I'm having a really hard time understanding what this article is about. I've re-read it like 3 times. I think it has something to do with the UK's civil service

I'm having a really hard time understanding what this article is about. I've re-read it like 3 times. I think it has something to do with the UK's civil service and it's connection (connexion, excuse me) to the education system, and in particular the kinds of degrees and certificates required to enter civil service. The author seems concerned (although I'm not entirely sure) that these hallmarks of merit are out-of-sync with the qualities that actually make a good civil servant. E.g. government becomes increasingly staffed by people who themselves have passed these official tests, gained the Official Seal of Competence, and therefore only empathize with other people who've passed these tests, leaving the rest to their fate. So, you get a government full of people who are brilliant test-takers. The first Men-in-Black movie when Will Smith's character is being tested for induction was kind of a commentary on this, in that Smith was the outsider candidate, non-conformist, street-wise but perhaps not big on theory, and his competition were all hyper-competent well-educated civil servant types; and Smith's unique perspective was key to passing that battery of tests! A triumph against the meritocracy. But then again, was it? At the end of the day, Smith got his "MiB" badge of Merit, and no doubt he would someday proctor the self-same test that got him into the organization. I am still confused.