Is the 'meritocratic' society just a myth and a fallacy?

 

It looks like Dr Jordan Peterson is "ideologically addled" if he thinks that inequality of opportunity can be resolved by a simple psychometric test. Neither the UK or the U.S. are meritocratic societies even though they claim to be so.

In the U.K., only around 7% of the population go to a public school, but you will find them disproportionately represented in many of the top jobs. Most people in Britain couldn't afford to send their children to a public school, even if they wanted to. Their children might be bright but unless they can afford the fees or obtain a scholarship, they won't be going anywhere.

They might tell you that the world is your oyster, but you will rarely find a pearl in your oyster. In reality, most people's options are severely limited. This can be due to limited financial resources or not being part of a small social elite, or privileged group, with its connections.

In his book 'Capital in the 21st Century', the French economist, Thomas Piketty, says that the average income of the parents of Harvard students is currently $450,000, which corresponds to the average income of the top 2 percent U.S. income hierarchy. He wrote; "Such findings do not seem compatible with the idea of selection by merit." He also points out that Harvard spends around $100m a year to manage its endowments of around $30 billion.

In the UK, the social bank of mum and dad opens as many doors as the financial bank of mum and dad. Society with an 'inbred' middle-class elite is likely to become bad at generating innovation resulting in reduced economic dynamism.