Is The American Meritocracy Necessary? An Elite Selection Mechanism?

In The Merits of Meritocracy, by David Brooks, Brooks discusses the lives of middle-class children growing up in America. He opens up with an anecdote about his daughter, to lead into one of his main points: middle-class children have busy and protected childhood, filled with many opportunities supervised by adults (193). For instance, his daughter has four different helmets for biking, pogo sticking, skateboarding, and playing baseball (193). She is a prime example of how the middle-class is presented with opportunities and busy lives; because of this, Brooks claims the general middle-class parent fears their child is too spoiled by abundance, and will never have to commit to one thing (194). Another large fear Brooks states they have, is

Meritocracy, the system where each person's progression is due to their achievements, is seen constantly throughout society and it is suggested to be in Australian higher education. This essay will argue that rural students who attend or plan on attending university challenge this suggestion of meritocracy in Australian universities, as rural students are unequal compared to urban students. This essay will show that universities are not based on merit alone, as rural students are disadvantaged in areas such as distance, family & community values, course availability and university availability.

Ever since a young age, the youth of the United States are taught that they must strive to be the best they can be. This would ultimately result in one possessing a competitive edge, once one enters the selection process of joining one of many higher institutions of education or the job market. In the essays “Project Classroom Makeover,” “Biographies of Hegemony,” and “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society,” respectfully by, Cathy Davidson, Karen Ho, and Joseph Stiglitz, the topic of competitive behaviors and practices is widely addressed and heavily criticized. Education is competitive, yet bias. Institutions of higher education value students based irrelevant factors, something which is unacceptable in the modern, digital age. This heavily impacts the selection process of candidates, leading the system to favor unqualified individuals. Prevalent business superpowers, many residing in Wall Street, pick low hanging fruit. In other words, these firms take very minimal effort to choose candidates in positions that are extremely competitive and valuable. They recruit individuals who graduate from top schools and have no other realistic edge for the company, aside from namesake. Woven into these practices, many examples of uncompetitive behavior arise as well from other factors of the system. In this essay, I argue that competitive and uncompetitive behaviors have molded modern America, with massive organizations and authorities playing into these behaviors from all

To achieve the American Dream, one must work hard and have the dedication to be successful. There are myths relating to this dream leaving lower class members to wonder if the dream exists for them. People in lower class are told if they want to be successful they must put in hard work and true effort. Once they do, they see that they are remaining in the same position they started in. In “Class of America-2012,” Gregory Mantsios states the ideas of class in the US and explains them. One myth addressed in this selection is, “Everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Success in the United States requires no more than hard work, sacrifice, and perseverance: ‘In America, anyone can become a billionaire; it’s just a matter of being in the right

To Hayes the failure of meritocracy comes from its focus on equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. Thus, as inequality escalated, the meritocracy ended up becoming so entrenched and isolated that it is no longer even much of a meritocracy. Hayes cites his elite NYC alma mater, Hunter College High School, as a prime example. The only admissions requirement is passing its entrance exam, yet the percentage students from minority and low income backgrounds has been steadily declining due to the expensive test taking prep courses that more affluent students can afford. Meanwhile the increasingly wealthy “meritocratic elites” isolate themselves from the rest of us in the 99% by living and traveling privately – in gated communities, exclusive clubs and resorts, corporate jets, etc., blaming the masses rather than themselves for societal woes.

Continuing with the idea of people believing that it is unfair how the upper class has more advantages in life, this bring us to the “meritocratic model” which is the model that “recognizes inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages” says Arora (Arora 87). This is the system that is related with the United States (Arora 87) and the reason that most people believe that this model is fair is because people with low incomes or with fewer benefits are offered programs such as the Headstart program and subsidized healthcare. Doing this would help out the needy and put everyone at somewhat of an equal place in life. However thinking deeply into the idea of these programs, they are not entirely fair from everyone’s point of view. For example, some people are born with something that Arora refers to as the “natural lottery” which is described as “people who are born with certain talents and attributes- for instance, oratory, musical acumen, physical beauty and health, athleticism, good memory and

The United Sates, whose national dogma emphasizes equity and stresses that hard work leads to success, has one of the poorest social mobility ratings in the developed world (Deparle). This means that if you were born towards the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, you would have a better chance of ascending to a higher class if you were born in several Western European countries as oppose to if you were born in the United States. As Richard Wilkonson bluntly put it in his TED Talk, “If Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark” (Wilkonson). How did we arrive at a point where the difference between being rich and poor is so drastic and where social mobility is so difficult? Educational inequalities, failure of government policy and a social separation between the classes has resulted in an unjust system that prevents the nation from maximizing its potential.

In the reading “The College Dropout Boom,” the author, David Leonhardt, describes the college admissions system as being ruthlessly meritocratic. When looking at the word meritocratic, one can visualize it as the construction of two parts: the word merit and the suffix “-ocracy”. The word merit can be defined as the deserving of reward for past actions and the suffix “-ocracy” is understood as a form of governing body. Therefore, meritocracy without context means a form of governing body which rewards deserving individuals based upon their past actions. From this definition, it is quite obvious why David Leonhardt used the word meritocracy to describe the college admissions system. According to Leonhardt, students are admitted into college

The American dream for years has been see known to be something that anybody can achieve with hard work through all obstacles. For most of Americans, especially minorities, this does not occur. The notion that working hard will get you somewhere with your merits does not face up to the statistics. But despite all these statistics, facts, and evidence, people, usually minority, aspose these talking points non-stop. Matter of fact, the average person has a little chance of mobility or stay in the same socioeconomic class. In my own personal life, I have yet to achieve the American dream. My own parents have are janitors and grew up in poverty. You can say that they themselves are clear example of the difficulty of achieving success solely on meritocracy. Now you might ask what is your definition of the American dream? For me, the American dream is about owning a home, having enough money to not struggle to buy food, clothing, and decent water for not only me but my wonderful family as

Here, in the United States, the “American Dream,” is a popular belief. There is a strong relationship between hard work and success. In this perfect scenario, those who put in multiple hours are on the road to success and can move up the social ladder. Thus stating, one could be thrust into the lowest of the social status, and with some hard work, one can elevate into the world of the social elite. As a demonstration to this global view of the United States, immigrants from all over the globe have made the excursion to the “land of opportunity” in beliefs of better education, employment, government, communities, religious freedom, and lives for not only themselves but the generations that come pursuing behind them. All of this survives based on a game of social stratification – a diagram on how to successfully obtain the American dream. This observation of social class is based on many mechanisms, some of which is bestowed to people at birth, and not rewarded for hard work and dedication. The class system at play in the United States has become incredibly complex – it no longer has the fundamental class values of our forefathers. Those trying to move up in the social ladder of America are often caught replication the actions of the rich and famous, but this alone cannot make them part of the higher social class. Some think that there are simple rules to follow to climb higher into another social class ladder, but there is more to being upper class than just talking the talk or having the right identity.One way to look at class is the model developed by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt's article, “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide,” in The New York Times. They assert that “one way to think of a person’s position in society is to imagine a hand of cards. Everyone is dealt four cards, one from each suit: education, income, occupation and wealth, the four commonly used criteria for gauging class” (Scott and Leonhardt 27). While being sure on these four criteria, a basic understanding of a person’s predicted class can be made. While this model works fine for providing an elementary level of perception, it must be recognized that a person could rate well on this scale and still be in a different class than those

“In a meritocratic democracy, people are selected for positions based on their personal merit, independent of their group memberships, affiliations, wealth, and connections. This is very far from the situation in the 21st century, including in the United States and other Western societies where personal merit is only one of many factors, and often not the most important one, determining the rise of people in the status hierarchy.” (Moghaddam) Currently, the American government does not show meritocracy because there are politicians who raise money for their campaigns using corrupt methods. As a result, these officials are not qualified for the job because they do not truly represent the issues that concern regular citizens. A shift towards

The ideal concept of American society is one in which all of the citizens are treated equal in all every realm and situation. Class, race or gender does not divide the utopian America; everyone is afforded the same opportunities and chances for success. In this chimerical state Americans are able to go as far as their dreams allow and with hard work and perseverance any thing is possible. Many Americans subscribe to this pluralist view of the Country, believing that within our democratic system it is the majority who maintains control and sets policy. Unfortunately this idyllic country does not exist nor has it ever existed. America is made up of distinct social classes and the movement within those classes is for the most part,

Hess. Merit pay systems create unhealthy competition between educators which should be working together to ensure that the best possible educational is being given to every student. If one observes an effective educational institution in operation, one will notice those institutions that are highly rated are essentially partnerships between various educators with various teaching styles and personalities teaming together to impart wisdom on young minds primed for educational molding. The general concept behind merit pay systems makes this type of partnership unattainable. In an article published in Education Week Kim Marshall stated that “When individuals are rewarded, collaboration suffers”. Educators become more concerned with outperforming their counter parts to gain pay raises then working together to educate young minds.

Do Americans believe meritocracy exists in America? Do talented people who work hard earning the reward that they deserve? Do talented people have enough challenges for their promotion that they merit? Living in the United States, many people think meritocracy exists because people expect about the opportunities to learn, to work, to earn, and to deserve. People also think they may have chances to earn what they deserve because the trusting of meritocracy. However, talented people do not receive any adequate reward as they expect. Meritocracy does not exist in America and becomes a myth for many debates. Moreover, most talented people in America who work hard still have fewer resources, less promotion,

The Civil Service Act of 1883 created the merit system by requiring that appointees to public office be qualified for the job, thereby ending the spoils system.