[rgergerge3]

This is the logical conclusion of our contemporary understanding of privilege. Anything a person does (or does not) accomplish can be directly attributed to the privilege he or she had (or lacked). High SAT scores means the person was privileged enough to afford tutoring, or privileged enough to live in a two-parent household, or privileged enough to be born without any major disability, etc.

Once you accept that as your worldview you accept merit is meaningless. What separates Ramanujan and Newton from the average college dropout are extraneous factors. Any difference in outcomes is societal and environmental, and must be corrected.

[kiba]

Merit is meaningful, but people confuse meritocracy with a just and equitable society.

If you are committed to selecting for the best, then you must select for individuals that are aided by factors outside their 'control', whether that's luck, environment, people, or genes. It does not matter how arbitrary or unfair these factors are, only that they help select the best men and women for a given job or career.

[rsj_hn]

People also confuse a just society with an equal society.

There is no particular reason to want everyone to be equal, and there are plenty of reasons you do not want this -- when everyone is equal, people are constantly fighting for who is best because if anyone just slightly increases their wealth/power, they will be the highest of all. People are fundamentally competitive, competing over social prestige, mates, etc. So creating a situation in which anyone can be king is a recipe for constant war. Thus the equal society is the most unjust society, because it is the society in which violence and conflict are maximized.

Moreover, it's better to maximize well-being rather than worrying about whether you think it is "fair" that talent is not distributed equally. What you can do is tax those who earn more and use that to provide social benefits to others. That is, set up a society in which everyone benefits from the outperformance of the elite, rather than trying to pretend that everyone can be elite, or that there is no elite at all.

[simplestats]

I'm not sure how much overlap ther is between the people who want meritocracy and the people who agree with your definition of a just and equitable society.

Luck and genes are generally considered fair arbiters in a sense, at least when they are the source of one's merit. No one complains the chess champion only won because she was fortunate to be given a chess board at an earlier age than the competition or something.

[ajsnigrutin]

I agree that someone from a bad background will have to work a lot harder than someone from a good one, but in the end, it's the results that matter.

Just to give a stupid example, when you call a painter to paint your house, you don't really care that the painter is in a wheelchair and cannot reach the ceilings, or if the painter is blind and cannot see the walls... you want a good result, ie. a nicely painted house.

Same with colleges... (usually, atleast in "the rest of the world") they want the best students available to enroll. In my country, a formula taking grades and standardized tests results is used, students are sorted by their score, and if there are 60 spots and 100 aplicants, top 60 by score are accepted. The colleges don't know anything about the students except the scores, and the only valid measure is the score. (...there are some exceptions, eg. acting/art schools, with entrance exams)

[merpnderp]

I feel like we closer to the world of Harrison Bergeron than we really should be.

[kwere]

yeah but statistically if you have lower sat score than 1450 (i found this number) you will have problems to perform and risk to lose years or drop out, but i believe a school could have a ethinc and net worth quotas relative to the country they operate. And go meritocratic (by scores) if they cant fill quotas

[smrtinsert]

Does not have to work through high school, does not have to deal with trauma of early lifestyle etc.

[dontcare007]

And random chance. "When everyone is super, no one is super"...