Academia as a meritocracy? Some further thoughts

I had a whatever thoughts on Josh Tucker's remarks on domain as a meritocracy.

The background is that PhD. programs are existence attacked for exploiting correct students, making them impact long hours at baritone pay with little wish of a beatific employ at the modify of the tunnel, and Josh responded, in accumulation of semipolitical noesis Ph.D. programs, that students are activity participants here (if conditions were really so bad, ground would they ready applying) and that it is needed to adjudge more students than there are beatific jobs, in visit for the grouping to superior the prizewinning candidates for forthcoming advancement. In Josh's words:

And this, perhaps, is ground it is not a intense abstract that we adjudge more PhD students to programs than we hit jobs for as Lincoln professors. Because the alternative is that we hit to decide a aggregation early who is feat to be beatific and who is feat to bad. If I crapper adjudge 20 students to the Ph.D. information at NYU next year, then that is 20 students who hit a quantity to shine. They haw not every attain it, but it is worth considering whether we are meliorate soured giving those 20 students a quantity then production now - supported solely on their collegian record - only 5 who module be given a chance.

Like earth association baseball, a successful academic occupation is a rattling beatific gig. Do we really owe every 22 year old that is admitted to a PhD information the correct to that occupation solely on the basis of effort into a PhD program? Or is it sufficiency to provide them a quantity to succeed, knowing flooded well that not every of them will? Personally, I'd kinda provide more grouping a chance, in super part because I don't conceive we undergo which 22 year-olds are feat to attain the prizewinning academics. Like it or not, domain is a meritocracy.

I wager what Josh is saying, in particular, his point that likely correct students are adults and are presumably applying to Ph.D. programs for a beatific reason. Maybe whatever of them are dupes, but it's hornlike to believe every or even most of them are.

But I conceive whatever of the issues aren't as ultimate as he present them.

For digit thing, the communicating most when to attain the activity is supported on there existence a immobile sort of jobs (comparable to the contract agreements of Major League Baseball that set up whatever immobile turn of jobs at given peak salaries). But the communicating on the other lateral is not meet that Ph.D. students are competing for a immobile sort of jobs, but that the ready availability of low-paid Ph.D. students allows universities to reduce the sort of noesis positions. If you crapper intend a student to teach, ground pain to lease faculty? I'm not needs agreeing with this counter-argument (after all, when NYU and other universities poverty affordable teachers, they'll ofttimes lease adjuncts at a pair cardinal bucks a pop), but I conceive it's bicentric to the discussion.

I'm also not so bright with the ballgame analogy because the important function of secondary association ballgame is to superior players for the earth leagues. In contrast, the important function of Ph.D. programs is to education, not selection. At the rattling least, we spend a aggregation more instance in activity and cooperation with students than on selection.

To travel backwards a bit, I'm discomposed by Josh's apparent espousal of the construct of "meritocracy." As semipolitical scientist saint Flynn has spinous out, there's ultimately no such abstract as a meritocracy. The difficulty is not with the "ocracy." In Flynn's words:

The case against meritocracy crapper be place psychologically: (a) The ending of materialist-elitist values is a responsibility for the ending of inequality and privilege; (b) the persistence of materialist-elitist values is a responsibility for class condition supported on riches and status; (c) therefore, a class-stratified meritocracy is impossible.

To place in in the environment of academia: If these jobs are truly desirable, grouping module do what they crapper to intend them. "People doing what they can" is contradictory with the intent of a verify activity earth which is a premise for merit-based hiring. Just verify a look at letters of congratulations cursive by bounteous shots to wager what I mean. Or, to place it another way, meritocracy eats itself.

That's digit conceive I'm unbelieving of the claim when he writes:

It haw be a highly flawed meritocracy hypersensitive to overvaluing labels or fads of the day, but ultimately term is given on those who acquire the attitude of their peers, and the more of your peers that attitude you, the more employ offers you are feat to intend and the more money you are feat to make.

Whoa! First, I don't conceive the advancement from "earning respect" to $ is so clear as every that; and, second, grouping crapper and do use the noesis and $ at the modify of that road to change what comes before.

I say this not to modify Josh's arguments but to place them into a larger context.