By Gabrielle B. and Alya M.

If knowledge, skills, and talent determined an individual’s power and influence in society, would a meritocracy result in a fair system for the United States? For Princeton residents, this question revealed a common understanding: meritocracy is the ideal, but not always a reality. 

Most explained that it is complicated to define meritocracy and the role it plays in the U.S., as everyone has different experiences that shaped their perspectives. 

In today’s society, success can be determined by one’s connections, wealth, and privilege, from college admissions to education to social capital. Yet, meritocracy is supposed to award ability over affluence, but who would really benefit? 

“Will [merit] open doors to certain conversations about you going far? Yes. Will you go far? I don’t know about that one. That’s a bit iffy,” said 28-year-old product analyst Kasheif Harrison. 

While he understood the dictionary definition of meritocracy, he believed that merit alone can’t ensure success, instead it’s the people you meet, the connections you form, and the impressions you make that will help you flourish. 

George Cohen, 66, a former New Jersey Deputy Attorney General, said that meritocracy correlates to work ethic: “If you’re the fastest runner, you win, you study the hardest, and you do the best, you’re the smartest.” 

Nevertheless, he added, success and equal access to opportunities are also determined by privilege. Not everyone starts on an “equal playing field,” he said.

Many people also shared a similar sentiment, that while meritocracy is fair in theory it does not account for barriers such as gender, race, class, as well as unequal access to resources, education, and opportunities. 

Cohen believed he had an upper hand compared to his high school classmates, because everyone did not have the same opportunity and time to dedicate to activities that could build merit.

“That’s why SATs ought to come back, because as much as they may be biased, everyone was taking the same test.”

On the other hand, Harrison believed that it’s the people you know that matters, and that merit alone will not help you succeed.

Hungtang Ko explained that merit did help him to an extent, but there were other factors involved. “I was lucky enough to get into Princeton and they thought I got in through merit, —which is probably true—for a certain part, but there’s a lot of luck involved. Just like anything,” he said.

While most Princeton residents agreed that meritocracy exists in the U.S., they said it does not operate effectively in society to promote fairness. 

Harrison said the main problem with meritocracy is that it “oversimpli[fies] how the world really works.”