7 ms·

As I see it, there are two components of a meritocracy: does merit imply success, and does success imply merit. Many of these arguments are meant to prove that

by Dilpil 16y ago

As I see it, there are two components of a meritocracy: does merit imply success, and does success imply merit. Many of these arguments are meant to prove that success does not imply merit. This may be true, there are plenty of rich people who did not work hard to earn their wealth. These arguments should be removed. We should be more worried about whether hard work implies success or not. After all, this is what will determine if people decide to work hard or not.

exit 16y ago
"Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility." so clearly the article is concerned with whether merit implies success.
exit 16y ago
"Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility." so clearly the article is concerned with whether merit implies success.
zdw 16y ago
There's also the element of chance. A technical acquaintance of mine has a daughter who went to school for TV and film writing, and managed to land a job writing for a popular show a few years back (Ugly Betty), and make a considerable amount of money in the process. His take on her success was as follows - in that career even if you were really good, you have a small chance (2-5% he estimated) at being in the right place at the right time (had writing credits on a show that didn't get canceled, and became popular) in which case you could make a very impressive income. On the other hand, you could go get an engineering degree and get a job at an engineering firm. You'd have a much better chance (85-95%) at getting a job that paid well provided you did the job properly, although possibly not as well as the wildly successful writer mentioned above, and it may not be what you wanted to do. The implication is that he would have rather had her get that kind of job, but considering the outcome was quite proud of her. I tend to think of internet startups like the TV writer gig - it's a way to have a small chance at hitting the goldmine, but less of a sure thing. Similarly, my father is a pediatrician. He often sees kids for physicals who want to get into professional sports because they really dig soccer/basketball/football/etc. He does a math exercise with them, going over how many people are drafted a year, and basically it comes down to "Are you the best person this year in the entire state?", which the answer is usually no. Not to crush their dreams, but it's an honest dose of reality So, in short, people should look at the chances of success before pursuing a field. Internet startups are a pretty good chance, especially considering that doing them often involves a lot of technical and business self-investment that can carry over into other jobs if it doesn't work out.

by Dilpil 16y ago

exit 16y ago

"Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility." so clearly the article is concerned with whether merit implies success.

exit 16y ago

zdw 16y ago

There's also the element of chance. A technical acquaintance of mine has a daughter who went to school for TV and film writing, and managed to land a job writing for a popular show a few years back (Ugly Betty), and make a considerable amount of money in the process. His take on her success was as follows - in that career even if you were really good, you have a small chance (2-5% he estimated) at being in the right place at the right time (had writing credits on a show that didn't get canceled, and became popular) in which case you could make a very impressive income. On the other hand, you could go get an engineering degree and get a job at an engineering firm. You'd have a much better chance (85-95%) at getting a job that paid well provided you did the job properly, although possibly not as well as the wildly successful writer mentioned above, and it may not be what you wanted to do. The implication is that he would have rather had her get that kind of job, but considering the outcome was quite proud of her. I tend to think of internet startups like the TV writer gig - it's a way to have a small chance at hitting the goldmine, but less of a sure thing. Similarly, my father is a pediatrician. He often sees kids for physicals who want to get into professional sports because they really dig soccer/basketball/football/etc. He does a math exercise with them, going over how many people are drafted a year, and basically it comes down to "Are you the best person this year in the entire state?", which the answer is usually no. Not to crush their dreams, but it's an honest dose of reality So, in short, people should look at the chances of success before pursuing a field. Internet startups are a pretty good chance, especially considering that doing them often involves a lot of technical and business self-investment that can carry over into other jobs if it doesn't work out.