The problems of meritocracy?

Post Reply New Topic

[img][800:735]http://theonlinecitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Meritocracy-1024x735.jpg[/img]

http://www.slideshare.net/motochan/meri ... -singapore

Last edited by DuneyBlues on 25 Nov 2011, 4:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[quote="DuneyBlues"][/quote]
Very eloquent, concise, and to the point.

Well Done!

Wait...
Is this against or for meritocracy?

Against of course. It's more of a yahoo answers.com question..

Yet the parents of the successful kid clearly worked more than the other parents.

And Junior going with ISO certified tutors and stuff, that is indeed more work than basic school.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 Nov 2011, 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How would you say so? Doesn't Jim have a head start?
And
If the poor kid , didn't have the internet for example , and only had access to one book a month from a donation store such as Goodwill or Value Village - how would we access the knowledge of opportunities for him to pursue? How would he know that ISO's even existed?
Those who are better positioned will have better access to supposedly equal opportunities than say a poorer person.
This eventually leads to elitism , social stratification , class inequality. People need to act on this for it to be considered equal.

Vex's response misses the point so much than I wonder whether he's being ironic or something.

Not necessarily. The other kid's parents could just come from a historically very wealthy family themselves or won the lottery (the later particularly unlikely). Regardless, the cartoon clearly satirizes the fact that the random adult jerk places all the blame on Seng (not his parents) for his poor performance (i.e. Seng isn't sufficiently motivated).



That's totally not the point (and basic education can, indeed, be very boring and painful for people with particularly high native intellects, from what I've heard). The point, of course, being that Jim has access to said resources (even if they require "more work" they also represent a clear structure and system of supports). And having to look after a baby girl isn't easy, carefree sh*t to do, Vex, especially for (someone I take as an) adolescent or young adult going to school.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 25 Nov 2011, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Really? I take it as being more against the concept that the current socioeconomic system is truly "meritocratic" or the possibility of genuine meritocracy without equality of starting conditions.

There are several problems with the OP's argument.

First, if someone happens to be more capable of governance as a result of their circumstances, why should they not govern? How will the state fix its problems under poor governance?

Second, a meritocracy, unlike a representative democracy, is inherently more direct given that people are directly chosen by their ability.

Finally, I would like to point out that Singapore is a state more successful than the USA and almost all states of comparable population or size, it has far less poverty than the far more egalitarian USA, better education than most other countries, superb quality of life and is splendid in orderliness. Yet, not only does it lack any natural resources and have a cosmopolitan population, but it also lacks liberal democracy, instead having meritocracy as the state ideology and an illiberal, yet almost corruption-free, democracy strongly guided by this ideology.

The concept of meritocracy is unstable as its constituent ideas are potentially contradictory. The egalitarian aspects of meritocracy, for example, can come into conflict with its focus on talent allocation, competition, and reward. In practice, meritocracy is often transformed into an ideology of inequality and elitism. In Singapore, meritocracy has been the main ideological resource for justifying authoritarian government and its pro-capitalist orientations. Through competitive scholarships, stringent selection criteria for party candidacy, and high ministerial salaries, the ruling People's Action Party has been able to co-opt talent to form a “technocratic” government for an “administrative state.” However, as Singapore becomes more embedded in the processes of globalization, it will experience new forms of national crisis, alternative worldviews through global communications technology, and a widening income gap, all of which will force its ideology of meritocracy to unravel. - Kenneth Paul Tan

http://www.slideshare.net/motochan/meri ... -singapore

Last edited by DuneyBlues on 25 Nov 2011, 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the matter of fact of bill gates being cited on this forum as an exemplar of a self made individual from humble beginnings elucidates very clearly the inherent problems within the notion of meritocracy in the western milieu.

meritocracy, it would appear, begins at birth.

I'm looking for problems not support LoL , I'm backing out...

I think the link basically killed the thread , it answers most of the OPs Questions.

Feel free to say what you think though!

In the cartoon , it is clear that the rich parents are more apt than the others.



Winning the lottery is an awesome way to return back to poordom in the next week,


Yes, but the parents distract from the picture.



Looking after a baby girl, the parent used such a stupid accent that I didn't get that part, and thought it just meant that he needs to find a girl. Getting a baby is work, but so be it. It is the sort of work that won't be paid to you, yet ironically it will be paid in the form of the baby girl having slightly more chances than baby girls left in the street.

My point is that parents' merits should count, because they have a vested interest in that, and spent a lot of work into putting you in a slightly better starting point than others. So, it would not be right for meritocracy to delete the impact of your ancestors altogether. Specially in extreme cases like the cartoon in which the parents of one side are utter lazy morons and the other at least care, I don't think life would be unfair that way.

Regardless, in reality success won't come that early in life. There is a moment in which the extra classes and work from your parents stop making such a difference and that's where a healthy meritocracy can work - Your parents' effort has an effect but not too large one to cause very unfair and permanent class divisions.

Now, if the comic would have worked on making a point that the wealthy parents are a parasite class continuing the tradition of making money undeserved, that would be all right.

They both have a head start. A 150 IQ is no more an earned merit than hyper parents with mega resources are. It's the luck of what you are born with.

But as Vexcaliber noted, the kid slogging through the after-school tutoring is indeed working hard.

And then Vexcaliber noted again that the parentally-enforced extra academic work will not carry you through adult life.

Both of these kids had the extreme luck of being born with high IQs. Both of them also had parental work of different sorts forced on them (academic vs. childcare). How well they both do as adults depends on how well they can continue to work without parents forcing them. That's the ultimate test.