Meritocracy

Berger, R. (2021) Extended commentary: Meritocracy and its discontents: Inequality in higher education. International Social Science Review, 97(4), 1m. https://research.ebsco.com/c/4ax45t/viewer/pdf/qqn4kmcoj5

In Berger's (2021) extended commentary titled "Meritocracy and its Discontents: Inequality in Higher Education," the focus is on the notion of meritocracy and its implications for inequality in higher education. Here are the key points discussed in the article:

• Operation Varsity Blues: The scandal where wealthy parents paid large sums of money to secure admission for their children into elite universities highlights the issue of legalized privilege in education. While the front door to colleges and universities is based on merit, the back door often involves donations and financial contributions, giving affluent students an unfair advantage.

• Inequality in Elite Institutions: Elite colleges and universities often prioritize students from privileged backgrounds, perpetuating social and economic disparities. Factors such as high tuition costs, access to resources, and legacy admissions contribute to this inequality.

• Pre-College Institutions: Elite pre-college institutions often have expectations and biases against black students, perpetuating stereotypes and creating barriers to their success. The author suggests that black students may benefit more from attending schools that center their experiences and cultures, rather than predominantly white institutions.

• Meritocracy: The concept of meritocracy, coined by Michael Young in 1958, posits that individuals succeed based on their merit and hard work. However, the author argues that meritocracy often reinforces existing inequalities and fails to promote social mobility, particularly for marginalized groups.

• Political Implications: The alignment of political parties with educational status reflects underlying social divisions. The Democratic Party has gained support from college-educated voters, while the Republican Party has garnered support from non-college-educated voters. This divide reflects differences in geographic location, cultural orientation, and life experiences.

• Contributive Justice: The author calls for a reevaluation of the meritocratic system and proposes a shift towards contributive justice, where individuals are recognized and rewarded for their contributions to the common good. This includes promoting apprenticeships, addressing the rising costs of higher education, and addressing issues related to poverty and inequality.

Overall, the article highlights the complex interplay between education, inequality, and social mobility, calling for a reexamination of the meritocratic ideals that underpin our educational system.

Reay, D. (2020). The perils and penalties of meritocracy: Sanctioning inequalities and legitimating prejudice. Political Quarterly, 91(2), 405–412. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=a9h&AN=143778642&site=eds-live&custid=s7439054

• Introduction:

  • David Reay's article discusses the perils and penalties of meritocracy, drawing on Michael Young's 1958 satire on the rise of meritocracy.

  • Young's critique highlighted the damage caused by the illusion of meritocracy, particularly for working-class children.

  • Meritocracy, despite its initial criticism, became widely accepted as the ideal in liberal democratic societies.

• Meritocracy and Neo-Liberalism:

  • Meritocracy justifies inequalities by suggesting that competition offers equal opportunities for all participants.

  • Neo-liberalism, a program aimed at dismantling collective structures, weaponizes meritocracy to serve market logic.

  • In Britain, upper and middle-class privilege is often perceived as an achievement rather than an inherited asset, leading to low social mobility.

• Education and Social Reproduction:

  • The UK education system primarily reproduces and reinforces existing social, economic, and cultural inequalities.

  • Social mobility is portrayed as an individual process, but lacks infrastructure for those lacking power and resources.

  • Working-class individuals face stereotypes of passivity and lack of intelligence, hindering their upward mobility.

• Consequences of Meritocracy:

  • Meritocracy fosters competitiveness, especially in education, leading to profound consequences for losers.

  • Testing and labeling contribute to inequality and segregation, creating hierarchies among children.

  • Meritocracy places responsibility for inequity on individuals rather than collective systems.

• Meritocracy in Practice:

  • Academy schools promote a mindless approach to meritocracy, disciplining working-class children for conformity and obedience.

  • The emphasis on individual effort and ability undermines the self-worth of working-class learners.

  • Meritocracy perpetuates nepotism and reproduces privilege, with limited mobility for lower classes.

• Challenges and Critiques:

  • The education system in Britain lacks sympathy for educational losers and perpetuates the illusion of objectivity.

  • Working-class children face explicit consequences, including fewer resources and temporary teachers.

  • The Brexit vote highlighted class and race divisions, amplifying anger and antipathy among those left behind by meritocracy.

• Proposed Solutions:

  • Reay advocates for a fair society with equal opportunities to develop individual capabilities beyond narrow conceptions of merit.

  • He suggests aligning the educational system with the economy's needs and promoting diversity and respect for human differences.

  • Reay references the Chelsea manifesto, which opposes ruling meritocrats and advocates for progressive policies.

• Conclusion:

  • The article urges a reevaluation of meritocracy and its consequences, emphasizing the need for inclusive education and social policies to address systemic inequalities.

• Introduction of Meritocracy: Michael Young's 1958 satire critiqued the rise of meritocracy, challenging its dominance in society. Despite Young's criticism, meritocracy became widely accepted as the ideal in liberal democratic societies.

• Damaging Effects on Children: Over 25 years, Edna Graca Greece's research demonstrated the harmful effects of meritocracy on children, particularly those from working-class backgrounds. The emphasis on testing and hyper-competition led to the stigmatization of working-class schools and exacerbated social divisions, fostering negative emotions like prejudice, envy, and resentment.

• Justification of Inequality: Meritocracy justifies clear winners and losers in competition, as it suggests that all participants have equal opportunities. However, this notion of merit serves to maintain existing structures rather than challenging them. Neoliberalism utilizes meritocracy as a key tool for dismantling collective structures that impede market logic.

• Reproduction of Privilege: In societies like Britain, upper and middle-class privilege is framed as an achievement rather than an inherited asset. Despite high levels of belief in meritocracy, social mobility remains low, and the education system primarily reinforces existing social, economic, and cultural positions.

• Social Mobility Challenges: The narrative of meritocracy promotes the idea of self-efficacy, aspiration, and choice. However, those who succeed are often perceived as passive and unintelligent, while the working class is marginalized unless they adopt middle-class dispositions.

• Consequences for Losers: Meritocracy imposes profound consequences on those who do not succeed, leading to a loss of self-worth and identity. Test results are linked to future prospects, perpetuating inequality and segregation based on perceived ability.

• Educational System Critique: Meritocracy perpetuates hierarchies of worth among children and individualizes inequity, attributing failure to individual shortcomings rather than systemic issues. Academy schools reinforce this mindset, disciplining students for the labor market.

• Occupational Reproduction of Privilege: Nepotism and reproduction of privilege are prevalent, with children of professionals being disproportionately likely to enter the same professions. Meritocracy is criticized for aligning educational success with occupational outcomes, despite a lack of sufficient graduate jobs in the market.

• Call for Change: Reay advocates for a shift away from the narrow conception of merit as ability plus effort towards a fairer society that recognizes and nurtures diverse talents. The "Chelsea manifesto," proposed as an alternative to meritocracy, emphasizes equal opportunities, respect for human differences, and the cultivation of all human potentials.

This summary highlights the damaging effects of meritocracy on individuals and society, challenging its role in perpetuating inequality and advocating for a more inclusive and equitable approach to social organization.

Boliver, V., & Powell, M. (2023). Rethinking merit? The development of more progressive approaches to university admissions in England. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 24(3), 33–55. https://research.ebsco.com/c/4ax45t/viewer/pdf/onzf35e63r

Summary of "Rethinking Merit? The Development of More Progressive Approaches to University Admissions in England" by Vikki Boliver and Michael Powell (2023):

• Introduction of New Access Targets: The Office for Students in England has set ambitious targets for widening access to universities, aiming for a reduction in entrants from areas with low higher education participation. These targets aim to address inequalities in access based on socioeconomic background.

• Challenges in Judging Merit: The traditional meritocratic approach to university admissions, based solely on academic qualifications, is being rethought. Critics argue that this approach fails to account for the unequal opportunities faced by students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

• Equitable Opportunity vs. Formal Equality: There is a growing consensus that admissions criteria should consider the socioeconomic circumstances under which qualifications were obtained, rather than solely focusing on academic achievement. This shift emphasizes equitable opportunity over formal equality.

• Concerns about Setting Students Up to Fail: Some institutions express concern that admitting less academically qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds may set them up for failure. However, there is recognition of the importance of universities in developing the potential of these candidates.

• Discrepancies in Widening Participation Efforts: While many universities claim to have made efforts to widen access, there are discrepancies in their performance. Some institutions target high-achieving disadvantaged students, while others focus on underrepresented groups seen as the "brightest and best."

• Challenges in Admissions Practices: Analysis of access and participation plans reveals varying approaches among universities. While some prioritize reducing academic entry requirements for disadvantaged learners, others maintain stringent standards.

• Initiatives to Support Student Success: Universities recognize their role in ensuring the success of admitted students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Strategies include extended induction programs, peer support initiatives, and inclusive pedagogical practices.

• Commitment to Structural Understanding: There is a shift in understanding the causes of educational inequalities from individual deficits to structural issues. Universities are working to close the attainment gap through various initiatives aimed at supporting students throughout their degree programs.

• Toward Meritocratic Equity of Opportunity: The emerging trend suggests a shift from traditional meritocratic models towards a more equitable approach that prioritizes distributive fairness for access and achievement.

This summary highlights the evolving approach to university admissions in England, with a focus on addressing inequalities in access and ensuring support for students from diverse backgrounds to succeed in higher education.

Lardier, D. T., Herr, K. G., Barrios, V. R., Garcia-Reid, P., & Reid, R. J. (2019). Merit in meritocracy: Uncovering the myth of exceptionality and self-reliance through the voices of urban youth of color. Education & Urban Society, 51(4), 474–500. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=EJ

The study conducted focus groups with youth to explore their experiences within their communities and the themes that emerged through the lens of sense of community (SOC) and community connection. Here are the key points discussed in the text:

1. Background and Literature Review:

   • Urban communities in the US are often characterized by violence, poverty, and social risks, leading to feelings of isolation, loneliness, and hopelessness among residents, particularly youth of color.

   • Positive relationships and community support are crucial for youth well-being, but poverty and social inequity limit access to such resources.

   • Limited access to supportive community programs and organizations perpetuates disconnection and alienation among youth.

   • The sense of community (SOC) framework highlights four dimensions: membership, influence, needs fulfillment, and emotional connection.

   • Negative SOC or disconnection can lead to alienation and psychological withdrawal, exacerbating social and structural concerns in urban communities.

2. Themes and Findings:

   • Lack of access to community organizations and resources: Youth expressed frustration due to unmet needs and limited support from welfare and social service programs.

   • Limited connection and influence: Many youth described feelings of disconnection and hopelessness, with perceptions of corruption and indifference among city officials.

3. Discussion:

   • Disconnection stemmed from unfilled needs, survival in dangerous environments, and lack of resources and support.

   • Youth felt disillusioned with their communities and lacked avenues for positive change or influence.

   • Limited community engagement and lack of emotional connection contributed to feelings of isolation and hopelessness among youth.

4. Implications:

   • Society needs to better engage and support youth, particularly in communities of color, to foster social transformation and community change.

   • Community-based youth programs should embrace critical engagement and provide spaces for youth to unpack their social environments and cultivate their own power to impact change.

   • Relationships formed in these programs should extend outward into the community to foster greater community connection and engagement.

In conclusion, addressing the structural barriers and fostering positive community connections are essential for promoting the well-being and empowerment of youth, particularly in marginalized urban communities.

Bingham, C., & Jackson, L. (2021). Toward an affective critique of educational meritocracy. Journal of Thought, 21-36. http://journalofthought.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/06binghamjackson.pdf

• The article explores the concept of educational meritocracy and critiques its implications within educational institutions. While meritocracy has been scrutinized, its structure and influence have continued to thrive.

• Critics question whether these critiques have remained solely within academic research or if they aim to engage directly with institutions, suggesting a need to bridge this gap.

• Progressive and critical educators often condemn the inequities of meritocracy but also find themselves reinforcing its principles, such as by using meritocratic metrics to judge academic performance.

• Sociologists view educational institutions as barriers to meritocracy, suppressing its effects and neutralizing merit-based opportunities. However, some propose ameliorative critiques, seeking to improve the circumstances of those underserved by the system.

• The Marxist challenge to meritocracy highlights the reproduction theory, which suggests that the educational system reflects and perpetuates social inequalities present in the occupational system.

• Meritocracy covers up social inequities by legitimizing them as natural outcomes based on individual effort, thereby obscuring the potential for collective social change.

• The article examines the role of affect in reinforcing educational meritocracy, emphasizing the impact of emotional relations within classrooms on students, teachers, and academics.

• Educators subtly reinforce meritocratic ideals through expectations of achievement and excellence, affecting students' emotional responses to academic success and recognition.

• Students who deviate from expected affective responses, termed "affect aliens," may face alienation and shame within the meritocratic system, challenging the notion of merit-based fairness.

• While some students may act out in response to perceived injustices within the educational system, their actions can be seen as expressions of agency and dignity.

• The article concludes by advocating for a nuanced understanding of affect within educational meritocracy, suggesting that educators should support affect aliens rather than policing emotions. By recognizing and addressing affective dynamics, educators can contribute to students' agency and navigate the complexities of meritocracy in educational settings.