Social mobility was once largely determined by birth: where you were born and to whom. Your family’s status, wealth, and social connections set the trajectory of your life. Over time, society shifted towards the idea that one’s capabilities, aspirations, and effort should dictate social advancement. This meritocratic notion—that “hard work plus intelligence equals success”—seems fair on the surface. However, it overlooks the deep-rooted complexities of social inequality and, as Michael Young warned in his 1958 satirical book, “The Rise of the Meritocracy,” risks creating new forms of social rigidity.

The Concept of Meritocracy: A Double-Edged Sword

Michael Young coined “meritocracy” to describe a dystopian future where social status was determined solely by intelligence and effort, leading to a stratified society. Ironically, this warning was later adopted as a positive model to justify systems in which success is seen as a result of personal talent and hard work.

However, recent research shows that meritocracy fails to account for structural factors influencing success. For example, a study by Raj Chetty and his team, published in Nature, revealed that “economic connectedness,” or the degree of cross-class friendships, is a significant predictor of upward mobility. Simply put, who you know matters just as much, if not more, than what you know.

The Role of Economic Background and Social Connections

Research indicates that children from high-income families are more likely to attend top universities, not merely because of their innate talent or effort but due to the networks and resources available to them. According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, 38 of the top 100 colleges in the United States have more students from the top 1% of income earners than from the entire bottom 60%. This disparity suggests that access to elite education is heavily influenced by socioeconomic background.

The Problem with “Level Playing Fields”

Many entrance exams and standardized tests claim to provide a “level playing field.” However, they often favor those who have had the resources to practice and prepare from an early age. Research from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce indicates that affluent families spend nearly seven times more on educational enrichment than low-income families. Thus, what appears as meritocracy—students gaining entry to prestigious institutions based on exam performance—is actually a reflection of pre-existing social and economic advantages.

Family Influence and Social Capital

An interesting pattern emerges when examining successful individuals: the influence of family and social surroundings. Families that actively pursue knowledge, build connections, and engage in communities often pass on these values to their children. A study published in the American Journal of Sociology found that social capital—relationships and networks that provide support and access to resources—plays a crucial role in shaping a child’s aspirations and achievements. Children in high socioeconomic environments are naturally exposed to opportunities and networks that set them on paths to success. Their parents’ pursuit of learning and building connections subconsciously influences their ambitions and provides platforms for upward mobility. On the other hand, children from low-income backgrounds often lack these influences and support systems, limiting their exposure to pathways for success.

True Meritocracy: The Need for Structural Change

Meritocracy, in its current form, often overlooks the complex web of factors that shape an individual’s path to success. It simplifies social mobility to a matter of effort and intelligence, ignoring the critical roles of economic background, social connections, and early exposure to opportunities. True meritocracy should involve creating systems that level the field, not just in theory but in practice, by addressing structural inequalities and providing every child, regardless of their starting point, a fair chance to succeed.