The two articles selected for this essay is “From social class and the hidden curriculum of work” (RA 136) by Jean Anyon and “Don’t send your kids to the Ivy League” (RA 200) by William Deresiewicz. Jean describes meritocracy by relating it to schools setup in which he states that “It’s no surprise that schools in wealthy communities are better than those in poor communities, or that they better prepare their students for desirable jobs” (Anyon, 2014). He acknowledges how shocking the differences do not depend so much in resources. William on the other hand argues on the account of the school admission system where he states that “the weakness of admission system is that the system is exacerbating inequality, rich students easily enter elite schools and the weakness affects the students painfully insecure” (Deresiewicz, 2014). Overall, the myth of meritocracy is a term in political philosophy used to define a system where tools of power are managed or rather governed by certain individuals on the basis of merit i.e. achievements and talents and rather not on their money or social status. In today’s culture, the myth is literally in use in most schools and in my honest opinion the myth, to some extent, is most likely to be true.

From social class and the hidden curriculum of work

            Jean had been monitoring five elementary schools over a full school year and came into conclusion that all the fifth graders of various schools who were from different economic backgrounds had already equipped themselves to occupy particular rungs on the social ladder. His article is sourced from a journal of education that was published in 1980 and the main target audience is the professional educators. The author argues that public schools in complex industrial societies inflict different types of educational experiences and curriculum knowledge to students of different social strata. For example, “students in different social-class backgrounds are rewarded for classroom behaviors that correspond to personality traits allegedly rewarded in the different occupational strata–the working classes for docility and obedience, the managerial classes for initiative and personal assertiveness” (Bowles and Gintis).

Other scholars argue that knowledge and skills that could lead to social power and regard are made available to the socially advantaged while technical curriculum are offered to the working classes. Jean Anyon’s Article, From social class and the hidden curriculum of work, claims that the myth of meritocracy is rampant in most elementary schools where schools are classified into four categories which include working class schools, middle class schools, affluent professional school and executive elite schools. The hidden curriculum of work is administered differently from one class of the schools to the other, for example, in the working class schools; work is procedural and is usually mechanical where disciplines are taught shallowly with no much explanation involving rote behavior and very little to no decision making unlike the other classes of schools in the social strata.

Jean’s argument is somewhat effective for the target audience from the contrast and comparison he makes between the schoolwork and social class contexts concluding that “Differing curricular, pedagogical, and pupil evaluation practices emphasize different cognitive and behavioral skills in each social setting and thus contribute to the development in the children of certain potential relationships to physical and symbolic capital, to authority, and to the process of work” (Anyon, 2014). The preciseness and detailed information and examples relayed in the article make it an effective argument.

Don’t send your kids to the Ivy League

            William Deresiewicz shares the same opinion to that of Jean as he too argues that rich students can easily enter elite schools compared to students from federal poverty level class. He states that the admission system is exacerbating inequality which does not uphold diversity i.e. it does not entirely represent the social revolution. The unfairness realized with the admission system results from the difference in parental income where wealthy families find a way to admit their children into elite schools from the period they are born unlike the case associated with the working class in the social strata. The author states that despite the excellence of the elite education system, “it manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they’re doing but with no idea why they’re doing it” (Deresiewicz, 2014).

This article is intended to target the professional educators and is equally a scholarly journal. William states that parents should not bother sending their kids to the Ivy League with the claims that the kids there are drilled and are aligned in a direction that their education marked out for them. The authors argument on the myth of meritocracy is affirmative and I agree that most elite schools that admit students on basis of social strata exacerbates inequality and produces students that are not diverse or rather passionate of the ideas obtained from education. School should be a part of intellectual development and discovery.

Generally, the two authors of the articles seem to share the same ideology on how they understand the myth of meritocracy. Both authors acknowledge most elementary schools are divided into various categories based on the social status which result to the admission of students in schools unfairly based on their social strata confirming the assertion of meritocracy. Both authors conquer that rich kids are more likely to be admitted to elite schools and affluent executive schools while the poor ones are admitted working class schools. However, William claims that the kids in elite schools stand high chances of drilling and are not passionate of what they do while Jean on the other hand acknowledges the quality of education provided to students in elite schools that would earn them high end jobs e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. The society would perpetuate the myth of meritocracy to be a heinous act that condones discrimination of other students and individuals of different social strata. The myth has impacted an act of inequality and unfairness denying potential students the access of quality education on the account of their social status.

Therefore, the myth of meritocracy, in my opinion, is an unjust action which infringes other student’s access to proper education and concerned bodies should look into it to amend the situation where students can compete favorably. Tentatively, I would agree with the presentation of the two sources because of the precise and clear explanations with the use of proper examples to illustrate the myth of meritocracy in the simplest of ways. However, the case of meritocracy is not a rampant issue in today’s society but it is on a rapid rising state that needs to be curbed to avoid inequality in future scenario. Lastly, I see no importance of the myth of meritocracy not unless it would advantage all the individuals of different social status.

Works Cited

Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, eds. Rereading America: Cultural contexts for critical thinking and writing. St. Martin’s Press, 2016.

Deresiewicz, William. “Don’t send your kid to the Ivy League.” New Republic 21 (2014).

Anyon, Jean. “Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.” Journal of education 162.1           (2014): 67-92.

1. Bowles and H. Gintes, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life (New York: Basic Books, 2016).

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?