Competences aren't the Only Score: Rethinking Meritocracy in Education
Many of us instinctively embrace the ideal of educational meritocracy, the notion that schools reward talent and effort fairly. This vision is appealing: we want to believe that a gifted child from a poor family can rise to the top through hard work, and that a struggling student from a privileged background isn't unfairly advantaged. Yet mounting evidence suggests this ideal is largely a myth. In practice, factors beyond individual effort, including family wealth, race, and even random chance, significantly influence who succeeds. As political philosopher Michael Sandel (2020) argues, "Meritocracy today functions less as an alternative to inequality than as its primary justification". In other words, calling the system "meritocratic" often serves to legitimize social hierarchies rather than to dismantle them.
Surveys and studies confirm that most people still believe in school meritocracy, that achievement is earned through talent and hard work (Wiederkehr et al., 2015). But the data tell a different story. For example, an OECD report finds that disadvantaged 15-year-olds score, on average, about 88 points lower in PISA science than advantaged peers, roughly a three-year learning gap (OECD, 2018). Even in wealthy countries, family background strongly predicts test scores and graduation rates. Wiederkehr et al. (2015) explain, "recurrent evidence shows that other factors, including social class and gender, are important and consistent predictors of school performance," meaning that "merit is not the only determinant of school success".
Structural Inequities: Class, Race, and Inequality
A first obstacle to true meritocracy is socioeconomic inequality. Schools are embedded in society, so children from poor families often attend under-resourced schools, lack tutoring or enrichment, and may even work or care for relatives outside class. In many places, nearly half of poor children are tracked into the worst schools. For example, in Trkiye nearly 50% of disadvantaged students attend disadvantaged schools, showing how family background limits access to opportunity (OECD, 2018).
In under-resourced countries the pattern is even more extreme. UNESCO (2022) reports that over 1.6 billion students worldwide were affected by schooling disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the most vulnerable were hit hardest. Even aside from the pandemic, education funding often favors already-advantaged groups. Cimen et al. (2024) find that "when the school-based socioeconomic level increases by one unit for disadvantaged students, there is an approximately 60-point increase in academic achievement". This suggests that a student's fate is heavily influenced by peers and resources -- not by individual merit.
Race, ethnicity, and cultural background create additional barriers. In many countries schools still reproduce historic racial hierarchies. Rochmes (2020) writes, "racial inequality has become a normalized backdrop within U.S. education, following the prevailing racial hierarchy in society". Stereotypes can also depress achievement: African-American and Latino students often face low expectations or biased tracking. In laboratory and field experiments, Claude Steele (1997) found that mere reminder of negative stereotypes (e.g., "girls are bad at math") can "dramatically depress" test performance. Over time, this "stereotype threat" can lead students to disengage from school or avoid challenging courses.
Other structural policies also undercut meritocratic ideals. Many countries use standardized tests or tracking to sort children early, but these exams tend to favor those with good preparation. High-stakes tests are intended to measure talent, but research shows they often increase stress without improving fairness. Salmela-Aro et al. (2008) found that students under relentless academic pressure report elevated cortisol levels and experience academic burnout and anxiety.
Even beyond wealth and race, legacy admissions and nepotism undermine merit. Elite institutions often reserve slots for alumni children or athletes, valuing pedigree over performance. At Harvard in the 1920s, administrators explicitly sought to admit the "well-rounded" student by considering personality and family background (Karabel, 2005). Today, legacy preferences continue to favor those with inherited advantage. Sandel (2020) notes that even the most successful students often owe their gains to factors beyond themselves like supportive parents, excellent schools, or luck, yet tend to believe their success is fully desert. This belief discourages questioning of the system.
Impacts on Students' Psyche and Culture
