Tyranny Of The Meritocracy Summary

When it comes to the topic of standardized testing, a number of students have recently suggested that it is an inadequate form of summing up a student's intellect. In her book, The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America, Harvard Law Professor Lani Guinier writes that standardized testing "is not a fair indicator of a student's overall success in higher education." The essence of Guinier's argument is that some students may perform better than others during standardized tests. However, that does not reflect upon their full abilities nor factor in their grades from previous classes. Guinier argues that grades represent a student's drive for higher education through time and self-discipline. Thus, Guinier believes that standardized tests are unreliable. This interpretation challenges the work of students with a desire to pursue higher education and believe the standardized testing weighs significantly. Of course, there are few that do not share this deduction. Touro Law Professor Dan Subotnik contends in response to Guinier in his Touro Law Review writing Tyranny of the Meritocracy? A Disputation Over Testing with Professor Lani
Standardized test overlooks what I consider an important point about one's display of classroom success. Nonetheless, Subotnik's statement that standardized testing is "still" the only leading predictor of a successful higher education intrigues me. Subotnik brings to light that standardized tests provide each student with equal chances. Furthermore, students are placed in the exact room along with the exact questions and are given the exact amount of time to answer. Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that every test taker differ and what will take some five minutes to answer may take others 20. Although I grant that this is equal, I still maintain that it is not