by amin on 6/4/21, 10:14 PM with 72 comments
by ergot_vacation on 6/5/21, 7:37 AM
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.
by strken on 6/5/21, 2:06 AM
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.
by ttfkam on 6/5/21, 1:21 AM
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.
by faeriechangling on 6/5/21, 5:41 AM
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.
by armchairhacker on 6/5/21, 3:07 AM
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).
by kiba on 6/5/21, 12:31 AM
by proc0 on 6/5/21, 5:48 AM
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.
by jdgoesmarching on 6/5/21, 1:05 AM
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.
by doggodaddo78 on 6/5/21, 7:27 AM
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.
by jl2718 on 6/5/21, 2:11 PM
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...
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?
by fungiblecog on 6/5/21, 6:32 AM
by fungiblecog on 6/5/21, 6:25 AM
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.
by prepend on 6/5/21, 12:54 AM
by agentofoblivion on 6/5/21, 3:30 AM
Tl;dr being poor isn’t as good as rich and luck matters more than zero.
by fighterpilot on 6/5/21, 12:31 PM
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.
by TrackerFF on 6/5/21, 1:16 AM
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.
by osigurdson on 6/5/21, 1:46 PM
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?
by xondono on 6/5/21, 10:01 AM
But I somehow doubt that all the people commenting would accept that free will is not a thing.
by coldtea on 6/5/21, 12:05 PM
by LatteLazy on 6/4/21, 10:19 PM
by ttfkam on 6/5/21, 1:24 AM