An issue worth exploring. Your thoughts?

Wrymouth3

Emperor
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,069
Location
Fort Lauderale, Florida
Hey all,

I don't have a big theory or any sort of hypothesis on what "merit" entails, but I'm interested and inquiring what you all have experienced with the concept. First, I'll let you know that I'm coming at this with analysis of two spectra (however you want to call it) in university tenure and how companies hire people for new jobs. I'll post more thoughts in detail later as I have errands to run but I just wanted to pique some sort of interest in the conversation, in particular, is "merit/meritocracy" fundamentally broken, do we push it because we ultimately want to encourage leisure and complacency, and will there be an alternative in the future?
 
Seems to me this depends massively both on the organization and the position in question. I wouldn't say most employers are particularly interested in leisure, but certainly some segments are very interested in having complacent employees.
 
Most employers don't care about merit, they care that you have the right piece of paper with your name on it, and that you get along with the rest of the team. The rest works itself out over time, or you get fired and they find someone else and repeat the process.
 
Most employers don't care about merit, they care that you have the right piece of paper with your name on it, and that you get along with the rest of the team. The rest works itself out over time, or you get fired and they find someone else and repeat the process.
You should see the restrictions on teachers in California. You need a special certificate for virtually every job they have. To even be able to teach here for longer than five years, you have to have what amounts to a Master's degree worth of courses without the Master's degree. Also you will have to take a bunch of tests and get additional certs on top of that, while you are getting your not-Master's degree.

It's to the point where I openly wonder if this byzantine system was set up to function as a protectionist racket. I don't see the system providing benefit to school children in step with the massive social cost it brings. Teaching isn't a particularly well paying profession and adding to the financial and workload burden of teachers with unnecessary certifications like this don't make economic sense. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars worth of additional education required for teachers on top of the tens of thousands of dollars they spent getting bachelor's degrees. It's a massive burden. Then factor in the hardship of taking night classes while you deal with 30 kids in a school room for 10-12 hours a day. That's what California teachers have to do to be able to work in this state. It's madness.

Certainly someone who has worked for five years has gained a lot of experience, enough that they shouldn't be forced to continue their education for certifications that are only relevant in this state and even then only relevant because the state made them mandatory. They don't add value to the process of educating children but they do make a nice, cozy, protected industry once you've become a made man so to speak.
 
Hey all,

I don't have a big theory or any sort of hypothesis on what "merit" entails, but I'm interested and inquiring what you all have experienced with the concept. First, I'll let you know that I'm coming at this with analysis of two spectra (however you want to call it) in university tenure and how companies hire people for new jobs. I'll post more thoughts in detail later as I have errands to run but I just wanted to pique some sort of interest in the conversation, in particular, is "merit/meritocracy" fundamentally broken, do we push it because we ultimately want to encourage leisure and complacency, and will there be an alternative in the future?

Meritocracy never existed, it is simply an ideological structure that justifies the existence of the current ruling class. In that sense it is little more than a slightly-more-sophisticated version of the divine right of kings.
 
Meritocracy never existed, it is simply an ideological structure that justifies the existence of the current ruling class. In that sense it is little more than a slightly-more-sophisticated version of the divine right of kings.

I can see how you can deduce it to this, as it makes a lot of sense. I would say that even in institutions that are more "liberal" (universities, newer companies) that this structure seems to exist.
 
I think the move toward the comprehensive examination of university applicants by the top institutions is a good clue that those tasked with recognizing merit have evolved their game far beyond the game-able and limiting process that many anxious worshippers of meritocracy wish we would (re-)adopt.
 
Top Bottom