Meritocracy is not Enough
So it’s fallen to Alan Milburn, of all people, to confirm what a lot of people have long suspected: equality of opportunity in Britain is a bad joke, and getting worse. The Panel on Fair Access to the Professions has concluded that, surprise surprise, it’s much easier to get a good graduate-level job if you’re a middle class kid whose parents could afford to put you through private school and subsidise you while you did unpaid internships. (Full report here; summary here.)This might not exactly be news, but at least it means the problem’s getting some official recognition. That your background plays a bigger role in determining your life chances than your abilities is a disgrace, and doesn’t become less of a disgrace just because it’s been true for a while.
But to focus too much on social mobility and equality of opportunity is to miss an important point. It might be pretty obvious that it’s good for society as a whole not to shut able people out of jobs, but meritocracy shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all. Yes, bright kids from poor families should have the same chances to become lawyers and doctors as rich kids, but it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that equality of opportunity for the gifted poor is the only important thing we need to bring about in order to achieve social justice, when this is far from being the case. (Debates about education tend to spend massively disproportionate amounts of time focused on this issue as well, though discussion of education is further muddied by the widespread and not very justified presumption that traditional academic courses are superior to vocational ones.) While the question of how to help the best and brightest is one that any account of the good and just society needs to answer, it’s far from the only thing. In every society there are going to be some people who empty the bins, clean the floors, and care for the vulnerable. And in all likelihood, in a society with a decent level of social mobility those jobs wouldn’t be done by the most academically able. (And no, before you ask, that isn’t a euphemistic way of saying “stupid”.) But those jobs are completely essential, and at the moment someone working in a job like that gets little pay and even less respect. That’s something that needs changing at least as urgently as the UK’s lack of social mobility.
This deficiency isn’t the fault of the report’s authors– it’s a report on access to the professions, (and Milburn acknowledges in his Foreword that not everyone will be able or want to get a job of that kind), so naturally that’s going to be its focus. The problem is that social justice hardly ever gets wide media coverage, and when it does, the focus is almost always on how to ensure that the most academically able get the best opportunities. A truly just society should strive to offer a decent life for everyone.
Reader Comments
There’s a reason nobody wants to do the dirty jobs – if they were more attractive, everyone would want to do them. Without addressing the relative merits of binmanning and lawyering, as well as giving attention to the levels of skill, effort, personability, intelligence and education actually *required* for the jobs, you tidily equate A to Z in an effort to defend the masses, but ultimately make no point (or sense) whatsoever.
I might as well say that shrews and dormice have just as much right to be top predators as owls and foxes, since both play crucial roles in the ecosystem.
Your ecosystem analogy breaks down because human society isn’t an ecosystem, assuming you don’t buy into social darwinist bullshit. Certain jobs being low-status and badly paid isn’t a naturally-occurring phenomenon – it’s a product of the way our society is set up. I don’t deny that being a lawyer requires more skill and is more attractive than being a binman. What I deny is that that difference must inevitably lead to a glaring difference in social status and material well-being.
So you accept that being a lawyer is more demanding, but not that it should come with its benefits? We could argue about the magnitude of the disparity, but I don’t think that is your argument.
Certain jobs being lower status and less-well paid certainly is a naturally occurring phenomenon, if under ‘naturally-occurring’ we include the inherent inevitability of the sort of mathematics and logic that govern our understanding of nuclear physics as well as of economics. In this sense I consider it the positive human influence to override instinct and challenge social hierarchy – it’s not much to ask to avoid sneering at bin-men.
Whether or not my analogy breaks down (which, by the way, all analogies do by definition), you still haven’t addressed why jobs which involve, by their nature, a lower over-all ‘input’ should have a similar ‘output’ to those which are, one assumes, much more demanding. Or, in that case, to suggest how you propose we should get people to do the more demanding jobs at all!
Why is it that getting a good job because you happen to be born into a middle-class family is unfair, but getting a good job because you happen to be born intelligent isn’t?
People no more choose to be born smart than they choose to be born rich.
Absolutely, neuroskeptic. People always tend to assume that the justifications for inequality that currently prevail are inherently rational and that justifications for inequality that characterised past socieies – eg feudal society – are irrational.
Therefore currently prevailing justifications are irrational, QED? Why *shouldn’t* intelligence correlate with success? Should people be allowed to choose to do whatever they want, regardless of their natural suitability for the task?
No. Of course bloody not.
Owen, I’m afraid I don’t fully understand the argument of your post. I’d agree that meritocracy in the sense of “everyone getting a ‘nice’ job” isn’t a necessary or realistic goal. I think it’s more important to ensure, and continually maximise, the basic social goods and options available to society, rather than ensuring we have an overplus of lawyers. John, your objections are a little vague to me: are you saying it’s *not* unfair that there are disaprities in status? Or that it’s not unfair that some people get cetain jobs? If that’s what you’re saying then, while I don’t believe in penalising good fortne, also remember that a lot of good (and bad) luck (including intelligenc) is unearned. Neuroskeptic and Reuben, I agree with you completely here, and that (along with the objections I assume John raises, as well as the points I think Owen offers) is what makes me a Rawlsian.
Forgot to say, a scheme of distribution may well be unfair, in the sense of being unequal or random, but not unjust. I think the priority for social justice should be to minimise the damage that bad luck does to your life chances, and make sure that (unearned) good luck doesn’t cause a few people to win *every time*.
I’m saying that not all disparity in status and earning is due to unfairness. Bad luck can still be fair, and it looks like we’re including intelligence in that now. Also, as you say, it is unrealistic to completely flatten the curve and get everyone a ‘nice’ job – some disparity is inevitable, necessary and even desirable.
John, as was made particularly explicit by owen, nobody is saying rthat intelligence should not be a factor in role allocation. Rather what is at stake is the rewArds that accrue to particular roles and the occupational experience that comes with them.
And as I made particularly explicit, I would contest that also. Then the argument seemed to move on a little.
From the world’s most accurate encyclopedia:
“Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit)[1], rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), friends (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition.”
What exactly is your problem with this?
As far as I can see it, the biggest block to social mobility is where a meritocracy is NOT observed.
Or perhaps you want everyone to be equal and average, which hand-wringing or not, is never going to happen.