9 ms·

Meritocracy Is a Myth

65 points by aminozuur 5y ago

doggodaddo78 5y ago
It's who you know, not what you know. Being rich and well-connected creates a self-amplifying, "virtuous" circle much like a population differential equation where the rate of increase is proportional to the amount present. I do believe that someone who out-competes and out-achieves the "lazy rich students who buy their homework" have the grit to overtake anyone who isn't focused, experienced, and used to working hard. It's easier if you're well-connected except it's not worth giving-up because unfairness, connectedness, and advantages exist. Victimology isn't productive for achievement, it's an excuse.
effnorwood 5y ago
It isn't
ergot_vacation 5y ago
This article is baffling. "The rich are unfairly rich-" it says "Because their parents were rich and bought them good schooling no one else can afford! But schooling hasn't been able to lift those who aren't already rich out of poverty very well! But if we just fix education the right way, surely THIS time it will work, and everyone can be rich(er)!" People love to believe comfortable myths. For a certain group of people, their comfortable myth is that wealth inequality can be solved by education. It cannot. People become wealthy because of luck. Who your parents are is luck. Where you were born is luck. Your intelligence and physical and mental health are luck. It's all luck. The best schooling in the world can't move this needle much, and its power grows ever weaker as technology and automation eat more and more of the economy. "Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. Most of that group do not want this to happen of course, and they get to make the decisions. But sooner or later, this will become an untenable position.
- TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
  The trouble here is that people don't become wealthy just because of luck. It plays a part, sure, but people have to play the game and know how it works in order to have even a chance of winning. The trouble is that many people don't even try because they don't know how to. Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. Education absolutely helps make more money, especially if you are educated in an in-demand field. Then you have to develop the discipline to spend less than you earn and to know(learn about) how to use an IRA and save from an early age. My personal finance class in high school was vital for this reason. While not everyone internalized its teachings, those who did have had significantly less stressful lives after they got an emergency fund saved up.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. For obvious reasons, if you do not invest your money yourself, that money is being lent out by your bank who invests it on your behalf and that bank then lends it to companies who invest it on the bank's behalf. When companies stop being borrowers and interest rates drop there is no demand for your savings and you shouldn't let your money sit in a bank account.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >"Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. I disagree because there is no demand for growth and productivity improvements if you can concentrate your wealth without doing anything. >We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. That's wrong, there are four options. The government as borrower of last resort who then subsequently uses the money on improving its infrastructure. This is compatible with fighting climate change. Negative interest rates for the first $100k you borrow from your bank. (private/business loans only, no mortgages) The weakening of cash to achieve negative interest rates on deposits (low cash withdrawal rates would be a start e.g. $3000 per month and $1500 max cash deposits per month). People with low savings can take their money out as cash but people with high savings will be screwed and forced to invest. The central bank as equalizer of last resort, let them send helicopter money until the inflation target has been reached. The helicopter money can be tied to a job guarantee that pays minimum wage. Given enough inflation people will naturally stop working at minimum wage. Yes, all wealth inequality problems stem from the fact that the Fed isn't powerful enough.
xallarap 5y ago
This has the same kind of flaw as dsm iv which bases psychopathy on prison related stuff. Merit is more then your list of college awards. People with top grades are usually just average at work. Good meritocracy is based on proving value.
xondono 5y ago
To me the most interesting part of this debate is that the majority of commenters here have pretty quickly jumped to “merit is luck because intelligence is luck”, which it’s pretty much impossible to make compatible with the concept of free will. But I somehow doubt that all the people commenting would accept that free will is not a thing.
known 5y ago
50% Ministers in Modi regime and 80% Judges in India are Brahmin aka Meritocracy as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism) And India has vaccinated just 3.2% of its population;
known 5y ago
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" --Einstein (b. 1879)
jl2718 5y ago
This author seems to have an angle they either can’t prove with facts or don’t know how to discuss with data. How much better are the super-rich test scores? Is that enough to fully explain their over-representation in the Ivies? How much does private school improve those scores? Does that fully explain their admissions advantage? What is the statistical benefit of wealth in the GaoKao? What portion of the wealth advantage in Chinese admissions is due to better scores, and how much is due to provincial quotas, or even political favors? In the US there have been several Supreme Court cases about this, and the conclusions have been that meritocracy is not a goal of federal education funding and tax relief programs. A simple search comes up with a far more comprehensive article on exactly this topic: “The Myth of American Meritocracy” by Ron Unz https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of... I admit that I haven’t read to the end; it’s nearly a book. But what is interesting to me is the source and focus of the complaint, today versus a decade ago. Is it liberal or conservative to decry the lack of meritocracy? Is it okay to skew admissions to redress privilege, while not okay to skew admissions in favor of privilege, or does the simultaneous practice of both make it okay?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 5y ago
It's 2021. Not even boyscouts believe in meritocracy...
- ttonkytonk 5y ago
  ...and even in the Iliad Achilles' bravery is attributed to the gods and in Exodus Pharaoh's heart is hardened by God.
fighterpilot 5y ago
This whole debate is the conflation of proximate causes and antecedent causes. If the most skilled person gets hired, is that an example of meritocracy? According to some people's definition - those who emphasize the proximate cause of the decision - yes, this is absolutely a meritocracy. According to others, no, it isn't, because of the genetic lottery and other antecedent causes outside of the control of the hiree. Who is right here? The answer is that both parties are right. They don't disagree on the underlying reality. They just disagree on what aspects of that reality the word "meritocracy" should refer to.
osigurdson 5y ago
I wonder what empirical evidence we have which would show graduates of elite schools are better in their chosen field of study than those that graduated from non-elite schools (or even carefully studied the material on their own). If outcomes are better at elite schools and it is not due to the students themselves then what is the elite school's secret sauce that cannot be replicated?
LatteLazy 5y ago
Everyone claims they like meritocracy. Then they realise Merit is smarts, hardwork and luck. And they don't have all those. So why would they actually want a meritocracy anymore than a non-king wants a monarchy?
- julienreszka 5y ago
  Aesthetics, mortality, justice, ethics. There are many reasons.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    For 1% of people those might matter more than self interest. But good luck building a majority on them to support meritocracy.
- smt88 5y ago
  By definition, merit is not luck. That's the crux of the issue: luck is far more important than intelligence or hard work, and many people become fantastically successful with only luck (often by being born into a wealthy family).
  - kiba 5y ago
    Luck determines what genes you have and weather or not your parents care about education. It's an inseparable part of life.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      This is the crab mentality (if I can't have it, neither can you).
    - smt88 5y ago
      Yes. Another reason merit is an impossible thing to measure.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
kiba 5y ago
Meritocracy isn't egalitarianism. The whole point is to promote the best and the brightest, thus it will always promote inequality. Then the best educated will receive the best resources money can buy. That race always starts before you're even born.
prepend 5y ago
How is this breaking news? I though Reuters was one of the last sort of boring “just news” orgs.
- thefounder 5y ago
  It's actualy breaking "views" not "news" but yeah I read reuters for the "boring" news so let's hope they won't push too many "views"(opinions) and stick to the news.
jdgoesmarching 5y ago
Even if it were real, the bigger problem is assuming anyone knows how to accurately evaluate merit. I’ll point you to any number of books on human biases, but I particularly like The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. The tech version of this is extremely frustrating, because intelligent people are very good at letting their brains blind their biases and insulate their egos.
TrackerFF 5y ago
I remember reading about David Shaw (of D.E Shaw), and how he annually donated $1MM to each HYPS school, over a period of six years - and then some to a couple of other schools. That's like at least $24MM just to get your kids to the best schools - these are the kids you're competing against, though probably outliers in above example. The elite school -> elite (or important) jobs pipeline is something you see in every country, and that's how it's been forever, but I think things are getting a bit better. My only concern would be that we're not getting enough "class" diversity.
- adamnemecek 5y ago
  I do t think it’s as prevalent in Europe.
ttfkam 5y ago
Luck (and nepotism) play far too great a role in success for meritocracy to exist. https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I Then of course there's the whole "the guy who first coined term considered it a joke." Too many people missed the satire and took it way too seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kiba 5y ago
  Luck always play a role, especially genes, and so are parents' nurture. It's always an unequal playing field.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "Then of course there's the whole "the guy who first coined term considered it a joke." It's worth noting that the Wikipedia page itself contains the following quote from the author: "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." In other words, the guy who first coined the term says meritocracy works. (Those who have read the book would know that it resulted in tremendous cultural and scientific achievements within its fictional world.) What the author is saying that a meritocratic system needs to be mindful of the hubris and arrogance of those given power just because they happened to be gifted with merit through an accident of birth and circumstance and to also show kindness and consideration to those less endowed with merit, lest they tear society apart.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Murray Gell-Mann effect applies here.
  - ttfkam 5y ago
    He meant this new word as a warning: Modern societies would learn how to measure intelligence in children so exactly that they would be stratified in schools and jobs according to their natural ability. In Young’s satirical fantasy, this new form of inequality would be so rigid and oppressive that it would end in violent rebellion.
ttfkam 5y ago
Any notion that we live in anything remotely resembling a meritocracy should already be thoroughly debunked if for no other reason than the results of the 2016 elections.
strken 5y ago
I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. It's not meaningful to say an abstract ideal is a myth when it's not fully realised, because meritocracy still exists as a relative measurement between different times and places. It still means something to say "our workplace should be more meritocratic." It would also be meaningful to say "our country should be freer," even if absolute freedom doesn't exist.
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  It's sorta meritocratic. The world is imperfect but the US is fairly free for individuals as long as they don't step on powerful-people's toes. There are no ideal utopias, nor can there be. Wishing and whining that it doesn't exist is like complaining about a lack of unicorns.
  - rurban 5y ago
    Nope, the US is not free at all. There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Getting rich is mostly driven by inheritance, class, luck and sociopathy, not by individual people on the basis of talent, effort and achievement. The US has extremely expensive schools. The US favors private contracts over civil rights, which is the base definition of fascism. Your worker is your slave because he signed this contract out of his free will. The only advantage is the lack of middle management. But calling that freedom is hysterical.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Are you going to tax my parents away from me? They gave me 18 years of care. You'd have to tax those 18 years for things to be truly fair. I don't believe in inheritance taxes because someone has to own all the stuff a person with low wealth enjoys. The government builds streets that are worth millions but even the poorest of society benefit from the wealth inequality of state and citizen. There are similar situations where wealth inequality benefits the poor and rich alike but things have been rigged so that these situations are rare or non existent. I do believe in a cap on the maximum amount a single person can inherit in their life. We don't want to take wealth away, we want it to spread. Everyone is born poor. People only become wealthy during their life. Some get wealthy earlier than others but that is not the problem. It's the quantity of wealthy people that is important. If everyone could be wealthy a day after they were born that would be fantastic.
armchairhacker 5y ago
Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world? I think an ideal society would be more in line with John Rawls' philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.
- mc32 5y ago
  The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.
agentofoblivion 5y ago
Baaaaaaarrrrrffff. What a horrible take. Rich people use their wealth to improve the opportunities of their offspring? How tragic. I suppose we’re all the victims of Jeff Bezos because his unfair, luck-derived, incredible intellect invented Amazon before we got around to it. If only we had more people from the bottom 60% going to Harvard (even though we know Ivy League schools predict little about performance) then some other person would have invented Amazon, and then we would be reading a similarly shit article where they use that person as evidence of whatever the point actually is here. Tl;dr being poor isn’t as good as rich and luck matters more than zero.
faeriechangling 5y ago
The article fails to prove its central point because it fails to demonstrate that merit is non-heritable through for instance, genetics. I'm not exactly sure what the argument against meritocracy actually was. Are these highly educated students NOT better workers? Are they better workers but they only got to be that way through the unfair favoritism of parents towards their own children and an insufficient social support network? Usually when I see complaints about meritocracy the solution is to put your fingers on the scale of adult employment because of the non-meritocratic nature of it but if the argument is the latter than one can raise many objections to this idea. If the idea is the former the argument has not been sufficiently made. Is it being argued that nuture can't raise intelligence? That's questionable as well. Is meritocracy and egalitarianism supposed to be the same thing for reasons? I really don't know the arguments are clear as mud. I don't feel like me reading this article happened through any meritocratic process.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
proc0 5y ago
> Yet as a top-notch education becomes the essential requirement for the best job, the rich can buy educational privileges for their children This is not meritocracy. Every argument made is just how much meritocracy has died in the U.S. not how meritocracy does not work. If it worked properly, the rich wouldn't have a leg up just because they have money, because in theory there wouldn't be elite schools to begin with. Schools themselves would be rewarded based on merit, instead of having these generational gatekeeping mechanisms that literally produce the ruling class in America. This is "the swamp" in politics, it's a bunch of elite people coming from elite schools, which might have some education, but are not necessarily the best for those jobs, just the ones with the best access... so not meritocracy.
- kiba 5y ago
  Meritocracy is about selecting and awarding the best. This will always create an elite. The best educated will be the rich and self amplify themselves by giving them the resources needed to succeed. They earned their merit by being better than anyone else. The poor will always be disadvantaged, whether that's broken homes or lack of access to resources. Meritocracy is a toxic idea if you don't understand the tradeoff. It will always exacerbates inequality.
  - proc0 5y ago
    First, this is basically admitting you are not good enough, and they are inherently better. Already a self-defeatist attitude that can become a self-fulflilling prophecy. And second, you even mention it: > self amplify themselves by giving them the resources needed to succeed That's corrupt meritocracy. Also are you telling me you don't select restaurants, mechanics, food products, opinions of others, etc., etc., based on whether they're better than others or not? Are you saying you just go around never thinking of who does it better than others to then benefit from that? Think about how you reward peopel on a daily basis, and how that ends up contributing to meritocracy.
fungiblecog 5y ago
The solution is not for elite schools to take in more students from deprived backgrounds. The solution is to make state schools good enough to compete with the elite schools. Teaching at state schools (I’m from the UK) is utterly crap and 30 years of continuous reform has merely ensured that it keeps getting worse even as grade inflation is encouraged to make it seem like it’s getting better.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Since you raised the issue, I'll just ask how you'd propose to accomplish this. Certainly it's simpler to admit people to an already good school who wouldn't have been admitted otherwise (and, not necessarily because they're not qualified -- the number of students at any elite school is vastly outstripped by the number of applicants). I would say the potential payoff of improving "lesser" schools is far greater than simply letting different people into elite schools. That just seems obvious by the fact that there are way more mediocre state schools and other C and D list schools out there than there are Stanfords and Caltechs. What I doubt is that it's even possible in a practical sense to raise the bar on the non-site schools to an extent that would offset the overall effect of elite schools in aggregate on people who attend them. In other words, I suspect that opening up elite schools is simply the more practical option, however I am not an education policy wonk, so I am totally willing to be convinced otherwise.
fungiblecog 5y ago
The problem with “merit” is that it’s entirely subjective. Some would argue that Boris Johnson is prime minister based on merit: he went to university, worked as a journalist, got elected Mayor of London and the became PM. Others (myself included) would say that he has achieved nothing on merit but has used his privileged background, influential friends and lied his way to the top.

65 points by aminozuur 5y ago

It's who you know, not what you know. Being rich and well-connected creates a self-amplifying, "virtuous" circle much like a population differential equation where the rate of increase is proportional to the amount present. I do believe that someone who out-competes and out-achieves the "lazy rich students who buy their homework" have the grit to overtake anyone who isn't focused, experienced, and used to working hard. It's easier if you're well-connected except it's not worth giving-up because unfairness, connectedness, and advantages exist. Victimology isn't productive for achievement, it's an excuse.

effnorwood 5y ago

It isn't

ergot_vacation 5y ago

This article is baffling. "The rich are unfairly rich-" it says "Because their parents were rich and bought them good schooling no one else can afford! But schooling hasn't been able to lift those who aren't already rich out of poverty very well! But if we just fix education the right way, surely THIS time it will work, and everyone can be rich(er)!" People love to believe comfortable myths. For a certain group of people, their comfortable myth is that wealth inequality can be solved by education. It cannot. People become wealthy because of luck. Who your parents are is luck. Where you were born is luck. Your intelligence and physical and mental health are luck. It's all luck. The best schooling in the world can't move this needle much, and its power grows ever weaker as technology and automation eat more and more of the economy. "Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. Most of that group do not want this to happen of course, and they get to make the decisions. But sooner or later, this will become an untenable position.

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
The trouble here is that people don't become wealthy just because of luck. It plays a part, sure, but people have to play the game and know how it works in order to have even a chance of winning. The trouble is that many people don't even try because they don't know how to. Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. Education absolutely helps make more money, especially if you are educated in an in-demand field. Then you have to develop the discipline to spend less than you earn and to know(learn about) how to use an IRA and save from an early age. My personal finance class in high school was vital for this reason. While not everyone internalized its teachings, those who did have had significantly less stressful lives after they got an emergency fund saved up.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. For obvious reasons, if you do not invest your money yourself, that money is being lent out by your bank who invests it on your behalf and that bank then lends it to companies who invest it on the bank's behalf. When companies stop being borrowers and interest rates drop there is no demand for your savings and you shouldn't let your money sit in a bank account.
imtringued 5y ago
>"Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. I disagree because there is no demand for growth and productivity improvements if you can concentrate your wealth without doing anything. >We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. That's wrong, there are four options. The government as borrower of last resort who then subsequently uses the money on improving its infrastructure. This is compatible with fighting climate change. Negative interest rates for the first $100k you borrow from your bank. (private/business loans only, no mortgages) The weakening of cash to achieve negative interest rates on deposits (low cash withdrawal rates would be a start e.g. $3000 per month and $1500 max cash deposits per month). People with low savings can take their money out as cash but people with high savings will be screwed and forced to invest. The central bank as equalizer of last resort, let them send helicopter money until the inflation target has been reached. The helicopter money can be tied to a job guarantee that pays minimum wage. Given enough inflation people will naturally stop working at minimum wage. Yes, all wealth inequality problems stem from the fact that the Fed isn't powerful enough.

xallarap 5y ago

This has the same kind of flaw as dsm iv which bases psychopathy on prison related stuff. Merit is more then your list of college awards. People with top grades are usually just average at work. Good meritocracy is based on proving value.

xondono 5y ago

To me the most interesting part of this debate is that the majority of commenters here have pretty quickly jumped to “merit is luck because intelligence is luck”, which it’s pretty much impossible to make compatible with the concept of free will. But I somehow doubt that all the people commenting would accept that free will is not a thing.

known 5y ago

50% Ministers in Modi regime and 80% Judges in India are Brahmin aka Meritocracy as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism) And India has vaccinated just 3.2% of its population;

known 5y ago

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" --Einstein (b. 1879)

jl2718 5y ago

This author seems to have an angle they either can’t prove with facts or don’t know how to discuss with data. How much better are the super-rich test scores? Is that enough to fully explain their over-representation in the Ivies? How much does private school improve those scores? Does that fully explain their admissions advantage? What is the statistical benefit of wealth in the GaoKao? What portion of the wealth advantage in Chinese admissions is due to better scores, and how much is due to provincial quotas, or even political favors? In the US there have been several Supreme Court cases about this, and the conclusions have been that meritocracy is not a goal of federal education funding and tax relief programs. A simple search comes up with a far more comprehensive article on exactly this topic: “The Myth of American Meritocracy” by Ron Unz https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of... I admit that I haven’t read to the end; it’s nearly a book. But what is interesting to me is the source and focus of the complaint, today versus a decade ago. Is it liberal or conservative to decry the lack of meritocracy? Is it okay to skew admissions to redress privilege, while not okay to skew admissions in favor of privilege, or does the simultaneous practice of both make it okay?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 5y ago

It's 2021. Not even boyscouts believe in meritocracy...

ttonkytonk 5y ago
...and even in the Iliad Achilles' bravery is attributed to the gods and in Exodus Pharaoh's heart is hardened by God.

fighterpilot 5y ago

This whole debate is the conflation of proximate causes and antecedent causes. If the most skilled person gets hired, is that an example of meritocracy? According to some people's definition - those who emphasize the proximate cause of the decision - yes, this is absolutely a meritocracy. According to others, no, it isn't, because of the genetic lottery and other antecedent causes outside of the control of the hiree. Who is right here? The answer is that both parties are right. They don't disagree on the underlying reality. They just disagree on what aspects of that reality the word "meritocracy" should refer to.

osigurdson 5y ago

I wonder what empirical evidence we have which would show graduates of elite schools are better in their chosen field of study than those that graduated from non-elite schools (or even carefully studied the material on their own). If outcomes are better at elite schools and it is not due to the students themselves then what is the elite school's secret sauce that cannot be replicated?

LatteLazy 5y ago

Everyone claims they like meritocracy. Then they realise Merit is smarts, hardwork and luck. And they don't have all those. So why would they actually want a meritocracy anymore than a non-king wants a monarchy?

julienreszka 5y ago
Aesthetics, mortality, justice, ethics. There are many reasons.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  For 1% of people those might matter more than self interest. But good luck building a majority on them to support meritocracy.
smt88 5y ago
By definition, merit is not luck. That's the crux of the issue: luck is far more important than intelligence or hard work, and many people become fantastically successful with only luck (often by being born into a wealthy family).
- kiba 5y ago
  Luck determines what genes you have and weather or not your parents care about education. It's an inseparable part of life.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    This is the crab mentality (if I can't have it, neither can you).
  - smt88 5y ago
    Yes. Another reason merit is an impossible thing to measure.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

kiba 5y ago

Meritocracy isn't egalitarianism. The whole point is to promote the best and the brightest, thus it will always promote inequality. Then the best educated will receive the best resources money can buy. That race always starts before you're even born.

prepend 5y ago

How is this breaking news? I though Reuters was one of the last sort of boring “just news” orgs.

thefounder 5y ago
It's actualy breaking "views" not "news" but yeah I read reuters for the "boring" news so let's hope they won't push too many "views"(opinions) and stick to the news.

jdgoesmarching 5y ago

Even if it were real, the bigger problem is assuming anyone knows how to accurately evaluate merit. I’ll point you to any number of books on human biases, but I particularly like The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. The tech version of this is extremely frustrating, because intelligent people are very good at letting their brains blind their biases and insulate their egos.

TrackerFF 5y ago

I remember reading about David Shaw (of D.E Shaw), and how he annually donated $1MM to each HYPS school, over a period of six years - and then some to a couple of other schools. That's like at least $24MM just to get your kids to the best schools - these are the kids you're competing against, though probably outliers in above example. The elite school -> elite (or important) jobs pipeline is something you see in every country, and that's how it's been forever, but I think things are getting a bit better. My only concern would be that we're not getting enough "class" diversity.

adamnemecek 5y ago
I do t think it’s as prevalent in Europe.

ttfkam 5y ago

Luck (and nepotism) play far too great a role in success for meritocracy to exist. https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I Then of course there's the whole "the guy who first coined term considered it a joke." Too many people missed the satire and took it way too seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kiba 5y ago
Luck always play a role, especially genes, and so are parents' nurture. It's always an unequal playing field.
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Then of course there's the whole "the guy who first coined term considered it a joke." It's worth noting that the Wikipedia page itself contains the following quote from the author: "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." In other words, the guy who first coined the term says meritocracy works. (Those who have read the book would know that it resulted in tremendous cultural and scientific achievements within its fictional world.) What the author is saying that a meritocratic system needs to be mindful of the hubris and arrogance of those given power just because they happened to be gifted with merit through an accident of birth and circumstance and to also show kindness and consideration to those less endowed with merit, lest they tear society apart.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Murray Gell-Mann effect applies here.
- ttfkam 5y ago
  He meant this new word as a warning: Modern societies would learn how to measure intelligence in children so exactly that they would be stratified in schools and jobs according to their natural ability. In Young’s satirical fantasy, this new form of inequality would be so rigid and oppressive that it would end in violent rebellion.

ttfkam 5y ago

Any notion that we live in anything remotely resembling a meritocracy should already be thoroughly debunked if for no other reason than the results of the 2016 elections.

strken 5y ago

I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. It's not meaningful to say an abstract ideal is a myth when it's not fully realised, because meritocracy still exists as a relative measurement between different times and places. It still means something to say "our workplace should be more meritocratic." It would also be meaningful to say "our country should be freer," even if absolute freedom doesn't exist.

doggodaddo78 5y ago
It's sorta meritocratic. The world is imperfect but the US is fairly free for individuals as long as they don't step on powerful-people's toes. There are no ideal utopias, nor can there be. Wishing and whining that it doesn't exist is like complaining about a lack of unicorns.
- rurban 5y ago
  Nope, the US is not free at all. There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Getting rich is mostly driven by inheritance, class, luck and sociopathy, not by individual people on the basis of talent, effort and achievement. The US has extremely expensive schools. The US favors private contracts over civil rights, which is the base definition of fascism. Your worker is your slave because he signed this contract out of his free will. The only advantage is the lack of middle management. But calling that freedom is hysterical.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Are you going to tax my parents away from me? They gave me 18 years of care. You'd have to tax those 18 years for things to be truly fair. I don't believe in inheritance taxes because someone has to own all the stuff a person with low wealth enjoys. The government builds streets that are worth millions but even the poorest of society benefit from the wealth inequality of state and citizen. There are similar situations where wealth inequality benefits the poor and rich alike but things have been rigged so that these situations are rare or non existent. I do believe in a cap on the maximum amount a single person can inherit in their life. We don't want to take wealth away, we want it to spread. Everyone is born poor. People only become wealthy during their life. Some get wealthy earlier than others but that is not the problem. It's the quantity of wealthy people that is important. If everyone could be wealthy a day after they were born that would be fantastic.

armchairhacker 5y ago

Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world? I think an ideal society would be more in line with John Rawls' philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).

schwartzworld 5y ago
Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.
- jl2718 5y ago
  I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.
imtringued 5y ago
> Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.
mc32 5y ago
The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.

agentofoblivion 5y ago

Baaaaaaarrrrrffff. What a horrible take. Rich people use their wealth to improve the opportunities of their offspring? How tragic. I suppose we’re all the victims of Jeff Bezos because his unfair, luck-derived, incredible intellect invented Amazon before we got around to it. If only we had more people from the bottom 60% going to Harvard (even though we know Ivy League schools predict little about performance) then some other person would have invented Amazon, and then we would be reading a similarly shit article where they use that person as evidence of whatever the point actually is here. Tl;dr being poor isn’t as good as rich and luck matters more than zero.

faeriechangling 5y ago

The article fails to prove its central point because it fails to demonstrate that merit is non-heritable through for instance, genetics. I'm not exactly sure what the argument against meritocracy actually was. Are these highly educated students NOT better workers? Are they better workers but they only got to be that way through the unfair favoritism of parents towards their own children and an insufficient social support network? Usually when I see complaints about meritocracy the solution is to put your fingers on the scale of adult employment because of the non-meritocratic nature of it but if the argument is the latter than one can raise many objections to this idea. If the idea is the former the argument has not been sufficiently made. Is it being argued that nuture can't raise intelligence? That's questionable as well. Is meritocracy and egalitarianism supposed to be the same thing for reasons? I really don't know the arguments are clear as mud. I don't feel like me reading this article happened through any meritocratic process.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

proc0 5y ago

> Yet as a top-notch education becomes the essential requirement for the best job, the rich can buy educational privileges for their children This is not meritocracy. Every argument made is just how much meritocracy has died in the U.S. not how meritocracy does not work. If it worked properly, the rich wouldn't have a leg up just because they have money, because in theory there wouldn't be elite schools to begin with. Schools themselves would be rewarded based on merit, instead of having these generational gatekeeping mechanisms that literally produce the ruling class in America. This is "the swamp" in politics, it's a bunch of elite people coming from elite schools, which might have some education, but are not necessarily the best for those jobs, just the ones with the best access... so not meritocracy.

kiba 5y ago
Meritocracy is about selecting and awarding the best. This will always create an elite. The best educated will be the rich and self amplify themselves by giving them the resources needed to succeed. They earned their merit by being better than anyone else. The poor will always be disadvantaged, whether that's broken homes or lack of access to resources. Meritocracy is a toxic idea if you don't understand the tradeoff. It will always exacerbates inequality.
- proc0 5y ago
  First, this is basically admitting you are not good enough, and they are inherently better. Already a self-defeatist attitude that can become a self-fulflilling prophecy. And second, you even mention it: > self amplify themselves by giving them the resources needed to succeed That's corrupt meritocracy. Also are you telling me you don't select restaurants, mechanics, food products, opinions of others, etc., etc., based on whether they're better than others or not? Are you saying you just go around never thinking of who does it better than others to then benefit from that? Think about how you reward peopel on a daily basis, and how that ends up contributing to meritocracy.

fungiblecog 5y ago

The solution is not for elite schools to take in more students from deprived backgrounds. The solution is to make state schools good enough to compete with the elite schools. Teaching at state schools (I’m from the UK) is utterly crap and 30 years of continuous reform has merely ensured that it keeps getting worse even as grade inflation is encouraged to make it seem like it’s getting better.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Since you raised the issue, I'll just ask how you'd propose to accomplish this. Certainly it's simpler to admit people to an already good school who wouldn't have been admitted otherwise (and, not necessarily because they're not qualified -- the number of students at any elite school is vastly outstripped by the number of applicants). I would say the potential payoff of improving "lesser" schools is far greater than simply letting different people into elite schools. That just seems obvious by the fact that there are way more mediocre state schools and other C and D list schools out there than there are Stanfords and Caltechs. What I doubt is that it's even possible in a practical sense to raise the bar on the non-site schools to an extent that would offset the overall effect of elite schools in aggregate on people who attend them. In other words, I suspect that opening up elite schools is simply the more practical option, however I am not an education policy wonk, so I am totally willing to be convinced otherwise.

fungiblecog 5y ago

The problem with “merit” is that it’s entirely subjective. Some would argue that Boris Johnson is prime minister based on merit: he went to university, worked as a journalist, got elected Mayor of London and the became PM. Others (myself included) would say that he has achieved nothing on merit but has used his privileged background, influential friends and lied his way to the top.