The Myth of Meritocracy in the Australian Education System: An Essay

This argumentative essay critically examines the concept of meritocracy within the Australian education system. It challenges the notion that the system provides equal opportunities for all students, arguing that socioeconomic factors significantly influence academic achievement and access to resources. The essay highlights the role of private schools, selective comprehensives, and grammar schools in perpetuating inequality and limiting social mobility. It draws on various sociological perspectives and research to support the claim that the Australian education system favors the wealthy and elite, making meritocracy a myth. The paper references multiple studies and data to demonstrate how upbringing, wealth, and access to quality education shape opportunities, ultimately hindering the realization of a truly meritocratic society. The essay concludes that until systemic barriers are addressed, the Australian education system will continue to fail in providing genuine equal opportunities for all students.

Meritocracy is a Myth in Australian Education System
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

Education of Australia is considered to be one of the most inaccessible,
wealthy and exclusive in the world (Gomes, 2015). Australia is a home for
some of the best schools and universities like University of Melbourne,
University of Sydney, Monash University, ANZ School, Ascham School etc.
Schools are universally considered as meritocratic institutions as here, each and
every students are treated equally and all of them get equal opportunity to
success if they possess that ability and effort. This paper shall elaborate on
presenting an argumentative essay on whether meritocracy is a myth in relation
to the education system in Australia.
According to Mijs (2016), the idea of meritocracy is all about a system
where the talented are chosen and are moved ahead depending upon their
achievements. It is something that represents a vision where privilege and
power are allocated by the merit of an individual and not by the social origins
(Clycq, Ward Nouwen & Vandenbroucke, 2014). However, inspired by the idea
of meritocracy, there are many people who are committed towards a view of
how the hierarchies of status and money in today’s world should be organised.
People think that jobs should not go to the ones who have pedigree or
connections, but to the ones who are best suitable and qualified for them,
regardless to whatever background they belong to. It is to note that in Australia,
the Idea of meritocracy is expressed in near about every Australian values.
Australians believe in “fair go” and they favours the concept that everybody

should have equal right and opportunity to improve their lives as well as to
chase the rewards on the basis of their hard work and talent. They are highly
enthusiastic regarding their equality of opportunities as a means of ensuring
fairer society but never as an eager for pursuing the goals of equality. According
to Kim and Choi (2017), “although the principles of meritocracy are questions,
it still remains the central feature of the ‘Australian Dream’ where it is a
dominant ideology deeply embedded within the practices and beliefs of
American culture”.
It is to note that the system of education is viewed differently by different
sociologists. While talking regarding this system, many of the sociologists refer
to the forms of education where people get to known about the secondary
socialisation, relearning the values and norms that are already taught during the
primary socialisation in one’s family (Dyndahl et al., 2014). It is considered to
be an agent of social control where the children are learned for conforming to
the expectations of the societies through a hidden curriculum. The education
system of Australia is routinely kept separate from the other departments of
government. However, this is not how the life actually works here despite of the
fact that Australians believe in equality and fairness. The academic attainment
and opportunity do not prevails in a vacuum that is enclosed within the gates of
school. Australia is a country that is highly serious regarding genuine equal
opportunity and it needs to re-evaluate the many other different areas that foster

and breed the concept of inequality, right from healthcare, transport linkage to
wages, housing etc. (Drucker, 2017). However, beginning in the post-war social
political milieu and all through the second half of the twentieth century,
Australia had witnessed a dramatic expansion of its Higher Education System. It
is quite related to the modernisation theory that predicted that development and
growth of the industrial societies that would need the workers to become ever
more highly educated and occupation roles for being allocated increasingly
dependent on what is achieved instead of the ascribed characteristics.
The private schools, selective comprehensives and the grammar schools
of Australia are where the meritocracy myths starts. In reality, all these
institution refer to the cornerstone of high inequality in the Australian society
and this further is creating a system where the wealthy and the elite prosper and
on the other hand, the less affluent and poor are left in the cold. “Meritocracy is
a Myth”. It is the concept at odds with the reality of the Australian society
(Frank, 2016). The gap prevailing in between the less well and the wealthy is as
staple of their culture as a cup of tea. It is not those with the most skill that rise
to the top, but rather those with the means to acquire it” (Cropley, 2014). The
Australian education system, along with the endurance of the grammar schools,
private schools and the selective comprehensives, is the institution that
exemplifies this. The ones who value the different principles of meritocracy

needs to take a stand against the education system that is prevailing today if
they really want those values to be truly manifested themselves into a reality.
Suppose there is a race. All the runners start at the same starting point and
every one of them have the same resources and time to train. There first runner
trains hard and he amasses the most wins and talent. On the other hand, the
second one trains half as much as the first one and she is skilled but never
exceptions and comes second place. While, the third one loses for being
unskilled and untrained. In such a situation it is really indisputable that the one
with the highest merit achieved the most and the one with significant deficiency
loses. It is a perfect scenario and example that perfectly represent the country
for the ones who believe in the idea that they live in meritocratic society. Yet,
here the questions arise- Is this really a model of Australia? Is this its
meritocratic identity? And the answer to these questions is No, when more
context is added into this scenario. It is to mention that the second runner might
have only trained half as much as the first runner as she could not have afforded
to train further like the first runner. Or, the third runner might appear to be
unskilled and untrained but it was actually all because of the fact that he or she
is given inferior training as compared to the first two. This scenario creates a
way more realistic model of the Australian society, the society where the
upbringing and the wealth shape the chances and opportunities, and above all,
the merit of every individual. It is the new model that is reminiscent of the

Australian education system- the system where all the institutions, not only the
private schools, but also the selective comprehensives and grammar schools
perpetuate the gap of wealth in between the rich and the poor and at the same
time, stagnate the social mobility (Lardier et al., 2019).
The fee paying private schools exist to be an inequality of the Australian
education system (Perry & Southwell, 2014). If any child desires to reach the
top professions in his life like military, law and medicine that usually the
privately educated children dominates, then they could only hope for their
parents to have big pockets for affording the fees. While the private education
do not ensure the students and the parents great career success, or even good
grades, it is really indisputable that it does not offer some pros or benefits when
one look at the statistics. For example, as per Cohodes and Goodman (2014),
“the privately educated are two and a half times more likely to be admitted to a
top university that their state school counterparts”. It is simply shy of
impossible to claim that the private school does not offer any platform to the
ones who attend it while offering them the opportunity and the merit that is just
an idealistic dream for majority of the under state education system and
children. According to Gutmann and Ben-Porath (2014), “the private schools —
although an obvious and evident problem for anyone who wishes
for equal opportunity between the wealthy and non-wealthy —
are not the only barrier to meritocracy”.

Hence from the above analysis it is to conclude that the
Australian education system lift up the ones with enough wealth
to access them and that, meritocracy in modern Australian
society, like many other developed or developing societies is a
myth. The gap prevailing in between the less well and the wealthy families in
Australia is as staple of their culture as a cup of tea . To judge the
Australian as meritocracy is simply nothing more than injustice to
the innocent children and their no so wealthy parents who fail to
have the means to access good education for their children. The
only chance at ever reaching mythical status of meritocracy is
breaking down the challenges and barriers and allowing each and
every child, regardless of their family wealth, background and
potential of accessing high quality education. It is until then, the
Australian education system will continuously fail and
meritocracy would remain in the pages of books and novels.

References:
Clycq, N., Ward Nouwen, M. A., & Vandenbroucke, A. (2014). Meritocracy, deficit thinking
and the invisibility of the system: Discourses on educational success and
failure. British Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 796-819.
Cohodes, S. R., & Goodman, J. S. (2014). Merit aid, college quality, and college completion:
Massachusetts' Adams scholarship as an in-kind subsidy. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 6(4), 251-85.
Cropley, A. J. (Ed.). (2014). Towards a system of lifelong education: Some practical
considerations (Vol. 7). Elsevier.
Drucker, P. (2017). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. Routledge.
Dyndahl, P., Karlsen, S., Skårberg, O., & Nielsen, S. G. (2014). Cultural omnivorousness and
musical gentrification. An outline of a sociological framework and its applications for
music education research.

Frank, R. H. (2016). Success and luck: Good fortune and the myth of meritocracy. Princeton
University Press.
Gomes, C. (2015). Negotiating everyday life in Australia: Unpacking the parallel society
inhabited by Asian international students through their social networks and
entertainment media use. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(4), 515-536.
Gutmann, A., & Ben‐Porath, S. (2014). Democratic education. The encyclopedia of political
thought, 863-875.
Kim, C. H., & Choi, Y. B. (2017). How meritocracy is defined today?: contemporary aspects
of meritocracy. Economics & Sociology, 10(1), 112.
Lardier Jr, D. T., Herr, K. G., Barrios, V. R., Garcia-Reid, P., & Reid, R. J. (2019). Merit in
meritocracy: Uncovering the myth of exceptionality and self-reliance through the
voices of urban youth of color. Education and Urban Society, 51(4), 474-500.
Mijs, J. J. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their
implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 14-34.
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2014). Access to academic curriculum in Australian secondary
schools: A case study of a highly marketised education system. Journal of Education
Policy, 29(4), 467-485.