The optimum way to complete an activity or project is to hire the most skilled people to do it. It's a simple fact, very easy to prove.
Media is spending a suspiciously big amount of money to try to disprove this very simple fact.
Media is spending a suspiciously big amount of money to try to disprove this very simple fact.
Some companies believe the most skilled people are the ones who have demonstrated certain technical abilities. Under this form of meritocracy, the companies delude themselves into thinking they've hired the most skilled people, but they haven't.
The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
Then it's a testing/measurement problem, not a meritocracy problem.
> The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
There is no problem to solve. If you don't choose the best, you choose sub-optimal personal. Also the definition of "inclusiveness" is ridiculous, as it assumes that diversity means hiring different sex or race, but not diversity of thoughts or culture.
In fact, it opposes different ideas, it's exactly the inverse of diversity. It's a thought monoculture.
Connections and the ability to play politics seem to be much more important for getting to the top. Current systems, managers, etc., are just not setup to evaluate skill from what I've seen, you have to sell yourself, which means "ability to sell yourself" is how the system is stratified, and that's not merit.
So when you say "the best", often what you get is "best at selling self", which is not actually the best.
Then the test is wrong. Not meritocracy.
But here's some points on why I feel it's problematic to only rely on the top 5 school -> top firm feeding pipeline
1. These companies have A LOT of influence on how the world operates. For example, has there ever been a more influential company than McKinsey?
So if these firms only hire from certain schools, that in turn mostly accept people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds, you can wind up with a serious diversity problem.
2. For many people, their lives are already decided by their teenage years. Or maybe better said; many powerful careers are already excluded by the time they go to high-school.
If many prestigious firms only care about what college you went to, then those career paths have already been decided - depending on what school you've been accepted to.
3. It's not really meritocracy. There are probably students that are just as intelligent and hard-working at state schools, as there are in the top schools, but for whatever reason didn't get accepted or didn't apply for the top schools.
But yet, they may not get a chance, simply because of the school name.
I know many big firms have started to expand their view on this mater, and have realized that the top x students at large state schools are just as capable as their top private school counterparts, so hopefully a problem which will disappear with time.
---
In short, I think a lot of the meritocracy you see is just time/money saving measures masquerading as meritocracy. And if you want to succeed at following the current rules, you either need to be exceptionally talented and driven, or be driven enough but with LOTS of help from your family (i.e born into right class)