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 on 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.
The following texts illustrate the extent to which wealth influences access to various resources. The 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”
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"
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.
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.
Questions for discussion:
-
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?