Asians spend twice as much time on homework as compared to Whites, and about three times as compared to Blacks. Kids of high income families spend more time working on homework than low income kids. So the fact that Asians comprise the student body proportionally larger than Whites, and whites more than Blacks is evidence that hard work pays off.
I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others.
Granted many of you are probably thinking that the fact that meritocracy doesn't correct for these things makes it inherently unfair, and many are probably thinking that the notion that our processes to allocate opportunitiea should correct for things like disparate time spent on study is itself an act of unfairness. And there's no one right answer to this. This is a kind of question where there is no answer, but rather society continuously develops and evolves a concensus about the right approach.
First - in your homework paragraph, you're associating hard work with merit. It's very common - X deserves more than Y because X worked harder. Why do we consider work to be a virtue?
And second - even if we have a pure measure of merit we could all agree on, how the fruits of everyone's labours are divided is still debatable. How much should the best/average/worst get compared to each other?
Good point, hard work in and of itself does not equate to better results in meritocracy. Meritocracy sorts people based on performance, not hard work. But hard work is generally necessary to improve performance.
* If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? Sure, maybe Alice has a disability, or maybe Candice is some running demigod. But if I had to put money on it I'd bet on Alice.
* If half the class studies for 21 hours a week and the other studiss for 7 the which would you bet is going to have the higher class average? I can speak firsthand to the fact that there will still be big variance. Some subjects can't naturally to me, others were like a brick wall. But chances are the students putting in 3x the study will do better.
So pointing out that groups that work harder get ahead is decent evidence that meritocracy does function. Especially when the groups in question are groups like Asians and Jewish people in America that were subject to significant prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Meritocracy can enable groups to overcome prejudice.
Granted there are definitely groups not well served by meritocracy. Groups that don't have as much family support, and don't have a strong cultural emphasis on education (I realize this last point does mirror racial sterotyoes but I did post evidence to show truth behind it) are at a big disadvantage. Any yes, it's probably worth compromising pure meritocracy to even the playing field to a degree.
Distribution of the fruits of labor is a valuable discussion, but it is tangential to the discussion of meritocracy. There will be varing distributions of wealth even if we wholly reject meritocracy.
>If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning?
If Caleb and Makayla study 30 hours a week for a year for SATs suffering parental apathy, lack of means, working an evening job, a bad school district, and Emma and John study 20 hours a week for a year, being primed from birth for college, with understanding parents, a nice weekly allowance, and a good school district, which would you bet is going to have the higher SAT average?
I'm not sure how a web comic from New Zealand is supposed to form an effective refutation in response to quantative data on academics in the United States. In case it wasn't clear I'm most talking about America. The posted article opens with statementd from Barack Obama and Trump so I think this narrowed scope is on topic. I don't have much experience or knowledge of other countries meritocratic systems.
Oppressed minorities have gotten themselves out of poverty by emphasizing hard work and education. I've already listed Jewish Americans and Asian Americans. The Irish also underwent a similar process. Back during the 19th and early 20th century Irish were widely discriminated against and many didn't consider them White. Irish community leaders started emphasizing education in the early to mid 20th century. And by 2018 Irish have succeeded to the point that Irish surnames are considered signs of privilege. Cuban American households by now make about $20k more than the average American households [1]. Latin Americans as a whole are following suit.
Minorities have overcome oppression through meritocratic systems. It certainly hasn't worked for every demographic. But I don't think you're giving minorities enough credit in their ability to succeed through their own effort.
>I'm not sure how a web comic from New Zealand is supposed to form an effective refutation in response to quantative data on academics in the United States. In case it wasn't clear I'm most talking about America.
Let me clarify this part, then: the post is about nothing particular New Zealandish that's not also the case in the US. It has been reposted and recommended in American media so many times precisely because it is relevant in the US too.
Furthermore, this is more than clear in the comic itself, which is told in a universal manner, and doesn't refer to any particular trait/habit/circumstance/factor of New Zealand life.
If anything, it is more USA than New Zealand (which has much less inequality of the sort the comic criticizes).
>Oppressed minorities have gotten themselves out of poverty by emphasizing hard work and education. I've already listed Jewish Americans and Asian Americans.
Jewish and Asian Americans didn't have 400 years of being abducted from their countries and working to death as slaves in the USA. After the initial racism against them as newcomers subsided they were quickly tolerated.
Blacks on the other had, had the contempt and the prejudice of their ex-owners and their children and grandchildren. They had started from less than 0, as they had their culture stolen from them in 400 years of slavery (as opposed to newer Jewish and Asian immigrants arriving with their old world cultures -- from "bar mitzvahs" and "delis", to "tiger moms").
Asians and Jews had their persecution up around the 40s or so, but they didn't have segregated schools, hotels, restaurants up to the late 60s. They didn't have to put up with redlining when looking for places to live (up to now). They don't have discrimination against them in white collar jobs still. They're not routinely killed without questions asked by cops in percentages unheard of for any western country police force (even accounting those countries total population, not just the black population).
Again, I mentioned that meritocracy hasn't been successful for every single demographic. My whole point is that meritocracy does uplift poor minorities when effort is put in. Don't get me wrong it almost certainly takes more effort for a poor minority to succeed than a rich person - I've been reiterating this since my original comment. But meritocracy does provide a ladder to lift groups out of poverty in a manner that society as a whole seems fair. I think you recognize this when you reference "tiger moms" as part of the reasons why Asians have succeeded.
The fact that it hasn't worked for Blacks in America doesn't alter the fact that is has worked for Irish, Germans, Asians, Jews, and Latinos. One can make a decent claim that more minorities have benefitted from meritocracy than have been left behind.
Not true. We can see that there is no meritocracy. It's not true. No lack of nuance involved, he who has eyes to see let him see. There is nothing people are more blind to than their own advantages.
Apologies if I'm not recognizing some sort of sarcasm, but saying "he who had eyes to see let him see" and "people are blind to their own advantages" cuts both ways in this debate. Whites are underrepresented at Yale, for example. Is it fair for them to shut down talks about affirmative action because they are underrepresented, and thus they are entitled to dismiss the arguments of others because "he who had eyes to see let him see"?
That statement really rubs me the wrong way. In order to form the concensus that pleases society as much as possible (or put more cynically, the concensus that minimizes social displeasure) we need to hear how every group sees the situation. "He who had eyes let him see" is functionally not much different from saying "those who disagree with me shut up".
Again, apologies if I'm not seeing sarcasm or reductio ad absurdum. It's hard to convey over text comments.
It rubs you the wrong way because you don't understand it. It is blatantly obvious, but some people do not have the ability to see it. Those who have eyes to see see it, no matter who lies. Nobody is telling anybody to shut up, just that it is obvious that there is no meritocracy, even if you cannot see that truth.
There is no meritocracy? So if we compare a kid spends all of his or her childhood doing nothing productive and slacking off in school, a kid that studies rigorously and is engaged in productive activities then you'd expect absolutely zero difference in success between the two in a non-meritocratic system. Let's put that theory to the test.
Let's see if college admissions are, at least in part, meritocratic. College admissions depends highly on SAT scores and GPAs, these are probably one of the two strongest factors. Even just spending 20 hours following along with free videos is associated with a >100 point gain on SAT scores [1]. Spending more time on studying does increase grades on average [2]. Test scores and grades are some of the primary factors that determine, for example, college admissions. So, yes there is empirical evidence to suggest that college admissions do depend on several meritocratic factors. Granted you're right that it's not completely a meritocracy. Factors outside of the applicant's control like race, gender, and family background are taken into account. An Asian student and a Black student are going to be judged very differently if they have the same scores - that is at least one instance where the system is not genuine meritocracy.
We have different ideas what a meritocracy is. You believe any examples ( as you've given) are evidence of a meritocracy. That's not true. That's like saying it's a democracy if we elect a class leader. We have different standards.
> I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others.
I'm sorry?
How can you, in the same breath, talk about meritocracy - a pure meritocracy, at that, which should only evaluate people based on their own merits - while describing something that doesn't even addresses "the fact not everyone starts with the same resources"? The resources people start with - their location, their family, their upbringing - are not their own merit.
It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task.
A marathon is a pure meritocracy, short of any dirty shenanigans. You go from point A to point B, the faster the better.
Are marathons fair? Even if we exclude differences like sex and physical disabilities some are going to have a better aptitude for running. Some are going to lead lives that give them a lot more free time to spend on training. Some may be professionals that spend most of their working hours training. That said, if someone genuinely suggests that handicaps be given in the Olympics or other high profile events to counteract these favors people are going to laugh at such a notion.
Things like college admissions isn't exactly the same as a marathon. But many, probably most, agree with the general principle that students that work harder do better and students that do better get stronger chances of being admitted. Allocation of opportunities based on capability and performance has its flaws - and I did suggest that they should be corrected - but it is one of the most accepted way of overcoming clan-based thinking and is accepted by many cultures and societies.
> It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task.
You were not talking about a "meritocracy", which would already be a problem considering that it doesn't hinge on merit[1], but a "pure meritocracy".
If you use "pure meritocracy" to refer to a system where neither pure performance nor merit are used to rank people, and call it "too fair", then you are twisting the meaning of the words "meritocracy" and "fairness" into something unrecognizable.
Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance.
Such a system certainly does not evaluate people based solely on their merits.
Such a system cannot be called meritocratic, or fair. To do so is ridiculous.
[1] Because amongst the "initial resources" you speak of there are also wealth and connections, which do not improve "capability or performance in some task", which only improve the chances of someone obtaining and keeping the job.
> Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance
The you're not talking about the same kind of meritocracy that I am. I explicitly spelled out that my usage of the world meritocracy refers to a system in which people are evaluated based on capability and/or performance.
If that's not what you're talking about the we're just talking past each other.
> Because amongst the "initial resources" you speak of there are also wealth and connections, which do not improve "capability or performance in some task", which only improve the chances of someone obtaining and keeping the job.
Wealth creates larger opportunity to improve performance. A wealthy marathon runner can take more time off work to train than one that scrapes by financially. But it does not directly factor into the meritocratic process. Dollars in your bank account make it easier to put in the effort to train, but they don't immediately improve your running speed.
Nor do connections. Knowing the right people isn't going to make someone a faster runner. At least short of things like colluding with a referee, but if that happens then the system is no longer purely meritocratic.
>There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework in that order
The main problem with meritocracy (or its lack thereof) is not about those working hard not getting compensated accordingly.
It is about what background, encouragement, financial support, and chances each individual had, from baby to adult, to work hard on their homework/business ideas/development/etc -- and what powers they have against them as well (e.g. racist HR profiling).
You'll find that these ethnic groups had that kind of (statistical average) support (or lack thereof) in a same order as their "working harder on their homework".
And yet, when trying to correct systemic wrongs, what some individuals can and cannot do is irrelevant.
If you have a class of people (let's call them W) playing life in easy mode, and another class (let's call them B) playing life in hard more, then the fact that some people in class B still finish the game is irrelevant.
Meritocracy is not about "see, still a person from B class can win".
It's about all players playing at the same difficulty level.
So, not only the fact that an individual can go "beyond and below the average through their own effort and choices" is irrelevant, when discussing meritocracy, but a society would still be meritocratic even if no B ever was able to win the game and W had all the top scores -- as long as B and W played the game at the same difficulty.
> If you have a class of people (let's call them W) playing life in easy mode, and another class (let's call them B) playing life in hard more, then the fact that some people in class B still finish the game is irrelevant
This isn't an effective analogy to describe the situation. Remember, on average meritocracy has been evening the playing field. Currently, some groups have less average success than others. But this isn't static. A variety of previously poor and underprivileged minorities have achieved success under the system of allocating opportunities based on capability or performance. Irish, Jewish Americans, Asians, Germans, Latin Americans, and others came to the US largely poor and underprivileged and have achieved success through the meritocratic system. Black that did not migrate willingly (as in, former slaves, indentured servants, etc) [1] and Native Americans have not. But a strong argument can be made that meritocracy works to even out social imbalances more often than it doesn't.
And if we do away with meritocracy what are we going to substitute it with? Most proponents of genuinely disposing of meritocracy propose to substitute it with a system of essentially allocating opportunities on ethnic grounds. This is a terrible idea. If this happens then the route to success lies not in hard work but by politicking and trying to increase the opportunity budgeted to their race. Not to mention such a system would probably hurt poorer minorities who have less clout in politics. White Americans, which make up 60-80% of the population depending on the definition used, have enough votes to form a supermajority and direct all the resources to themselves.
1. There's some interesting nuance about Blacks in America. American Africans - as in, blacks who migrated to the US willingly - have seen large success. For example they graduate from college at twice the rate of native born white Americans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_U...
It's not irrelevant. You just see people as groups which is unfortunate.
What you're arguing for is equality of outcome which is impossible. There are billions of factors in a person's life that are constantly changing and you cannot control for them all, or even a small portion. And you definitely can't think of them as groups to get there.
Taking away individuality is the worst thing you can do to a person.
Asians spend twice as much time on homework as compared to Whites, and about three times as compared to Blacks. Kids of high income families spend more time working on homework than low income kids. So the fact that Asians comprise the student body proportionally larger than Whites, and whites more than Blacks is evidence that hard work pays off.
I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others.
Granted many of you are probably thinking that the fact that meritocracy doesn't correct for these things makes it inherently unfair, and many are probably thinking that the notion that our processes to allocate opportunitiea should correct for things like disparate time spent on study is itself an act of unfairness. And there's no one right answer to this. This is a kind of question where there is no answer, but rather society continuously develops and evolves a concensus about the right approach.