Meritocracy

This article presents a discussion of meritocracy in U.S. higher education. Meritocracy is a system in which those who possess coveted talents, abilities, or superior intellectual capabilities attain high level, prestigious executive positions while those lacking these abilities are slated to the lower to middle ranks of society. Many experts argue that achievement based education is fundamental to a prospering democracy, while others argue that meritocracy only creates a new elitism leaving those without means or ability to remain dispossessed. An unequal playing field - the historical presence of racism, biases, and socioeconomic factors -- prevent a true meritocracy from coming to fruition. Controversial policies such as affirmative action have attempted to overcome such limitations with some success. As long as nepotism, cronyism, and privilege prominently exist in many higher education institutions, true meritocracy remains decidedly elusive. This essay provides an overview of meritocracy, gives contemporary examples of its use, and discusses some highly controversial or opposing views on the subject.

Keywords Affirmative action; Egalitarianism; Elitism; Equal Opportunity; Nepotism; Privilege; Situational Ethics; Social status; Standardized testing; SAT

Politics, Government, & Education > Meritocracy

Overview

In an educational context, meritocracy is defined as an institutionalized system in which advancement is based on talents, skills, and abilities rather than on tenure, seniority, nepotism, or other similar factors. Egalitarian by its very nature, a meritocracy ideally enables any qualified individual who demonstrates high intellect or ability to rise to a leadership or executive-level position regardless of his or her background, race, socioeconomic status, or gender. However unintended, meritocracy in practice creates its own stratified hierarchical system in which gifted, highly talented, or otherwise intellectually superior individuals form their own class excluding average or below-average performing individuals. In other words, instead of chasms that separate those born with birth rights from those born with no birth right, a meritocratic system separates those who demonstrate superior intellectual performance from those who do not (Horowitz, 2006, p. 283).

Historical Perspectives

Starting in the mid-1940s in London, England, Michael Young, commonly referred to as the father of meritocracy in the realm of education, exposed the value of meritocracy and helped to create a public education system based on merit rather than birth order. His book The Rise of Meritocracy and published articles such as "Let Us Face the Future" helped to revolutionize the public education system and enable children of a range of backgrounds to attend school when they would not have been able to under the traditional system. This new way of thinking about education coincided nicely with post-World War II England, where an emerging economy demanded a greater number of skilled workers to rebuild and sustain a hard-hit but recovering nation (Horowitz, 2006, p. 283).

In the short-run, a public school system based on meritocracy did seem to produce a larger educated populace where a greater number of individuals could obtain skilled positions for which they received commensurate wages. Over time, merit based advancement rather than elitist entitlement became the norm in most post-World War II, Western-thinking nations. It continues to be the norm even today. However, Young and his contemporaries who originally postulated the benefits of meritocracy largely failed to foresee its long-term effects: creating a "haves-versus have-nots" pecking order based on aptitude equal to the stratified aristocratic system of yester year (Horowitz, 2006, p. 284).

Standards & Measurement

Creating a hierarchical system based on merit also meant that an error-resistant measurement tool needed to be devised in order to properly determine a student's intellectual capacity. Thus came the advent and use of standardized testing to determine a student's general intelligence, areas of strengths and weaknesses, and potential to achieve. Envisioned by Henry Chauncey in 1948, standardized testing sought to accurately measure the cerebral abilities of students and to then properly place them along a stratified range from the lowest achievers up to the highest ones (Tellez, 2001, p. 248). Students who tested at the uppermost echelon would be slated to attend prestigious universities, which would in turn prepare them for a prominent career earning commensurate pay. Those who fell in the mid ranges on the scale would be led to a trade or low-level college career where they would learn skills appropriate for low-to middle-class lifestyles. Those individuals who performed at the lowest levels would largely be prevented from attending any type of higher education institution and could, at best, hope to eke out a living as a laborer or service worker (Tellez, 2001).

Standardized testing soon became synonymous with the SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests) that for decades have been the biggest determiner for acceptance into higher education institutions. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, use of SAT scores to determine college admissions occurred almost without question. Later on, voices of SAT critics started to increase in volume and number as more and more people such as professors, college graduates, teachers, social activists, and intellectuals began discussing the limits and ramifications of the SATs. Leaders of the African-American community argued that SATs were geared toward middle-class white students while professors and intellectuals argued that SATs gave no weight to talents such as creativity, leadership, and other non-measurable abilities of importance. Moreover, the great emphasis placed on scoring well on the SATs led to a "teaching to the test" practice in which students memorized by rote various facts and figures but were unable to use critical thinking and problem solving skills to gain a deeper understanding of concepts (Tellez, 2001, p. 258).

The history of meritocracy in education is rich with innate conflict. From a benevolent viewpoint, one sees well intentioned education leaders like Chauncey, Young, and their contemporaries such as William Turnbull who sought to create a more democratic system. This fair-handed system, they envisioned, would mean that anyone, regardless of their wealth or background, could get ahead. The days of the wealthy entitled few and the poor uneducated many, they argued, would soon be a thing of the past. Their assumption was that merit trumped birthright each and every time. Such a system, they felt, would raise the standard of living for those on the bottom giving them unprecedented opportunities. And while it is true that many from low income, previously underrepresented communities benefited under the new system, these policy and education leaders failed to understand that meritocracy would create its own anti-utopia caste system leaving many still disenfranchised (Tellez, 2001, p. 252).

Meritocracy: Theory vs. Reality

Meritocracy in both the secondary and post-secondary education systems largely reflects the socioeconomic consciousness of white middle-class ethos. A system structured on merits and abilities has become so normalized that it is rarely scrutinized or examined; it is usually taken for granted. College students from affluent, privileged backgrounds tend not to recognize their advantages over others, believing wholeheartedly in the virtues of a pure meritocratic system that some say in reality does not exist (Applebaum, 2005, p. 279). These students adopt a liberal position that emphasizes individual achievement and embraces antiracist attitudes. However ideological these views may sound, they often result in these students having little or no empathy or understanding of real racial and socioeconomic barriers that may prevent others from accomplishing their goals.

The colour-blind framework makes it more likely that white students will see the opportunity structure as open and institutions as impartial…. Such students often end up explaining inequality by either blaming the individual or his/her subordinate group and its cultural characteristics for the resultant lower economic and academic achievement (Applebaum, 2005, p. 285).

Under the guise of meritocracy, middle-class students can pretend real socioeconomic impediments do not exist making them hardened to those who cannot prosper or better themselves. Furthermore, such thinking distances these students from the role they themselves may play in the larger institutional and societal structures that are bias or class-specific (Applebaum, 2005).

Further Insights

Examples from the High School Level

From coast to coast, primary and secondary public schools in the United States function using a meritocratic system. More commonly known as tracking, advanced placement, remedial courses, gifted, or other such terms, students are ranked, filed, and set to attend classes with similarly performing students. Starting at the primary grade levels, students are tested and put into tracks depending on test outcomes. More often than not, students remain, sometimes until graduation, in the same track with the same peer groups. Tracks are more porous today, so that a student testing high in English but average in math will be tracked accordingly. Previously "smart kids" were tracked high in all subject areas regardless of individual subject performance. To increase the chances of success for some minorities and those in low-income population segments, sometimes students are tracked up or "detracked." In other words, below-average performing students may be placed in a higher track to level the playing field and bolster their achievement chances (Yonezawa & Jones, 2006, p. 16).

In interviews with a variety of students at large school districts representing a diverse urban population, Yonezawa & Jones (2006) learned that many students found the system of tracking to be "unfair." Students were largely unaware of the purpose of tracking or how they were placed. The study found that "students were often incorrect when asked to identify their track and usually could not accurately assess whether or not they had been detracked" (Yonezawa & Jones, 2006, p. 17). Many students felt that high-track or advanced students got the better teachers, thus enabling them to be more successful, while those in the lower tracks got the "bad" teachers. Many felt that it was very difficult to move into a better track and that using test scores for track placement was innately unjust (p. 18). Some students spoke out against tracking saying, "Just because you're taking the regular class, [you] shouldn't get less of an education." Others in advanced placement tracks "believed their inherent intelligence and motivation warranted greater access to good teachers and rigorous curriculum" (p. 19). These examples show how a meritocracy functions in a typical high school setting today and what students think of tracking, a common tool of measurement used for such a system.

Examples at the College Level: The Role of Affirmative Action

In most higher education systems in the United States today, the practice of meritocracy is the norm. With the exclusion of a dozen or so elite institutions, students are accepted into colleges and universities based on their abilities, measured by standardized tests such as the SATs, rather than by name, cronyism, or family wealth. While using achievement to determine college admission sounds fair on the surface, it is much more complicated underneath. Because inequalities in higher education reflect those of society at large, new government policies were initiated with the goal of trouncing racial, gender, ethnic, and other biases and creating equal opportunity for college admissions. A term first coined in the 1960s, affirmative action policies were created in order to "overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women" (affirmative action, n.d.). In the realm of higher education, this meant that a certain number of minority students, often referred to as a quota, would be admitted to the school to increase diversity, to give underprivileged students a chance at improving their position in life, and to attempt to correct past wrongs. These students would often fall short of meeting admission requirements such as having high grades or SAT scores.

Since affirmative action was first initiated, its practice has been highly contentious. The U.S. Supreme Court case, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" in 1978, which allowed race to be a determining factor in college admissions, illustrates its divisiveness. Centering on all-American values such as meritocracy, equality, justice, and the right to better one's self, the arguments for and against the implementation of affirmative action are diverse and plentiful (Kim, 2005, pp. 12-13). Those against the policy often speak of a backlash in which qualified white applicants are rejected in order to allow non-qualifying minority students to attend colleges and universities . Minority leaders and some academics argue that these policies have, as intended, granted students from underprivileged segments access to education opportunities and that these students have been successful in this context. Others argue that such policy benefits no one and only creates a system in which minorities appear to improve their status when no real advancement occurs. These individuals question the spirit of affirmative action, arguing the policy never intended to improve the status of minorities but only make it appear as such .

Affirmative Action & Its Backlash

In today's higher education environment, affirmative action policies tend to be more voluntary due to a shift in the public's consciousness. More and more, people question the value of affirmative action, who it benefits, and whether it is still needed. Underlying these questions is the growing sentiment that college acceptance based on merit outweighs admission based on race, ethnicity, or gender. In 1995, in a move that reflected a change of thinking of the population, the California Board of Regents banned race- and ethnicity-based admission and financial aid policies at its public colleges and universities (Kim, 2005, p. 14). "Special consideration" could be used when determining admission of persons who have overcome serious social, economic, or other barriers; however, race alone could not be the criteria for deciding admission. Though the change in policy sought to eradicate preferential treatment and bolster the use of merit when determining college admission, in reality the policy merely recast who the beneficiaries of preferential treatment would be. Meritocracy purists would likely argue against any type of non-merit-based preferential treatment - whether based on race or "extraordinary circumstances." The water is further muddied when one questions why preferential treatment based on race is disallowed while preferential treatment based on socioeconomic circumstances is permissible. Kim (2005, p. 14) asks, "What, one might ask, makes categories such as race, national origin, religion, and sex artificial preferences, if class and social disadvantages are viewed as promoting the value of individual rights?" In other words, why is one type of preferential treatment acceptable while another is not?

Wealth Closely Linked to Higher Education

Not only does the system of meritocracy create its own hierarchy under the guise of egalitarianism, few can deny that the old structure based on nepotism, wealth, or status still exists. In other words, students' wealth still heavily influences whether and where they attend college. For students with comparable grades and test scores, rich and upper-middle-class students are far more likely to be admitted to a good college than students of low income. In other words, despite meritocratic or progressive attitudes toward aptitude and actual achievement, wealth rather than merit is still more closely correlated with higher education. Regardless of aptitude, the estimated chances for obtaining a bachelor's degree by age twenty-four are: one in two for a family with $90,000 annual income; one in four for a family with $61,000 - $90,000 annual income; one in ten for a family with $35,000 - $61,000 annual income; and one in seventeen for a family whose income is less than $35,000 annually (Douthat, 2005, p. 120). Meritocracy is lacking most notably at the Ivy League schools where diversity goals are often usurped by funding needs. Higher education institutions need the wealth that upper-middle-class and rich students can provide for both the short-term and the long-term, such as that provided by alumni giving and establishment of foundations. University presidents and their constituents feel that their universities would lose prestige by enrolling a greater number of low income and minority students, which would dissuade wealthier students from attending their institutions (Douthat, 2005, p. 122). The cycle of wealth and poverty thus continues as better-educated individuals attain higher paying jobs and live in neighborhoods with quality schools while those without an education attain low-paying jobs, live in low-performing school districts, and do not attend college because of lack of finances or abilities.

Some elite institutions such as the University of Virginia are making policy changes to foster real change and enable talented but underprivileged students to attend their institution. In 2004, the University announced that "for families with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line, it would eliminate need-based loans and would instead offer grants" (Douthat, 2005, p. 124). The University is also seeking ways to cap student debt and more actively seek funding through grants. Proponents for meritocracy hope that the University of Virginia's move may start a trend among its constituents; the results of that remain to be seen.

Viewpoints

The system of meritocracy has its supporters and critics. Some closely align it with democratic values and others blame it for the current gap between the rich and poor.

White Privilege as a Form of Affirmative Action

Coleman (2003) turns the notion of equal opportunity or affirmative action on its head and postulates that whites and the white privileged class actually benefit more from affirmative action than minorities ever have. He argues that whites have long benefited from a type of affirmative action where they got accepted into colleges based on their race (or whiteness) rather than on their capabilities. To the majority of whites, accepting current affirmative action policy means relinquishing their long held white privilege, something from which many whites seem unaware they have even benefited. In other words, whites do not protest when a white person gets accepted into a college because of their race, name, wealth, or other non-merit factors (Coleman, 2003, p. 36). However, they do argue for the value of merits only when the situation applies to African-Americans and other minorities. Blacks' and whites' opinions differ vastly when asked about preferential treatment and affirmative action. "Seventy eight percent of whites believe that it is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that less qualified blacks get admitted to colleges or universities over more qualified whites, yet sixty two percent of blacks believe that this is 'not likely'" (Coleman, 2003, p. 37). These numbers reveal a stark contrast of how the two races see the realities of affirmative action policies.

Situational Ethics & Merit

At Harvard University and other elite institutions, nepotism and wealth often still trump merit when looking at first-year university admittance records. In the 1980s, a group of Asian-Americans filed a complaint in a federal courtroom against Harvard because they were denied admission even though they had higher test scores than white privileged students. In a highly controversial case, the court agreed with Harvard that holding highly sought-after admission spots for "legacy candidates was justifiable as this practice was part of Harvard's diversity initiative" (Klein, 2005). Cases such as this give weight to the notion that support of admission determined by merit is situationally based (Klein, 2005).

Terms & Concepts

Affirmative Action: Policies created in order to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women.

Egalitarianism: Egalitarianism affirms, promotes, or characterizes the belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

Equal Opportunity: Equal opportunity is the goal of giving all persons an equal chance to an education and employment, and to protect their civil rights, regardless of their race, religious beliefs, or gender.

Nepotism: Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives or close friends, without regard to their merit. It is also defined as patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics.

Privilege: Privilege is a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Situational Ethics: Situational ethics is a theory concerned with the consequences of an action. In the case of situation ethics, the ends can justify the means.

Bibliography

Affirmative Action. (n.d.). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia . Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/affirmat

Applebaum, B. (2005). In the name of morality: Moral responsibility, whiteness and social justice education. Journal of Moral Education, 34 , 277-290. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18291060&site=ehost-live

Coleman, M. G. (2003). African American popular wisdom versus the qualification question: Is affirmative action merit-based? Western Journal of Black Studies, 27, 35-44. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10693272&site=ehost-live

Douthat, R. (2005). Does meritocracy work? Not if society and colleges keep failing to distinguish between wealth and merit. The Atlantic Monthly, 296 , 120-126. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18451078&site=ehost-live

Egalitarian. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 29, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Egalitarian

Equal opportunity. (n.d.). The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved July 29, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal opportunity

Horowitz, I. L. (2006). The moral economy of meritocracy. Modern Age, 48 , 281-286. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22292175&site=ehost-live

Kim, J. K. (2005). From Bakke to Grutter: Rearticulating diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Multicultural Perspectives, 7 , 12-19. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16967732&site=ehost-live

Klein, J. M. (2005). Merit's demerits. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 , B12-B13. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18888429&site=ehost-live

Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education. Higher Education, 62, 383-397. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=64302107&site=ehost-live

Nahai, R. N. (2013). Is meritocracy fair? A qualitative case study of admissions at the University of Oxford. Oxford Review of Education, 39, 681-701. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90593667&site=ehost-live

Nepotism. (n.d.). The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved July 29, 2007 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nepotism

Privilege. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 29, 2007 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Privilege

Tellez, K. (2001). 'The Big Men': A journalist's look at the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 , 247-260. Retrieved July 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4140482&site=ehost-live

Wiley, S., Deaux, K., & Hageiskamp, C. (2012). Born in the USA: How Immigrant Generation Shapes Meritocracy and Its Relation to Ethnic Identity and Collective Action. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 171-180.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74716384&site=ehost-live

Yonezawa, S. & Jones, M. (2006). Students perspectives on tracking and detracking. Theory Into Practice, 45, 15-23. Retrieved July 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19509888&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Herrnstein, R. J. & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life . New York: Free Press.

Lemann, N. (2000). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

McNamee, S. J. (2004). The meritocracy myth . Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.

Young, M. (1994). The rise of the meritocracy (classics in organization and management series). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publications.