Functionalist perspective of education-revision notes In same way the Family module has competing perspectives so too does the education unit.
Chinese Legalism According to scholarly consensus, the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to Ancient China.
This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests. Rank was determined by merit, through the civil service examinationsand education became the key for social mobility. According to the Princeton Encyclopedia on American History: Tracing back to B.
This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run East India Company Both Plato and Aristotle advocated meritocracy, Plato in his The Republicarguing that the wisest should rule, and hence the rulers should be philosopher kings.
Meadows successfully argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of Chinapublished inthat "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only," and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.
His model was to give more votes to the more educated voter. His views are explained in Estlund Mill's proposal of plural voting has two motives. One is to prevent one group or class of people from being able to control the political process even without having to give reasons in order to gain sufficient support.
He calls this the problem of class legislation.
Since the most numerous class is also at a lower level of education and social rank, this could be partly remedied by giving those at the higher ranks plural votes. A second, and equally prominent motive for plural voting is to avoid giving equal influence to each person without regard to their merit, intelligence, etc.
He thinks that it is fundamentally important that political institutions embody, in their spirit, the recognition that some opinions are worth more than others. He does not say that this is a route to producing better political decisions, but it is hard to understand his argument, based on this second motive, in any other way.
So, if Aristotle is right that the deliberation is best if participants are numerous and assuming for simplicity that the voters are the deliberators then this is a reason for giving all or many citizens a vote, but this does not yet show that the wiser subset should not have, say, two or three; in that way something would be given both to the value of the diverse perspectives, and to the value of the greater wisdom of the few.
This combination of the Platonic and Aristotelian points is part of what I think is so formidable about Mill's proposal of plural voting. It is also an advantage of his view that he proposes to privilege not the wise, but the educated. Even if we agreed that the wise should rule, there is a serious problem about how to identify them.
This becomes especially important if a successful political justification must be generally acceptable to the ruled. In that case, privileging the wise would require not only their being so wise as to be better rulers, but also, and more demandingly, that their wisdom be something that can be agreed to by all reasonable citizens.
I turn to this conception of justification below. Mill's position has great plausibility: So, how can we deny that the educated subset would rule more wisely than others. But then why shouldn't they have more votes?
Estlund goes on to criticize Mill's education-based meritocracy on various grounds. Garfield by a disappointed office seeker in proved its dangers. Two years later inthe system of appointments to the United States Federal Bureaucracy was revamped by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Actpartially based on the British meritocratic civil service that had been established years earlier.
The act stipulated that government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit, through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons. Australia began establishing public universities in the s with the goal of promoting meritocracy by providing advanced training and credentials.
The educational system was set up to service urban males of middle-class background, but of diverse social and religious origins.
It was increasingly extended to all graduates of the public school system, those of rural and regional background, and then to women and finally to ethnic minorities. Singaporean academics are continuously re-examining the application of meritocracy as an ideological tool and how it's stretched to encompass the ruling party's objectives.
Professor Kenneth Paul Tan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy asserts that "Meritocracy, in trying to 'isolate' merit by treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same, can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society, a practice that in fact perpetuates this fundamental inequality.
In this way, those who are picked by meritocracy as having merit may already have enjoyed unfair advantages from the very beginning, ignored according to the principle of nondiscrimination. There is a strong ideological quality in Singapore's pragmatism, and a strongly pragmatic quality in ideological negotiations within the dynamics of hegemony.
In this complex relationship, the combination of ideological and pragmatic maneuvering over the decades has resulted in the historical dominance of government by the PAP in partnership with global capital whose interests have been advanced without much reservation.
Most contemporary political theorists, including John Rawlsreject the ideal of meritocracy. Modern meritocratic movements[ edit ] The Meritocracy Party[ edit ] In an anonymous British group called The Meritocracy Party published its first manifesto, to which they have now added more than two million words on the subject discussing HegelRousseauCharles FourierHenri de Saint-Simonand various other philosophers, scientists, reformers, and revolutionaries.Modern industrial society is increasingly based on achievement rather than ascription.
By reflecting the operation of society as whole, the school prepares young people for their adult lives. Lastly he saw the education system as an important mechanism for the selection of individuals for their future.
Evaluate The View That Education Systems In Modern Industrial Societies Are Meritocratic.
Evaluate the view that the education system in modern industrial society enables the intelligent to succeed. (25) The way that the education system functions and is set up in modern industrial society allows the intelligent to succeed.
Intelligence . A group of Manhattan Project physicists created a tongue-in-cheek mythology where superintelligent Martian scouts landed in Budapest in the late 19th century and stayed for about a generation, after which they decided the planet was unsuitable for their needs and disappeared.
The only clue to their. (9) (b) Assess the Functionalist view that education in modern industrialized societies is based on meritocratic principles (16) May/June 1.
(a) Describe, with . Meritocracy– Davis and Moore (functionalists) said as we know live in a meritocratic society the education system becomes the best mechanism for selecting the right people for the right jobs – role allocation. Meritocracy is the notion that people should and are duly awarded by society for their hard work and efforts.
Quibble: The term “meritocracy” was initially coined as a negative term in a dystopian science-fiction novel criticizing streaming in British schools. It subsequently was adopted as a positive term, which the author in question rather disliked.