Concept of a Meritocracy - Research Paper Example

? Higher Education in the United s and the Concept of a Meritocracy (School) This paper attempts to look into the issue of how higher education in the United States and the concept of a meritocracy are firmly entwined. This essay shall consist of three parts, with the first part detailing what a meritocracy is; the second portion of the paper will look into the different educational systems, and finally, the third aspect of the paper will work to address how the two are combined, and what effects, if any, this has on the type and quality of education provided. Keywords: education, meritocracy Higher Education in the United States and the Concept of a Meritocracy A meritocracy is comprised of an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class, privilege, or wealth; it is a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced, and leadership positions are conferred upon able and talented persons. The issue between education and meritocracy arises due to the cost of higher education. While there is the start of a meritocracy in place, in terms of higher education, it is not possible to state that the current system of education in countries such as the United States could be identified as a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, the level that a person can raise to in that form of society is not based upon wealth, power, or class, but solely on what the person can accomplish. In the case of higher education, however, there is the price tag of a high tuition associated with the increased knowledge. The issue arises from the fact that “in a meritocracy, social status becomes increasingly dependent upon an individual’s level of education” (Liu, 2010). In order to be able to fully understand the correlation between higher education and the concept of a meritocracy, a clear understanding of the word, its meanings, and its associations must be formed. In 1958 a man named Michael Young published a mock sociological study addressing the time period between 1870 and 2033, “during which society becomes sorted by the ‘merit’ of its members, as measured by the results of IQ testing” (Pickert, 2010). In this book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, Young extrapolated the projected data based on trends that he saw in British society between 1870 and 1958. Young expected that “inheritance of wealth and position would be abolished, that government would fund education so abundantly that private schools would wither away, that scientists would rule the society, and that schoolteachers would be highly paid” (Lemann, p 118). The amusing part about this is that in Young’s book, he was demonstrating that a meritocracy would not be conducive to the common good of the members of that society, nor would it be sustainable; in this day and age, it has become an idealistic utopian dream, in spite of the author’s satirical bent. Young stated “now that people are classified by ability, the gap between the classes has inevitably become wider. Today the eminent know that success is just reward for their won capacity, for their own efforts and for their own undeniable achievement. These deserve to belong to a superior class” (pg. 96). Lemann, in his book made special note of the fact that regardless of the flawed design of a meritocracy, the United States is one of the countries that has embraced this idea whole heartedly, and in fact strives to attain this very goal, as it allows those who have gained their education, and who have better jobs based on that merit, yet another reason to look down upon those who have not accomplished the same feats. There are two different types of institution that a person in the United States may go in order to attain a higher education; public or private schools, regardless of whether or not they are a university or a college. Private institutions of higher learning are more likely to come with a higher price tag, have a more exacting admissions process, and demand more of the students who have chosen to pay for their education in that specific school. Public institutions of higher learning are more likely to have a price tag cheaper by several thousand dollars, have very few bare minimum requirements, allowing for a larger student body, the quality of the students themselves and their past educational merits are not as likely to be high, and they are more likely to not be as demanding in the work that they request or require from their students. In some instances, public institutes of higher learning are simply happy to see that the students show up, regardless of whether or not they are active participants in the class. Higher education in the United States is granted to those who have the means to pay for said education. This can be done through outright costs paid to the institution, if one’s credit is good enough, through loans, or through a merit based scholarship. In the instances of a merit based scholarship, this lends credit to the concept of a meritocracy, as those who have shown that they are exemplary in one way or another are provided with the means, at no cost to themselves, to attend a specific institution of higher learning; with the first two options, they are based solely on the means of the individual – one must either be wealthy or one must be privileged. The average student attaining a Bachelor’s degree through a public institution of higher learning through student loans will leave them with a balance of approximately $42,000 USD at the time their course of study is completed; most Americans will never see this much in their bank accounts at one time. The approximate cost of a semester at a public institution of higher learning in the United States comes out to $800 per semester; this does not include textbooks, labs, or other materials that may be needed for the course itself, nor does it include the costs of dorms or other living arrangements, nor does it include the cost of food. What does this mean for the American populace? Class becomes the most important factor in whether or not an individual is able to realize their full potential through education, as those with lower socioeconomic statuses are less likely to attend college, due to monetary reasons, and, as a result, less likely to finish their schooling. It could be said that merit scholarships turn this into an equal opportunity process, and while there are some scholarships that are geared specifically for those from low income families, the gross majority of scholarships are applied for by people of all walks of life, regardless of their current station. Scholarships are applied for by people from all walks of life and all classes for the simple fact that they too are a form of merit, showing that they were able to beat out all the rest by virtue of their superior essay or feat; consequently, it is far more likely for those from a higher class to obtain the scholarships, as they have the time and the ability to put the effort into working for the scholarship, while a person of lesser means may have to spend the time that they would have used on attaining the scholarship working in a minimum wage job in order to provide support for their families, or themselves. “Functionalists…agree that education is a prelude to inequalities in wealth and manner of living…functionalists argue that educational institutions are central to defining and implementing the rules and channels by which people are sorted among jobs” (Brym & Lie, p. 502). There is a distinct decline in the concept of an upward social mobility; at all levels of education it is the children of the working class, those who fall below the poverty line who make up the majority of those who fail. The children of those in a middle class background are more likely to simply be average. They will have average grades, average scores, and if they choose to go to an institution of higher education, they will get an average degree. It is those whose parents are independently wealthy who will be given the best tutors, the best education, and be pushed at all costs to succeed, both through primary and secondary education, but in higher education as well. “In principle, it seems possible to create an education system that conforms to (the idea of a meritocracy); in such a system, performance in academic contents would be the sole criterion for inclusion in higher levels of training…but although many programs do screen for academic performance, almost none is able to admit only the qualified and to supply all who qualify with funding to meet all expenses” (Brym & Lie, p. 503). It is for these reasons that the ideas of a meritocracy and higher education in the United States are intertwined, but not because of the original premise stated in Young in The Rise of Meritocracy; that those in higher positions are there solely based upon their IQ and level of education, but that they are there based on their education, which is in turn determined by class. It is for these reasons that America will never be a meritocracy, something that Young, who thought the idea a failure, would probably be grateful for. This does not mean that the attempt to become a meritocracy is not present, far from it in fact; the first thing to go was the “old institutional model of protracted and incremental workplace promotion – from floor cleaner to executive in twenty years” (Allen, 2011). The idea that anyone could work their way up through hard work, determination and a desire to learn was supplanted by the belief that those with the entry level positions were there because they could not attain a higher level, and with that belief shift came the idea that only those who have been to institutions of higher learning and proved themselves through their merit were worthy of having the higher paying jobs. Young’s commentary on this in The Rise of Meritocracy was that “effective brain power planning is not only necessary to end one of the kinds of competition between employees that is wasteful, but gives the government strategic power to control the whole economy” (pg. 67). In other words, through the idea that only those who have higher degrees are the ones who are able to attain the higher paying jobs, those in the entry level jobs would no longer strive to rise up through the ranks as a result of the idea that they are not as worthy as those with a degree. Essentially, competition would then only become necessary in the early stages of the creation of the meritocracy, as those who believed it was their right, based on their merit, to work to achieve that education, and once they were guaranteed to have a place, based upon their test scores (merit), they would cease to be competitive, for a competitive edge in a meritocracy would become dangerous, potentially disrupting the very society that they strove to create. The ruling class in America has become homogenous, as those who are in positions of higher power are there because they have the means to be; as such, they have all gone to the same schools, learned the same curriculum, and been fed the same ideas and ideologies. “Homogenizing and sorting are organized at primary, secondary, and postsecondary levels, and within those levels, in public and private institutions, the latter of which involve varying degrees of religious instruction. Individuals typically move in a regulated way…(and) curricula are adapted to what has been taught earlier, in other places, and to prepare students for subsequent studies” (Brym & Lie, p. 494). This has given them all the same uniform guidance in their formative years, and with that, the same tastes and habits. In the past, the ruling class was diverse, spread across the country through people with different backgrounds, and from all walks of life, from the financial wizards of New York to the land barons of Texas, the industrialists in Pittsburgh, and so on. The ruling class used to be economically, politically, and intellectually diverse, with each group drawing from their own strengths and completely different experiences in life. The issue with the current way the educational system is setup means that yes, privilege is gifted upon those already privileged, but “the less privileged person is doubly disadvantaged…they have been given the opportunity to be evaluated on their merits but their ability to develop that merit has been constrained” (Pickert, 2010). There are many different dimensions of merit, each with its own difficulty of achievement and its own sense of importance, and through the current higher education system as it stands in the United States, the system of meritocracy attempting to be setup still focuses on that of a privileged background, but, more accurately focuses on the class of those who are involved, ensuring that those who remain high stay high, and those who remain low stay low. A different system needs to be brought forth in order to address these current inequalities, and while this does not mean that the current system in place bars those without those means, it makes it infinitely harder for them to work their way up the social scale in an attempt to be on par with those who consider themselves to be better. The current attempt at meritocracy in the United States is not based on merit at all, but upon merit, class, and privilege. The evolution of social mobility shows a decline in those who are able to slowly make their way uphill from the place that they started, while still attempting to setup those who already started at the top in a meritocratic society. In the practice of education and educational reform, meritocracy has become a buzzword, a prevalent way of thinking, and an ideal to which all should strive to attain, but due to the economic issues and political debates over the issues of distribution of education benefits it has become clear that America is not in a state of meritocracy, but instead is in a state of mediocrity, especially in terms of where higher education is concerned. Works Cited Allen, A. (2011). Michael young’s the rise of the meritocracy: A philosophical critique. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4), 367 - 382. Retrieved from http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.155163!/file/philosophicalcritique.pdf Brym, R., & Lie, J. (2006). Sociology your compass for a new world. Belmont: Thompson & Wadsworth. Douthat, R. (2010, July 19). The trouble with meritocracy. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/the-trouble-with-meritocracy/ Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the american meritocracy. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education. Higher Education, 62(4), 383-397. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9394-7 Pickert, W. (2010, 12 28). The satirical origin of 'meritocracy. Retrieved from http://www.idiospect.com/2010/12/satirical-origin-of.html Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. London: Thames and Hudson. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=e_rTyIMJR9kC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=the rise of the meritocracy ebook&source=bl&ots=dkNXQ5R8zB&sig=R3YJAwcO9-CTK9rGl1Zd-TNb2rg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8nQoUdy2O-ae2wXoh4DADA&ved=0CH0Q6AEwCQ Read More