Chapter Four: Education, Inequality, and the Meritocracy.
The authors feel that the meritocratic view only explains things partially. This view in and of itself is not getting the job done so to speak. It is not leveling the playing field like it claimed it would. If you recall from previous chapters this view believes that the education system would create a level playing field, due to the fact that one can get ahead simply based on ones merit. The authors argue that the association between the length of education and economic success cannot be accounted for in terms of cognitive achievements or I.Q. Competitive grading and objective test scores does not really relate to social efficiency. Ones G.P.A. does not determine whether or not one will become a good teacher. Basically schooling does not equal economic success.
The authors discuss the concept of the legitimation of inequality. It is this legitimation that is maintaining social conditions. This is maintained through the technocratic-meritocratic ideology. People who have more success have done so through their technical skills and or merit. Inequality is 'justified' through the idea that was brought up in previous chapters: It is your fault if you are not successful due to the fact that you did not acquire the necessary skills to do so. It is more effective to have a top down power structure because it is a superior way to collectively organize technical skills. This process links technical skills to economic success. As was stated above the authors do not believe that technical skills equals economic success.
An interesting example is the objection of open admissions in colleges and universities. Based on the technocratic-meritocratic viewpoint the individuals with the best grades should be allowed into higher education. If social efficiency is the objective, who ever benefits the most from schooling should be allowed into higher education. The studies show however, that individuals with low scores after high school get just as much out of school as individuals with high scores. The authors comment that open admissions threatens the legitimacy mechanism by rendering school success a less important factor to obtaining higher education. The authors argue that the objective and meritocratic selection and reward system of U.S. education does not link to a system where efficiency, rationality and equity reigns supreme, but it actually legitimizes the economic inequality that exists.
It is understandable that every society must and will reward individual excellence, but what one needs to question here is the manner to which this done. The competitive nature in which intellectual achievement is rewarded in U.S. schools is not aiding creative rationality, but is done so a privileged class can justify an irrational and undemocratic system.
To be continued...
The authors discuss the concept of the legitimation of inequality. It is this legitimation that is maintaining social conditions. This is maintained through the technocratic-meritocratic ideology. People who have more success have done so through their technical skills and or merit. Inequality is 'justified' through the idea that was brought up in previous chapters: It is your fault if you are not successful due to the fact that you did not acquire the necessary skills to do so. It is more effective to have a top down power structure because it is a superior way to collectively organize technical skills. This process links technical skills to economic success. As was stated above the authors do not believe that technical skills equals economic success.
An interesting example is the objection of open admissions in colleges and universities. Based on the technocratic-meritocratic viewpoint the individuals with the best grades should be allowed into higher education. If social efficiency is the objective, who ever benefits the most from schooling should be allowed into higher education. The studies show however, that individuals with low scores after high school get just as much out of school as individuals with high scores. The authors comment that open admissions threatens the legitimacy mechanism by rendering school success a less important factor to obtaining higher education. The authors argue that the objective and meritocratic selection and reward system of U.S. education does not link to a system where efficiency, rationality and equity reigns supreme, but it actually legitimizes the economic inequality that exists.
It is understandable that every society must and will reward individual excellence, but what one needs to question here is the manner to which this done. The competitive nature in which intellectual achievement is rewarded in U.S. schools is not aiding creative rationality, but is done so a privileged class can justify an irrational and undemocratic system.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment