<p>Why? OP’s question was is it possible. The merits of the meritocracy are not questioned.</p>
<p>Just because the situation depicted in Brave New World is abhorrent doesn’t diminish its viability, especially as an example of a meritocracy, which is exactly what the OP was after.</p>
<p>the term ‘meritocracy’ has a sinister undertone - because it can be used to permit the pursuit of vested interests of those in power, whereas the rule of the majority (hence democracy) does not permit such an agenda. then you think well what about the majority having an agenda? good call, but idealistically, it wouldn’t happen insofar as vested interests are concerned as the populace knows what it wants according to history, values, change and necessary adaptation. so democracy can re-enforce the status-quo whereas meritocracy can seek to subvert or transform it. but that’s my belief.</p>
<p>i’m going to use a crude example. roe v. wade. the litigator had the credentials. she conquered the game of abortion and made it legal. millions had gone through horrible experiences; and abortions became widespread. good or bad? well that shouldn’t be a part of the issue but shed light on what one credentialist did for the whole nation. lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess I just wanted this thread to be something it wasn’t. Still I get the feeling that the society in Brave New World is a meritocracy only on a technicality. In the book, people don’t decide their own path–they have it decided for them at birth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>huh? if anything a meritocracy places citizens of all classes at the same starting line–this makes it more difficult for those in power to protect their interests, not less. your post doesn’t make sense–there isn’t a meritocracy/democracy dichotomy. If anything it is a choice between meritocracy and plutocracy.</p>
<p>um how can meritocracy place all citizens in the same starting line that is totally false it is based on credentialism</p>
<p>I don’t think it is possible to create a meritocracy for some of the same reasons Baller4lyfe used.</p>
<p>On what grounds do you select someone on? You can’t just go on intelligence, what if that person is morally bankrupt and would use the power given to him to feed his own desires? Or you take someone who you think is pure and overtime they become intoxicated with the power given to them. Also who gets to decide who is qualified?How is that person deemed qualified for the overseeing who is responsible for what jobs.</p>
<p>There are to many variables for this to be a viable system.</p>
<p>Here’s another take on meritocracy but based on technology</p>
<p>[Technocracy</a> (bureaucratic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)]Technocracy”>Technocracy - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I don’t think meritocracy is synonymous with intelligence, rather a lot more with knowledge. the notion of intelligence is a tricky one to define, and perhaps not even a worthwhile one, as this notion obtained in meritocratic studies can be persuaded by a political or social belief that masks the study done in that field as a learned or obtained ideological presupposition then seeks to exert that principle on the rest of the population. i mean, george bush had an mba from harvard, and was the biggest neo-conservative freak out there, loved warmongering, loved preventive striking, and arguably came down as the worst and most unpopular president in history. i might add that i think they triggered these responses because post 9/11 they had to respond to the status-quo as if it was controlling the united states per the terrorists around the world rather than the united states itself controlling the status quo on their ends, so was this necessary evil done on behalf of the bush administration essential in order to maintain power and preserve and protect the united states? that is a very good question but i am sure there were better ways to handle terrorism after 9/11 as the bush administration failed to show an astute and civilized approach. there are many other well-qualified individuals in the bush admin. that were also very unpopular and wreaked havoc for the united states’ image both at home and abroad. so steer clear from intelligence in meritocracy as it most likely is related to political and ideological convictions obtained in a long study rather than sheer intellect.</p>
<p>in fact, many credentialists are capable of being no dumber than the village idiot.</p>
<p>Meritocracy is pretty much synonymous with intelligence. If you don’t have a high enough IQ, then all the hard work you do will not get you into an elite university. And attending an elite university–a certification of one’s high IQ–is these a key to the upper income brackets.</p>
<p>Working hard =/= working smart.</p>
<p>/topic</p>
<p>cool, to an extent it can be, but not necessarily. again, meritocracy is not solely synonymous with intelligence. that is subject to the vicissitudes of interpretation and, moreover, intelligence is not bound by mere academics. academia = knowledge (and to a degree intelligence) but intelligence is not just academics. it is different just like an iq and a standardized test can be.</p>
<p>Meritocracy might not SOLELY be based on intelligence, but it mostly is, as far as college admissions is concerned. Moreover, the kids who try the HARDEST in high school/earlier are most likely to be the ones for whom effort had previously paid off–i.e, the smarter kids. So you have this feedback loop where intelligence influences the eagerness to exert effort.</p>
<p>Elite universities are ruthless about selecting kids based on IQ–and the SATs/ACT standardized tests are essentially designed to streamline students into schools based on their intellectual capacity. Those tests are disguised IQ tests, period. The reports of people making tremendous gains are false. The average increase after coaching is like 50 points.</p>
<p>pandem, will a kid who has a 4.0 gpa and a 1070 math/verbal SAT (and, say, all the extra stuff) get into Yale/Harvard? The Dean’s who view that student’s application will know that, intellectually, that student will be outclassed by the substantial majority of his classmates. They will NOT be eager to select that student, despite the spectacular GPA and everything. Those dean’s look at the student and say “this student is not intelligent enough to attend this university.” THAT’s meritocracy in action.</p>
<p>lots of people hate roe v. wade in this country (mainly the religious right) and want to overturn it. the litigator in that case was an obvious well-qualified credentialist who wreaked havoc for millions in this country. the issue is not whether abortion was the right social/ideological move but, rather, if people found it disconcerting and that it miserably changed the lives of many as well as raising questions of morality and human life. so, despite having the credentials, many argue the meritocratic lady in the case pulled this country into despair because of her decision. and that’s what meritocracy advocates: pick the professional degree no matter what else is at stake.</p>
<p>^and i think we’re kind of veering away from the op but i just thought i can point this out. george bush as another horrific example of meritocracy. harvard grad = miserable presidency; clinton = georgetown, great economy. of course there are exceptions to all people but meritocracy is a very skewed and extra idealistically form of government that does not pay heed to other factors.</p>
<p>The emphasis on credentials these days is a result of the Supreme Court banning companies from using IQ tests to screen employers. Companies still care about IQ, so they result to giving emphasis to proxies for IQ–degrees, the institution that bestowed the degrees, SAT scores, etc. </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co</a>.</p>
<p>It’s not that they care about IQs, it’s that they want to find some quick and easy way to measure intelligence and potential for success and they grab on to “IQ” as this magic determiner that is supposed to find the best people for them to hire.</p>