Adrian Wooldridge | Meritocracy Debate | Opposition (4/8) | Oxford Union
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again...The idea of meritocracy has dominated political discourse since the term was coined by Michael Young in 1958. More than 60 years on, accusations of cronyism and inequality still hound The Establishment. In a society where wealth, education, and connections are crucial, the merit of meritocracy is drawn into question. Is meritocracy a failed relic of the past or a guiding light for the future?
--------------------------------------
Proposition Speakers
1. Professor Daniel Markovits
Professor of Law at Yale Law School. In 2019, he authored The Meritocracy Trap, in which he argues that ‘meritocracy has become the single greatest obstacle to equal opportunities in America today’.
2. Adam Boulton
Current Editor-at-large of Sky News and presenter of All Out Politics and Week In Review. He has written for publications including The Times, The Guardian, The Spectator, The New Statesman and The Independent.
3. Sarah Atkinson
CEO of the Social Mobility Foundation, which offers support networks and opportunities to students from lower-income backgrounds.
--------------------------------------
Opposition Speakers
1. Adrian Wooldridge
Current Political Editor and columnist for The Economist. Earlier this year he published The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World.
2. Helen Goulden
CEO of The Young Foundation, which aims to develop better connected communities across the UK in a bid to tackle strutural inequality. The Foundation has incubated over 80 organisations including the Open University.
3. Bim Afolami MP
Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden. He is the patron of numerous charities, including Harpenden Spotlight on Africa, Growing Resilience in Teens, and Tilehouse Counselling.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Very well argued. I especially liked his response that we ought to address the inequalities of our current meritocracy not with less meritocracy, but *more* meritocracy. Yes, the system is imperfect, but that doesn't mean that we should just scrap it. Instead, we ought work on ways to ensure that undeserved biases/advantages do not deprive other people of their equal opportunity, and seek to effectively reward talent/contribution/effort instead.
He also makes a fantastic point in stressing the lack of a realistic alternative. You can complain and critique the current meritocracy all you want, but unless you have a better idea, then it's ultimately an argument without purpose. The historical systems he mentioned (inheritance, nepotism, patronage, etc.) are obviously much worse in terms of propagating inequality and inaccessibility, so unless you've got some innovative new social system to introduce, we're just going to have to do our best with what we currently have.
" do not deprive other people of their equal opportunity" how can this happen with a monopoly?
Who's talking about less meritocracy...¿?
Your parent has a responsibility to teach you everything that they know and to help prepare you for the future. IF that includes giving you a job at a family-owned business, they should do it out of love and a sense of pride for someone that they are creating because that which they have taught you affects how you interact with society and the contributions that you make.
Meritocracy: Choosing the best. Non-Merit: Choosing a random person from a lottery to fill a quota. Hmmm, which one works better? Hmmm...
of course we must choose "the best" for every role, but with that comes the diminishment of NOT "the best". no one would want to board an airplane being fled by an unqualified pilot, rather, this debate is concerned with the circumstances that lead to, to put it in ur terms, "the best" and not "the best" pilots.
The question is how do you end up being the best? And what is the overall causal effect to society by giving all or most of societal rewards to the best? What happens to the 2e best etc. It seems to generate unequal societies, which tend to correlate with higher crimes etc.
@@kwabsofori1902 That's a ridiculous statement. The 'best' doesn't attain all of the rewards and leaving zero to everyone else. We can see this in society already. Is the best basketball player playing by themselves? And what is your alternative? A society that rewards nothing breeding hopelessness as in the communism/socialist world? Come on.
No one is defending Non-merit... What are you talking about...¿?
@@KarinaLlanos Yes, they are.
He is ridiculous, I don’t think he has ever met people on welfare at all. What a clown
I am self-made my mother is illiterate and my father is an alcoholic. No one guides me in the journey of life . I have pass many difficulties and solve many problems myself. But sometimes I feel so unsatisfied and cried alone if i had the opportunities which many of my friends got i would be better than them when we are in equal position even though i am lacking in support and wisdom from parents
I want to tell you, strongly believe in yourself.
Keep going
I am sending you good vibes and I want to share this wisdom with you: th-cam.com/video/gUKMj2JMLqY/w-d-xo.html
Bravo!!!!
Do all the debates get published?
any in particular you looking for?
@@nathan_b6276 Travolta Vs Swayze
Competition is healthy and fun as long as it is friendly. No? I agree that the word meritocracy tends to be used in a way that justifies privilege…and that IS problematic.good points on both sides resonate with me. Thanks for this.
Parents become successful and wealthy, kids get better opportunities. Yeah thats how it works, the merit of the parent is what set up their future generations. Why is it only considered fair if we all start off poor and and from scratch/zero? Fair is fair and thats too hard for people to understand.
Why should life be fair?
He lost merit with that gut and bowtie
Ad Hominem attacks are not an appropriate mode of argumentation. Try using logic and reason rather than emotionally based disparagements.
I am self-made .... my parents never gave me anything. Until forced to by society. Nothing extra and nearly every negotiation/ interaction was mostly in bad faith. They only helped me when it was mutually beneficial. At least one of my two parents operates in bad faith at all times, AND I HATE IT.
So it seems that the problem is not based on meritocracy but in the gap between the rich and the poor...
Such a ridiculous question…
Brilliant. And it is a ridiculous question. That stupid Harvard professor who suggests "a lottery of the COMPETENT!!!" as opposed to a system built on excellence.
The best example of meritocracy is "The Royal family 🤔🙄🤓⁉️👍 they have a privilege life they don't deserve. And, it's nothing to do with God given or Divine power?👍⁉️
Outstanding
You can literally see people playing on their phones in that room😂. I have recently come across the word Meritocracy and am already in support of it, but I like to hear anything that proves me wrong abt anything so I am reading 'Elite Capture' atm and I'm not super impressed yet, but it's apparently popular amongst philosophers atm.
KO
I think we need to be flexable . Jdx
Heavenly paradise is based on merit. Prove me wrong
Excellence vs mediocrity. What kind of a society do we want?😴🤔🤓
This whole debate has me upset. I've worked hard... to say the least.
No one is undermining anyone efforts, they are pointing out the blind spots, to truly build up a more just society
This man spits facts