In Young’s meritocracy, if ranking of individuals is simplistically based on IQ + Effort, then the ones who achieve good academic scores will inevitably get the best status jobs with opportunities for social mobility and those who fare poorly, and will end up doing unskilled, menial jobs. Although literature often views qualifications or IQ+Effort as the same, there are inherent differences, as good exam scores are usually linked to intelligence. However, confusion has arisen when trying to distinguish between ‘achieved’ and ‘meritocratic’ characteristics and the changing definitions of these terms over time.
In the research article Education, Meritocracy and Redistribution, Souto’Otero (2010) agrees that meritocratic arguments hold that both IQ and effort determine levels of educational attainment. He argues that in current meritocratic debates, mainly effort is highlighted and focused on, when explaining good academic achievement in relation to positions in the income distribution. Furthermore, the role of education is not linked to and cannot guarantee equality because of its links to rewards in the labour market. Therefore a good education with good academic achievement will more likely make the person more marketable and consequently of more value to the labour market.
The way we view education and how it affects the labour market, leads to other controversial issues associated with meritocracy and Lampert(2013) argues that there are several problems with Young’s theory. Young acknowledges that meritocracy is not a skills based division of labour, and because of this, it is implied that we should be ruled by the skilled and intelligent . This leads to questions such as: ‘Who are the skilled and intelligent?’ Lampert further goes on to argue that, it is very difficult if not impossible to define the term ‘skills’ adequately. Secondly, is the question of how skills are assessed for various tasks which need to be performed or whether in fact, people are born with these skills. Thirdly, he identified a wide range of jobs where no skills are required, except the will to perform the job e.g. mopping floors. He questions whether a true meritocratic society can exist.
According to Breen and Goldthorpe (2001) the controversial issue of ‘meritocracy’ can be addressed more effectively if the way it has changed over time is taken into consideration along with several other factors such as good academic attainment, the amount of effort which is put in, as well as natural ability. These factors play an important role in the way a person is shaped to suit their role in the process of social selection as they progress into their future labour roles in society, Similarly, Lampert defines Meritocracy as ‘a social ideaology of education, which on some level could be egalitarian but is ultimately meant to groom the ‘excellent’ for positions of influence, scientific development, decision making and leadership. He believes that the role of educations is a long process whereby the most talented remain to take up the most important roles in society.'(2013 p2)
In Allen’s (2011) Philosophical Critique of Michael Young’s ‘Rise of the Meritocracy’ , which infact coined the term ‘meritocracy’ , he questions whether meritocracy exists in everyday society or whether it is simply an idealistic notion to which just and advanced societies strive. Allen further claims that the theory of ‘meritocracy’, has since been promoted as a positive ideal, and used quite loosely, much to Young’s dismay, by political leaders such as Tony Blair (Young, 1994/2006, 2001). The idea of meritocracy has also become increasingly difficult to define as some theorists have claimed that it has and still is evolving over time. This lack of clarity may relate to the fact that the concept of "merit" is deeply contingent on our views of society and the criteria used to allocate status to different groups of people.
M.Jackson (2001),argues if ascriptive criteria are to be superseded by achievement criteria, and future job roles in society are given to achievers based on merit, then how does one actually define merit and what would be the criteria we base these decisions on? The difference between an achievement culture and an ascriptive culture is not difficult to understand. Achieved status refers to doing whereas ascribed status refers to being. Achievement refers to judgements which are based on accomplishments and on a track record assigned by teachers in secondary reflected in reports and summative exams. Ascription on the otherhand is a natural status which is attributed by birthright, kinship, gender, age, interpersonal connections, or educational record. Achieved status in essence, refers to doing whereas ascribed status refers to being. Despite the fact that status has become more achievable, Lampert (2012) believes that it is wise to appoint people to positions based on merit; however, not when people are judged to have a certain kind of merit, which means that they belong to a certain class where there is no room for anyone else. Similarly, American sociologists Talcott Parsons (1940) and Daniel Bell (1976) British Journal of Sociology of Education 767 Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] September 2013 advanced similar theories that as societies modernised, social selection would be based on achievement and not ascription.
Another problem with meritocracy according to Daniel Bell(1972), is the issue of meritocracy versus equality. In this scenario, the two types of equality namely: opportunity and result, have to be understood in the context that equal opportunity can lead to an unequal result. Bell understood that societies’ views on equality and equal opportunity were changing and he also realized that even if an environment was equal, the results in terms of salary remuneration, wealth and status might not always be achieved. Furthermore, if society wanted to achieve a true Meritocracy, then it would need to relook at the way children were assessed and the weight that summative examination results carried, when deciding if the education system and the process itself was equal. Generally with regard to this issue, the definitions of merit are split between two opposing views. The first one is that merit should be awarded when high scores and good attainment reflected in school records have been achieved and this would show an aptitude or potential of a student toward a certain high status job or particular role in society. The second places its emphasis on the role of IQ and how its role in the ‘OED’ triangle.