Overcoming that “limited class mobility” is part of the merit. Basically not giving up. Laziness isn’t meritorious or wanted in a free market.
I think that, for the 25 years between 1989 and 2014, the US was more like some sort of financial class aristocracy than a meritocracy.
I think that the good news for those who like meritocracy is that the increasing instability since about 2014 may lead to further opportunity for a while.
Look at what happened to Turing. During the instability of WW2, society needed him to help win the war, and he rose. After the instability of the war was over, they didn’t think they needed him, and he died.
I think that people’s merits are more valued in society during times of instability, so if you’ve been waiting for a time to rise based on your merits, now seems like a much better time than 1989 to 2014.
The Wikipedia link poster strikes again. Merit is a real thing in my line of work. If you’re useless you get chewed up and spit out. I’ll be one of the people doing the chewing, so get your poop in a group and get the work done or get the hell out of my way – those are your choices.
Law of the jungle, baby.
I do have an affinity for Wikipedia. It passes the time.
The existence of substantial class differences in average IQ seems to be uncontroversial and widely accepted for many decades among those who have studied the scientific literature. And IQ is highly predictive of a wide range of positive outcomes in terms of educational duration and attainment, attained income levels, and social status (see Deary – Intelligence, 2001).
This means that in a meritocratic university admissions system there will be a greater proportion of higher class students than lower class students admitted to university.
Especially if Lori Loughlin is the parent of some of those kids.
And Felicity Huffman.
This topic was automatically closed 95 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.