This is true but doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether meritocracy results in a fair, healthy society. I think this is a nuanced issue with reasonable arguments on both sides, but the author simply assumes the answer is yes without actually addressing the question.
People focus on the second part of the phrase, but the first part explicitly states we should strive to work up our individual ability and potential. Denying that is an entirely new concept that likely never existed prior to the last 50 years or so.
You may be confusing it with "equality of outcomes"?
The actual question is whether smart people should receive a disproportionate amount of a finite resource, like education. This imbalance creates a potential runaway effect in which one group grows ever more successful at the expense of other groups.
Source: Am a parent of a G&T student and I see the intensity with which parents push their kids into the program.
Do you have any sources that these things happen and/or that they negatively impact students outside of those programs?
The argument I've heard previously is that G&T programs remove peer role models from classrooms, which lowers the class's average behavior and achievement.
I was a G&T student for 5 years (2nd through 6th) and have close relationships with people who were educators then administrators in a G&T program.
Incompetentocracy?
Randomocracy?
Celebritocracy?
Nepotocracy?
We're not going back to aristocracy (which essentially was nepotocracy). So what do you have that's better than meritocracy? What's wrong with letting the more talented be the ones who run things?