Meritocracy & 8:22
It seems apt on National Day to pause and ponder: How effective has Meritocracy been as a tool for achieving our national vision being a democratic society based on justice and equality, and how effective Meritocracy has been at achieving happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. http://www.ndp.org.sg/pledge.php
Few would argue that Singapore’s astounding meteoric rise from Third World to First World has a lot to do with our practice of Meritocracy, amongst other things. All things considered and weighed out, Singapore is arguably one of the best places to live in for most people.
That said, no country is perfect, no administration is perfect, and Singapore is not the exception. However, the fact that we, as a country may never be perfect, is an unacceptable justification for not striving towards improvement or even perfection. Once we’ve realised our imperfections, we owe it to our fellow citizens and friends to address our imperfections. To simply congratulate ourselves and excuse ourselves from the need to further improve, would be to reject further progress for our nation.
It is in this spirit that I pause and ponder about how effective Meritocracy has been.
Meritocracy is about rewarding or providing opportunity to individuals based on merit.
Some of the questions I’m asking:
1. What is the criteria for merit? In another words, what do we consider to be good? Is our criteria valid and fair?
2. How do we measure merit? How do we measure how good one is? Is our measure accurate?
3. Who will benefit from this criteria of merit ? When we say that a person must be good, who should this person be good for?
4. How do you reward merit in a fair and just manner?
Before you read my opinions below, I invite you to STOP. Pause for a moment and ponder. Come up with your own answers, jot them down, and then question your own answers until you are satisfied. ( I’ll be delighted if you would leave your answers in the comments = ) )
And now, my personal views:
1. What is the criteria for merit? In another words, what do we consider to be good? Is our criteria valid and fair?
One can argue that in the days of Emperors, meritocracy was already practised —- except that their criteria for being “good” was to be of nobel birth. Why was that invalid and unfair? Because being of nobel birth did you absolutely no good when it came down to actually doing the job. A valid and fair criteria for this “good”/”merit” is that the quality we seek must be the primary enabler of what we want to achieve.
Here we prize intelligence and academic ability, probably at the expense of the arts, sports, culinary skills etc. What about a sense of justice, empathy, compassion, emotional intelligence etc? Do they factor in our meritocratic system? Should they? What about a person who excels at the languages but fails at the maths and sciences? or vice versa? How do you place him? When a worker is given a poor performance assessment, is he really a poor worker, or are the KPIs badly set?
I was looking at my Friends list on Facebook. And I can genuinely say that for 90% of the 250+ people there, I can think of at least one quality they possess more than anyone else. The other 10% I can’t think of any because I simply do not really know them at all. Yet not all of this 90% would be well placed in our institutionl meritocratic system. Clearly, institutional meritocracy goes by a far too narrow criteria.
2. How do we measure merit? How do we measure how good one is? Is our measure accurate?
Written exams measure our ability to think and write within a couple of hours. It is also a test of short term memory. Are these truly measures for intelligence?
When we impose “correct” answers for every single exam question asked, how do we test if a person is “creative” ? The exams really grade a person based on compliance. Is this a measure of a person’s ability to function in the larger society where there are no answers to be found at the back of life’s books?
And given the way a person’s choice of subjects or jobs or paths in life are shaped/restricted, performance can sometimes be an indication of whether one had the opportunity to be in right place.
I once came across an article/book (I can’t remember from where now, if anyone knows, let me know please? ) where LKY showed that a couple of generations ago, there was no correlation between the educational achievements of the parents and the children. However, in the next generation, after our meritocratious education was in place for a generation, there was a correlation — graduate parents tend to have graduate children. He explained that in the earlier generations, smart people did not have the opportunity to excel, while their children did, and so we could not see correlation. However when these children grew up to be parents, their children continued to be in the same system which provided the same opportunities. Given equal opportunities, one can see that successful parents tend to have successful children.
I have a different take. Successful parents tend to be able to provide more opportunities for their children — tuition, connections, good advice , private transport (which reduces time loss in the bus) etc . By the 3rd generation , the playing field was not even once more. Plus our elite schools tend to have better facilities — the argument being that we invest our resources where we are likely to get the highest returns.
So what in fact happens is that children of less successful parents have the odds stacked against them from birth and they are then further disadvantaged going through the education system.
M eritocracy , is essentially lost.
To have meritocracy at the point of graduation and job entry, the education system CANNOT be meritocratious. What it needs to do is to actually provide more opportunities and resources to the underperformers to even out the playing field. Is meritocracy something that can be intentionally practised at every level if we want to have meritocracy at the final highest level?
3. Who will benefit from this criteria of merit ? When we say that a person must be good, who should this person be good for?
We have a tendency to judge schemes and policies based on their cost-effectiveness. We measure effectiveness and success accross the board as an average figure.
What if we actually judged schemes and policies based on justice and equality? What if we broke down the population into subgroups, and asked, how much disparity is there?
I suspect that most schemes and policies will disadvantage certain groups for the benefit of others — most call this a necessary evil when it happens. Can there truly then be meritocracy when we simply pick one group to favour and measure “good” by?
4. How do you reward merit in a fair and just manner?
What does one reward merit with? Opportunities? Bonuses? Resources? How much? Who decides what is fair?
Are the people who are deemed to have insufficient merit then undeserving of opportunity and resources, when it may be of no fault of their own, or worse, when it is due to faulty assessment of merit?
Should the distribution of basic necessities like food, health care, education etc be based on a meritocratious system as well? Is that just?
Is meritocracy always just and equal?
And so, in principle, while I agree with Meritocracy, I’m wondering if true Meritocracy is indeed a utopic ideal, that like communism, simply cannot applied in real life without bringing about more injustice and inequality, even thought we may have progress and prosperity (as a whole) .
Like this:
5 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Your musings regarding the failings of meritocracy are not new. They were first pointed out when the word was invented.
1. With regard to the noble birth sort of meritocracy, that’s just a general form of a larger form of -cracies, where because something is scarce, its considered a ‘good’ in its own right. Anyway, academic examinations and IQ tests are probably the best tests correlated with g, the general intelligence factor. G is supposed to be highly indicative of future job performance, and unfortunately, a better indicator than say ‘arts, sports, culinary skills etc’. And although one cannot deny the importance of say ‘justice, empathy, compassion, emotional intelligence’, people with a high ‘g’ can fake those things quite convincingly. One only needs to see the portfolios of government scholars and their CIP. If you consider CIP to be a sham, then what else are you going to measure those intangible qualities with?
2. As mentioned earlier, these academic tests are supposed to correlate highly with g, something which indicates future job performance. In fact, I think that there are studies showing that ‘g’ correlates with creativity as well, BUT one might argue that drilling in these tests kill the creative spark.
No doubt being in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances is advantageous, but such is life. The only way I can see one leveling it is to reduce everyone to crummy circumstances. Since we can’t all move ahead, we might as well all languish in the pits.
Although I agree that successful parents can and do provide better opportunities, what would you suggest to combat this? Provide a tuition fund, which is already being done, I think? Or follow what South Korea did in the 80s, and ban tuition. Even more radically, one could put all children in a central pool, and educate them equally, or perhaps redistribute children randomly among families who choose to have children. I’m sure all these solutions are equally unpalatable, other than the first one. Even for the first one, its not really a solution, since the government will balk at spending that much on tuition; I know of parents who spent $3000 SGD a month on tuition in primary school.
And this is ignoring the fact that successful parents tend to be more intelligent, and intelligence is highly heritable. What would you propose to counter the gradual drift towards the top of the more capable? You could force random marriages, or redistribute children, as mentioned earlier.
3. I would argue that the most fair system, is that in Africa; regardless of how capable or incompetent you are, you’re most likely living in abject poverty. The moment you offer people a chance to work their way out of it, those that can, will.
4. What you are suggesting, is akin to what Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Unfortunately, people don’t quite seem to work quite well under that; misery of the human condition, perhaps.
Here we prize intelligence and academic ability, probably at the expense of the arts, sports, culinary skills etc. What about a sense of justice, empathy, compassion, emotional intelligence etc?
Yes, Singapore society as a whole does prefer IQ and As than other gifts. But obviously society is not homogenous. We do recognise and reward people who can particularly display their talent in their fields, or have strong moral values. Furthermore, IQ and As are probably the baseline signs for rewards, if you’re talking about leadership appointments.
So what in fact happens is that children of less successful parents have the odds stacked against them from birth and they are then further disadvantaged going through the education system.
Meritocracy, is essentially lost.
That is indeed a side-effect of Singapore’s ability-driven education system. Students are encouraged to pursue their interests and excel in them. But some will obviously have advantages i.e. better resources. Hence this distorts meritocracy – rather than “essentially lost”.
What the govt has done is to provide additional funding for students who do not have sufficient resources. They might still lag behind, but at least they are better than before.
3. Who will benefit from this criteria of merit ? When we say that a person must be good, who should this person be good for?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Can you explain or rephrase your question? (=
[...] in our National flag and its reality – Desparatebeep: The Meaning of Patriotism – Mathia Lee: Meritocracy & 8:22 – Diary of A Singaporean Mind: “Pledge moment unites Singaporeans ” – CNA – TOC: [...]
– I once came across an article/book (I can’t remember from where now, if anyone knows, let me know please? ) where LKY showed that a couple of generations ago, there was no correlation between the educational achievements of the parents and the children. –
He wrote about that in his memoirs (Third World to First). Or rather, his team of writers wrote it for him.
Two questions on this:
1. Who establish the yardstick? Who allocates the weightage of each graduation – determining the use of inches or centimeters, or other forms of measurement?
2. Who manages the yardstick?
I have lived in three different continents and have arrived on the conclusion that meritocracy can only be sustained in a third-world, autocratic society. I believe Singapore is one.
Lastly, if meritocracy were to govern the world in the past century, would we have discovered the late bloomers of Einstein or the schizophrenia John Nash (movie A Beautiful Mind)? Suffice it to say, we will NEVER find the equivalent of the Einsteins and Nashes in Singapore. That, you can take it to the bank!