Merkwaardige en uitdagende bijdrage vandaag van de zoon van socioloog en Labour-politicus Michaël Young die in 1958 het spraakmakende boek The rise of meritocracy publiceerde.
De meest uitdagende uitspraak van Toby Young luidt: The trouble is that IQ and an aptitude for hard work are largely inherited characteristics
De algemene conclusie van Toby Young luidt: The more deeply I delve into this discussion, the harder I find it to take sides. But the argument that troubles me most is one that applies to both camps. Suppose we invent a new type of school that meets the objective of nearly everyone in this debate, namely, it severs the link between background and achievement? If we succeed in neutralising all the environmental factors that go hand-in-hand with socio-economic status postcode, diet, parental engagement etc what are we left with? The answer is a meritocratic school in which achievement is solely the product of IQ and effort. The trouble is that IQ and an aptitude for hard work are largely inherited characteristics. Why is a school in which success is dictated by a childs genes fairer than one in which its dictated by socio-economic status? More importantly, theres quite a lot of evidence that children of intelligent, hardworking parents are likely to be smart and industrious, a correlation thats becoming stronger as university graduates engage in assortative mating. (People with similar genotypes pairing up with each other.) This was the shortcoming of meritocratic societies that my father drew attention to in his book on the subject once assortative mating kicks in, social mobility grinds to a halt. All meritocracy succeeds in doing is replacing one hereditary elite with another. Why, then, is it desirable? Instinctively, I like the idea of this new type of school and Ive spent the past six years trying to invent it. But I still havent answered the question posed by my father.
Passages uit Bijdrage van Toby Young in The Spectator Toby Young -21 March 2015 Im working to make education fairer. But Im still not sure what fairer means. The questions my father asked about meritocracy still dont have good answers Civitas has just published an interesting book called The Ins and Outs of Selective Secondary Schools. Edited by Anastasia de Waal, its a collection of essays by the usual suspects in the never-ending argument about grammar schools.
As youd expect, those who believe in school selection, such as the Conservative MP Graham Brady, argue that clever children from poor families are likely to do better at grammars than comprehensives. Exhibit A in the case for the defence is the dominance of the professions by the products of independent schools, something that wasnt true before Tony Crosland set out to destroy every fucking grammar school in England.
.
.The more deeply I delve into this discussion, the harder I find it to take sides. But the argument that troubles me most is one that applies to both camps. Suppose we invent a new type of school that meets the objective of nearly everyone in this debate, namely, it severs the link between background and achievement? If we succeed in neutralising all the environmental factors that go hand-in-hand with socio-economic status postcode, diet, parental engagement etc what are we left with? The answer is a meritocratic school in which achievement is solely the product of IQ and effort. The trouble is that IQ and an aptitude for hard work are largely inherited characteristics. Why is a school in which success is dictated by a childs genes fairer than one in which its dictated by socio-economic status? More importantly, theres quite a lot of evidence that children of intelligent, hardworking parents are likely to be smart and industrious, a correlation thats becoming stronger as university graduates engage in assortative mating. (People with similar genotypes pairing up with each other.) This was the shortcoming of meritocratic societies that my father drew attention to in his book on the subject once assortative mating kicks in, social mobility grinds to a halt. All meritocracy succeeds in doing is replacing one hereditary elite with another. Why, then, is it desirable? Instinctively, I like the idea of this new type of school and Ive spent the past six years trying to invent it. But I still havent answered the question posed by my father.
Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.
|