6 ms·

The notion of education as a meritocracy is laughable at best. The correlation between standardized test scores, GPA, high school graduation rate and six-year c

by ruswick 13y ago

The notion of education as a meritocracy is laughable at best. The correlation between standardized test scores, GPA, high school graduation rate and six-year college graduation rate are bound intimately to income and class. Poor people simply aren't afforded the resources to succeed, nor are they exposed to the social situations that promote ambition. Couple this the fact that the SAT, even when adjusted for economic disparity, is still skewed towards white men, and the notion that education (especially college admissions) is anything even remotely resemblant to a meritocracy is ridiculous. Granted, there is probably a modicum more of equity than there was at the time of the story, given that colleges have de-emphasized standardized tests (to an extent), and score-inflation combined with increased tendency for curriculum to converge on tested material has made scores far less meaningful. (For instance, I got a 35 on the ACT, and I'm not inordinately intelligent by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, I know not a single person who received below a 30 [save for a friend from Peru, for whom english is not a first language]. And this is just an average suburban pubic high school. I imagine that average scores at competitive private schools might be in the 33/2270 area. My hunch is that, as testing becomes more pervasive, underperforming education systems that begin using the test will shift the apex of the curve to the left, bringing even average students up the curve, but I digress.) However, this trivialization of testing has merely exacerbated inequality in admissions because it places on emphasis on things like internships (accessible only to the wealthy), hobbies/productive extracurriculars (which favors those who start young, and starting young often necessitates money and or involved parents), etc. Education has never been a meritocracy and it never will be.

redschell 13y ago
You would imagine wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy 2096 for 2008. Even Phillips has underachievers, though they are still pretty damn good. You have inflated expectations because you associate yourself with like-minded, equally exceptional individuals, which, in my opinion, is one of the most terribly underrated aspects of child rearing. Of course, I don't know if you were just naturally drawn to people of that level, or if it was something your parents/teachers facilitated, but I do believe in the notion that you are the company you keep. I can only imagine how much higher my standards in high school would have been if I had hung with a smarter bunch.
rayiner 13y ago
You're seeing a lot of self-selection in reporting I imagine. TJHSST (public) is still I think the highest at just under 2,200. Stuyvesant (public) is around 2,100, and most of the top private schools (Exeter, Choate, etc) are in the 2,000 to 2,100 range. A more typical rich public high school is likely to be around 1,800. As for your larger point, I disagree. I think the rush to deemphasize standardized test scores is racism more than it is embracing a broader view of merit. When I went to TJ (late 1990's) it was about 1/3 Asian/Indian (well-assimilated) and 2/3 white. Culturally it was a good mix--nerdy and hard working but not overly serious or competitive. Sometime in the early 2000's, they made admissions race blind. As a result the school is now 2/3 asian, 1/4 non-latino white, and 4% black or latino. 1% are low-income. My brother went six years behind me and he definitely disliked the cultural change: it became much more serious, much less laid-back, much more competitive and cut-throat. The alumni rant constantly about how the place has gone downhill, even though by the objective measures it is doing better than ever. I personally think the change was a bad thing. I'd rather go to school with the guy who got a 2,200 on his SAT without much studying than the guy who got a 2,400 after prepping for years. But it's total cultural elitism on my part. To asians from immigrant families that line of thinking doesn't even make sense. If admissions measures certain things, why wouldn't you do everything you can to maximize your score on those measures? My perception is that elite colleges have started to emphasize soft factors not so much because they want more cultural diversity, but because they don't want their schools to be taken over by asian recent immigrants and the culture that creates. Why else are the measures that sufficed for so long suddenly inadequate now? Why do we let in a champion unicycle rider over a hard-working kid with an SAT score 100 points higher? It's not like elite colleges get a large number of disadvantaged minorities in the process--their numbers are still tiny. No, what the new measures do is keep out asian immigrants whose parents don't emphasize "soft" pass-times, who don't have the economic security to pursue unorthodox ambitions, who usually don't have the cultural integration to be active in the community, etc.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  Ron Unz's The Myth of American Meritocracy is the latest news about how elite higher education is being shaped by culture and race and how it affects high achieving immigrants and religious minorities. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-...
mattgrice 13y ago
ACT of 30 is 95th percentile. If you don't know anybody who got below that, you're living in a bubble.
joyeuse6701 13y ago
"Education has never been a meritocracy and it never will be." > Never? In practice I think it could be. I think the crux of the problem the author has is that the merits that the education and society looked for was not actual understanding of what was taught, but in the ability to act a certain way that seemed like they were educated, an act. This is largely due to the decisions being made by humans. The further you can abstract that, with say, machines, the more likely you can achieve a meritocracy I would think.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
The correlation between standardized test scores, GPA, high school graduation rate and six-year college graduation rate are bound intimately to income and class. So what? Why do you believe that merit is not correlated with income and class? Suppose, hypothetically, that some reference classes are simply intrinsically better than others at math and reading. Wouldn't any meritocratic system result in rewards being correlated with membership in the aforementioned reference class? You are correct that using "holistic" admissions rather than standardized tests is likely to reduce meritocracy. That's the whole point. Meritocracy gets you too many of those geeky Asians, and it would be really bad if colleges were full of Asians. [edit: My last sentence is indeed sarcastic. I favor meritocracy, not ethnic corporatism.]
- gms 13y ago
  Is your last sentence sarcastic?
- prostoalex 13y ago
  It's bound to divorce rate, that differs greatly between socioeconomic circles and ethnicities. End of the day it's tied up to the time parents dedicate to their children's education, and for divorced or never married single parents on a single income this is a tough proposition. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-...
- Starmie 13y ago
  I understand your point about merit being correlated with income and class. It is obviously true that wealthy, upper-class high school seniors will have higher test scores, more impressive accomplishments, and (frankly) superior academic abilities when compared with their lower-class counterparts. But you must know that this is attributable to differences in upbringing and opportunities, with varying levels of immediate relevancy (e.g. SAT tutoring, better teachers, parents who introduce intellectual discourse into the home). This means that any supposedly "pure" meritocracy, which does not account for those differences of opportunity, is going to be heavily biased towards those who were born into privilege. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of class immobility that, I think, most people find undesirable. If you don't agree with the idea that two children with equal natural talents should, in a perfect world, have equal opportunities to pursue those talents, then I'd love to hear your version of meritocracy. When you say "holistic" admissions, I'm not sure whether you mean holistic in the sense that colleges use it (i.e. taking evidence of talent outside of grades and test scores into account) or as a reference to programs which take race or class into account. Either way, you present standardized tests as the more meritocratic approach, which is silly. A perfect SAT score means a student is great at basic math, reading, and writing in an extremely specific context. That can be an extremely useful foundation, but do you honestly think that indicates this student is the "best?" That someone with lower scores who has published a bestselling book or won an international science prize or started a great humanitarian effort is on a lower tier in the meritocracy? Of course, all of these things are biased even more heavily towards rich students, but that's why class and background must also be taken into account. I suspect I may have misunderstood parts of what you were saying, so please do clarify (if you can make it through my little word dump :P).
colemorrison 13y ago
By the absolute definition of Meritocracy, no, it's not. But then again, by the absolute definition of Democracy, America is not. However, in the sense that nature/nurture (being born to a well off family that constantly provides opportunities) leads to more "merits" it technically is. Therefore the real problem is that it is so -bound- to income and class. (and just because we have no explicit labels for class, if you think that such a notion is an "illusion" then you are living in a bubble.) A child raised in an abusive home has a far lesser probability of success than a child raised in a supportive one. This indeed disbands the zeitgeist of meritocracy (anyone can do it), but reinforces the definition of it (success based on achieved merits). Zeitgeist of Meritocracy !== Definition of Meritocracy !== Implementation of Meritocracy
ddd1600 13y ago
It's not just poor people. There is an institution of ritualized ignorance-pride in protestant, typically southern, rural communities. In some regions (inner rural, southern), this "trend" is not a trend, it is a virulent norm. Wealth isn't the only factor here.
sliverstorm 13y ago
It isn't a meritocracy, but at least it is more meritocratic than many systems that have preceded it.
smky80 13y ago
> the fact that the SAT, even when adjusted for economic disparity, is still skewed towards white men, Did you mean to say asian women?

by ruswick 13y ago

redschell 13y ago

You would imagine wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy 2096 for 2008. Even Phillips has underachievers, though they are still pretty damn good. You have inflated expectations because you associate yourself with like-minded, equally exceptional individuals, which, in my opinion, is one of the most terribly underrated aspects of child rearing. Of course, I don't know if you were just naturally drawn to people of that level, or if it was something your parents/teachers facilitated, but I do believe in the notion that you are the company you keep. I can only imagine how much higher my standards in high school would have been if I had hung with a smarter bunch.

rayiner 13y ago

You're seeing a lot of self-selection in reporting I imagine. TJHSST (public) is still I think the highest at just under 2,200. Stuyvesant (public) is around 2,100, and most of the top private schools (Exeter, Choate, etc) are in the 2,000 to 2,100 range. A more typical rich public high school is likely to be around 1,800. As for your larger point, I disagree. I think the rush to deemphasize standardized test scores is racism more than it is embracing a broader view of merit. When I went to TJ (late 1990's) it was about 1/3 Asian/Indian (well-assimilated) and 2/3 white. Culturally it was a good mix--nerdy and hard working but not overly serious or competitive. Sometime in the early 2000's, they made admissions race blind. As a result the school is now 2/3 asian, 1/4 non-latino white, and 4% black or latino. 1% are low-income. My brother went six years behind me and he definitely disliked the cultural change: it became much more serious, much less laid-back, much more competitive and cut-throat. The alumni rant constantly about how the place has gone downhill, even though by the objective measures it is doing better than ever. I personally think the change was a bad thing. I'd rather go to school with the guy who got a 2,200 on his SAT without much studying than the guy who got a 2,400 after prepping for years. But it's total cultural elitism on my part. To asians from immigrant families that line of thinking doesn't even make sense. If admissions measures certain things, why wouldn't you do everything you can to maximize your score on those measures? My perception is that elite colleges have started to emphasize soft factors not so much because they want more cultural diversity, but because they don't want their schools to be taken over by asian recent immigrants and the culture that creates. Why else are the measures that sufficed for so long suddenly inadequate now? Why do we let in a champion unicycle rider over a hard-working kid with an SAT score 100 points higher? It's not like elite colleges get a large number of disadvantaged minorities in the process--their numbers are still tiny. No, what the new measures do is keep out asian immigrants whose parents don't emphasize "soft" pass-times, who don't have the economic security to pursue unorthodox ambitions, who usually don't have the cultural integration to be active in the community, etc.

WildUtah 13y ago
Ron Unz's The Myth of American Meritocracy is the latest news about how elite higher education is being shaped by culture and race and how it affects high achieving immigrants and religious minorities. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-...

mattgrice 13y ago

ACT of 30 is 95th percentile. If you don't know anybody who got below that, you're living in a bubble.

joyeuse6701 13y ago

"Education has never been a meritocracy and it never will be." > Never? In practice I think it could be. I think the crux of the problem the author has is that the merits that the education and society looked for was not actual understanding of what was taught, but in the ability to act a certain way that seemed like they were educated, an act. This is largely due to the decisions being made by humans. The further you can abstract that, with say, machines, the more likely you can achieve a meritocracy I would think.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

The correlation between standardized test scores, GPA, high school graduation rate and six-year college graduation rate are bound intimately to income and class. So what? Why do you believe that merit is not correlated with income and class? Suppose, hypothetically, that some reference classes are simply intrinsically better than others at math and reading. Wouldn't any meritocratic system result in rewards being correlated with membership in the aforementioned reference class? You are correct that using "holistic" admissions rather than standardized tests is likely to reduce meritocracy. That's the whole point. Meritocracy gets you too many of those geeky Asians, and it would be really bad if colleges were full of Asians. [edit: My last sentence is indeed sarcastic. I favor meritocracy, not ethnic corporatism.]

gms 13y ago
Is your last sentence sarcastic?
prostoalex 13y ago
It's bound to divorce rate, that differs greatly between socioeconomic circles and ethnicities. End of the day it's tied up to the time parents dedicate to their children's education, and for divorced or never married single parents on a single income this is a tough proposition. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-...
Starmie 13y ago
I understand your point about merit being correlated with income and class. It is obviously true that wealthy, upper-class high school seniors will have higher test scores, more impressive accomplishments, and (frankly) superior academic abilities when compared with their lower-class counterparts. But you must know that this is attributable to differences in upbringing and opportunities, with varying levels of immediate relevancy (e.g. SAT tutoring, better teachers, parents who introduce intellectual discourse into the home). This means that any supposedly "pure" meritocracy, which does not account for those differences of opportunity, is going to be heavily biased towards those who were born into privilege. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of class immobility that, I think, most people find undesirable. If you don't agree with the idea that two children with equal natural talents should, in a perfect world, have equal opportunities to pursue those talents, then I'd love to hear your version of meritocracy. When you say "holistic" admissions, I'm not sure whether you mean holistic in the sense that colleges use it (i.e. taking evidence of talent outside of grades and test scores into account) or as a reference to programs which take race or class into account. Either way, you present standardized tests as the more meritocratic approach, which is silly. A perfect SAT score means a student is great at basic math, reading, and writing in an extremely specific context. That can be an extremely useful foundation, but do you honestly think that indicates this student is the "best?" That someone with lower scores who has published a bestselling book or won an international science prize or started a great humanitarian effort is on a lower tier in the meritocracy? Of course, all of these things are biased even more heavily towards rich students, but that's why class and background must also be taken into account. I suspect I may have misunderstood parts of what you were saying, so please do clarify (if you can make it through my little word dump :P).

colemorrison 13y ago

By the absolute definition of Meritocracy, no, it's not. But then again, by the absolute definition of Democracy, America is not. However, in the sense that nature/nurture (being born to a well off family that constantly provides opportunities) leads to more "merits" it technically is. Therefore the real problem is that it is so -bound- to income and class. (and just because we have no explicit labels for class, if you think that such a notion is an "illusion" then you are living in a bubble.) A child raised in an abusive home has a far lesser probability of success than a child raised in a supportive one. This indeed disbands the zeitgeist of meritocracy (anyone can do it), but reinforces the definition of it (success based on achieved merits). Zeitgeist of Meritocracy !== Definition of Meritocracy !== Implementation of Meritocracy

ddd1600 13y ago

It's not just poor people. There is an institution of ritualized ignorance-pride in protestant, typically southern, rural communities. In some regions (inner rural, southern), this "trend" is not a trend, it is a virulent norm. Wealth isn't the only factor here.

sliverstorm 13y ago

It isn't a meritocracy, but at least it is more meritocratic than many systems that have preceded it.

smky80 13y ago

> the fact that the SAT, even when adjusted for economic disparity, is still skewed towards white men, Did you mean to say asian women?