In the column, “How Merit-based College Admissions Became So Unfair,” George F. Will analyzes meritocracy and critiques that it is making life become regressive. He proves meritocracy, “while highly democratic in its intentions, has turned out to be colossally undemocratic,” through listing the downfalls of meritocracy. He focuses on logic in order to urge the reader to think with reason. He formally ridicules meritocracy and gets all people to think about the soundness of the education system’s admission process. George begins his column by comparing World War I chemist, James Conant’s, aid in developing to poison gas to him also advocating the adoption of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. He follows this with insight from Conant’s granddaughter …show more content…
This is seen through his diction describing meritocracy as dysfunctional, inequitable, impersonal, embittering, and regressive. He clearly states that he believes life is become regressive with meritocracy. Will use of logos is consistent throughout his column. When on the topic about life after education, Will writes, “one’s life prospects should not be substantially predictable from facts about one’s family.” Will gets the reader to think about the fairness of the situation and look at it logically. Pathos is also seen throughout the column. This is found when he write about inequality, “social benefits accruing to individuals because of such endowments are justified only if the prospering of the fortunate also improves the lot of the less fortunate.” Will brings in culture and class to the mix. He does this in order to show in addition to advantages upper class have, it is not helping the lower class. He calls his readers to think about the less fortunate and how they are affected by everything. Will addresses the issue of family inheritance. He makes the connection that while families pass or wealth, they also pass of genetic inheritance. He is points out the fallacy of claiming that legacies don’t deserve what they get, and proves that “equal opportunity becomes difficult even to define.” Will concludes with the implication that meritocracy is not going away. He finds a common ground and suggests that …show more content…
Right away, I knew his position. I found his comparison of the standardized test to the atomic bomb in World War II humorous, but it was effective in setting the tone of harsh critique on meritocracy. I think Will should have written about the experiences different types of students have with the test. I think it would have strengthened his argument to provide financial information. For instance, perhaps upper class families have the money to pay for tutors and extensive practice tests to help them prepare and receive better scores. Or how some students might only be able to take the test once because he or she cannot afford to pay for it again. I also thought his diction was powerful. As elaborated on earlier, it showed his stance and also gave further description of meritocracy. At one point he provides a statistic including information of elite institutions and bottom 60 percent of households. I thought it was interesting that he provided this statistic that critiqued Princeton which Will attended previously. I agree with a line towrds the end, “we do not want to discourage families from trying to transmit advantages to their children.” He follows this saying we should help the less fortunate. This made me agree with him because he is implyingn that we need to stop blaming everyone looking for thing to complain about. Instead, we should be working to help the “meager” families have better