We Can’t Debate ‘Meritocracy’ When Our Education System Stifles So Much Merit
A key assumption is that schools have done as much as they can to level the playing field.
The idea of meritocracy is coming under attack, largely because of the perceived failure of education to level the playing field. But it’s too soon to give up on education—and it’s dangerous to democracy.
For decades, meritocracy—rewarding individuals on the basis of intellectual ability—has been widely accepted as the ideal, and social inequities have been seen as breakdowns in its functioning. When wealthy parents manipulate college admissions, for example, many view that as interference with a system that’s supposed to favor the most meritorious applicants—not the best-connected.
But recently criticism has turned to the concept of meritocracy itself, including the suggestion that admission to elite colleges should be by lottery. A rash of books has challenged the notion that society should aim to reward academic achievement. Their titles are revealing: The Meritocracy Trap, The Tyranny of Merit, The Cult of Smart.
The authors of these books, who are in varying degrees on the left of the political spectrum, differ on details. But they all see meritocracy as a system that works only to the advantage of those already on top, creating a kind of aristocracy that—unlike the traditional kind—falsely believes it got there on the basis of its own merit rather than through heredity and luck. Meanwhile, those stuck at the bottom are made to feel that their lack of success is their own fault. Interestingly, this argument is essentially the same as that put forward in the 1958 book that coined the term “meritocracy,” a dystopian satire that was later misconstrued.
The attacks on meritocracy rest on a few basic assumptions. One is that intelligence is largely genetic; another is that it’s unequally distributed. The argument is that it’s unfair to place so much value on something beyond an individual’s control. In fact, the scientific consensus is that about 50% of intelligence, as measured by IQ, is inherited. And clearly, intelligence does vary among individuals. So—with the proviso that 50% is only half the equation—there’s some basis for those two assumptions.
But another key assumption is that education can’t do much to change the situation. That claim is made most explicitly by Fredrik deBoer, author of the Cult of Smart (the subtitle is How Our Broken Education System Perpetuates Social Injustice). DeBoer argues that the primary function of the American education system is simply to sort people according to the academic ability they inherited. He even urges lowering the dropout age to 12, since measures of achievement indicate many students aren’t learning much in high school anyway.
That’s true. It’s also true, as deBoer and others point out, that factors outside of school have been found to be more important than in-school factors in determining academic success. But there’s a lot more that schools could do to enable students to learn. Most likely, studies haven’t found much of an effect from schools because virtually all schools are taking the same approach—and, for most students, it doesn’t work.
Before I unpack that sweeping claim, let me say that to the extent that these critiques argue that our society should place greater value on work that is considered less intellectually demanding, I heartily agree. Especially during this pandemic, it’s clear that the category of “essential workers” includes not just doctors but also nurses, teachers, security guards, trash collectors, supermarket checkers, and a whole host of others who don’t get enough respect—or compensation. But that’s different from saying we should reject meritocracy as an ideal, an argument that is inextricably linked to the notion that schools can’t possibly do a better job of leveling the playing field than they’re doing now.
So, why am I convinced that schools could do a better job? For one thing, there’s evidence that education has increased people’s intelligence. Between the end of World War II and the recent past, IQ increased by about three points per decade in developed nations (the IQ scale has been repeatedly readjusted to account for that). This phenomenon is called the Flynn Effect. One almost certain factor was better and more widespread education, indicating that while genes have an effect on intelligence, it can be boosted by education.
But, at a time when society is making greater demands than ever on intelligence, the Flynn Effect has recently gone into reverse. Schools have probably never done as much as they could to unlock students’ academic potential, and that’s certainly true now. A fundamental reason is that prevailing assumptions about how to teach conflict with evidence from cognitive science about how people learn. The most obvious example of this is the standard but deeply flawed approach to teaching children how to read words and understand what they mean. But that’s only a symptom of a far more basic problem.
Teachers are generally trained to believe that imparting factual information isn’t important—and may even be damaging—and that students should learn through “discovery” as much as possible. But scientific evidence indicates that knowing facts is a necessary foundation for learning, and that explicit instruction is crucial when students don’t already know much about a topic. The principles uncovered by cognitive science are largely premised on those two findings. Most educators aren’t aware of those principles, but even if they were, many would probably dismiss them because of their deeply ingrained beliefs.
What all this means is that our education system really only works for those able to educate themselves—or, more likely, to get whatever support they need outside school. In other words, it works for children of the elite. Many others graduate from high school without having been effectively taught basic things about history, geography, and science, ill-equipped not only for college but for a decent job. Hence the appearance that education can only replicate or even exacerbate existing inequities.
But we don’t know what a system that incorporated cognitive science might accomplish, because we’ve never tried it. Would it create complete equality between rich and poor? Probably not. Would it uncover massive amounts of now-hidden “merit” in children from less educated, less affluent families? Judging from the evidence we have from the few schools that have bucked educational orthodoxy, the answer is a resounding “yes.”
You might argue, like Michael Sandel in The Tyranny of Merit, that now is not the time to defend meritocracy. In recent elections, a “diploma divide” has emerged among white voters: those without a college degree are far more likely to support Donald Trump, who has returned their affection. Many harbor a fierce resentment of the educated elite. Might a society that placed less value on academic achievement bring them back into mainstream politics?
Probably not. It’s far from clear that it’s possible to wean American society away from its respect for intellectual ability—but even if it is, such an experiment would likely pose an even greater threat to democracy, which can’t function with an uneducated electorate. Thomas Jefferson knew that instinctively, and now there’s research to back him up.
Less educated voters are more likely to believe there are simple solutions to complex problems and to attribute agency to inanimate objects like TVs—and hence more likely to be drawn to conspiracy theories. They may be more drawn to tough-guy politicians who promise rewards in exchange for personal loyalty. At the same time, less educated individuals are less likely to vote. Either way, an uneducated citizenry can undermine the electoral process.
Unlike those on the right who have long argued that IQ is inherited and there’s not much we can do about it, the leftist critics of meritocracy at least call for measures that would make life better for those they see as losers in the intelligence lottery. But their well-intentioned efforts will only end up hurting those they seek to help. The fact is, we can’t have a valid debate on meritocracy until we have an education system that uncovers merit instead of suppressing it in untold numbers of children.