Meritocracy hasn’t worked in Britain – it’s time for a radical rethink(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Meritocracy hasn’t worked in Britain – it’s time for a radical rethink
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/meritocracy-hasnt-worked-radical-rethink-social-mobility
8 comments
I'd go further: meritocracy hasn't been _tried_ in Britain. Not only is there a huge inequality gap, no-one actually crosses it (weirdly, the article seems to take it on faith that they do).
Britain's meritocracy is indistinguishable from its old class system.
Britain's meritocracy is indistinguishable from its old class system.
> no-one actually crosses it
That's not entirely true but I believe it's more true today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
For all their, significant, faults, when Grammar schools were prevalent they were a vehicle for practical social mobility i.e. people whose parents had done manual work getting well educated and finding professional jobs.
That's not true with Grammar schools today, their rarity causing entry pressure that has the effect of limiting the majority of students to children of the professional classes. Also, the Grammar system was/is hugely prejudicial. Although it was an avenue for social mobility that doesn't mean that it was an effective social good.
Increased university participation has increased educational levels but doesn't appear to have had a commensurate increase in professional labour either.
To some extent I agree with the article: it's not clear to me that social mobility should be an end to itself. However, I tend to agree with the New Labour idea of equality of opportunity in preference to the old Labour idea of straight equality. As such, the conclusion that changes in the ownership of capital will sort everything out doesn't strike me as having much evidence.
That's not entirely true but I believe it's more true today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
For all their, significant, faults, when Grammar schools were prevalent they were a vehicle for practical social mobility i.e. people whose parents had done manual work getting well educated and finding professional jobs.
That's not true with Grammar schools today, their rarity causing entry pressure that has the effect of limiting the majority of students to children of the professional classes. Also, the Grammar system was/is hugely prejudicial. Although it was an avenue for social mobility that doesn't mean that it was an effective social good.
Increased university participation has increased educational levels but doesn't appear to have had a commensurate increase in professional labour either.
To some extent I agree with the article: it's not clear to me that social mobility should be an end to itself. However, I tend to agree with the New Labour idea of equality of opportunity in preference to the old Labour idea of straight equality. As such, the conclusion that changes in the ownership of capital will sort everything out doesn't strike me as having much evidence.
I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, but I'd like to add a bit about equality of opportunity:
1) It isn't enough if the opportunities are bad (even a completely fair system that resulted in 99 out of 100 on the scrap heap doesn't appeal to me).
2) There's got to be a safe "worst" outcome. This is for several reasons a) the alternative punishes risk taking, making a mockery of equality of opportunity b) you don't want the losers in society turning to crime for completely economically justified reasons and c) it's the right thing to do.
(And yeah, it's not completely true: I'm one of the ones who made it across. From what I can tell, there aren't that many of us about.)
(And yeah, it's not completely true: I'm one of the ones who made it across. From what I can tell, there aren't that many of us about.)
One thing I think is important to anchor discussions of inequality and mobility is the great gatsby curve:
http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-inco...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
Basically there are no countries which are both highly unequal and highly meritocratic. Perhaps our path towards more social mobility is straight-forward wealth redistribution.
http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-inco...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
Basically there are no countries which are both highly unequal and highly meritocratic. Perhaps our path towards more social mobility is straight-forward wealth redistribution.
Meritocracy is such a narrow and arbitrary definition on what is acceptable for claiming resources. Social myths to keep the rable in the fields and out of the manor.
If you aren't familiar with the British politics there a vast number who feel that an increased punitive attack of those of means is the only way of fixing anything, with no consideration of the side effects that will have on the efficacy of the country.