• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Meritocracy as Myth - the inequality in equality

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I remember junior college with some measure of clarity, fogged as it was with late nights and studying. I remembered how the richer students were able to afford good tuition. Some of their tutors were so expensive the total fee went up to about a thousand dollars per month. When the A level results were released and some students received grades that could not enroll them into local universities, the wealthier ones were able to enroll themselves into universities overseas. This privilege was not available to those who could not afford an overseas education. They settled for private universities (which unfortunately carry a stigma), enrolled into polytechnics, or wallowed in a depressed stasis, unsure of what they could do next in life, feeling suffocated by a lack of options.

In a system where only merits are taken into account, getting ahead through non-meritocratic means is amplified. On a socio-spatial level, the high concentration of prestigious schools and expensive enrichment centres in wealthy neighbourhoods makes it easier for children of the affluent to access a better education and past-time. They are generally more confident and are able to learn how to communicate and interact in an acceptable way in the top strata of society.

Having a wealthy background can give you the upper edge from the very beginning through an expensive, private kindergarten education, and later on through expensive tuition, enrichment programs that will benefit you when applying for schools, or even connections for good internships and jobs. This is also played out when children of alumni get preferential access to schools. These measures, however, not only give better mobility to the rich, but their implementation also actively pushes out the poorer class, contributing to inequality and lower social mobility for the very people that meritocracy is supposed to help.

This has unfortunately been statistically proven very early, with an intergenerational income mobility study by The Ministry of Finance which measured 38,500 father-son pairs for sons born between 1968 and 1978, showing evidence of lessening mobility among the poor.

The cold truth is that meritocracy assumes everyone to be human units with no fundamental differences other than their intellectual capabilities. In a system where only merit is important, like race, gender, class, or geographic location are ignored. At this point, I feel like I should tell you a story:

http://poskod.sg/Posts/2014/4/4/Meritocracy-as-Myth
 

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Good article.
Due to my own inadequacies, I can only quote from Wikipedia

" The primary concern with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit".... Different people often have their own standards of merit, thus raising the question of which "merit" has the best merits......

Another concern is the reliability of people who measure merit........and can be biased or inefficient. If the system is corrupt or non-transparent, decisions on who has merit will be flawed.

Meritocracy also has been criticized by egalitarians as a mere myth, which serves only to justify the status quo.....In the words of sociologist Laurie Taylor...
The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you’ve given life your all and haven’t got to the top you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system..........

Other concerns for the validity of a merit-based system have arisen from studies in psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. Given the proposition that a person's life prospects should not be decided by factors outside of one's control or, for which a person cannot claim personal credit (i.e., social status, inherited wealth, race, and other accidents of birth) a meritocracy proposes a system where people are rewarded based on their efforts, and if everyone can start on equal footing with the same opportunity to advance, then the results are just. However, some studies have shown that even our motivation, work ethic, and conscientious drive is, in fact, outside of our control ......

By definition, the principle of meritocracy could not be effective in a non-competitive society or environment "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

We claimed to be a meritocracy but do we have a transparent system or a truly competitive political environment for it to work?
Otherwise its just a hollow label to justify what is basically an elitist system
.
 
Last edited:

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
The world is not Utopia. Those who want everything to be perfect may have to wait for the afterlife.

Besides good grades from expensive tuition don't guarantee becoming a success in life. Many children of rich pricks are psychological wrecks who turn to drugs and alcohol for solace and die early deaths.

On the other hand disadvantaged poor kids can rise to the top from determination and hard work. The best example is our future PM Chan Chun Sing who grew up without a father in his life but has become one of the best Ministers that Singapore has ever seen.

I've said it before and I've said it again... Life is what you make of it.

One things is certain, those who spend their time feeling sorry for themselves and blame everyone but themselves for their misfortunes will most certainly fail in life no matter how wealthy their parents are.

chan_chun_sing.jpg

Proof that meritocracy is alive and well​
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sir, it is now known that angmoh universities, overseas type, accept low grade A level results and Sinkies and Asians are fooled to get a degree there.

65% A level results can get a university place in Australia, UK and US?



Local universities
As PAP want to claim they are good, 50 years later see they are not good and all those lectures are substandard poor grade quality. There are scratching bottom of the barrels using poor aw English quality lecturers.



I remember junior college with some measure of clarity, fogged as it was with late nights and studying. I remembered how the richer students were able to afford good tuition. Some of their tutors were so expensive the total fee went up to about a thousand dollars per month. When the A level results were released and some students received grades that could not enroll them into local universities, the wealthier ones were able to enroll themselves into universities overseas. This privilege was not available to those who could not afford an overseas education. They settled for private universities (which unfortunately carry a stigma), enrolled into polytechnics, or wallowed in a depressed stasis, unsure of what they could do next in life, feeling suffocated by a lack of options.

In a system where only merits are taken into account, getting ahead through non-meritocratic means is amplified. On a socio-spatial level, the high concentration of prestigious schools and expensive enrichment centres in wealthy neighbourhoods makes it easier for children of the affluent to access a better education and past-time. They are generally more confident and are able to learn how to communicate and interact in an acceptable way in the top strata of society.

Having a wealthy background can give you the upper edge from the very beginning through an expensive, private kindergarten education, and later on through expensive tuition, enrichment programs that will benefit you when applying for schools, or even connections for good internships and jobs. This is also played out when children of alumni get preferential access to schools. These measures, however, not only give better mobility to the rich, but their implementation also actively pushes out the poorer class, contributing to inequality and lower social mobility for the very people that meritocracy is supposed to help.

This has unfortunately been statistically proven very early, with an intergenerational income mobility study by The Ministry of Finance which measured 38,500 father-son pairs for sons born between 1968 and 1978, showing evidence of lessening mobility among the poor.

The cold truth is that meritocracy assumes everyone to be human units with no fundamental differences other than their intellectual capabilities. In a system where only merit is important, like race, gender, class, or geographic location are ignored. At this point, I feel like I should tell you a story:

http://poskod.sg/Posts/2014/4/4/Meritocracy-as-Myth
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
One should read the entire essay that she wrote. Probably the longest essay I read in a long while. Sadly she got it wrong. She took the meaning of meritocracy literally. Families who can afford it will do whatever it takes to give their children the best start in life. Did she ever wonder how some parents actually work hard to make things happen for their children.

Parents downgrading their flats to invest in their child's education overseas is not an uncommon event. Others take loans to do it. Some live a frugal life so that there is money squirrelled away for day the kids has to go overseas.

Seriously she should have joined Mao's brigade. The concept of communism should appeal to her.

If meritocracy was taken to its rightful conclusion, she would have been barred from blogging as there very little merit in what she wrote.
 

AungSanSuShi

Alfrescian
Loyal
She took the meaning of meritocracy literally. Families who can afford it will do whatever it takes to give their children the best start in life. Did she ever wonder how some parents actually work hard to make things happen for their children?
1. What is your definition of merit? If possible, illustrate it with examples. 2. Can merit be measured? quantified? objectified? If yes, how? 3. Are people who measure merit free of bias, prejudice and preconceived ideas? 4. Does meritocracy take place at the workplace?
 

AungSanSuShi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Ben S. Bernanke At the Baccalaureate Ceremony at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey June 2, 2013
The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate--these are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others. As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded" (Luke 12:48, New Revised Standard Version Bible). Kind of grading on the curve, you might say.
Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20130602a.htm
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
LKY is the joker pushing the idea of meritocracy. Just look at how successful his son LHL is.
Brought up with all the advantages that his father can provide:

Wife commited suicide
He's had cancer.
He can't find work on his own without help from his papa.
He even needs someone to match make a new wife
Many don't think he's achieved much as a PM.

So is this what meritocracy can achieve:confused:
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
LKY is the joker pushing the idea of meritocracy. Just look at how successful his son LHL is.
Brought up with all the advantages that his father can provide:

Wife commited suicide
He's had cancer.
He can't find work on his own without help from his papa.
He even needs someone to match make a new wife
Many don't think he's achieved much as a PM.

So is this what meritocracy can achieve:confused:

Always missing when there is a crisis. Disgraces S'pore the manner he crosses his legs on the world stage.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Always missing when there is a crisis. Disgraces S'pore the manner he crosses his legs on the world stage.

He was supposedly tutored by 2 Minister Mentors: LKY & GCT :eek:
I think Sporeans should seek a refund for a job not done.

The reason that they gave for the 2 minister mentors was because LHL was not capable of the top job. Many would agree with this and it is still true:biggrin:
 

AungSanSuShi

Alfrescian
Loyal
China also says that it practises meritocracy. You believe? I believe {as long as Sinkapore insists it also practises meritocracy.} In fact ancient China was the first country in the world to select talents to serve in the civil service based on the imperial exams.
 

AungSanSuShi

Alfrescian
Loyal
In today's China, where can you find the wife of Prime Minister or the President holding the post of CEO of China's sovereign wealth fund? In today's China, both the President and Prime Minister can only serve a maximum of 10 years. In today's China, where can you find the relatives of either the President or the Prime Minister serving in the cabinet? That's why I say modern China is more meritocratic than Sinkapore.
 
Last edited:

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
China also says that it practises meritocracy. You believe? I believe {as long as Sinkapore insists it also practises meritocracy.} In fact ancient China was the first country in the world to select talents to serve in the civil service based on the imperial exams.

Correct. The Chinese Imperial Exams have left their lasting legacy on neighbouring coutries from Korea to Japan to Vietnam and Singapore.

What is less well-known is that the Imperial Examination system was instrumental in engendering meritocratic civil service reforms in the British Raj which later spread to the UK, through its influence on the Northcote-Trevelyan Report.
 
Last edited:
Top