Meritocracy is an ideal that positions merit or talent as the primary basis for allocating rewards and status in society. The concept dates back centuries, but arose as a modern political theory in the late 1950s. Meritocratic principles now shape education systems, hiring practices, and social attitudes worldwide. However, critics increasingly question meritocracy’s efficacy and egalitarian claims. They argue structural disadvantages and unconscious biases undermine pure merit-based success. Meritocracy and its discontents remain a flashpoint in debates on fairness, incentives, and social mobility. This article will trace the history of meritocratic thinking, its major criticisms, and implications for improving equality of opportunity.
The Rise of Meritocracy
The term “meritocracy” was coined by British sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical book The Rise of the Meritocracy. Though written as a cautionary tale, Young’s vision of society based on IQ and effort took hold as an ideal. His book described a dystopian future where elites rule by virtue of intelligence tests and education rankings. With status solidified by age eight, meritocracy creates a permanent underclass bereft of opportunity.
While Young intended to parody zero-sum competition, many instead saw meritocracy as a fair compromise between hereditary aristocracy and raw democracy. Over subsequent decades, the concept gained influence in philosophies that linked ability, hard work and achievement to just social rewards.
Meritocratic values shaped the expansion of public education systems in the 20th century West. Reformers aimed to identify and develop talents in all classes of society. Tests that purported to select the most qualified candidates became gateways to higher education and professional jobs. Data showing positive correlations between test scores, academic success and career performance provided empirical validation for merit-based sorting.
Critics like Young argued educational sorting began at too young an age to be fair, entrenching advantages of wealth and status under the guise of merit. But the meritocratic ethos reflected Western liberal democracies’ embrace of market competition, careers open to talent, and belief in progress based on science. Meritocracy offered a path to broaden economic and social mobility beyond traditional barriers of hereditary elites.
Criticisms of Meritocracy
While meritocracy promotes equality of opportunity, critics increasingly question its ability to deliver. They argue meritocratic systems fall short for the following reasons:
- Tests are imperfect predictors of ability and job performance. Some qualified candidates are unfairly excluded based on single exam scores.
- Academic achievement reflects unequal access to resources like tutoring and enriched environments. A meritocracy rewards those already privileged.
- Unconscious racial, gender and other biases skew assessments of applications and performance reviews.
- Soft skills like leadership and emotional intelligence receive little weight, though critical to success.
- Luck, connections and other arbitrary factors influence outcomes as much as individual merit.
- Competition creates excessive stress and incentives to cheat. Failure severely punishes those at the bottom.
- Belief in merit distracts from recognizing structural barriers that block equal opportunity and sustain discrimination.
- Not all desirable roles and social goods should be allocated by academic or career metrics alone.
From this view, meritocracy serves as ideology that legitimizes inequality under the pretense of objective, merit-based sorting. Advocates counter that imperfect meritocracy remains meritocracy, and superior to corruption or prejudice. But faith in merit risks blinding successful groups to continuing unfair advantages.
Education as Meritocratic Gatekeeper
Education systems are foundational to meritocracies, training talent and signaling capabilities. However, standardized tests and admissions procedures raise critiques:
- Test preparation confers advantage to students from affluent families, distorting measures of academic potential.
- Subjective or legacy admissions preferences at elite colleges favor the privileged, undercutting merit claims.
- Funding disparities between public schools create unequal learning environments, impacting test scores.
- Rising college tuition and the “merit scholarship arms race” restrict access to higher education.
- Admissions quotas for ethnic groups spark debates on whether they help or hinder meritocracy.
Potential reforms include limiting legacy and donor admissions advantages, increasing need-based financial aid, and emphasizing grade improvement alongside test scores. But simply expanding access is insufficient if inadequate primary schools leave many students underprepared and unsupported.
Alternatives like admissions lotteries also raise concerns about abandoning demonstrated achievement. There are no easy solutions, but improving quality and access across communities could enhance meritocracy.
Unconscious Bias and Discrimination
Another major critique contends unconscious biases corrupt merit-based evaluations, systematically disadvantaging women, minorities and other groups. For example:
- Job applicants with white-sounding names receive more callbacks than identical resumes with black-sounding names.
- Women must demonstrate greater ability to be judged as competent as men in performance reviews.
- Subtle cues about race or gender trigger negative assumptions and doubts about qualifications.
- Minority achievements and leadership skills elicit more skepticism and social penalties.
Unconscious bias training helps raise awareness but fails to eliminate prejudices that distort seemingly meritocratic processes. Anonymized application reviews help but cannot counter discrimination in interviews, promotions and everyday interactions. Strong anti-discrimination protections remain essential alongside merit-based practices.
Furthermore, critics argue colorblind meritocracy discourse minimizes the need for affirmative action and policies addressing systemic disadvantages. Relying purely on meritocracy tends to entrench current hierarchies, since evaluations reflect accrued advantages and biases. Disproportionate poverty, incarceration, and discrimination create unequal opportunities. Marginalized groups then appear perpetually less meritorious due to conditions meritocracy fails to dismantle.
The Dark Side of Competition
Meritocracy’s competitive structure raises another set of concerns. Contest-based systems yield winners and losers, often through comparisons on narrow criteria. Educational testing and career tournaments become high-stakes games with devastating consequences for those deemed inadequate. Failure marks groups as inferior, fueling stigma and despair.
Elite academic tracks feed a sense of entitlement among winners. winners. Top-down control and incentives to maximize measured performance can encourage cheating and rule-bending. The collective good may suffer as individuals compete rather than cooperate.
Critics argue competition warps learning into joyless credentials-chasing. Overemphasis on standardized testing narrows curricula. Students fear risk-taking and explore passions not rewarded by grades. High-stakes college admissions yield debilitating stress and anxiety through the teenage years.
Advocates counter that competition drives excellence and innovation that benefit society overall. There are merits to both viewpoints. Perhaps the ideal balance minimizes steep inequalities in outcomes while preserving incentives to achieve. Differentiated roles could structure cooperation across skill levels. In any case, supporting those who struggle remains essential.
The Limits of Quantifying Merit
A further line of critique questions whether vital human qualities can or should be ranked and assigned through testing. Which abilities are most worthy of reward? IQ-style problem solving receives outsized emphasis compared to creativity, empathy, courage or wisdom. Leadership, ethics and social skills prove difficult to measure, but impact lives profoundly.
No formula or exam predicts merit accurately across contexts and life paths. Chance meetings, mentors or opportunities to demonstrate grit shape success as much as innate talent and diligence. Quantifying merit also overlooks how we all depend on a web of interdependence. Paying a hedge fund manager orders of magnitude more than teachers, parents and caretakers seems questionable by deeper valuations of worth.
Multi-dimensional models of merit offer alternatives. For example, holistic college admissions evaluate passion and character alongside test scores. Job interviews aim to assess cultural fit and balance hard and soft skills. But subjective judgments risk biases. Integrating objective and qualitative metrics remains an art. Not all goods need be allocated by performance data – caring roles may exemplify love over merit.
Improving Opportunity for All
Given the flaws and biases that pervade real-world meritocracies, how can societies maximize meaningful equality of opportunity? Scholars emphasize reducing inherited disparities and providing resources to develop potential. Class-based affirmative action through need-based college aid and investment in communities aims to balance chances. Accountability systems must track inclusion, with targets across demographic groups. Workplace diversity initiatives can mitigate cultural isolation.
But disadvantaged groups shoulder unfair burdens of proof under compromised meritocracy. Claims of inferior talent absent evidence of unequal preparation and bias ring hollow. Structural solutions should be prioritized over trying to identify deserved exceptions.
Broader cultural change matters alongside policy reforms. Dismantling notions of innate, fixed intelligence could help improve effort and reduce stigma of struggle. Design thinking approaches in education empower diverse learning styles. Workplaces can better recognize range of contributions and rotate coveted assignments.
Yet tensions persist between individual and group justice. There are reasonable debates on where to draw lines between meritocratic rewards, need-based redistribution, and universal guarantees. Openness to new data, feedback and debate remains vital. The perfect system is elusive, but progress possible.
Meritocracy evolved as an egalitarian alternative to hereditary privilege, aimed at maximizing social welfare through rewarding ability and effort. But in practice, merit systems often advantage those already privileged while masking discrimination. Perfectly level playing fields remain elusive. However, conscientious policies, accountability, and cultural change could strengthen meritocracy’s role in expanding opportunity. Sincere commitment to fairness requires questioning metrics and assumptions.
The ideal model balances recognizing distinctive talents with compassion. Competition might drive some domains, while cooperation governs community service. Quantifying data opens some doors, yet wisdom holds others. Though tensions persist, meritocracy aligned with social justice fosters human potential for the common good.
 Young, M. (1958). The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay on Education and Equality. Thames & Hudson.
 McNamee, S.J. & Miller, R.K. (2009). The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman & Littlefield.
 Young, M. (2001). Down with Meritocracy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
 Lemann, N. (2000). The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. Macmillan.
 Husén, T. (1986). The Learning Society Reconsidered. Pergamon Press.
 Latham, G. P., & Mann, S. (2006). Advances in the science of performance appraisal: Implications for practice. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 295–337). John Wiley & Sons.
 Bell, D. (2016). Meritocracy and the Uses of Education. Discover Society. https://discoversociety.org/2016/06/01/meritocracy-and-the-uses-of-education/
 Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the Myth of Meritocracy within the Context of US Higher Education. Higher Education, 62(4), 383-397.
 Castilla, E.J. (2016). Achieving Meritocracy in the Workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review.
 Deresiewicz, W. (2017). Have We Lost Sight of the Promise of Public Schools? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/sunday/public-schools-meritocracy.html
 Bound, J., Hershbein, B., & Long, B. T. (2009). Playing the Admissions Game. NBER Working Paper No. 15172.
 Sander, R. (2004). A systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools. Stanford Law Review, 367-483.
 Liu, A. (2019). You’re More than Your Test Scores: Challenging High-Stakes Testing and Standardization. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1-36.
 Castilla, E.J. (2008). Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers. American Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 1479-1526.
 Anderson, E. (2007). Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective. Ethics, 117(4), 595-622.
 Brown, P. (2016). The meritocracy myth and the illusion of equal employment opportunity. Minn. L. Rev., 100, 1283.
 Boylan, R. T. (2016). Meritocracy, tracking, and elitism: Structural inequality in American higher education. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(2), 549-559.
 Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Heinemann Portsmouth, NH.
 Leonard, D. (2014). ‘The Competitive Student’: Anxiety and Inequality in Post-Secondary Education. Antistasis, 4(2).
 Stone, J. (2007). Meritocracy’s Crooked Yardstick. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/meritocracys-crooked-yardstick/
 Clough, P. T. (2018). The Two Faces of Meritocracy. Society, 55(6), 512-518.
 Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
 Walters, P. B. (2018). The Meritocracy Myth: Formula for Inequality. Rowman & Littlefield.
 Sen, A. (2000). Merit and Justice. In Arrow, K. et al (Eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality (pp. 5-16). Princeton University Press.
 Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.