Great insight! There's something to be said in how the Xavier notoriety contributed to the de facto ownership the house had on certain positions like Junior Achievement presidency. Was this a way we as students decided to self-correct and compensate for the plight of the Xavier boy or was it because of Xavier notoriety that the presidency HAD to be a Xavier boy, given that such a position was historically entangled in various forms of rule breaking. Either way it indicates a coping mechanism for an unjust system.
It would seem that the administrations that continued to enforce those house rankings would only drop them for fear of damage to the entire school's reputation. I think it speaks to how governing institutions tend to seek out a "problem child" and worsen their situation, rather than seek systemic change.
Love your "problem child" point, Victor!! Keep 'em coming!
To your first point, this though thad crossed my mind while reflecting and writing, and I would say it was the former: we as students were trying to correct and compensate for the plight of the Xavier boy. Through our first 4 years in LJC (and for a few more years before that), it was technically not possible for a Xavier boy to claim the Head Boy or Head of Parliament position, which were viewed as two of the three prime positions up for grabs for SS2s. I think it was no coincidence that it was in our year, when a Xavier Boy was eligible and a conceivable contest for Head Boy, that Xavier House lost out on the JA President post. In fact, I vividly remember that part of hubbub in our time was the protest that no one house could/should lay claim to both Head Boy and JA President- and someone was oh so too ambitious to take heed of this unspoken rule because, prior to, it just wasn't possible that a Xavier Boy could be Head Boy or any other consequential student leadership position.
Lovely to walk down memory lane with you, Victor. It seems that once we become fully conscious, politics never stop politicking. :')
Certainly enjoyed reading this. Although I never thought of it this way, this brings back a lot of memories and realizations. I was certainly a victim of championing the low expectations. I remember one term I had two demerits, late almost 10 times. Didn't really feel any need to try and be early or obey rules. Insightful. 👏
Hahaha- thanks for sharing, Arinze! I definitely relate to being so down that it didn't feel like it'd make sense to keep trying anymore. Glad I was able to provide you a different perspective on this. Please feel to share with anyone you feel might benefit from this perspective!
If you wouldn't mind, could you remind me of what my takeaway in the equity vs. equality debate was? I seem to only have a vague memory of this conversation. :')
To your question, I think it might go without saying that effective and tangible solutions should be considered case-by-case basis.
Trying to speak generally, three pivotal things must happen in remedying the Matthew Effect as manifested in social phenomena, hierarchies, or stereotypes:
1. Addressing or accommodating for said initial disadvantages
2. Recognizing that certain negative outcomes are not inherent to the initially disadvantaged
3. Putting in the extra effort to rise above lowered expectations/negative stereotypes on the part of the disadvantaged
4. Maintaining empathy and patience through the process
Happy to elaborate on any of the aforementioned 4 points if you'd like me to. Just let me know! Thanks, Toni! :D
Thanks, Onose. It is definitely an interesting to consider- when we were in the moment I couldn't appreciate any of these potentially operating dynamics.
I remember how the rankings were setup such that there were a lot of ways to lose points and few ways of earning em back. Once a house fell behind there was no hope of catching up. Without hope students just doubled down 😂
Hahaha- it was really the doubling down for me. As if to say, "You say I am bad? I will show you bad."
But also thanks, Ugo, for pointing out the fact that the ranking system made it so that it was hard to earn points back. That sounds like it had the Matthew Effect literally built in!
I was drawn in by your ability to demystify a concept most ignore but know to be true - the Matthew effect, using something that may come off as trivial too many - Perpetually Defiant School boys. I throughly enjoyed reading this, as I do most of your writings. Still waiting for the one about love though.
Thanks, Esther!! There is truly usually more than meets the eye when it comes to such social phenomena- as you rightly point out, even something like religiously defiant school boys. Treatise on Love is still under-development, stay tuned. :')
Such an insightful read! I was lucky enough to see Xavier house grow to be better, primarily from house captains who set high standards for what a Xavier house member should be.
Great insight! There's something to be said in how the Xavier notoriety contributed to the de facto ownership the house had on certain positions like Junior Achievement presidency. Was this a way we as students decided to self-correct and compensate for the plight of the Xavier boy or was it because of Xavier notoriety that the presidency HAD to be a Xavier boy, given that such a position was historically entangled in various forms of rule breaking. Either way it indicates a coping mechanism for an unjust system.
It would seem that the administrations that continued to enforce those house rankings would only drop them for fear of damage to the entire school's reputation. I think it speaks to how governing institutions tend to seek out a "problem child" and worsen their situation, rather than seek systemic change.
Love your "problem child" point, Victor!! Keep 'em coming!
To your first point, this though thad crossed my mind while reflecting and writing, and I would say it was the former: we as students were trying to correct and compensate for the plight of the Xavier boy. Through our first 4 years in LJC (and for a few more years before that), it was technically not possible for a Xavier boy to claim the Head Boy or Head of Parliament position, which were viewed as two of the three prime positions up for grabs for SS2s. I think it was no coincidence that it was in our year, when a Xavier Boy was eligible and a conceivable contest for Head Boy, that Xavier House lost out on the JA President post. In fact, I vividly remember that part of hubbub in our time was the protest that no one house could/should lay claim to both Head Boy and JA President- and someone was oh so too ambitious to take heed of this unspoken rule because, prior to, it just wasn't possible that a Xavier Boy could be Head Boy or any other consequential student leadership position.
Lovely to walk down memory lane with you, Victor. It seems that once we become fully conscious, politics never stop politicking. :')
This was an awesome read. Took me all the way back to school
Lovely read! thank you for this insight!
Loved this Segun. Explains quite a lot about factors our school never took into account re Xavier boys and 3rd block. Can’t wait to see more!
Thanks, Ukeje! Hope to see you around the comment section more frequently!
Certainly enjoyed reading this. Although I never thought of it this way, this brings back a lot of memories and realizations. I was certainly a victim of championing the low expectations. I remember one term I had two demerits, late almost 10 times. Didn't really feel any need to try and be early or obey rules. Insightful. 👏
Hahaha- thanks for sharing, Arinze! I definitely relate to being so down that it didn't feel like it'd make sense to keep trying anymore. Glad I was able to provide you a different perspective on this. Please feel to share with anyone you feel might benefit from this perspective!
Great article Segun. I wonder what effective solutions might look like. Reminds me similar to your takeaway of the equity vs equality debate.
Thanks for the feedback, Toni!
If you wouldn't mind, could you remind me of what my takeaway in the equity vs. equality debate was? I seem to only have a vague memory of this conversation. :')
To your question, I think it might go without saying that effective and tangible solutions should be considered case-by-case basis.
Trying to speak generally, three pivotal things must happen in remedying the Matthew Effect as manifested in social phenomena, hierarchies, or stereotypes:
1. Addressing or accommodating for said initial disadvantages
2. Recognizing that certain negative outcomes are not inherent to the initially disadvantaged
3. Putting in the extra effort to rise above lowered expectations/negative stereotypes on the part of the disadvantaged
4. Maintaining empathy and patience through the process
Happy to elaborate on any of the aforementioned 4 points if you'd like me to. Just let me know! Thanks, Toni! :D
https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png
This image is what I was thinking of in terms of equity and equality.
Thanks for the response.
I loved this 👍…I’d already given much thought to this and loved the Matthew Theory or whatever theoretical explanation you gave and related to it
Glad you liked it, Michael. Feel free to share any of the thoughts you've had about it. I'd love to hear others' takes.
This is so informative and interesting. I never thought about how so many external factors contributed to things
Thanks, Onose. It is definitely an interesting to consider- when we were in the moment I couldn't appreciate any of these potentially operating dynamics.
Love it! Inspired me to also go back to my boarding school days and re-evaluate why things might have been the way they have - keep it up 💪🏼
Thanks, Patrik! Glad I was able to get you reflecting/thinking :D.
I enjoyed reading this rather insightful perspective on what seemed like the natural order of things at the time 👏🏾
I remember how the rankings were setup such that there were a lot of ways to lose points and few ways of earning em back. Once a house fell behind there was no hope of catching up. Without hope students just doubled down 😂
Hahaha- it was really the doubling down for me. As if to say, "You say I am bad? I will show you bad."
But also thanks, Ugo, for pointing out the fact that the ranking system made it so that it was hard to earn points back. That sounds like it had the Matthew Effect literally built in!
I was drawn in by your ability to demystify a concept most ignore but know to be true - the Matthew effect, using something that may come off as trivial too many - Perpetually Defiant School boys. I throughly enjoyed reading this, as I do most of your writings. Still waiting for the one about love though.
Thanks, Esther!! There is truly usually more than meets the eye when it comes to such social phenomena- as you rightly point out, even something like religiously defiant school boys. Treatise on Love is still under-development, stay tuned. :')
Such an insightful read! I was lucky enough to see Xavier house grow to be better, primarily from house captains who set high standards for what a Xavier house member should be.