Competences aren't the Only Score: Rethinking Meritocracy in Education

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

These structural failings have deep psychological and cultural effects. When a student repeatedly hears that only test scores matter, failure can become internalized as a personal defect. Wiederkehr et al. (2015) find that low-performing students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to blame themselves and feel inferior. Children told they are not smart may stop trying, even if they have potential.

High-pressure academic environments can also breed intense anxiety and burnout. Salmela-Aro et al. (2008) report that performance-oriented schools contribute to emotional exhaustion and a reduced sense of accomplishment. The "dark side" of meritocracy is this: when success is seen as a moral badge, failure feels like shame. This emotional cost falls heaviest on students who already face structural disadvantages. Culturally, narrow definitions of merit erode diversity. When curricula and honors focus only on test scores or elite profiles, alternative talents like creativity, leadership, or community service are marginalized. Michael Apple (2013) warns that in meritocratic systems, the values of elite culture, competition and individualism dominate, alienating students from cooperative or community-oriented backgrounds.

Reimagining Education Beyond Test Scores

Critics argue that we need to rethink what "merit" should mean in education. It is not enough to tinker at the margins; many call for democratically restructured systems. Instead of assuming everyone starts on equal footing, schools should actively counteract disadvantage. This might mean investing extra resources in low-income schools, expanding early-childhood programs, and reducing academic tracking.

Evan Mandery (2022) argues for "a broader construction of merit" that values diverse strengths and makes college education more democratic. This could involve holistic admissions, portfolios, or community-based criteria instead of sole reliance on test scores. Promoting a "growth mindset" -- the idea that abilities can develop -- can also help mitigate the fixed-ability mindset that strict meritocracy encourages (Dweck, 2006).

On a cultural level, students should be taught to question unfair benchmarks. Publicizing achievement gaps and addressing them directly can help reshape schooling to support diverse talents. Finland offers an example: it avoids high-stakes testing, funds all schools equally, and targets extra support to struggling students. As the OECD (2018) concludes, "no country in the world has entirely eliminated socio-economic inequalities in education," and raising overall quality requires lifting the bottom as much as the top.

The Dilemma of Education Access

It is undeniable that Java Island is the most favored destination for students aiming to pursue higher education in Indonesia. On this island, for instance, UGM and UI are among the country's top universities. One might assume that students who are admitted to these institutions are the best in Indonesia. However, as previously discussed, many of these students benefit from various privileges such as financially capable families, access to quality tutoring services, and well-resourced high schools. In contrast, students from outside Java, especially those from underdeveloped regions, must work significantly harder to gain admission to UGM or UI. In fact, the disparity in access is often so stark that the difficulty of competing becomes overwhelmingly real.

To address this issue, public universities (PTN) in Java often provide affirmative action quotas to help students from disadvantaged regions gain admission, typically through lowered entry standards. As a result, it is not uncommon to find students from 3T (frontier, outermost, and disadvantaged) areas struggling to keep up with the coursework and academic material in these universities. At the same time, this approach sacrifices fairness for students who might have been more academically prepared but were not accepted due to the limited seats taken by affirmative action candidates. This dilemma has sparked ongoing debate and urgently requires concrete solutions from the government and stakeholders.

Conclusion

Our education system is increasingly recognizing that equity matters. While talent and effort deserve recognition, schools must actively break down the barriers that prevent many students from competing fairly. Reimagining education means building structures that are FAIR and equitable for all. By reallocating resources, redefining achievement, and addressing hidden biases, we can move toward a more equitable education. Until then, the dream of pure meritocracy remains just that, a dream. Our

References

Apple, M. W. (2013). Can education change society? Routledge.

Cimen, ., Yel, C., & Karada, E. (2024). Modelling the effectiveness of schools based on their equality of opportunities. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(2), 1--25.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Mandery, E. (2022). Poison Ivy: How elite colleges divide us. The New Press.

OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing.

Rochmes, J. (2020). Educational inequality as a consequence and cause of race. Sociological Forum, 35(1), 2--9.

Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2008). School burnout inventory (SBI): Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 88--94.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What's become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613--629.

UNESCO. (2022). Education: From COVID-19 school closures to recovery. https://www.unesco.org/en/covid-19/education-response