The idea of meritocracy is beneficial to get rid of inequality if it is implemented without the interference of other factors. These factors, I believe, play a greater role in determining the fate and success of an individual. These non-merit factors are inheritance, unequal educational opportunities, luck, discrimination and poverty. Even an individual, who has unparalleled merit in his society, would not be able succeed if he does not have the non-merit factors in favor of him. This, I think, proves that even though meritocracy can be beneficial, due to the interference of other factors, as a whole it is not beneficial. The main non-merit factor which negates the theory of meritocracy is inheritance. Inheritance not only refers to the initial class placement at birth but in fact it also refers to the natural talents one is born with. “Inheritance refers more broadly to unequal starting points in a race to get ahead. The race to get ahead is like a relay race in which we inherit an initial starting point from parents” (McNamee and Miller 3). A person who is born into great wealth will definitely start way ahead of someone who belongs to a poor family. This basically means that someone from a rich family will have better opportunities in …show more content…
This, I claim, plays a major role in making the effects of meritocracy null and void. A person who graduated from an Ivy League will have better opportunities in life than someone who went to a community college. “Education is widely perceived as a gatekeeper institution which sifts and sorts individuals according to individual merits” (McNamee and Miller 4). To get our degrees and diplomas we have to study hard so they are undeniably earned not acquired. Better education leads to higher income and better positions in an organization. So education is the primary means of upward social mobility but like poverty it is also not equally distributed in a
people agree with the state that Liz borrows from Thomas Jefferson, "Everybody should have an education proportional to their life,"(Addison 256). Unfortunately, the average income between rich and poor in America is not accurate, everyone supposed to become somebody in life; college gives opportunity to everyone who wants to do so, to become whatever they want, and at any age with a low cost. as much as the income level between rich and poor in America stays unbalanced; college will always be there to gives opportunity to people who want to learn, but cannot afford to attend university. Liz Addison points out an example in the article.
Samuelson states that going to an Ivy League won’t automatically “produce a better job and high pay. Graduates of these schools generally do well. But they do well because they are talented’” (Lee 672). If one is successful it is usually because one puts forth the effort required to prosper. Degrees are simply accessories to what people build on their own. In the article “Is College Still Worth The Price?” by Penelope Wang, studies have shown that graduates of prestigious institutions earn relatively the same income as those who attend less selective universities. If someone is a bright student, they will do well no matter what; and if they do well it is because of their own efforts, not because they attended an Ivy League over a
French social philosopher, Alex de Tocqueville (1805-1889), once said, “However energetically society in general may strive to make all citizens equal and alike, the personal pride of each individual will always make him try to escape from the common level, and he will form some inequality somewhere to his own profit.” Through the ages, income inequality has caused class conflict, created political systems (communism), and has simultaneously promoted vast increases in wealth and technological advances. The purpose of this paper is to research and examine the benefits and detriments, or pros and cons, of income inequality and to then render my opinion regarding my findings. Because income inequality is vast in nature, this paper will serve to focus on only some of the important aspects of income inequality that fall under the category of “pros,” which include education, competition, and how income inequality stimulates productivity. In addition to focusing on some of the pro aspects of income inequality, this paper will also serve to outline some of the important aspects the “cons” which include concentration of wealth, social consequences, and job flight.
Directly, individuals from higher social classes are more likely to have the means to attend more prestigious schools, and are therefore more likely to receive higher educations. Indirectly, individuals who benefit from such higher education are more likely to land prestigious jobs, and in turn, higher salaries. Just as education and social class are closely intertwined, stratification in education contributes to stratification in social class (boundless).
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
America has always seen as the symbolic ideal country of prosperity and equality. This is the reason why people come to America hoping to become successful, but in matter of fact we all have an equal plan field to be successful is not entirely true. For there are social boundaries that keep use limited based upon our own status. Whether we are born of a low class or of a high class the possibility of economic mobility in a sense are predetermined by two factors of social class and success together they both affecting one’s another opportunity of success. In order to achieve success, we must know that it is made up of two main concepts and they are fortune and position. But when a person is limited by their class prohibiting them to achieve success, the point of trying is meaningless. However, there is a way to break the construct that keep groups stuck in the lower-class and is through education. Education gives more opportunities for success to the individuals and since education is very important, culture and the government should focus more directly upon this to reach economic stability. Class standing directly affects economic success in America by limiting a person’s chance of success however; one can overcome by focusing more upon education and culture.
The social theory of privilege states that unearned or otherwise reasonably unacquirable advantages are social endowed to a particular person or group of people. These unearned advantages are often granted on the basis of demographic features such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or generation, although other criteria (such as ability, height, or attractiveness) may confer such advantages. There lie subtle distinctions between advantages that are earned but reasonably acquirable and advantages that are earned but reasonably unacquirable. For example, education confers social advantages, but not privilege; however, the access to education is a reasonably unacquirable advantage and would be considered a privilege. The ambiguity of privilege, though,
In Louis Menand’s “Live and Learn: Why We Have College” he discusses his three theories about the purpose of higher education. The first theory says “college is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test”(57). This meritocratic theory is saying that “society wants to identify intelligent people early on … to get the most of its human resources” and college is the machine that does the sorting (57). The second theory, the democratic one, claims the point of college is not to pick out the elite. Rather, the point is to “expose future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them” (58). The third theory explains how “advanced economies demand specialized knowledge and skills, and, since high school is aimed at the general learner, college is where people can be taught what they need in order to enter a vocation” (62). All three theories have their
It is clear that Inequality of Opportunity and Inequality of Income intersect, but the main difference between these types of inequality can be explained as follows: Income Inequality depends on the efforts of a person, his or her work, while Inequality of Opportunity depends on external circumstances that a person can not influence (Molinas). At present, two approaches to Inequality of Opportunity are distinguished. One of them is called meritocratic and believes that people who make the same choice and apply the same effort should receive the same feedback (Molinas). The second one is called egalitarian, and its main idea is that outcomes should not depend on indicators and be equal (Molinas). Roemer actively developed this theory (Molinas). According to the scientist, there is no possibility to be sure that certain decisions made by a person were a consequence solely of her or his efforts, and not a consequence of errors and inequalities in the system. Following precisely this type of Inequality of Opportunity, one can expect that the respondents feel inequality in access and quality to education, the medical sphere, the labor market, living
In “The Case Against College” Linda Lee tells us exactly who belongs in college, they are “the high-achieving student who is interested in learning for learning’s sake…. And those who seem certain to go on to advanced degree’s in law, medicine, architecture, and the like,” (670). But just because there are certain people who belong in school does not mean that those are the people that attend. Those who are more privileged just happen to be in a position that allows them to partake in certain amenities, one of them being a higher standard of
There is always some sort of competition that is constantly occurring and it is certainly true that only those who exhibit excellence will be superior over the rest of the population. Although Patrick Buchanan’s essay proves the notion that equality among races when it comes to academic is in fact a myth, he failed to illustrate other influences that drive America in to racial inequality.
Social stratification is a system that societies use to rank members into organized and functioning groups. The way that the United States stratifies its members is by a class system. Upper, middle, and lower class are determined by the amount of money individuals have available to them for spending. Social class in America is a huge determinant of an individual’s quality of life. Education and training, or better yet the access to these, are what governs the amount of opportunity an individual has to make money and move up in social class. Often, social class can predetermine one’s fate before he or she has the chance to. Ambition means little when “class-based discrimination
The ability to gain a degree in any field of study is highly important in American society, possessing skills and knowledge over your job emphasizes the significance of higher education. Especially, for job promotions that would cause someone to make more than their fellow colleagues. In our increasingly competitive economic society, having the minimal of a high school diploma is not enough to provide financial stability nor will it help to compete in a workforce in which the best-educated are the ones that are rewarded the most. Therefore, higher education is a crucial necessity in order to move up the socioeconomic ladder and qualify for higher paying jobs. The rising costs of college, however, is making it harder for Americans to obtain
The class system ranks people by their economic position (Larkin, 2015). In America, we use the class system. There are many things that influence what class you are in. These include family, job, education, race, and gender. While family does play a role in which class you are in, it is not the most significant influence. The most significant things are education and job. If someone was born into a lower class, they have a greater change of moving to a higher position in a society and in some of the other social stratification systems. This system allows for the greatest amount of social mobility (Larkin, 2015). A person can move up in this system, as well as down. Someone might move down in the class system because they lost their job and no longer make the same amount of money they did before. There are negatives to this stratification system as well. The class system can be marked by unequal access to goods, services, and life options for its
As we prosper through time, inequality is slowly less evident. A lot of people don't realize that although things are improving with time, inequality is still prominent in our society. The people that are failing to realize that there still is inequality, are the fortunate ones. They rise well above the poverty line, and usually live relatively economically sound lives. They are the people who are supplied with our society's benefits.