Meritocracy in education

Before arguing the case for education in creating a fair and equitable world, lets look at two strong modern assumptions about its role. The first is meritocracy, which is examined critically here by Dr Chiara Cirillo, Associate Professor in Second Language Education in the Department of Languages & Cultures.

Meritocracy

The statement you agreed or disagreed with in the poll describes meritocracy: the idea that success is linked to individual abilities coupled with hard work. Meritocracy is attractive because it assumes that success is available to us all in equal measure. Meritocracy is also attractive because at first glance it offers a democratic alternative to aristocratic, ethnic, or other exclusive power systems. Meritocracy is also twinned with social mobility, broadly speaking, ‘doing better than your parents’, which is regarded as another positive outcome of a democratic society, with the assumption that the root and path of such success is education.

In societies where meritocracy is important, young people internalise it as a value at home or at school, often as part of a hidden curriculum¹. (A hidden curriculum refers to ‘attitudes, behaviours and knowledge that are covertly or unintentionally learned through the schooling process’²). In other words, meritocracy might not be explicitly taught, but it is inferred through teacher remarks, for example, or the way a reward system is organised.

A number of scholars are critical of meritocracy. Philosopher Micheal Sandel argues that the idea is flawed both in theory and in practical terms³. Sandel challenges us to consider whether we really deserve the talents that enable us to flourish. Is it our doing that we live in a society which prizes the qualities and talents we have? Take, for example, a basketball player who can count on the advantage their height gives them, no matter how hard they practise. But what if the basketball player had lived in Italy during the Renaissance, where being good at drawing would have been valued more highly than being tall?

In practical terms, the goal of achieving a ‘level playing field’ for all through education, remains an aspiration as only a few rise to the top, no matter how hard the others work, and that’s predominantly because of their socio-economic advantage. Sandel refers to meritocracy as a ‘tyranny’ and notices that those who have reached the top fail to recognise their privilege. Yet not everyone is ready to reject meritocracy. Novelist Elif Shafak holds out for it as an alternative to wealth or other forms of undemocratic powers⁴.

Has this changed the way you think about meritocracy? In what ways? Do some of the ideas on meritocracy mentioned here reflect your own educational experience or those of someone you know well? In what ways?

References

1. Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural Communication: a Critical Introduction (2nd ed). Edinburgh University Press.
2. Haddad, Z. M. (2014). Hidden curriculum. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity and social justice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
3. Rajan, A. (2020, September 7). Start of the Week. Meritocracy and Inequality [Radio broadcast]. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mbhq
4. Rajan, A. (2020, September 7). Start of the Week. Meritocracy and Inequality [Radio broadcast]. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mbhq