Is There a ‘Tyranny of Meritocracy’ In Higher Education?
Lani Guinier, Harvard Law professor certainly seems to think so.
Richard Greenwald writes at the Boston Globe:
‘The Tyranny of the Meritocracy’ by Lani Guinier
We all understand the importance of college in the modern economy. This signal economic importance leads to the SAT becoming the sole difference between getting into a great school and potentially being set for life, or not. Students sweat the process. Families spend thousands to prepare children, and schools pride themselves on their students’ average SAT scores.
It’s time, writes Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier, that we question not just the value of that one test, but frankly, the entire system that claims this test measures merit. “[W]e need to change our understanding of merit,” she says–it is too narrow. Her new book, “The Tyranny of the Meritocracy,’’ “propose[s] a new framework, one focused on advancing democratic rather than testocratic merit.” It is a scheme that reminds colleges that their duty “is to give students an educational experience in which merit is cultivated, not merely scored.”
The first half of the book details her critique of the current system, the main problem being that “the SAT still promises something it can’t deliver: a way to measure merit.” According to Guinier, research shows little correlation between SAT scores and first-year college grades. There is, however, a link between income, race, and test results. “If we can agree that the SAT, LSAT, and other standardized tests most reliably measure a student’s household income, ethnicity, and level of parental education,” says Guinier, “then can we see that reliance on such test scores narrows the student body to those who come from particular households.”
Comments
“If we can agree that the SAT, LSAT, and other standardized tests most reliably measure a student’s household income, ethnicity, and level of parental education…”
That seems like a very big “if” she wants us to agree on. Everything I have read over the last few decades says that the SAT etc do indeed correlate with academic success. And why does you only mention first-year grades, what about correlation with second- and third- and fourth-year grades?
Wasn’t this chick the one Clinton tried to appoint as Attorney General but it all fell apart after critics pointed to her writings advocating ideologically driven reforms in voting? Abrogating the one-man, one-vote jurisdprudence in favor of making some votes (minorities, of course) much more equal than others? How is this scheme any different, just further up the supply line of prospective progs to be manipulated.
That’s exactly right. She’s the lawyer Clinton nominated to be that Administration’s Holder. An anti-American, race-mongering, guilt-peddling, not-so-bright elitist with a fancy Affirmative-Action Ivy League degree and an active disdain for American values and American exceptionalism. Hers is the classic European view of man: There are no Natural Rights (except her right to enslave you to the State) – and any privileges a subject might enjoy are temporary and come only from the state and are meted out to one’s subjects, based on political advantage.
“Meritocracy”?!?? I would say “Certainly NOT! Mediacracy rules!”