social selection
The Myth of Meritocracy – Bowles and Gintis
explanation
Bowles & Gintis describe the education system as a giant myth-making machine. A key myth that education promotes is the myth of meritocracy. Bowles & Gintis argue that meritocracy does not exist. They argue social selection is not based on intelligence, hard work and effort, but on social factors.
evidence
Evidence shows that the main factor determining whether a person has a high income is their family and class background.
For example - just 7% of the UK public attended private school, which compares to 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, and 50% of members of the House of Lords.
All too often occupations are achieved not on the basis of ability or what you know but rather who you know which in the past has led to sons (particularly) of the ruling class attaining a high status occupation once they have completed public school and Oxbridge – a process known as elite self-recruitment.
E.g. Ex PM Cameron & the current PM Boris Johnson both went to Public (private) Schools.
Therefore, rather than the education system being a neutral filter as argued by Functionalists, it is more like a class filter, ensuring the middle-class leave the education system with the skills needed for middle-class jobs and the working-class leave only able to gain a working-class job.
By disguising this fact, the myth of meritocracy serves to justify the privileges of the higher classes, making it seem that they have been selected for their roles through open and fair competition at school.
The education system also justifies poverty, through what Bowles and Gintis describe as the 'poor-are-dumb' theory of failure. It does so by blaming poverty on the individual ('I'm poor because I wasn't clever enough / didn't work hard enough at school'), rather than on capitalism. It therefore plays an important part in reconciling workers to their exploited position, making them less likely to rebel against the system.
evaluation
Feminist Jackson would criticise Bowles & Gintis as they don’t acknowledge that social selection is not equal according to gender. In fact, girls are preferred in education due to the introduction of league tables, this is because girls statistically perform better than boys in education.
New Right Realists Chubb & Moe would argue that education needs to be unequal to make it fair, they propose a voucher system where schools are allowed to select students they want and in turn this increases competition and makes sure the most talented go to the best schools. This ensures there is meritocracy and people are selected according to their ability.