Urap aal sexci garal
If there’s a modern Grant with poor grades but excellent real-world fighting ability, are we confident our modern educationocracy will find him? Remember that IQ correlates with chess talent at a modest r = 0.24, and chess champion Garry Kasparov has only a medium-high IQ of 135.
If Kasparov’s educational success matched his IQ, he might or might not have made it into Harvard; he certainly wouldn’t have been their star student.
Some of them have been specifically told “You do great work, and we think you’d be a great candidate for a management position, but it’s our policy that we can’t promote someone to a manager unless they’ve gone to college”.
Some of these people are too poor to afford to go to college.
Then they go to Harvard and dazzle their professors with their sparkling wit and dapper suits. There’s a weird assumption throughout all these articles, that meritocracy is founded on the belief that smart people deserve good jobs as a reward for being smart.
Then they get hired right out of college to high-paying management positions at Chase-Bear-Goldman-Sallie-Manhattan-Stearns-Sachs-Mae-FEDGOV. Freddie de Boer, in his review of yet another anti-meritocracy book, puts it best: I reject meritocracy because I reject the idea of human deserts.
Real meritocracy is what you get when you ignore the degrees and check who can actually win a chess game.
If so, we’ll never know; all three of those occupations are gradually shifting to acceptance conditional on college performance.
Ulysses Grant graduated in the bottom half of his West Point class, but turned out to be the only guy capable of matching General Lee and winning the Civil War after a bunch of superficially better-credentialed generals failed.
If you prefer the former, you’re a meritocrat with respect to surgeons.
Generalize a little, and you have the argument for being a meritocrat everywhere else.