Meritocracy: Myth or Reality in Australian Education System

This article examines the concept of meritocracy in the Australian education system and questions whether it is a myth or a reality. It explores the factors that influence educational outcomes and challenges the notion of meritocracy. The article discusses the impact of gender, hard work, talent, type of school, rural-urban location, number of students, economic factors, and age on educational performance. It concludes that meritocracy is not a comprehensive explanation for educational outcomes.

Ancient History
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

Meritocracy
Introduction
In the Australian society, there exist various types of inequality in the society domain.one
type of relevant theory that can be used is functionalist theory that aligns with meritocracy that
can indicate inequality in education. According to this particular theory, the theorist have
believed that over the years Australian inequality is both inevitable and desirable. Therefore it
plays a significant function in the society
In this case, a major description of meritocracy conceptualizes value in terms of tested
competency and ability and standardized achievement tests. Governments and other
administrative systems describe meritocracy as a system that weighs the advancement with
respect to education, intelligence, and credential (Arrow, Bowles,& Durlauf, 2018). Such a
description is determined through evaluation or examination.
Generally, Meritocracy can be said to be the philosophy that describes that some things
such as economic goods/power should be made permanent among individuals on basis of talent,
effort, and achievement rather than considering some factors such as race, gender age or wealth.
The advancement is based on performance which is measured on achievement demonstrated via
examination.
This article clearly defines the meritocracy assumption with relation to education by
describing the existence of mythical comprehension as described above the meritocracy weighs
the education performance with regard to economic strength, talent ability ignoring the other
factors that complete the education performance requirements. This article also offers a

conclusion that education performance depends on the number of factors irrespective talent or
ability.
Discussion
There exists several non-merits factors that which affects students' educational outcomes.
Basing our arguments on these factors it can be concluded that meritocracy is a myth in relation
to the education system in Australia. These factors include: -
Gender factor. This can be stated as a major factor that meritocracy no longer bases its
arguments on it. Gender mostly affects the education performance of individuals. For example at
university level some courses have been flooded by a certain gender i.e. Male Gender have been
performing best in engineering courses compared to the Female Gender (Castilla,& Benard,
2010). Also, the number of female students in both scientific and engineering courses is less
compared to the male gender. Concluding from such facts, meritocracy can be declared to be a
myth as it ignores the fact that gender affects education performance. In general, it can be said
that female Gender is weak when comes to technical courses.
Hard-work. This factor is seen as the most powerful one in meritocracy and functional
theory.in the description formula of individual growth, meritocracy majorly pressurizes on the
effect of hard work. It also describes that the most hardworking individual appears at the top
when it comes to the education performances. This factor can be said to hold a lot of myths as it
doesn't always work. For example, a student may be very hardworking and his or her mind
capture very little which finally proves his or her hard work as non-productive (Frank,
2016). When it comes to rating the hard work level some student can be poorly rated but the

outcomes via examination reflect otherwise. Such facts outgo the meritocracy understanding
hence making it be a myth.
Figure 1: graphical analysis of effect of hard work in performance under improved condition
(McNamee and Miller, 2004)
Figure 2: graphical representation of statistics of hard work under reducing condition
(McNamee and Miller, 2004)

From the two graphs above it can be concluded that the performance rate is not only
influenced by the hard work but also by the background condition in which the hard work is
implemented. From the first graph the condition is positive hence a positive result is displayed in
performance. In the second graph, the same level of hard work is implemented but under
negative condition which leads to a decline in performance
Talent factor. This is also another factor that defines the meritocracy's understanding. It describes
that the students who are talented always perform best that the others. Questioning the
description on real-life occurrences it has been proved that even the non-talented individual end
ups performing best than the talented ones (Hayes, 2013). For example, an individual may be
talented in education but if he or she doesn't have that personal desire toward may end up
performing poorly. This shows that the performance may not be gauged on talent but a number
of factors that surrounds the students. In general, the student may be talented on certain task but
if the condition that surrounds him or her does not favor his or her talent, he or she may end

failing of the task. Such reasoning qualifies the conclusion that the meritocracy description on
the talent perspectives is a myth.
Figure 3: Graph of rate of performance between talented and non-talented (McNamee and
Miller, 2004)
The graph above defines how various talented and non-talented individuals performs
academically. Series one the blue column represent the talented individuals while the orange one
represent the non-talented. From the McNamee and miller graph representation it can be
concluded that the talent not always define the performance of the student. For succession to be
obtained a favoring condition must coexist despite the level of talent for individuals
The type of the school, either private or public is another factor which influences the
education performance. According to meritocracy description, the type of school is not among
the factors that influence the performance of individuals. For example, in Australia, the students
from privates institutions are expected to perform best in education compared with those from

public schools despite their talent or their abilities.in the country, it has been observed that
students who perform poorly in public school end up being converted to best performers after
joining the private education institution.it can be said that the concentration and seriousness of
the trainer in both public and private sectors are what affects the educational outcomes (Khan &
Jerolmack,2013). Private trainers tend to be more effective in the delivery process. Such
observation greatly outdates the meritocracy theories which states that only economic, talent and
ability affects the education performance hence proving those theories to be mythical.
Rural-urban location of the school. In Australia, urban schools have been producing a
number of best performing student. This factor shows that even if the student is talented towards
education, his or her performance is an influence on the basis of institution location. Individuals
who attend urban institution are widely updated compared to those from remote areas. This
factor outdoes the meritocracy argument on a talent basis. This is because someone can question
whether only the urban students who are talented in education while the rural students are not.
Also, the most institution in urban sectors is believed to have a well-equipped and updated
system of training. Basing argument with respect to the location of institution one can
completely prove that the meritocracy is a myth as it doesn't in any describe how the location of
an institution can influence performance
The number of students in school, which is not described by meritocracy, is also a factor
that influences the education system in Australia. A high number of students erodes the delivery
process of education which reflects a negative outcome despite the ability level or talent of the
students. A very low number of student reduces the competition degree of the students which
makes them reluctant (Littler, 2013).This shows that the talent or ability of the individuals does
not always determine the performance level. This because all students may be talented and have

that capability to perform but the number end up affecting performance negatively. With such an
assumption, the meritocracy can be said to be mythical. For example in the first year in
University, students portray a poor performance. This because during the first year there is that
sharing of common units among different cause which makes the number of students arise. Later,
after the sharing of units reduces, the performance improves.
Economic/power factors is another factor that the meritocracy place defend on. This is
one of the factors that the meritocracy base its positive reasoning on but when a negative
approach is offered it appears to be more sensitive and practical compared with meritocracy
description. According to meritocracy, good economic level predicts the existence of a positive
performance degree of the students. From the practical experiences, this factor has been proved
inactive as low economic students have been shooting compared to high economic students.
Such emerging facts have questioned the meritocracy understanding (Littler, 2017). Poor
economic background have become as the motivating factor among students as they work hard
so that they can upgrade their economic level in the society
Also, age is another factor that affects the talent the age also determines the effectiveness
of education performances of individuals which are neglected by meritocracy description. The
middle age is group displays a better performance compared with old and younger age. From the
meritocracy description, there is no way "age" can influence education performance but in real
life, situation education is widely affected by age (Son Hing,et al 2011). Such comprehension
can be used to conclude that the meritocracy is mythical. For example when one gets old, the
memory is lost as one easily forgets. Also, this is experience at a very young stage. The best age
that everyone can be said to be effective is only at middle age.

Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be concluded that meritocracy is mythical.to some
aspect the description given by the meritocracy tends to make sense while every condition that
influences education performance is satisfied. For example, despite the level of ability or talent
that every individual have positive performance is only expected when all the factors that affect
education are met.
Also, it can be concluded that there exist a number of factors that influence the education
and for the meritocracy description to be effective it should involve each and every factor in its
description. (Walton,Spencer & Erman,2013). From various research conducted it has been
observed that the meritocracy has initiated negative side effects which makes a certain group feel
neglected
Several authors have examined the harsh side effects related to meritocracy. Many have
concluded the existence of the erosion of the sense of selfish-worthy for those at the lower
position in society. From the research, it has been observed that most individuals believe that
their current situation in the society is facilitated by their lack of talent, hard work or ability
which makes them end up blaming themselves. This has been a demoralizing action by those
who have performed better than them.

References
Arrow, K., Bowles, S., & Durlauf, S. N. (Eds.). (2018). Meritocracy and economic inequality.
Princeton University Press.
Bell, D. A. (2016). The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy.
Princeton University Press.
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676.
Frank, R. H. (2016). Success and luck: Good fortune and the myth of meritocracy. Princeton
University Press.
Hayes, C. (2013). Twilight of the elites: America after meritocracy. Broadway Books.
Khan, S., & Jerolmack, C. (2013). Saying meritocracy and doing privilege. The Sociological
Quarterly, 54(1), 9-19.
Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: The marketising of'Equality'under
neoliberalism. New Formations, 80(80), 52-72.
Littler, J. (2017). Against Meritocracy. Abingdon, Oxon; NewYork, NY: Routledge, 2017.:
Routledge.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011).
The merit of meritocracy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(3), 433.

Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., & Erman, S. (2013). Affirmative meritocracy. Social Issues and
Policy Review, 7(1), 1-35.
Links
https://www.think.edu.au/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01041.x
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-15474-001
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cwinship/files/meritocracy.pdf