"But the Iron Law of Meritocracy makes a different prediction: that societies ordered around the meritocratic ideal will produce inequality without the attendant mobility."
Why Elites Fail | The Nation
Why Elites Fail | The Nation
it's not the concept of meritocracy that has failed, it's the application of meritocracy...
from the article:
"But the problem with my alma mater is that over time, the mechanisms of meritocracy have broken down. In 1995, when I was a student at Hunter, the student body was 12 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic. Not coincidentally, there was no test-prep industry for the Hunter entrance exam. That’s no longer the case. Now, so-called cram schools like Elite Academy in Queens can charge thousands of dollars for after-school and weekend courses where sixth graders memorize vocabulary words and learn advanced math. Meanwhile, in the wealthier precincts of Manhattan, parents can hire $90-an-hour private tutors for one-on-one sessions with their children."
seems like the meaning of meritocracy and fairness is blurred. the main objective of meritocracy is to ensure 1) people get rewarded according to their ability and 2) to ensure the right person gets the right job/appointment. Just because some have access to elite tuition and some does not, doesn't mean that meritocracy (or its application) has failed, because at the end of the day, the person getting the job/place in university is still better than the person who did not get it.
fairness however is a different problem, because the financially/socially disadvantaged people are stuck in a system that makes them less socially mobile.
The key question is: does meritocracy inherently leads to unfairness, hence aggravating social inequality.
the problem lies with the measure of merit, and how this system of measure may be gamed... relying only on predictable standardized testing as the sole means of measuring merit allows people with means to prepare fully for such tests, memorizing or at least learning ways to tackle similar questions that are used year after year, like by going to "cram" classes and the like where learning how to take the test is the primary task rather than the actual learning of subject knowledge or knowledge adaptation... it becomes a test of who is the most prepared or willing to spend the most to get prepared rather than who is the most able... when such ways to game the system are available, naturally the privileged are in a position of advantage over the less privileged, which distorts the whole purpose of meritocracy...seems like the meaning of meritocracy and fairness is blurred. the main objective of meritocracy is to ensure 1) people get rewarded according to their ability and 2) to ensure the right person gets the right job/appointment. Just because some have access to elite tuition and some does not, doesn't mean that meritocracy (or its application) has failed, because at the end of the day, the person getting the job/place in university is still better than the person who did not get it.
fairness however is a different problem, because the financially/socially disadvantaged people are stuck in a system that makes them less socially mobile.
it's not the concept of meritocracy that has failed, it's the application of meritocracy...
from the article:
"But the problem with my alma mater is that over time, the mechanisms of meritocracy have broken down. In 1995, when I was a student at Hunter, the student body was 12 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic. Not coincidentally, there was no test-prep industry for the Hunter entrance exam. That’s no longer the case. Now, so-called cram schools like Elite Academy in Queens can charge thousands of dollars for after-school and weekend courses where sixth graders memorize vocabulary words and learn advanced math. Meanwhile, in the wealthier precincts of Manhattan, parents can hire $90-an-hour private tutors for one-on-one sessions with their children."
the problem lies with the measure of merit, and how this system of measure may be gamed... relying only on predictable standardized testing as the sole means of measuring merit allows people with means to prepare fully for such tests, memorizing or at least learning ways to tackle similar questions that are used year after year, like by going to "cram" classes and the like where learning how to take the test is the primary task rather than the actual learning of subject knowledge or knowledge adaptation... it becomes a test of who is the most prepared or willing to spend the most to get prepared rather than who is the most able... when such ways to game the system are available, naturally the privileged are in a position of advantage over the less privileged, which distorts the whole purpose of meritocracy...
not eliminate testing, but to have more open-ended test questions, like ask for analysis of data or opinion on issues... things that require not just the processing of a question and providing a model answer but asking questions that require the students to demonstrate thinking skills and maturity of thought... it's easier for some subjects than others, obviously, like in the humanities rather than in mathematics, but we should also require students to take a variety of subjects so as to broaden their minds and which would allow the system to test the students from different angles, different approaches...Yes, I guess that's another way of looking at it.
Yet the current formula has always been to use some form of testing. You can't run away from it as a starter.
not eliminate testing, but to have more open-ended test questions, like ask for analysis of data or opinion on issues... things that require not just the processing of a question and providing a model answer but asking questions that require the students to demonstrate thinking skills and maturity of thought... it's easier for some subjects than others, obviously, like in the humanities rather than in mathematics, but we should also require students to take a variety of subjects so as to broaden their minds and which would allow the system to test the students from different angles, different approaches...
who adapted to the new environment with the most agility and creativity, who tried out novel ways of operating and got away with them, and sometimes were the most ethically challenged, were most rewarded with influence