Turn the page, and you find: the idea of having a general-purpose meritocratic elite generated through university admissions is an idea we should abandon (p. 347).
Inother words, the American distributions of income and wealth are top heavy(Wolff 2002) and represent a level of economic inequality that is the highestamong industrial countries of the world. These distributions are relevant to the myth of meritocracyin several ways.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister should remove him as the MIDA Chair.
He has failed to uphold his independence or at least try to show it in the public domain and serious questions arise as to his competence for both roles and his self-aggrandised continuous use of 4 syllabled words is an indictment of his inability to communicate effectively.
Ashwin Raj, by advocating for laws to curb hate speech on social media is a thinly veiled attempt to muzzle the negative publicity of this Government, and he should be speaking to Parliament with facts and figures, instead of hogging the airwaves to promote an unsolicited and tyrannical "campaign" with no public mandate.
Professor Biman Prasad
The Rise of the Meritocracy a meritocracy essay is a satirical essay by British a perfect essay example sociologist and politician Michael Young which was first published in 1958.
Sports term papers (paper 6568) on Meritocracy : Meritocracy The Downfall of Sports A meritocracy is an environment in which individuals are rewarded for.
Over time the American meritocracy has developed into a more general way of distributing opportunity to millions of people, fitting them into places in a highly-tracked university system that leads to jobs and professions. And its assumed purpose has changed from being a way to obtain highly capable and well trained public officials to a way of determining fairly who gets Americas material rewards. These changes were, substantially, accidental, the result of both expansionist impulses within both ETS and the universities and the privatism of American culture, but they have altered the moral calculus.
The first element of the QHQ is your defining question. That question may cover a range of possibilities from something like “Does the way that the author’s interpretation of inheritance undercut the concept of meritocracy?” to a more personal reaction like “Why does the discussion of racism in this text bother me so much?” This first portion should be about a sentence or two and lead and frame the rest of your paper. The questions should not be yes/no but rather open-ended questions that lead to potential discussion.
Another sobering theme in Lemanns story is that the testers were suffering from a very bad case of complacency in their mistaken belief that they could measure ability independent of cultural bias and educational attainment. There is a large literature showing that IQ tests are not culture-free or independent of educational attainment. It was also claimed by the testers that one could not prepare for their tests. There was a man in New York who set up a crammers. He coached people for the College Boards. Each was told that if he or she brought back a question from the exam, the reward would be a pizza. He soon built up a useful file of the sorts of questions that were asked. The very upper class elite who Conant and Chauncey were trying to outflank found their way to the crammers, and his methods were soon widely emulated. The well-placed were fairly quick to learn how to play by the new rules. The aristocracy and its new meritocratic recruits have managed very well in seeing that their children get into the best universities. In the meantime, the moral education of young people has taken a back seat to the search for merit, an amoral category which brings you the clever careerists who dominate public life and the institutions which govern our society.
Let us say you wanted to design, from scratch, a system to distribute opportunity in the fairest possible way. Would you design the American meritocracy as it now exists? You would only if you believed that IQ test scores and, more broadly, academic performance are the same thing as merit. Thats a defensible position, but it ought at least to show itself openly to be debated, rather than being presumed. If it did, the arguments against it would quickly emerge. Merit is various, not unidimensional. Intelligence tests, and also education itself, cant be counted on to find every form of merit. They dont find wisdom, or originality, or humor, or toughness, or empathy, or common sense or independence, or determination - let alone moral worth. Perforce they judge people on their potential, not their actual performance over the long term at the work for which they are being selected (pp. 344-45).
Education and schooling in this country as in any other is an investment in citizens that will reap benefits for all through research and innovation, physical and social mobility, improved opportunities and health.
The second portion of your paper is your hypothesis. This should be about three quarters of a page to a page in length and represent your effort to answer your question. This should be based on a close reading of the text. Your answer should use quotes from the text (using internal citation) to support your arguments. Even though you are only using a single source, you are welcome to suggest multiple possible answers or hypothesis to your questions. For example, the student who asked about inheritance might find examples that suggest that inheritance does undercut meritocracy in one instance while also finding contradictory evidence to counter that claim. Finally, your hypotheses should lead you to the final ‘Q’ in your paper- questions that have come to you as you wrote your response and that can spark discussion with your colleagues in class.