# educ 7630 meritocracy thoughts Jethro Jones ## Assignment Directions In “Toppling the Myth of Meritocracy,” Michael Sandel cites an often overlooked problem in American schools. Do you agree with his contention? If not, why not? If so, what might you do in your school to ameliorate this tension? [The myth of meritocracy, according to Michael Sandel — Harvard GazetteLinks to an external site.](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/the-myth-of-meritocracy-according-to-michael-sandel/) ## Assignment To respond to this assignment, and to keep my responses brief, I'll quote a passage from the article and give my remarks. > Admission based on merit defines entry through the “front door.” As Singer put it, the front door “means you get in on your own.” It represents what most people consider fair. But it's not really the front door, because it is not really based on merit when it is based on subjective measures. Despite our best efforts, standardized testing is not merit based, as Sandel goes on to say: "In practice, however, SAT scores closely track family income. The richer a student’s family, the higher the score he or she is likely to receive." For example, my wife is much smarter than I am, but she has to study hard for every test. She takes longer to do work. It's harder for her to "play the game" of school. All things which are easy for me to do. I innately know how to play the game, and therefore, when I put my mind to it, it requires very little effort, a fact which frustrates her completely. But in the arena of organization and visual creativity, she completely dwarfs my abilities, and something as simple as cutting sheets of paper is a simple task for her, but requires great effort from me. > Conservatives argue, for example, that affirmative action policies that consider race and ethnicity as factors in admission amount to a betrayal of merit-based admission; liberals defend affirmative action as a way of remedying persisting unfairness and argue that a true meritocracy can be achieved only by leveling the playing field between the privileged and the disadvantaged. This is a key point. They wanted it to look like they were part of a meritocracy. Nobody would have been bothered if they got in because of their connections, because we know this is happening. Conservatives are frustrated because people claim it is a meritocracy and then give points to others. The illusion that everything is based on power is a lame Marxist and post-modernism trope that is neither true nor helpful to anyone, even those it is attempting to support. There's no dignity in doing something for which you are not qualified and won't ever be successful at. There's no dignity in lowering the bar for someone so that you can feel better, neither for the bar lowerer or one for whom the bar was lowered. > For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility. And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good. The very idea of a meritocracy is absurd. You get nothing on your own. We are not an island. Not only do we stand on the shoulders of giants, we also are lifted up by guides, and our bags are carried by sherpas. Honestly, I don't have the answer to this question. It does seem that we are at a turning point in our society around this topic, though. [[EDUC 7630 Notes]]