with your advice to the author. Given that he is critiquing the system itself, your response effectively tells him: “You should submit to the system because that is the reality.” To me, this sidesteps the issue. It is akin to telling a group of democrats living under a monarchy that they should simply obey the king because “we live in the era of kings, and that’s the reality.” This is problematic because it commits the **naturalistic fallacy**—just because something *is* the reality doesn’t mean it is normatively *right*.
Addressing your specific points:
1. You label this a “standard leftist critique,” but you haven’t pointed out *why* this critique is invalid. You imply it doesn’t hold water without actually providing an argument against it.
2. Does the author have a “superiority fantasy”? I reserve judgment on this due to a lack of information. According to the author, his complaints about failure are separate from his critique of the system. The latter manifests in issues like grade inflation and the instinct for self-humiliation—which are objectively serious problems, particularly in the East Asian context.
3. Regarding your homework analogy: I believe this argument presupposes that the assignment or the evaluation system is legitimate. Because you assume it is legitimate, you view any questioning of it as unreasonable, and thus treat the critique as merely an excuse for not doing the work. You are essentially baking the answer into your premise. But the real question is: *Is* this evaluation system actually legitimate?
If a student refuses to do homework and writes an emotional, abusive rant, they indeed don’t deserve to be taken seriously. But if their writing is based on rational argumentation, it deserves to be treated seriously. Engaging with it is not “indulging” them; it is valid reflection. Otherwise, using the premise that “the system is right” to declare all opposition invalid is a clear case of **circular reasoning**. This brings us back to Point 1: you need to explain why his argument fails, rather than avoiding it.
Indeed, if one does not share the author’s view of the university (as a place for education rather than stratification), one need not agree with his solution. This depends on one’s moral stance. At least as a libertarian egalitarian, I believe the problems he points out are real. Educational stratification hinders the diffusion of resources and the realization of equality, which poses a threat to modern society.
I agree with you in part.
1. I haven’t seen his essay, and I agree that effort does not necessarily equate to high quality. Although the appendix suggests the content might be solid, the admissions committee has its own rubric. Does the essay meet those standards? That is what ultimately determines the score.
2. Even setting the essay aside and looking solely at his attitude, if I were on the admissions committee, I would also vote to reject him. He appears entirely too non-compliant. He may possess a good command of knowledge, but his personality is clearly ill-suited for the university environment. Admitting a student like that would likely just invite trouble.
However, I disagree with your advice to the author. Given that he is critiquing the system itself, your response effectively tells him: “You should submit to the system because that is the reality.” To me, this sidesteps the issue. It is akin to telling a group of democrats living under a monarchy that they should simply obey the king because “we live in the era of kings, and that’s the reality.” This is problematic because it commits the **naturalistic fallacy**—just because something *is* the reality doesn’t mean it is normatively *right*.
Addressing your specific points:
1. You label this a “standard leftist critique,” but you haven’t pointed out *why* this critique is invalid. You imply it doesn’t hold water without actually providing an argument against it.
2. Does the author have a “superiority fantasy”? I reserve judgment on this due to a lack of information. According to the author, his complaints about failure are separate from his critique of the system. The latter manifests in issues like grade inflation and the instinct for self-humiliation—which are objectively serious problems, particularly in the East Asian context.
3. Regarding your homework analogy: I believe this argument presupposes that the assignment or the evaluation system is legitimate. Because you assume it is legitimate, you view any questioning of it as unreasonable, and thus treat the critique as merely an excuse for not doing the work. You are essentially baking the answer into your premise. But the real question is: *Is* this evaluation system actually legitimate?
If a student refuses to do homework and writes an emotional, abusive rant, they indeed don’t deserve to be taken seriously. But if their writing is based on rational argumentation, it deserves to be treated seriously. Engaging with it is not “indulging” them; it is valid reflection. Otherwise, using the premise that “the system is right” to declare all opposition invalid is a clear case of **circular reasoning**. This brings us back to Point 1: you need to explain why his argument fails, rather than avoiding it.
Indeed, if one does not share the author’s view of the university (as a place for education rather than stratification), one need not agree with his solution. This depends on one’s moral stance. At least as a libertarian egalitarian, I believe the problems he points out are real. Educational stratification hinders the diffusion of resources and the realization of equality, which poses a threat to modern society.