January 28...Jefferson, Meritocracy and Schooling
Jefferson was very interested in creating a meritocracy (leaders chosen for their talent, virtue, ability, etc.). Discuss the idea of meritocracy, either in Jefferson's time or how it seems to play out today. Some possible questions: Do we live in a meritocracy? Did Jefferson's ideas have potential to move us toward a meritocracy? What problems are there with the idea of meritocracy (in his time and/or ours)?
Morgan:
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of meritocracy sounds very appealing but would not be functional. I believe leaders virtue, talents, and ability should play a big role in deciding their status rather than focusing on aspects such as race, gender, age, or socioeconomic status. However, in order to choose the leader with the best talent or highest virtue, these factors would need to be tested and compared. A bigger problem I see with the idea of meritocracy is that people may be talented and of high virtue, but not everyone was born to be a leader. There are many important aspects of a leader that people of the highest talent may not possess.
Throughout history a lot of our leaders were only eligible if they were a white male. This goes against the notion of meritocracy. Further, I don't think we live in a meritocracy today either. Although we are making progress towards choosing our leaders for their ideas and virtue, there is still too much racism, classism, and sexism. None of these can be present in order for a meritocracy to work. One of Jefferson's ideas that I thought went against creating a meritocracy was his point on University Education. If we are all taking the same mandatory classes and doing the same mandatory activities, how is there supposed to be different talents to choose from?
Nour Hamadeh:
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we live in a meritocracy. Leaders now a days are chosen based on their socioeconomic status rather than their talents, virtues, and abilities. People with higher socioeconomic status have more opportunities. I disagree with Jefferson’s idea that “three years of free elementary schooling, would function as a screen to identify future leaders from among the masses and equip the remainder to function effectively in the civic, economic, and private sphere of life.” I believe that people should have equal opportunities to become leaders regardless of their gender, religion, race, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. One of the strategies that I will follow in my future classroom is that I will choose a different leader every week.
While i understand why you don't think we live in a meritocracy, it makes me question if we do because though alot does have to do with socialeconomic status, while voting for lets say a president you also look at what they can do for us personally not just who they are. I agree with your comment about why you disagree with jefferson about the schooling, but i would also add that i do not believe 3 years is enough time to decide what people are going to do especially with elementary kids. i do not believe you can look at a child and know exactly what career path they're going to end up taking. i agree everyone should have equal opportunity to become leaders or whoever they want to be in the future, without bringing race, gender, education, and economic status. I also agree about choosing a different leader every week thats what they did at my elementary school and i want to incorporate that into my class as well.
DeleteI understand a meritocracy as a political system based on merit in which it is believed that if an individual tries hard enough to be successful economically and politically, they will be. This type of political system sounds like it would be the ideal system but I don’t think it could ever function properly. In Jefferson’s time, there was no meritocracy because the only opinions that mattered were those of white males. In order to say they had somewhat of a meritocracy at least every individual regardless of race, gender, and socioeconomic status had to be included in the government to have an opportunity. I still don’t think we’re anywhere near a meritocracy; most people can work hard all their lives and that won’t get them to be successful. Nowadays that will barely get you to survive with your daily needs. Only those in power (rich, white men) get huge advantages to continue prospering. I don’t think Jefferson’s ideas have potential to move us toward a meritocracy. His times were full of racism and sexism and he stood by that and those same discriminatory thoughts have not completely left our government system today.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to differentiate between a democracy and meritocracy as two separate types of societal functioning. Rather, I see meritocracy as an influence within democracy; I see the lingering effects this theory has left on the future of society since its development. Democracy is a style of government in which the citizens elect qualified officials into office to best represent the population. The citizens have a say in who is taking place in office and are able to voice their opinions freely, also utilizing their first amendment right to free speech. Both meritocracy and democracy hold one specific commonality; the idea that we as citizens are electing people based on their qualifications, abilities and overall standing as a human being. Prospective competitors campaign their ideas and build their following based on their individualized ideas, making it easy for people to support and elect certain individuals. I feel like we definitely do live in a meritocracy because in one way or another, we are electing or “choosing” people to do jobs for us because they are either more qualified or better equip to do so. To downscale from an election0type situation, we also practice meritocracy in smaller scale situations such as who we choose to be our coaches in sports, who we choose to be the babysitter for our kids and who we choose to be our teachers. Even though some of these situations aren’t direct results from OUR choices, they are still being chosen by others based on their identity, qualifications and abilities. I think that some problems with meritocracy is that there is no basis for discrepancy; it is difficult to remove bias from the situation because in certain situations people will allow emotions to be the deciding factor. How can we create a middle ground for deciding who is qualified or not? Also the idea of being selected based on identity is very narrow minded because many times, the identity of a human does not accurately reflect their abilities.
Leslie:
DeleteI believe that we live in a pseudo-meritocracy in which for some positions, talent and ability are more heavily weighted than others. Like you said, Erica, we practice meritocracy in smaller scale situations, such as babysitting and even serving tables at restaurants. However, in society as a whole, this, I believe is not the case. I think most people would like to believe that those we elect are chosen on merit alone; yet, we know that is not true. I would consider our society a pseudo-meritocracy because, when choosing to elect an official, most citizens trust that that official is the most qualified candidate. Out of all possible candidates, that may be the case; however, because of the lack of opportunities received by those with a lower income. In actuality, society today is likely practicing meritocracy as Jefferson had desired where white males, considered inherently talented and virtuous, hold the power and authority. Ultimately, meritocracies are rather romantic and idealistic for a society like ours today where racism, classism, and sexism are ubiquitous.
Naomi Debebe:
ReplyDeleteI do not feel like now we can live in a meritocracy now a days. Everything is way more complicated and not everything is about your status or success anymore. Things now also have to deal with race and gender and not just how successful you are and your background. In the past no I do not feel like there was a meritocracy that was going on because the only people that mattered and even had a say were white people. I do not think Jefferson's ideas really did have potential to move us in the right direction with that. The problems that are being faces with the idea of meritocracy it is not realistic.
Rebecca Mendoza Vasquez
ReplyDeleteI don't think meritocracy is an effective system because it's not realistic. There could be people with talents and virtue but that doesn't necessarily mean they are equipped to lead. In Jefferson's time, the only people that could have a say and have power were white men, so they definitely did not live in meritocracy. I don't think we currently live in a meritocracy either because many leaders here are chosen because they have money. I think meritocracy wouldn't last very long nowadays or even back then because everyone has an opinion on who has more talent/ability/virtue. Rather than focus on who has natural talent and abilities, it should be more important to focus on who is going to make change, be well informed and actually make it for the people by the people.
I don’t think we live in a meritocracy, however, I think sometimes it can get mixed up because I don’t think democracy and meritocracy are mutually exclusive. A meritocracy strives for having the hardest working, most talented people leading a country and it shouldn’t be based on wealth and class. Sadly, often the people leading a country are wealthy and of a higher class, I think the lower class is underrepresented in politics because they don’t have the same opportunities in politics because of a lack of financial resources. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the idea of meritocracy, but I don’t think it’s realistic in our time.
ReplyDeleteMelodee Hanson
ReplyDeleteOn paper, meritocracy sounds great. If we lived in a utopia where we are recognized by our abilities and talents to hold leadership roles, then there would be no issues in the world. Jobs would be filled and secured with ease because only the best have them. In our society, it's not that way. We are driven by the popular vote, who the media likes, whose the richest, and who is the most powerful. I disagree with some points that Jefferson made, because I feel that everyone should have an equal chance to show their ability to become great leaders. Lower class citizens won't have the same chances upper class citizens have to showcase their abilities. Rich white males will most likely be thought of first when considering a leadership role just based on the assumption that they can do it better than anyone else, due to the long line of historical patriarchy in our country.
Sierra Taylor:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, meritocracy is not possible because the privilege of certain groups and their financial security/proper education will always give them a leg up in the society. It might be based on "hard work" but what some people don't understand is that some people do not have the access to meet their full potential because they are busy worried about basic survival. The same chances are not offered to everyone, which is why some school districts get left behind without proper funding and allowing their students to flourish.
We don’t live in a meritocracy. In theory, it sounds like a good system, giving people jobs and positions of power based on their skills and merits, not wealth or socioeconomic status. The society we live in today has a growing wealth gap causing a wider social divide between the rich and poor. Those that have less financially have less access to resources and opportunity to receive these merits that get them jobs and elected into office. Therefore, they are often not given the same job and position opportunities. Our economy is systemic in the way that it is harder to move up in social class and access the same resources and opportunities. Someone could be good, driven, skilled and want to make a real positive change in the world but aren’t given as much of an opportunity as someone half as skilled with twice as much money.
ReplyDelete- Madi Nail
DeleteMeritocracy was the goal for the American government according to Jefferson, but it isn't much of a reality. First off, to be in a position to even run for office you need a ton of money. Money is the reason a lot of people can't run or sometimes drop out of a race. Already, the money cancels out a big chunk of the population even if there is a great person that deserves the position. Hypothetically, if money wasn't a factor in running for candidacy, now all the people running have to align themselves with being either a republican or democrat to have a chance at winning because independent parties just don't win. Again, a hypothetical. Now, let's say money and party doesn't matter anymore and everyone is just stating their opinions. Then, everyone who is able to vote, votes. Great, except no. A candidate running for a high position doesn't win by popular votes from the general population of over 235,000,000 people, they win by a system that puts 538 people in charge of voting. Yes, they tend to vote the same as the majority of people in their state but they aren't required to and there is pretty much no way to guarantee that they will. I also understand that having electoral votes made sense and was more efficient for when technology wasn't available to quickly put all the numbers together but now we do. So, in my opinion, money, 2 major political parties, and an old system, restricts America and prevents this country's government from being a meritocracy. Meritocracy in the realm of businesses and other places is a whole other thing on its own as well.
ReplyDeleteSorry, forgot my name.
Delete-Aliyah Elganainy
I agree with the earlier blog posts that we do not live in a meritocracy today nor did they during Jefferson’s time. Just to give some historical context to the situation: neither women nor men of color could even vote and had little access to education. Jefferson himself held over 700 slaves during his lifetime, although, by all accounts, they were treated humanely and many were freed -setting him apart from many slaveowners. There remains great irony in the fact that the author of the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal”) was a slaveowner. Certainly, progress has been made in our lifetimes regarding not just the vote but the diversity of office holders including an African American president. Among the throng of early Democratic candidates for president this year were young, old, men, women, people of color and a gay man. One of the difficulties of a meritocracy is, who would decide a person’s worthiness and what standards of measurement would be used? With the political climate today, I don’t see the various factions ever coming together to agree on such an abstract concept. Another issue is the difficulty of drawing meaningful conclusions about the relationship with virtue and the ability to lead. The traits aren’t mutually - exclusive but it would also prove impossible to establish cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteMeritocracy is a social system where life achievement for societies relies primarily on their skills, talents, and actions. People who work hard are compensated and have no income or social class structure. Jefferson during his time produced two types of schools that embodied this kind of philosophy, the town school where citizens were taught fundamentals of literacy, and colleges for those who displayed academic potential. Jefferson’s ideas did not have the potential to move us toward meritocracy.
ReplyDeleteBrittney
Erin:
ReplyDeleteIn a more of a Utopian society meritocracy seems like a good idea, but realistically speaking I don't think it would work. Just because someone is talented and has ability to do something doesn't mean they have skills to lead and teach others. So I do not believe we live in a meritocracy. Jefferson's ideas also catered to keep white men successful. In Jefferson's time most women or other POC did not have access to education. So even then a meritocracy seems like it wouldn't have worked unless you were a white man who was able to go to school and work. Today that just would not work out well, especially since not everyone values/measures talents and ability the same way and because of our political climate. I believe that in Jefferson's time and ours a meritocracy would not work out.
In Jefferson's time, the only people with rights were rich white men and everyone else couldn't even vote back then. Today there is still inequality in terms of access to quality education and in terms of wealth. I don't think it was possible for meritocracy to exist back then or in the present day because of these conditions. The problem is that because of these inequalities, not everyone has the same opportunities to attain the skills and merits to be able to rise in power. I think the idea of meritocracy is a good thing because everyone would have to work hard to be in the position they are in. i don't see society today becoming a meritocracy though because it seems like the political power back then and even today still remains heavily influenced by the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that America is not a meritocracy, but the country is made to look like it is one. The "American Dream" is that someone can build themselves up from nothing, which is a very merit-based task, but that doesn't apply to all. Some people, regardless of how hard they work for an opportunity to build themselves up, do not have access to the right opportunities for one reason another. I believe Jefferson's ideas were modern in HIS time, not ours. He lived in a time where the only people those in power chose to help advance were white, wealthy men. We live in a very different time now, where most are working towards making sure that everybody has a chance at opportunity, not just white men. I believe meritocracy is useless when we are unable to put everybody on the same playing field. If everybody was starting out on the same baseline for the
ReplyDelete"standard American family" (whatever that could mean), it would make sense to have a meritocracy because everyone starts with the same resources and would need to be able to use them properly to succeed. However, thats not how life works, and everybody is born into different "scenarios" that often end up with similar outcomes depending on the scenario. A meritocracy system would just continue to allow those born into success to become more successful, and those who are born less fortunate will remain less fortunate.
Madison Williams: I do not believe a meritocracy is unattainable in the future, but it is for sure unattainable now. Heterosexual, rich, white men rule this country, and they get a lot of privilege for existing as such. Those who do not fit that description often have to 10x harder to obtain a position of high power. A perfect example of how power is held is the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. That man had zero real political experience prior to running, and while Hillary Clinton was not the best option, she at the very least had experience as a U.S senator. In a true meritocracy, she would have won over Trump by a landslide, but alas, she had to run against a rich, heterosexual, white man. When the power in this country becomes more evenly distributed among all races, sexualities, genders, and socioeconomic standings, then maybe a meritocracy can be achieved.
ReplyDeleteAlexa Lindquist
ReplyDeleteJefferson defines a meritocracy as a political system in which the only deciding factor of your ranking is based off of one’s merit. While this is conceptually a good thing, it did not exist in Jefferson’s time nor does it exist today. During Jefferson’s time, the meritocracy was flawed because the only people who were educated were white males, therefore leaving minorities out of the spectrum completely. Today, we do have more opportunities, however, merit and opportunity merely correlate. One does not cause the other.
The problem with meritocracy is that it has a very black and white vision. According to the principal, you will succeed if you work hard. We know now that that is very unrealistic, and to make that assumption is altogether wrong. Someone could end college with a 4.0 and honors and end up working a minimum wage job following graduation. Our success cannot be solely based on how hard we work for it, but it also must be measured by the obstacles we are forced to overcome.
The idea of meritocracy would be ideal, but not practical. Meritocracy is social system where people are selected based on their achievements and abilities. Someone who does not have much money but is driven and full of intelligent ideas would be able to be elected into office in a meritocracy. Unfortunately, that is no where near the case. Someone who is a billionaire but is not skilled would get chosen over a lower class American that is very intelligent because of their limited resources. We do not live in a meritocracy and did not during Jefferson's time as well. Although we live in a world where changes have been made since Jefferson's time, I do not believe we could ever move towards meritocracy.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Hedrick-Choi
I agree with your first statement since meritocracy would be a political system on how much power you get based on your ability but on the other hand there is also other factors that should determine how much power you should get. I believe equal opportunity isn't given from the start which doesn't allow enough time to reach these capabilities. I like your example with social which gives a good example of what this is portraying. It is hard moving towards meritocracy because those who have the capabilities to reach a higher ranking aren't able due to some restrictions.
DeleteJi-eun Hwang
Meritocracy in textbook terms and definitions seems like it would be the ideal way to run a country but realistically speaking, so many more factors play into it. Plenty of people are mentally qualified to do a job but that doesn't mean they have the desire or passion to duo so. There are also people with more than one calling. Someone could seemingly be the best teacher but they are an even better engineer. Being a leader is something natural and not so much taught. Not everyone wants to lead, qualified or not some people enjoy taking direction. Also now a days money talks; running for office on any scale works out a lot better for you if you have money. Wether you're the best leader or not it has lots of pull. On the flip side of that, plant of qualified people have been denied jobs due to criminal history. If meritocracy was to take place where would the line be drawn?
ReplyDeleteMera Khalil
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the Jefferson’s article, what caught my eyes was that in Jefferson’s time white men were the only ones who has the power and talk because of how wealthy they are. It’s kind of similar to the world we live in right now because whoever has money then they get to be ranked in higher positions. So, basically how I see the world now and back then everything was based on gender not how successfully you are.
Anna Calabrese
ReplyDeleteJefferson's idea of a meritocracy is very interesting and seems to be a mixed bag. On one hand, it makes sense that those with the most skill should be rewarded by being leaders in their field and being pioneers in their education, but on the other hand, many people are at a disadvantage for forming those skills due to circumstance. Jefferson also sees merit as only belonging to one group of people rather than something that can be found in all races and sexes. I think that to a certain extent we live in a meritocracy because those with certain skills or credentials are rewarded for them in our highly competitive environment. You can see this in college and job applications. I think that if we could ensure that everyone had a good education and good educational opportunities, a full meritocracy would work. Jefferson's idea of higher education where the students have base guidelines but are otherwise free to study what they please and should pursue self-education is very interesting to me because it changes the motivation of education from trying to be competitive to learning for learning's sake.
B. Ma
ReplyDeleteHis ideas of an ideal leader seem to stem from the teachings of the Greek philosophers of Aristotle and Plato, who believed in the concepts of individual talent and created lists of traits that ideal leaders should possess. Yes, we live in a partial meritocracy, however, society is much more complex than what Jefferson experienced during his time. His idea of a meritocracy did not factor in years of political and social developments that have hindered the socioeconomic mobility of minority groups. A meritocracy would seem best if all individuals were allotted the same start, alas, not all men were born equal. For certain racial groups it is easier to utilize the meritocratic system because they do not start within the negatives or at zero. Bridging this gap to make up for lost time seems to be the trend these days for schools and the workplace, however there is a certain point where individuals must put forth their personal effort to achieve success. Ideally, education is a meritocratic system, however as previously stated, not all people start from the same socioeconomic status, which allows more resources during the most important stage of childhood learning for more well-off children to quickly surpass their peers. It will never serve as a purely meritocratic system until economic inequality is addressed within American society.
Ji-eun Hwang
ReplyDeleteI agree with your first statement, our society has become more complex and people take in a number of factors. I’ve noticed people are now more vocal when they are voicing out their opinion and don’t have a problem if they are a standing for their rights. At the end of the day meritocracy doesn’t seem to work out especially the problems affiliated with it.
Darryl Baugh
ReplyDeleteI believe that we do not live in a Meritocracy. I think that when it comes to political positions those who have higher socio-economic status tend to feel those roles. However, political, positions are becoming more diverse with people of different socioeconomic statuses. Therefore, people who have strived and worked to get that position. The idea of meritocracy and Democracy working together would cause a great deal of conflict. I do believe that certain ideas from meritocracy into democracy such finding the most qualified applicant verses hiring someone who come from a line of “privilege” with no qualifications. Nor should it be based on race or gender to feel a particular role.
I think the idea of Meritocracy is favorable with leaders based on values, talents, and personal characteristics rather than socioeconomic status, political position, and race/gender but reality is society as a whole is not a meritocracy right now. i do however feel like that is a generalized statement as well because not to say all persons holding leadership positions, on a variety of scales (president of the US or president of the chess club etc.), are ill equipped to fulfill their position. But in a world that values wealth and ethnicity so much i unfortunately think it would make it difficult to base leadership positions purely off of merit.
ReplyDelete