Elitism and Meritocracy in curriculum

Introduction:  An elite is a relatively small group of people with the highest status in a society, or in some domain of activity, who have more privileges or power than other people due to their status. Elitism is believing in or promoting this sort of arrangement, whether that be in the academic world, politics, art, sports, or anywhere else.

The word elite was originally French for ‘select’ or ‘chosen’ and comes from the same Latin root, eligere, as elect.

In socio-political philosophy elitism is the belief that societies must or should be ruled by an elite, and theorists of elitism study how the elite gain and maintain their status, and what they get for it.

•       Meritocracy: Merit comes Latin word ‘Mereo’ means I earn Cracy comes from the Greek word ‘Kratos’ means strength or powers-Political power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on ability and talent

•       Meritorious- Merits in terms of tested competency and ability as measured by IQ

•       Elite class people used Merit/Meritocracy to capture powers and created ideology

The main argument in favor of elitism is that the smartest and strongest people are the best qualified to lead and wield power—that it is in all of our best interests to have the best people at the top.

The main arguments against elitism are that it opposes equality (egalitarianism), diversity (pluralism), and democracy (populism).  And the observation that the elite, in practice, do not actually include all or only the best people, but rather often, simply the people from certain families. So, we will return to these arguments against elitism in section three.

The curriculum designed and developed keeping in view of egalitarianism and diversity of our country.

We know enough about our ancient past to be able to say that most ancient civilizations, once they were big enough to have cities, had elitism. Human civilizations have always had power relatively concentrated in the hands of a few, and the elite have often received that status from parentage and wealth, although with many exceptions; at times, the strongest, smartest, or boldest individuals have been able to raise themselves to elite status. In some societies priests, intellectuals, and/or artists have had the potential to gain elite status, although usually only in cooperation with the political and economic elite. In any case, although there have been scattered anti-elitist voices throughout human history, elitism has been a relatively unquestioned and universal feature of human societies until the past few hundred years.

The curriculum designed and developed keeping in view of the long evolutionary perspectives of our society and civilization.

Types of Elitism

There could be an infinite number of types of elitism; there are elite musicians, comedians, surgeons, physicists, athletes, and coders, as well as the economic and political elite we’ve talked about throughout this article.  However, here are a couple of the most popular kinds of elitism:

The curriculum designed and developed keeping in view of the different types of elitism in our country and it should be reflected in curriculum at every stage.

a. Academic elitism

This is either the idea that people with high academic qualifications are better than others, or that they should be given special privileges. It is a criticism often made of professional academic society, especially because the relatively small proportion of professors who are tenured enjoy great advantages, especially job-security, compared to the majority of professors, who work more hours for less, with no job-security.

The term academic elitism can also refer to the fact that students who graduate from high-status schools like Harvard and Yale have better job opportunities than students from lower status schools.

b. Intellectual elitism

This is an accusation often made by social/political conservatives against “the left.”  Many conservatives point to an inherent association between intellectuals and liberal ideals, which they object to. it is true that intellectuals and liberals are often the same people, and often have advanced degrees, however they don’t seem to have any extra privileges or power outside of the academic world, so calling them elitists is questionable.

VII. Elitism versus Pluralism, Populism, and Egalitarianism

The main socio-political philosophies opposed to elitism are pluralism, populism, and egalitarianism, which share much in common—each with a different emphasis.

§  Pluralism is the belief that societies should be governed by a plurality of viewpoints—the more the better. This stands in favor of democracy and against elitism—since the members of any elite group share similar interests. Pluralism doesn’t oppose giving high status to some kinds of people, so long as there are many different kinds of people who can attain high status. But this would seem to forbid the existence of one “most elite” group in a society.

§  Populism is basically a synonym for democracy—rule by the majority. Unlike pluralism, populism doesn’t say anything about how many different viewpoints should exist, but it is assumed that rule by the majority requires multiple choices for voters to choose from. The idea that common people should rule themselves in any sense is directly anti-elitist.

Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all people should have equal rights and be treated equally in general. So, any kind of privilege or elitism is anti-egalitarian.

Meritocracy is a social system in which success and status in life depend primarily on individual talents, abilities, and effort. It is a social system in which people advance on the basis of their merits.

A meritocratic system contrasts with aristocracy, for which people advance on the basis of the status and titles of family and other relations. 

From the days of Aristotle, who coined the term "ethos," the idea of awarding positions of power to those most capable have been a part of political discussion not only for governments but for business endeavors as well.

Many Western societies--the United States chief among them--are commonly considered to be meritocracies, meaning these societies are built on the belief that anyone can make it with hard work and dedication. Social scientists often refer to this as the "bootstrap ideology," evoking the popular notion of "pulling" oneself "up by the bootstraps." 

Aristotle's Ethos and Meritocracy

In discussions of rhetoric, Aristotle relates the epitome of his understanding of the word ethos as the mastery of a particular subject. 

Rather than determining merit based on the modern state of affairs as exemplified by the political system in place at the time, Aristotle argued that it should come from a traditional understanding of aristocratic and oligarchical structures that define 'good' and 'knowledgeable.'

In 1958, Michael Young wrote a satirical paper mocking the Tripartite System of British education called "The Rise of the Meritocracy," declaring that "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications."

The term has come to frequently be described in modern day sociology and psychology as 'any act of judgment based on merit.' Although some disagree about what qualifies as true merit, most now agree that merit should be the primary concern for selecting an applicant for a position.

Social Inequality and Merit Disparity

In modern times, the idea of a merit-based-only system of governance and business creates a disparity, as the availability of resources to cultivate merit are largely predicated upon one's current and historic socioeconomic status. Thus, those born into higher socioeconomic standing--those who have more wealth--have access to more resources than those born into lower standing. 

Unequal access to resources has a direct and significant effect on the quality of education a child will receive all the way from kindergarten through university. The quality of one's education, among other factors related to inequalities and discrimination, directly affects the development of merit and how meritorious one will appear when applying for positions.

While meritocracy is a noble ideal for any social system, achieving it first requires recognizing that social, economic, and political conditions may exist which make it impossible. To achieve it, then, such conditions must be corrected.

•      

In the past when the educational landscape wasn't so competitive, it worked to a certain extent. You had kids who could climb their way out of an underprivileged background just by working extra hard. Education was truly the social leveller then. But today, when competition is super keen and standards have been raised to differentiate the best from the best, working hard is no longer enough.

If you have tutors in every subject to clarify your every doubt and help you learn beyond what teachers teach you in school, you're most certainly likely to do better in your exams. If your parents can engage a tennis coach for you from age 5, you would clearly be a better tennis player able to lead your school team by the time you hit secondary school. If you have well-educated, English speaking parents who can bring you overseas on holiday to expose you to different cultures, read to you from when you were an infant and have connections to help you land internships, you would undoubtedly have a better looking portfolio and participate more confidently in interviews than a kid who doesn't even have internet at home.

•       Conclusion:

•       Banard- “Education abolishes social rigidity,removes discrimination based on birth and destroys rigid stratification. It also strives to achieve higher ideals,obtains higher positions of prestige, formationn of good habits and inculcation of permanent valules” Curriculum should be developed  giving emphasis on the composition of society and on the reflection of all sections of society in education.