meritocracy

Harsh geopolitical and material inequalities don’t disappear when it’s time to sprint 100 meters, shoot clay targets or parry a fencing sword — no matter what the quintessentially American belief in sports as a meritocracy may suggest.

After all, McCain—the daughter of the late Senator John McCain—was not exactly a shining example of the meritocracy herself.

In this episode of Glad You Asked, we explore how meritocracy perpetuates inequality and racism, helping meritocrats believe that they’ve won due to their hard work and effort while leaving already marginalized groups behind.

Most Silicon Valley leaders still see their industry as a true meritocracy, where employees are generously compensated, can easily switch jobs and don’t need a union to advocate for them.

They only lived up to their much-celebrated ideals of meritocracy under pressure, or threat.

Not quite saying what academic aptitude is, he is sure Harvard should emphasize it to create a “true meritocracy.”

We want to believe in the meritocracy, and, more importantly, that we are the sole proprietors of our achievements.

Both generations of meritocracy are tied to good things: hard work, high standards, social mobility.

Our meritocracy is doing more harm than good, and its members—and everyone else—need to start questioning it.

Our meritocracy has become the ideology of a self-concerned, infinitely ambitious, and basically fearful economy.

With meritocracy in the ascendance, aristocracy was in descent.

Meritocracy is a "fair play" by rules of equal chance to derive benefits.

Which leads us to the death of meritocracy and why this region's future is behind it.

All modern states and societies must choose whether to be governed by merit (meritocracy) or by the privileged few (oligarchy).

What sets meritocracy apart is not the number of members of its ruling (or leading) class, usually no larger than an oligarchy.