America’s Collapsing Meritocracy Is a Recipe for Revolt

The author endorses the view that someone with a journalism degree should be hired to be a TV journalist for a UFC event. The appeal is that they have the credentials and therefore earned it through a meritocracy.<p>But the job is clearly about entertainment. Addison Rae is an entertainer from who became successful on her own, and skilled, at entertaining people without a degree. I think she is more qualified than almost to be in front of a camera than any recent college grad in journalism who hasn&#x27;t been able to build a following.<p>It is a bit like saying the people in the ring at a UFC fight, who may have a great fight record, would be less qualified than someone with no fights but a degree in martial arts.<p>The author is upset that credentialism is eroding in some areas. But this actually seems like a huge plus for meritocracy.

Interesting essay. The discussion of the exam-based meritocracy in Qing-dynasty China reminded me of the following description of that system by George Staunton, who accompanied an official British delegation to China in the 1790s:<p>“The examinations of students for degrees are said to be always public. The body of auditors who attend, as well as the presence of the governor and chief magistrates of the district, who preside, must awe any disposition to partiality in the judges. Some oral questions are put, and some are given in writing, to the candidates, as in English colleges. The rewards of those who succeed, are not confined to the honours of the university; for these become the ascending steps which lead to all the offices and dignities of the state. Even those who fail in the main pursuit, have, in the prosecution of the contest, made such acquirements as fit them for useful avocations, and add to the general mass of knowledge in society. A method also of advancement so open to all classes of men, tends to reconcile them to the power, from attaining which no individual is precluded. Tho the opulent youth have no doubt greater facilities and better opportunities of instruction, than the children of the poor, yet genius may have occasionally the strength to counterbalance such disparity; and at any rate, the possibility of success is an enjoyment even to those who are never likely to obtain it. The general persuasion, likewise, that authority has been acquired thro merit, must contribute to insure respect and obedience to it, unless a gross abuse of it should take place; against which the possession of abilities and knowledge is not always a security. Such a system of government promises indeed great benefits to society; and can fail only when the temptation to do evil is greater than the strength of principle and the risk of being detected in the sacrifice of it. The poor and private individuals in China, who have no means of communicating their complaints, or declaring their sentiments on the conduct of their particular rulers, are left in great measure at their mercy; and foreigners, when in the same predicament, are equally liable to suffer.”<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;authenticaccount02stau&#x2F;page&#x2F;482&#x2F;mode&#x2F;2up" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;authenticaccount02stau&#x2F;page&#x2F;482&#x2F;...</a>

What meritocracy?<p>There is a solid case for increasing potential for revolt being driven by inequality and the growing perception that merit does not actually come into play for very large numbers of Americans.

A short moral tale for those in the West who distrust meritocracy. Thanks for posting this.

There was never any meritocracy, and the recipe for revolt that exists now doesn&#x27;t owe anything to any meritocracy, perceived or otherwise.