Beyond Varsity Blues: Meritocracy and Equity

College CampusConversations about the aims of higher education may also lead to questions about how effectively these elite institutions promote meritocracy and equity—and whether “merit” is a fair metric for admissions officers to use in the first place. While many hold the widely accepted view that the only legitimate basis for college and university admissions decisions is individual merit, a closer examination suggests that merit itself may well rest on facts about a student that have more to do with their background than their talent or work ethic. Wealthier students are able to hire tutors to help them in classes they struggle with and coaches to sharpen their skills on the soccer field. For these students, these factors will inevitably translate to impressive resumes by the end of high school. Students from less privileged backgrounds, on the other hand, may need to forgo extracurricular activities and even some studying time in order to work to provide for their families. In short, “merit” may reflect wealth more than talent or hard work. (See Sean F. Reardon, “The Widening Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations,” in Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, ed. Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011).)

 

The following three articles question the practicality of a meritocratic system in a country where money can buy so many opportunities and where the elite continue to use their wealth to protect their status.

 
  • “The Case Against Meritocracy,” Ross Douthat. Douthat argues that society should not glorify meritocratic ideals over the old aristocratic system. A meritocratic society, Douthat believes, inevitably reverts back to an aristocracy because the wealthy’s children will have more access to resources, allowing them to achieve “merit” more easily. Meanwhile, meritocracy convinces the upper class that it earned its privilege rightfully, causing it to lack the sense of duty to help the less fortunate that the old aristocratic class harbored. Douthat ultimately embraces aristocracy because acknowledging the role of wealth in achieving merit and mobility is “more clearsighted and effective” than holding onto a broken meritocracy.
  • "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy," Matthew Stewart. Often, critiques of American wealth inequality point toward the top 0.1%, the uber rich. However, Stewart shifts the narrative toward the rise of the 9.9% aristocrats—that is, the other Americans in the top 10%. He reveals how rising inequality leads to more immobility and suggests that this self-proclaimed “middle class,” which consists mostly of lawyers, doctors, dentists, and other professionals, protect their wealth and preserve the broken status quo.
  • “They Had It Coming,” Caitlin Flanagan. Flanagan argues that the college scandal is a manifestation of the white, entitled rich feeling as though they’re losing their established power as elite colleges start admitting more minority applicants. Flanagan compares this to low-income white Americans supporting Trump for his anti-immigrant rhetoric.
 

The three texts below offer commentary on ways to adjust the college admissions system to account for the ethical dilemmas surrounding meritocracy and equity in higher education.

 
  • Fishkin, Joseph. Bottlenecks. Oxford University Press, 2014. While equality of opportunity is an intuitive and broadly celebrated goal, Joseph Fishkin argues that it needs to be reimagined. Rather than focus on literally equalizing opportunity, Fishkin offers a new theory of equal opportunity focused on what he calls “bottlenecks”—those places in our opportunity structure where the few are separated out and given greater access to opportunity than the many. Fishkin argues that policymakers ought to loosen the “bottlenecks” in today’s society—such as SAT scores, college degree, and class—that constrain the number of opportunities people have at all stages in their lives. 
  • “How to Fix the College Admissions Scandal (Warning: You Might Hate It,)” Robert Samuelson. Samuelson proposes a new, transparent system where elite colleges auction off a percentage of their seats to the highest bidders. Knowing that the idea sounds absurd, Samuelson adds nuance to his suggestion to justify why he believes that it would actually make the system more fair.
  • The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action, Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr. Sander and Taylor suggest that affirmative action fails to accomplish its goal because it tends to neglect lower-income minority students in favor of minority students from higher income backgrounds.  They also claim that affirmative action programs falter because of what they call the “mismatch” effect: when universities accept less qualified students, these students struggle to thrive and are more likely to fall behind.
 

Questions for discussion:

  • Do you feel that your peers’ family wealth has given them an unfair advantage in school over you? Or otherwise, do you feel that you have an unfair academic or extracurricular advantage over your peers because of your family wealth?

  • Should America continue to view itself as a meritocracy? Is an ideal meritocracy possible?

  • Is it ethical for wealthy families to use their money to pass certain advantages down to their children? Why or why not?

  • How could colleges quell the elite’s fears about losing their power without admitting fewer minority applicants?

  • Should universities accept concerns that affirmative action favors wealthier people of color over lower-income minority groups as reason to ignore disparities in the equality of opportunity in the college admissions process?

  • For some readers, Samuelson’s proposal in RealClearPolitics is unsettling. What about this proposal creates discomfort? How is it different from the admissions system currently in place? How is it similar?

 

Theme 3: Family Autonomy vs. State Regulation