Jan 24th 2024
In debates about DEI, I often hear merit being simplified to either being a product of hard work/ intelligence or an anti-justice lucky head start. In this blog I will think through the concept of raw meritocracy as a dynamic interplay between merit and privilege— where merit is measured not just by where you finish, but by how far you've come from where you started.
I saw the debates framed as a tug of war between "I am here because I am smarter & worked harder" versus, "You are there because of your daddy's money".
No one is born with merit, nor can it be handed down. I believe people shape their own destinies through intelligence, focus, and hard work. While some may start with advantages, what truly defines merit is how they use those advantages. Two people can have access to the same resources—whether education, connections, or financial support—but not everyone makes the most of them. In the end, hard work and consistency set apart those who achieve great things from those who don't.
Moreover, the closer you get to reality, the more you see that people often act in their own self-interest rather than out of compassion. At the core, most are more likely to work with you if they see value in doing so, rather than feeling bad for you.
On the other hand, Michael Sandel in his book, "The Tyranny of Merit" pointed out that the belief that merit comes solely from personal talent and hard work misses a huge part of the picture. In reality, many people benefit from advantages—e.g good schools, strong networks, and finances. We can call them acceleration forces—that aren't available to everyone.
My main concern here is not about an unjust system–which is a just reality we got used to since Gates said "get used to it" XD. My major concern is that by only focusing on the final distance point, we are missing the underlying acceleration forces. If persons A & B have achieved the same distance at the same time, while only A has been compoundly accelerated, how fast can B actually go?
That being said, I am not asking to feel compassion for those who have achieved the same merit as others who have been accelerated or had a head start, I am in fact asking to think of their undervalued potential.
Robert Merton's concept of the Matthew Effect also plays a significant role here. In scientific research, Merton observed that small initial advantages tend to accumulate over time—"the rich get richer." That is not to dismiss the privileged merit but rather think how someone born with fewer privileges must often exert exponentially more effort (or merit) to achieve the same outcome as someone with a head start.
Recently, I have been reviewing applications for the UWC Egypt committee (Which sent me to Norway early on for high school). The paradox of this selection is not only that the committee gets around 1000 applications each year for only 4 spots, but also how many unprivileged & privileged intelligent students there are. We were given criteria assessing maturity, independent thought, social and political awareness…etc with some consideration to the socioeconomic background of the students. It was in fact the first thing I always looked at before looking at their merits. My scoring thesis was this simple metaphorical equation:
Raw Rate of Merit = Merit / Privilege
I had a lot of respect for young students who were intelligent, courageous, and fortunate to be working on ambitious engineering projects in international/STEM schools. I also had the same respect for modest applications from the working class students in Arabic public schools utilizing whatever resources they had. I was aware that their odds of discovery and acceleration is super low. On the other hand, those who are in international schools have lots more resources and already can apply directly to study abroad. Considering the super low acceptance rate, I ended up being more lenient with those who conjured something out of nothing
By considering this raw rate of merit, I could see beyond simplistic narratives. This approach doesn't dismiss the value of hard work, nor does it undermine the reality of structural advantages. I did not think it was fair to score higher for someone just because they are better in the "current" data point. Neither I thought it was fair to score higher for someone just because they had suffered a lot in life. Instead, this formula scope was the closest comprehensive evaluation of how much students can utilise resources and progress in life.
You should never be ashamed, disappointed, or blamed for your socioeconomic background.
If you are < zero point e.g in underserved areas, it is hard. You should be solving for moving out instead of maximising potential. I hope the world's globalization keeps accelerating.
If you are >= the zero point , show the world your raw rate of merit. The less resources the more the likelihood of necessary and unnecessary failures. Iteration of velocity's direction while keeping speed constant is a wonderful optimization scope for choosing what to focus on.
If you are gifted >> 0, never be ashamed of your daddy's money, none of the previous would choose to be there over here. Make the best out of it.
In the hike of life, it's not just about reaching the summits—it's about how far we have come, who we met, when we fell, and where we had to crawl. There is a lot that makes life intrinsically meaningful with all its variations of forces. Hoping all the hikers a wonderful trail.