卓越有什么了不起? (1981)
What’s so great about excellence? (1981)

原始链接: https://newrepublic.com/article/108017/whats-so-great-about-excellence

麦克阿瑟基金会的“天才奖”项目常被比作老电视节目“百万富翁”,但这种比较是不准确的。节目关注的是意外之财改变生活,而麦克阿瑟基金会旨在识别和奖励那些*已经*走上成功道路的人。 作者认为这是一项多余的举动,因为被选中的“天才”通常已经在各自领域内获得了高度认可和赞誉——以已经获奖的罗伯特·彭·沃伦为例。 选拔过程并非大胆地寻找隐藏的天赋,而是对知名人士的可预测性汇集,以确保表面的多样性。 本质上,该基金会并非在挑战命运,而是在强化命运,向那些注定会获得赞誉的人授予荣誉。该项目声称对未被发现的探索者进行“高风险”投资,更像是一种宣传噱头,而非真正的慈善行为。

## 黑客新闻讨论摘要:卓越的价值与援助分配 一场黑客新闻讨论,源于一篇1981年的文章,质疑庆祝现有卓越的意义(链接:[https://www.newrepublic.com/article/163499/whats-so-great-about-excellence](https://www.newrepublic.com/article/163499/whats-so-great-about-excellence)), 讨论的核心是,将慈善资源奖励给已经成功的人士是否是最佳选择。 许多评论者认为,像麦克阿瑟基金会这样的机构,主要作用是提升其创始人的声誉,而非真正促进创新。他们建议,援助更有可能产生影响,如果它 направлена на тех, кто имеет потенциал, но не имеет возможностей,而不是强化现有的成功。 反驳观点指出,吸引顶尖人才的竞争性,奖学金激励高成就者选择特定学校。一个关于2006年加拿大奥运会冰球队的轶事说明,仅仅*给予*机会并不能保证承诺或成功。讨论还涉及社会正常运作所需的普及教育,以及识别个人真正潜力的复杂性。最终,该讨论质疑如何最好地促进艺术、科学及其他领域的进步。
相关文章

原文

People, even editorial writers, have compared the MacArthur Foundation scheme to that old television series, “The Millionaire,” in which an anonymous financier dispatched one-million-dollar checks to unsuspecting ordinary people. But the premises of the two enterprises are quite different. The charm of “The Millionaire” was the spectacle of fate being flouted. Life had dealt these characters a lousy hand, but suddenly they had a royal flush. The MacArthur Foundation, by contrast, sees itself as fate’s midwife, combing the nation for life’s winners and making sure they are delivered safely into affluence and esteem.

Fate rarely needs such help. The redundancy of the exercise is well illustrated by the names of the first MacArthur Fellows. Roderick MacArthur, son of John D., seems to believe that his selections are more exotic than those of similar exercises that are the stock-in-trade of other foundations, fellowships, prize committees, and so on. “It’s a high-risk venture,” he told the newspapers, “. . . the risky betting on individual explorers while everybody else is playing it safe on another track.” In fact, far from requiring 100 anonymous tipsters, putting together a list like this is a parlor game. Given one or two of the names, many people could come up with half a dozen others without even knowing what the list was for. It could be this year’s honorary degree recipients at Princeton, or a Presidential Commission on the Future of Values, or the celebrity endorsers for a particularly tony Scotch advertising campaign. Round up the usual suspects; check for diversity of fields, sexes, races; call the press conference.

What philanthropic purpose is served, for example, by conferring yet another honor on Robert Penn Warren, dear old poet though he may be? Warren won a Rhodes Scholarship back in 1928. Since then, according to Who’s Who, he has been the official poet of the Library of Congress, the Jefferson Lecturer of the National Endowment for the Humanities, a Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellow, a Guggenheim Fellow, and winner of the Levinson Prize, the Caroline Sinkler Prize, the Shelley Prize, the Robert Metzler Award, the Sidney Hillman Award, the Edna St. Vincent Millay Prize, the National Book Award, the Irita Van Doren Literary Award, the Van Wyck Brooks Award, the National Medal for Literature, the Emerson-Thoreau Award, the Copernicus Prize, three Pulitzer Prizes, and honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, and 12 other colleges.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com