Climbing the Meritocracy

The music was blasting this summer and I was climbing fast. Sweat dripped behind my ear. I clutched the magazine with my damp hands, trying to focus on the words as the text moved up and down with the rhythm of my movements. Sure, I hate the stair master. But exercise and reading at the same time--what a beautiful way to get those two tasks accomplished at the same time.

The article's title had captured my attention: "The Overclass." I didn't have any idea what that was, but I figured that I should know. As I was sweating my way to the end of Newsweek's long definition and oh-so-insightful commentary, I realized that the overclass was me. Oh, pardon. That's I--and all of those Dukies I was about to return to school with.

That is, the elite universities are populated by the overclass--the technologically advanced, the educated and affluent, the yuppies with computers, or "the meritocracy," as Newsweek put it. Which, you should know, is different from the system that might create this overclass, the ones who benefit most from the possible existence of "a meritocracy."

Somewhere around the 200th flight of stairs, the picture of the overclass began to look like the imaginary building I was busy climbing. There was my dorm room, my desk covered in books. Right on top was the registrar's checklist, with all my grades and scores keeping tally.

Before I tell you about the view from the Penthouse, however-- before society orders itself in the image of a magazine that supplied us our love-hate relationship with yuppie-dom and our complete loathing of the term Generation X--let's give this grand building a thorough inspection and discover what it's like to live there.

Petitioning for a

building permit

The original plans were drawn up in 1958 by Michael Young in his satiric essay, "The Rise of the Meritocracy." Young tells the history of a futuristic society in which the IQ test has been perfected. Across that society, classes are homogenized and separated on the basis of their IQ scores. Antagonism among classes has disappeared because the lower classes have accepted the structure imposed by the merit standard. Within every class, each individual is content because he or she is among equals. There is no challenge and certainly no unhappiness resulting from competition.

It is necessary, of course, to establish some groundwork for this meritocractic continuum.

"For a starting-point definition, a meritocracy means that you get what you deserve," DiPrete says. In sociological terms, this simple definition can be translated into athletic terminology. "What you deserve" is judged like a race and "what you get" are the trophies awarded.

The traditional playing field for the meritocracy debate usually has two games going on at once: education and the job market. Generally, in American society, these two categories are regarded as different levels of the same sport--the minor and the major leagues; or the NCCA and the NBA. One is preparation for the other.

The links between education and the job market in this discussion are the similarities in opportunities, contests and rewards that are given for each. SATs, GPAs, internships, graduate schools and residencies all build on one another. Rewards in education quickly turn into advantages in the job market. (The popular association of a meritocratic system with an overclass rests on this correlation. Social trends point to the terms with which the meritocracy is discussed.)

Meritocracy can give its own pitch too. Based on the axiom, "you get what you deserve," a meritocracy appears to operate on a standard of fairness. Everyone has a chance to succeed, to better him- or herself according to individual ability. Meritocracy has the American dream on its side. Perhaps you also can hear the voices of minorities and women in the advertisement for the meritocracy. Equal rights, equal opportunity. Equal pay for equal work. You get what you deserve, based on your own merit, right?

"It is desirable for allocation and outcome processes to be perceived as being fair," says sociology professor Alex Spenner. "To provide equal access without regard to race, religion and so on. To the extent that meritocracy falls under that... it is desirable."

Meritocracy seems to be the ideological foundation in the mailroom errand-runner-turned-CEO and the immigrant-turned-poet laureate stories. That is why education and the job market so obviously make appearances in the meritocracy debate.

"Education is the great leveler and expander," says John Burness, the University's senior vice president for public affairs. "Regardless of your socioeconomic background, if you get a good education, it can be the stepping stone up."

It is hard to argue with Burness in a world where shifts in technology are changing the job market. Service-sector job growth means that more people must understand how computers work rather than how to farm. Even assuming a type of education that follows a pre-professional or liberal arts trajectory, rather than a vocational track, we are constantly reminded that today a college degree is required where once a high school diploma was the only thing needed to succeed.

But what is it required for? The question remains: Where is it that we are climbing to?

The cockroach in the

kitchen

Here we are, halfway to the top, and the inspection is going well. Prime living space, with a great view and sound structure, and it's bound to be even better at the top. But a meritocracy is only as strong as its own merits, and in popular discourse, merit often wears many different masks.

In Young's world, intelligence defined merit. Is it the same in today's society? Sure, intelligence is valuable and can get you far. But so can looks, a "magic" jump shot, money, even a connection to the World Wide Web. Just ask the Washington ,D.C.-based homeless man who solicits change by saying, "C'mon, I just want to get on the Internet."

One of the easiest ways to figure out what a society regards as meritorious is to evaluate what rewards are given and on what basis they are granted. Particularly prominent in this discussion is the salary system. Theoretically, salary is the price tag put on a certain job, proportional to the value of the job.

"The kinds of occupations that are more highly rewarded are much the same [in our society]," Spenner says. At this point, the respectable golden triumvirate may come to mind, the litany of all aspiring youngsters: doctors, lawyers and businessmen. As Spenner reminds us, however, society rewards some other occupations more. "Rewards are more extreme for entertainment and sports," he says.

Jim Carrey signs a movie contract for $20 million. Mike Tyson gets out of prison and makes several million dollars a couple of months later. Baseball goes on strike because the players want a million dollars, not just half. Let's pat ourselves on the back, though. Attendance is nowhere near pre-strike levels.

If the fundamental equation on which a meritocracy operates, as DiPrete says, is that you get what you deserve, our society's link of success with money is revealing. "Consumerism has taken over," Burness says. "It is the money you make that defines who you are. Meritocracy was not always defined by money. In some cultures, it was defined as education and the teachers were the elite."

Others question the popular application of the term. "Meritocracy tends to be applied rather narrowly," says Thomas Janoski, a visiting professor of sociology. "People who pull the legs off of chickens and turkeys just down the road: Are they a part of a meritocracy? Can they make a similar claim [to merit]?"

Janoski's questions are unsettling, small cracks running down the walls of meritocracy's fortress.

"The thing you notice about [the meritocracy] is... the more it develops, the more it has tendencies toward an aristocracy," Janoski observes. "The other criticism is, if we had a complete meritocracy, what happens to people?"

Janoski says he is not convinced that a laissez-faire, "let the market decide" attitude is really desirable, no matter how fair it may seem. People who don't measure up are often dismissed by those who do.

The point is that the meritocracy seems most fair to the individuals who profit by it, the ones who have the IQ, money, education or physical abilities to make it to the top. Which is why Newsweek equated the meritocracy with the overclass. In some ways, meritocratic theory is the ideology of the overclass. Or should I say, our ideology?

Because that is when I noticed the people who live here.

Ants Marching, or the view

from the Penthouse

High above the streets, the Penthouse, everyone's dream destination, is furnished with a state-of-the-art entertainment and computing system. Books line the walls. Children do their homework and then go for a surf on the 'Net. The people on the street look just like ants, but the people in the Penthouse rarely look down.

In his book, "The Work of Nations," Labor Secretary Robert Reich reveals that one of the fastest growing jobs in the 1980's was security guards. In fact, more and more neighborhoods across the country are walling themselves off, erecting security gates at their entrances. As Newsweek observed, one new community has proposed to build a private school within its gates.

"One of the things that is happening to our society is not that there is an elite--there's always been an elite," DiPrete observes. "But the behavior of that elite is changing. And their inclination to, in effect, create a `society within a society,' which is where they live, where they send their kids to school, where they work and where they play."

What is so unsettling about these walled-off communities is that the inclinations of the overclass toward separation and isolation are logical on an individual level. If public schools are not providing children with a challenge, then it makes sense to educate them privately. When observed at the group level, though, this logic is tainted by selfishness. As the overclass insulates itself from the rest of society, DiPrete points out, a vicious cycle develops. Without the overclass's support, both financial and communal, the broader society becomes so impoverished that it can no longer provide basic social services.

On another level, the insulation of the overclass reveals its instability. Fear of contamination with the lower classes drives the overclass harder and faster in the merit race. "More" and "better" are the key words.

At this point it might be good to remember those jokes about Alabama. You know, the cousin jokes and what happens to the kids of a marriage between first cousins. The references are based on a general principle that applies to an insulated meritocracy: When elite society forever marries within that society, judgments become warped, assessments become parochial. This is not to say that an inbreeding of the meritorious intelligentsia would produce a generation of idiots. Certainly the gene pool is too superior and varied for that.

What could possibly happen, though, is the propagation of a false notion of what it means to have "made it." Of being better than everyone else and, therefore, having the right to impose one's will and desire on others. Such an attitude can culminate in an insensitivity and lack of respect for one's fellow man, which is always the result when society forgets that "all men are created equal." Because as anyone can see, we aren't created equal and here's the diploma, the acceptance letter, the business card, or the bank account to prove it.

So you want to take

the elevator?

Does any of this sound familiar? Maybe too familiar? A guarded, gated subdivision complete with security passes and membership requirements and a Penthouse suite begin to bear strong resemblances to an ivory tower.

"A university is different from society in general," observes Burness, Duke's vice president for public affairs. "Almost by definition, these institutions are elite."

The meritocratic system is alive within this educational elite. It's what dreams are based on here in the Gothic Wonderland. We work hard so we can play hard. That's the reward, both during our time here and when it comes time to leave.

"Duke students feel that if they work hard, there should be a job available for them," DiPrete says. Unfortunately, other factors that are outside of the students' control affect the way rewards are granted. "If the economy keeps growing, there will be jobs available. On the other hand, because of various reasons--like downturns in the economy--there might not be a need for as many lawyers or doctors," he adds.

DiPrete points out the ubiquitous assumption that rewards should be there for the students who perform at a certain level. "But there is nothing inherent in the contest that requires there to be enough trophies for everybody who performs at a certain level."

That's it. In fact, I'm sure you know the scenario. Wallace Wade is clearing out. Streams of recent graduates, neatly packaged in black robes with their smiling parents fluttering along behind, are flowing up the stadium stairs as if on a conveyor belt, out into The Real World. You're still standing there, diploma in hand, with no place to go.

Then you wake up and realize that you still have four more years... or two... or one. What is motivating these fears that cause freshmen mild indigestion when they remember that their major reads "Undecided" on University records, but cause seniors, whose major is "history-but-I-don't-know-why-maybe-I'll-go-to-law-school," to wake up at 3:30 a.m. and pull up their resume on the computer, wondering whether it sounds too contrived to change "light office tasks" to "organization engineering"?

Perhaps it's an inevitable paranoia that develops in a meritocracy--particularly when getting the trophy and getting ahead is all that matters, and, perhaps more significantly, when the trophy is made of dollar signs. It's the fear that maybe, just maybe, there is going to be one trophy too few.

John Noble, director of the Career Development Center, has another theory, however. He believes that the meritocracy in the job market is different than the meritocracy of the educational system. When students worry obsessively about crafting the perfect resume, they are simply misunderstanding the job market.

"I think the meritocracy exists, only it's different than it exists when you are growing up," Noble says. "It's a trick that society plays. You learn that if you get the right scores, you'll succeed. [Students] believe that the merito-cracy should work as they view it: `I've done well, I've got the GPA and the scores, I should be able to apply for the job and get it.'"

From Noble's perspective, however, networking is the key to success in the job market. "There's a throwback now to the way people used to get jobs 50 years ago, where you got your education and then you were introduced into the working world by people who knew you," Noble says. "You get to know the culture and they get to know you through contact."

This character-based system is better than the numbers game, Noble says. "Once you get to know someone, it doesn't matter what their GPA is. Superficial, external criteria fall by the wayside and you begin to value that person for what they do, how they act, what they are."

It sounds attractive--getting a job because you are simply a good person. But the issue of "who you know" versus "what you know" becomes even murkier when you are talking about the overclass. Once a meritocracy has been defined as an overclass, or at least as a hierarchical system, networks become composed of only those people in the overclass. "Who you know" operates on the assumption that "who you want to know" are members of the overclass, the people who can help you get ahead. You really haven't left the insulated society at all.

Getting to know

the neighbors

If the concept of the network has a redeeming quality, it is its foundation of individual ability: one is judged by his or her personal interactions. It's about people, and sometimes when you focus on that, merit can be divorced of its association with money and educational pedigrees.

But usually, it doesn't work that way; that is, the divorce is rare. On the surface, the concept of meritocracy appears to be good. The attraction is its foundation of individual merit and value. But our society doesn't necessarily construct it that way. Meritocracy is more a game of numbers and money, reward structures and limited opportunity.

Yes, we live in a meritocracy. In fact, we create it for ourselves and our society every day. We buy into it, and then, we reinvest in it. We are constantly trying to catch up, or measure up, and as long as there is a meritocracy, we don't have to search for any criteria other than the ones built into the system with which we currently measure ourselves.

And that's why it is perpetuated. Because we're good at it. The typical inhabitants of the ivory tower can get the GPA, find--or already have--the connections, and, in short, know how to play the game. But when we look around the table, or perhaps the building, we must ask ourselves whether or not we like the players.