I also wonder - what if the foundation did this for just promising people? Would they muck up potential with money? Does having all your needs all of a sudden taken care of help or get in the way?
maybe the real question is - what is the best way to stimulate people of art, science, etc
Many of the so called foundations/prizes out there are mere influence-peddling schemes by perversely calling attention to the organization while appearing to confer accolades on the already famous and who don't need it. Thus they become gatekeepers and shape public opinion on what is great/good vs. what is not.
Most truly great achievers are intrinsically-motivated (see SDT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory) and hence care more about their work/domain then recognition from clueless organizations. The best example would be Grigori Perelman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)
tiahura•4mo ago
viccis•4mo ago
11101010001100•4mo ago
robotresearcher•4mo ago
Scholarships for the best students are given partly to obtain or retain those students to the institution. If I have offers from Harvard and Princeton, but one will give me $20K, that influences my choice and that school gets a star student. That’s competition.
Those same schools ALSO subsidize places for students who are unable to pay. Of course some students are in both categories.
r14c•4mo ago
cultofmetatron•4mo ago
kace91•4mo ago
pedalpete•4mo ago
The Canadian hockey team is a bit like the US basketball team. When we take the ice, it's highly likely we're going to win.
In 2006, the coaches decided to build the team from players who never really got a fair shot. The thinking was that we have the great coaches, and these players just never got a shot.
We (Canada) lost in the quarter finals, and when asked why, the coaches said that even though the players had as much talent as the A team. They didn't have the commitment to win. They didn't show up to practice, or practice as hard.
These were the "marginally successful", that just needed a bit of help.
Sure, it's only one anecdote, but an interesting reference point.
SubjectToChange•4mo ago
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
the_sleaze_•4mo ago
pedalpete•3mo ago
SubjectToChange•4mo ago
The point of the MacArthur Foundation is basically to launder the MacArthur name in the eyes of the public. So that when people see "MacArthur" they associate it with prestige and — more importantly — the excellence of its recipients, not its sleazy origin. Hence why recipients are only chosen when they have proven that their names are useful for the MacArthur Foundation.
In your example, the MacArthur Foundation wouldn't be giving out scholarships to high performing students, they'd be giving money to people like Donald Knuth. In other words, people who have already shown that they didn't need the money to be successful and don't really need the money to continue performing at a high level. Of course, it isn't a complete waste, but it doesn't go towards developing the next Donald Knuth. The MacArthur Foundation isn't "promoting excellence", it's "celebrating" the excellence in which it took absolutely no risk in developing. As the author says "The enterprise is not merely silly, but snooty: an exercise in invidious distinction for its own sake."
watwut•4mo ago
Scholarships are about picking up people most likely to do great and giving them a chance. It is not just a medal for past achievements, it is to that they achieve more in the future.
> Shouldn’t they go to the marginally unsuccessful, that with a little help, would be successful?
There actually are programs like that although Trump closed some of them. Programs designed to teach at-risk youth marketable skills. There is (or was) also help for students with various learning disabilities. The two are not in opposition. These things exist, but are under constant attacks from the right.