Too much merit or not enough?

A better way to improve selection is to assess merit using valid measures. Personal interviews, for example, have repeatedly been shown to be useless for determining success in higher education. Universities use them as an excuse for rejecting applicants (such as Asian students) who would have otherwise been admitted. Seemingly objective measures may also be biased. When I reviewed higher education admissions in England, I found that some institutions gave preferences to candidates who were Dux (valedictorian) of their school. This policy produced biased outcomes because, in Britain, only private schools have a Dux. (See the report: Fair Admission to Higher Education.)

As noted earlier, using only marks to select students can bias outcomes by ignoring relevant background information. Research shows that disadvantaged candidates - who had the grit to struggle through poor schooling and achieve good marks - may have as much, or even more, potential for higher education than high-ranked candidates whose parents could support their children with private schooling. Ignoring the context in which marks are earned is like assessing an aptitude for piano by comparing those with years of practice to someone who has never had the opportunity to play one.

All Australian universities give some admissions assistance to disadvantaged students. (This is the same as lowering entry standards.) Giving a boost to underprivileged students is fair if universities can calculate how much the marks of disadvantaged students under-predict their performance at university. On the other hand, if the number of bonus points granted to disadvantaged students is simply the number necessary to ensure they are admitted, then the selection system is really a quota - a way of engineering the outcome of the admissions processes.

Well-meaning critics of meritocracy frequently put quotas forward to improve diversity. They believe universities and workplaces should mirror the population. Unfortunately, insisting company boards, parliaments, sporting teams and universities reflect the distribution of different groups in the general population which can lead to perverse outcomes. Robert Taylor illustrates this using a sporting analogy.

The percentage of black American professional basketball players far exceeds their numbers in the wider population. Insisting that the number of black players reflects their share of the general population would mean fewer black basketball players than there are currently. In Taylor's words,the mere fact that a group is overrepresented … does not necessarily imply that they had unfair advantages: … similarly, underrepresentation does not always imply unfair advantages.

Quotas violate commonly held moral sentiments, which require all applicants to have a fair, equal opportunity to compete. In a June 2020 referendum, Californians were asked to permit universities to discriminate among applicants using race and other forms of group identity. The referendum was defeated by 57% to 43%. The majority of voters viewed quotas as unfair.

Fortunately, there are ways to increase equal opportunity without instituting quotas. For example, universities and employers could create outreach programs encouraging qualified candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply for admission and jobs. They can also provide candidates from under-represented groups with enrichment programs that would allow candidates to demonstrate their full potential. If their understanding of the effects of disadvantage is sufficiently precise, universities may also be justified in giving disadvantaged applicants extra admissions points. However, rigging the system so applicants from one group are automatically admitted is the opposite of equal opportunity. It is unfair and leads to a divided, mediocre and economically poorer society.

Conclusions

Early 19^th and 20th-century socialists supported meritocracy as a necessary corrective to the crushing nepotism and social stratification of the past. Conservatives, at the time, opposed it because it threatened traditional hierarchies. The positions are now reversed, with socialists preferring quotas and special treatment while the political right seeks equal opportunity. Such is the nature of modern politics.

Opinion polls and the recent California referendum result make it abundantly clear that the public is largely on the classical liberal side. People understand that a system of meritocracy may produce some degree of social stratification, but they believe the alternatives are much worse. A reward system based on group identity and quotas would reduce social solidarity, breed resentment and make Australia economically poorer.

The best way to address the drawbacks of merit-based selection is to break down artificial barriers, dismantle systemic biases, and ensure that everyone, whatever their background, has a fair shot at achieving their potential. Decades of experiments with various forms of socialism, communitarianism, and so on have all reached the same conclusion. Meritocracy works. Rewarding hard work, dedication, and talent incentivises those with extraordinary abilities to work harder, thereby providing economic and social benefits to everyone in society.

No one admires unearned advancement. Luck may give some people special talents, but even Mozart had to practise. Such hard work deserves reward. Shunning meritocracy is self-defeating both socially and economically. Instead, let's strive to refine and perfect it. A truly liberal meritocracy treats all people fairly, acknowledges our shared humanity, and affords all members of society the opportunity to rise based on their merits. The great American educator Horace Mann called education the great equaliser; it would be a tragic irony to condone unequal treatment to achieve it.