Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Blog #7

The two most significant academic sources that I use a great deal in my paper are Biographies of Hegemony by Karen Ho and The Tyranny of the Meritocracy by Lani Guinier.

 I am using Karen Ho's "culture of smartness" to explain how Ivy Leagues define success. Success is defined as being not only intelligent but wealthy (elite) as well. Ho explains that the "culture of smartness" is "central to understanding Wall Street. 'Smartness' means much more than individual intelligence; it conveys a naturalized an generic sense of 'impressiveness,' of elite pinnacle status and expertise which is used to signify worthiness" (Ho, 167). Ho explains that yes, Ivy league students have to be smart but they have to be more than that. Being smart just ins't enough, its about the facade and exclusivity that makes the elite and their jobs so admirable to society. The illusion that one can start from the bottom and work their way up to one day working on Wall Street is simply that, an illusion.

I believe that Ivy leagues define success the way they do because society allows them to do it. Society allows them to by accepting testocratic merit and not questioning that although this is simple and easy, that that might be the problem. Until society starts promoting democratic meritocracy, Ivy League schools will continue to only accept based off of test scores and elite business will only recruit from society's "best" that attend these elite institutions. 


This definition is allowed in our society because testocratic merit is valued over democratic merit, two terms that Lani Guinier explains in her book. Society tries to find simple answers to complex questions, that is just human nature. So when society wants to rank intelligence it is much easier to test students with the SATs rather than taking into consideration any external disadvantages students may face. It is extremely easy for wealthy students to perform well on exams like the SATs as it isn't about knowing the material but being able to guess and answer questions quickly. Those who have the finances are trained with numerous prep courses, not to learn what they are being tested on but learn how to take the test. Those who are of the lower class, no matter how smart cannot compete with those taught how to guess correctly. Guinier explains that "Our over-emphasis on the testocracy has us confusing merit with speed and confidence to guess” (Guinier, 81). This is why democratic merit should be used. Society should base intelligence off of how well students comprehend what they are learning. That way all students can display their intelligence without wealth determining the their future. This merit is based off of motivation, time management and pure intelligence, something that wealth cannot buy.



No comments:

Post a Comment