In the late 1950s Michael Young, a British sociologist and political activist, lampooned the concept of “meritocracy,” a term he coined to denote government by the intelligent and talented. In the early 1970s American sociologist Daniel Bell snatched the label and dropped the satire, and meritocracy ever since has been a straight-faced concept in American thinking about who gets what in our system of political economy.
In fact the idea predated the label. Thinkers since Plato have dreamed of putting public affairs in the hands of the most able, by which they usually meant the brightest and most virtuous. America never adopted that model in politics, preferring democracy. But meritocracy became the watchword of American higher education around the middle of the twentieth century, as elite institutions like Harvard and Yale tried to shed their reputations as finishing schools for the children of the upper class.
The concept has played a central role in the debate over affirmative action. Sometimes meritocracy has been used to attack affirmative action itself, as when Asian students have been denied admission to elite colleges in numbers reflecting their grades and test scores. At times it has been used by defenders of affirmative action, in criticizing “legacy” admissions—of the children of alumni—as being at least as anti-meritocratic as affirmative action.
These days almost no one challenges the premise of meritocracy. The general belief is that of course it’s right that the most capable students should go to the best schools. Perhaps exceptions should be made in the name of diversity—but defenders of diversity often assert that diversity reveals capability of kinds unrecognized by the usual standards of grades and test scores.
Leaving aside the details of what those standards actually reveal, there’s a fundamental problem with basing educational policy on meritocracy—namely the connotation of moral worth implicit in the label. Even if the Ivies and other selective schools provide better educations than smart students would find elsewhere, do those students truly merit—that is, deserve—favored treatment?
To the extent their grades and scores reflect hard work, maybe. But grades and test scores are at least equally reflective of innate abilities and early opportunities, for which the students themselves deserve no credit. They simply won the genetic and socio-economic lottery.
It’s possible to make a case on public policy grounds that the smartest kids should go to the best schools, but that’s a separate argument from one claiming moral merit for such an approach. Anyway, there are big holes in the argument. Universities win reputations on the strength of research, not on the quality of undergraduate education. Professors at Princeton are not necessarily poorer teachers than professors at less selective colleges, but they're not demonstrably better. Besides, in this golden age of self-education, when the internet puts all forms of knowledge at the fingertips of any inquisitive person, a case can be made that there is greater social utility in focusing teaching resources on the less gifted. The brightest kids will find their way on their own.
Of course, private schools can set their own standards, within boundaries imposed by their willingness to accept public dollars for research and by the tax breaks for the donations that keep them in business. For selective public universities, like the University of Texas at Austin, where I teach, the boundaries are somewhat stricter.
Perhaps this is all a waste of breath. Elites have historically devised schemes for reproducing themselves. Sometimes the reproduction is literal, as when the children of elites are introduced to each other and pair off and have children. College selection serves this purpose very effectively, given that college is a time and place when many young people find their mates or at least figure out what they are looking for in a mate.
Whatever system is established for handing out scarce goods—prestigious diplomas, for instance—the smart and the rich will find ways to game the system. That’s what brains and money do. And they’ll end up with the prize.
But, please, don't make us pretend they deserve it.
A thoughtful post and does raise the question as to whether the meritocracy idea is some offspring of any Materialist/Marxist Republic with the people as the Head of State.
Monarchies right of rule comes from God and with it (when it goes well) it has a Noblesse Oblige.
A meritocratic Republic, with the “best” rising to lead can have advances and ideas of fairness, but when it goes wrong (see Republican France or Spain), there is a Nietzschean (or Calvin) sense of the lower classes deserving their lack of success.
Not suggesting any answers, other than the consistency of Man’s fallen nature.
“Perhaps this is all a waste of breath. Elites have historically devised schemes for reproducing themselves. Sometimes the reproduction is literal, as when the children of elites are introduced to each other and pair off and have children. College selection serves this purpose very effectively, given that college is a time and place when many young people find their mates or at least figure out what they are looking for in a mate.
Whatever system is established for handing out scarce goods—prestigious diplomas, for instance—the smart and the rich will find ways to game the system. That’s what brains and money do. And they’ll end up with the prize.
But, please, don't make us pretend they deserve it. “
MUNRO:
NO IT IS NOT A WASTE OF BREATH. It is a very important topic. Society has to decide how much it is going to invest in EDUCATION, ATHLETICS and the MILITARY and who is going to get the “glittering prizes”. Scarcity is a universal law. We have scarce slots and scarce resources. We have to invest wisely so as to have the best engineers, best scientists, foreign language teachers, doctors, soldiers, Airmen, Marines, sailors, firefighters etc. For the sake of social harmony and societal peace when may have to address diversity issues but having AUTHENTIC HIGH STANDARDS IS GOOD FOR INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIETY.
HAVING LOW STANDARDS OR OPEN ADMISSION IS BAD FOR INSTITUTIONS AND FOR SOCEITY IN THE LONG RUN.
I am glad you pointed out LEGACY entrances into universities. That is the OLD AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Everybody knows it. But one wonders how small the number of White Males at university would be WITHOUT LEGACY Admissions. The number of males and White Males particularly had precipitously declined in the USA (and other places) And of course under the strictures of Affirmative Action schools and individuals were tempted to fiddle with the system by finding alternative paths of entry to select schools via athletics sometimes via obscure sports. In some cases we know these athletic CV’s were falsified or exaggerated. Sometimes the students athletes never even played a single game. The whole charade was to get INTO the college. And there is no question that CHILDREN of ELITES may intermarry and so maintain family wealth.
Some individuals will always have the edge over other individuals due differences in WEALTH, SOCIETAL CLASS, BEAUTY and YOUTH. It is of course, better to be YOUNG, BEAUTIFUL, HEALTHY and RICH than to be OLD, UGLY and SICK. It is better to KNOW PEOPLE and have connections than to be an isolated newcomer without a reputation or connections. I will say this, however, there is ALWAYS CHALLENGE and RESPONSE. Men and women who come up the hard way gain wisdom, strength and confidence that cannot be gained any other way. In other words there is no Royal Road to Geometry or Marine Corps OCS at Quantico.
A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’ - WSJ
ALSO SEE
White men are now almost extinct on university campuses – and that’s exactly what feminists want — RT Op-ed