End of meritocracy in education?
by rrusczyk, Sep 23, 2006, 4:34 PM
I've seen a lot of press over the last 6-12 months about the end of meritocracy in education. The main piece of evidence I see rolled out over and over is that the percentage of successful applicants to top college who are from wealthy families is increasing. From this, we are to deduce, college acceptance is becoming less meritocratic.
I don't buy it. College admission was a decidedly a rich person's game until about 50-60 years ago, when World War II and the GI Bill gave the middle and middle-lower classes access to higher education. Then, with the playing field somewhat more leveled (particularly as country-club schools had to admit more of these outstanding students, often the children of immigrants, in order to retain their status as top-notch schools), we saw a significant increase in lower-income people going to top schools.
But then what happens after a couple generations of fairer admissions? The highly-able lower-income families become higher income families. And highly-able families are more likely to prodcue highly-able kids. I'm not saying there are no smart poor kids; I'm just saying the percentage of smart kids who are wealthy is higher than it was 60 years ago, and this is much of the cause of the admissions change the press is lamenting. Along with the leveling effect of the GI Bill has been a large pool of intelligent (and ultimately, wealthy) immigrants from eastern Europe and Asia who value education.
So, I think this is another case of the press mis-attributing an effect to a cause they so dearly want to publicize. 'Big colleges holding back poor people' sells a lot more newspapers than 'GI Bill a success - the smart people are pulling ahead.' (Although I have seen a few dangerous whispers of the latter, with the conclusion that smart people pulling ahead is something that must be stopped.)
I don't buy it. College admission was a decidedly a rich person's game until about 50-60 years ago, when World War II and the GI Bill gave the middle and middle-lower classes access to higher education. Then, with the playing field somewhat more leveled (particularly as country-club schools had to admit more of these outstanding students, often the children of immigrants, in order to retain their status as top-notch schools), we saw a significant increase in lower-income people going to top schools.
But then what happens after a couple generations of fairer admissions? The highly-able lower-income families become higher income families. And highly-able families are more likely to prodcue highly-able kids. I'm not saying there are no smart poor kids; I'm just saying the percentage of smart kids who are wealthy is higher than it was 60 years ago, and this is much of the cause of the admissions change the press is lamenting. Along with the leveling effect of the GI Bill has been a large pool of intelligent (and ultimately, wealthy) immigrants from eastern Europe and Asia who value education.
So, I think this is another case of the press mis-attributing an effect to a cause they so dearly want to publicize. 'Big colleges holding back poor people' sells a lot more newspapers than 'GI Bill a success - the smart people are pulling ahead.' (Although I have seen a few dangerous whispers of the latter, with the conclusion that smart people pulling ahead is something that must be stopped.)