The Meritocracy Myth Sample Assignment

The Meritocracy Myth

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK...............................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Meritocracy is a type of structure , society or arrangement that distributes responsibility,
roles , position , power, esteem according to merit or it refers to give rewards, prestige , power to
those who are selected according to merit, it also means ' rule of the talented ' and gradually it
becomes a myth in Australian society in relation to education system (Livingstone, 1998).Also a
brief study is done on the ‘non-merit factors’ which can influence a student’s educational
outcomes. In addition to this a detailed study is done on McNamee and Miller's several ‘non-
merit’ factors which “suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers
to individual mobility. The aim of present study is to identify effects and outcomes of
Meritocracy myth in Australia regarding its education system(Pocock,2004).
MAIN BODY
According to American dream’s ideology there are limitless opportunities. Individuals
can take advantage of many things. There are many merit factors such as income, wealth etc. that
impact on educational outcome of person to great extent. But apart from this, there are many nin
merit factors that also influence the person’s educational system. Inheritance is considered as one
of the major element that has high effect over individual’s educational outcome. Initial class
placement impact on the future life chances to great extent. Inheritance is the unequal starting
points in the life of person due to race or many other reasons. One of the major benefit of
inheritance is to have high powered forms (Flood, 2004). McNamee and Miller have identified
number of non-merit factors that impact on the educational outcome of the person and creat
barrier for individual.
People those who take birth in high class families have friends with same class. But the
individual who born into poor family have poor friends. Sometimes discrimination create barrier
for the people and they fail to get opportunities. Race, sex discrimination creates trouble for the
people. But bad luck is also associated with it that may suppress the effects of merit. Sometimes
person has ability to get developed but due to bad luck individual gets failed to grab that
opportunity on time. Americans pays more attention on supply side of labour but ignores demand
side of labour force (Maddison, Hamilton and Denniss, 2004). There are so many citizens those
who like to complete higher educations but due to poor economic condition of country they fail
to get employment opportunities according to their qualifications.
1

Jobs available geographically and within the area is considered as another non material
factor that impact on the person’s life. For example, if the person is working in multinational big
firm can get more salary as compare to the person who is working in small size family business
(Hamilton and Hamilton, 2004).
There are many Australians those who are much ambitious and they ignore classical
liberal vision. SEOP explains the substantive equality of opportunities that gives everyone
potential opportunities to get developed. Circumstances of birth and childhood are completely
secondary elements that have no much impact on kids’ life. If the person is able to perform well
and learn new things then individual can get positive results. SEOP is completely differed from
FEOP (Formal equality of opportunities). FEOP believes that person can get promotional
opportunities or development chances in school on the bases of their own attributes, how they
person at workplace. This is not done on the bases of race, gender etc. SEOP ensure that
selection of person done on the bases of objective qualification (Macintosh and Denniss 2004).
Social mobility can be defined as frequency that supports person to move up towards
social hierarchy. There are two major mobility’s: intra- generational mobility explains adult’s
movement up or down due to occupational or income changes. This type of mobility does not
consider childhood circumstances. Whereas another mobility is inter- generational mobility that
pays more attention on parental income. If the childhood status of person is rich or good, then
individual may live their life happily and individual can get better opportunities in the future.
That means if there is high relationship between origins and destinations then it can be seen as
high inequality of opportunities and mow mobility (Fingleton, 2005).
There are so many barriers to equality of opportunities in the country such as
discrimination, welfare traps, health, housing barriers etc. If there is gender bias then it affect
future outcome of the individual. Indigenous people suffer from such kind of discrimination in
the country and they do not get equal income opportunities that affect their life to great extent.
On other hand it is argued that changing policies climate change the direction of industries. That
has high impact over inequality. Market income inequalities are increasing day by day, changes
in tax rates affected many people but this changes have not affected low income families at all.
Tax cuts has affected higher or middle class families to great extent (Gintis, 1976).
2

It is argued that unreasonable reluctance of government with respect to borrow
infrastructure for long term creates transport inequalities. It is argued that unfriendly
environment promotes inequality of opportunities. Government is required to make serious social
policies in order to eliminate such kind of inequalities (Bowles and Gintis, 2002).
As per Hamilton and Macintosh (2004) the term Meritocracy was coined 60 years ago
and aims that job should go to those who deserves it and not to the people that having Pedigree
and connections. On the other hand Macintosh and Denniss, (2004) exposes the way that the top
universities favour donors and children of Alumni. The inequality has gone such deeper that
lower income level group are not able to speak , there are still some educational universities that
have billion dollar endowments and the level of education received depends upon the amount of
money spend on it. there should be an equality of opportunity but it actually does not work
because of wealthy people as they restrict deserving candidates by using their economic power.
No matter what the criteria is set for admissions , the wealthy children always gets the
advantage . in reality there can never be an equality in education system because there is never
going to be fully equal opportunities. The main objective of the concept is to assure that elites
deserve position in their life. There are many non meritocracy factors that affect suppress,
neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility like
Inheritance which means properties or characteristics acquired from one generation or class to
another generation or class thus in the context of meritocracy people often follow the trend of
inequality as done by their elders which does not only affecting the education system but the
upcoming generation too. Also as per Flood, (2004) nepotism can be the another non merital
factor that affect meritocracy , which means favouring relatives and friends in various business,
politics, entertainment thus favouring students and colleagues in universities and school has
created inequality to another level which is restricts deserving candidates to gain their position.
In some universities nepotism occur due to family ties also according to nepotism has increased
the job opportunities and these people are getting are paid more than the people working at same
level. Similarly in education system Alumini favour their families and friends instead of taking
deserving candidates. In addition to this discrimination is also another factor that affect
meritocracy , there are still some biased people in universities and school that do unjust treatment
of different categories of people on the ground of race , age sex , caste etc., the student still do
not get right to education. As per.....social class can also be the factor that affect meritocracy as
3

people with higher income group use their economic power to educate their child in expensive
universities and sometimes physical appearance also restricts people to grab their educational
opportunities as due to low income they are unable to maintain their lifestyle and because of their
bad appearance alumni of reputed universities hesitate to admit these students. Sometimes
attitude of teachers and mentors also affect the education system , teachers with positive attitude
will treat student very nicely and they try to focus on skill and talent of student rather than
focusing on appearance on the other hand teachers and alumni with negative attitude suppress the
children. Also Hamilton and Hamilton, (2004) states that gender inequality is the severe
problem in education system that has drag women back to take their opportunities on contrary to
this Fingleton, (2005) says now women are more educated than men so there are less
chances of discrimination in education system and people are now more focusing on knowledge
rather than anyone's race, gender and sexuality. In addition to this social capital can also be one
factor that is affecting education system in Australia thus social capital is philosophy of an
individual or group that behave in a negative or special to a particular group or class of people ,
if there are such individual or group in education system then people suffered from these bullies
and unfair treatment will not able get chance of getting opportunities.
Thus discrimination nepotism , favouritism , racism does not only affect the educational
life of children but it can affect the personal life of a child , due to unfair treatment child may be
suffer from depression, hypertension and many more diseases , so it should be stopped and there
should be strict rule for the discrimination in education system.
CONCLUSION
From the above study it can be concluded that inequality in education system is still
prevailing in some society, people will higher income group are taking advantage of education
by using their economic power and not on the basis of talents. In addition to this it can be
concluded that not only merital factors but non merital factors also create barriers to individual
mobility .Nepotism has restricted other people to take advantage of job opportunities because of
presence of biased people in universities and school that leads to suppress the weaker section of
the society. In addition to this it is also identified that gender inequality is another factor that
affect individual mobility, similarly there are different factors and facts that has been included in
meritocracy myth that can be identified from above study
4

REFERENCES
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of
education, 75(1), 1-18.
Fingleton, J. (2005). Privatising land in the Pacific. A defence of customary tenures.
Flood, M. (2004). Lost children: condemning children to long-term disadvantage.
Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America.
Hamilton, C., & Hamilton, C. (2004). The disappointment of liberalism and the quest for inner
freedom. Australia Institute.
Hamilton, C., & Macintosh, A. (2004). Taming the Panda: The relationship between WWF
Australia and the Howard government. Australia Institute.
Livingstone, D.W., (1998). The education gap. Underemployment or economic democracy.
Macintosh, A., & Denniss, R. (2004). Property rights and the environment: should farmers have
a right to compensation. Australia Institute.
Maddison, S., Hamilton, C., & Denniss, R. (2004). Silencing Dissent: Non-government
organisations and Australian democracy. Australia Institute.
Pocock, B., (2004). Work and family Futures. How Young Australians Plan to Work and Care.
Canberra, The Australia Institute.
5

Library. 9(2).
6