
Meritocracy hasn’t worked in Britain – it’s time for a radical rethink - rbanffy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/meritocracy-hasnt-worked-radical-rethink-social-mobility
======
moomin
I'd go further: meritocracy hasn't been _tried_ in Britain. Not only is there
a huge inequality gap, no-one actually crosses it (weirdly, the article seems
to take it on faith that they do).

Britain's meritocracy is indistinguishable from its old class system.

~~~
lucozade
> no-one actually crosses it

That's not entirely true but I believe it's more true today than it was 20 or
30 years ago.

For all their, significant, faults, when Grammar schools were prevalent they
were a vehicle for practical social mobility i.e. people whose parents had
done manual work getting well educated and finding professional jobs.

That's not true with Grammar schools today, their rarity causing entry
pressure that has the effect of limiting the majority of students to children
of the professional classes. Also, the Grammar system was/is hugely
prejudicial. Although it was an avenue for social mobility that doesn't mean
that it was an effective social good.

Increased university participation has increased educational levels but
doesn't appear to have had a commensurate increase in professional labour
either.

To some extent I agree with the article: it's not clear to me that social
mobility should be an end to itself. However, I tend to agree with the New
Labour idea of equality of opportunity in preference to the old Labour idea of
straight equality. As such, the conclusion that changes in the ownership of
capital will sort everything out doesn't strike me as having much evidence.

~~~
moomin
I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, but I'd like to add a bit
about equality of opportunity: 1) It isn't enough if the opportunities are bad
(even a completely fair system that resulted in 99 out of 100 on the scrap
heap doesn't appeal to me). 2) There's got to be a safe "worst" outcome. This
is for several reasons a) the alternative punishes risk taking, making a
mockery of equality of opportunity b) you don't want the losers in society
turning to crime for completely economically justified reasons and c) it's the
right thing to do.

(And yeah, it's not completely true: I'm one of the ones who made it across.
From what I can tell, there aren't that many of us about.)

------
frgtpsswrdlame
One thing I think is important to anchor discussions of inequality and
mobility is the great gatsby curve:

[http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-
inco...](http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-income-
inequality.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve)

Basically there are no countries which are both highly unequal and highly
meritocratic. Perhaps our path towards more social mobility is straight-
forward wealth redistribution.

------
easytiger
Or stop rewarding people who wish to sit on the sidelines of society and offer
it nothing. Social mobility is alive and well where children are brought up by
parents who share the right values.

If you aren't familiar with the British politics there a vast number who feel
that an increased punitive attack of those of means is the only way of fixing
anything, with no consideration of the side effects that will have on the
efficacy of the country.

~~~
daedalbug
pleased with the General Election result are we?

~~~
easytiger
How about you deal with my comment rather than apply snark

------
pmurT
Meritocracy is such a narrow and arbitrary definition on what is acceptable
for claiming resources. Social myths to keep the rable in the fields and out
of the manor.

