Meritocracy In Its Current Form Isn’t Working—Even for the “Winners”
Reconsidering meritocracy in a society where striving has replaced thriving
When I was in high school, I watched bright, hardworking students crumble under relentless pressure to achieve — not just to perform, but to overperform. All the time.
I attended an elite college-prep school where a large majority of our 66-person class self-reported taking medication for clinical anxiety and depression. The stress level was constantly high and toxic. We all went on to attend prestigious colleges and universities, yet I remember thinking: If the so-called “winners” of our education system are this broken, then something is deeply flawed with the system itself.
Even as a teenager, I sensed that the framework we were operating within was not just demanding but damaging. That conviction, in part, led me to become a clinical psychologist. I wanted the training and credibility to better understand and speak to the costs of a culture that pushes young people to extremes in the name of “merit,” all in pursuit of better odds, more prestigious schools, increased status and connections, and seemingly greater life opportunities. In moderation, this may be motivating and inspiring. But when those opportunities come at the expense of mental and physical health, they are not simply unsustainable—they are harmful.
Data support this observation. Studies of students in high-achieving schools have found elevated rates of depression, anxiety, rule-breaking, and substance use. These rates are not only significantly higher than national norms, but in the case of substance misuse, also exceed those found among youth in urban poverty. A 2018 report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation identified the intense pressure to achieve—common in relatively affluent communities—as one of the most critical “high-risk” environments, alongside poverty, trauma, and discrimination/racism. Longitudinal research has also found that students from high-achieving schools report poorer long-term outcomes in terms of emotional well-being, self-concept, and educational expectations compared to peers at lower-achieving schools. (Source: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25466.)
Importantly, it is not only the intense high-achievers and “winners” that bear the cost of a merit-obsessed society. In my Meaning Vs. Merit podcast episode, Balancing Meaning and Merit in Our Current Economy, renowned economist Dr. Fred Bergsten emphasized that even with higher education degrees and persistent effort, many individuals fail to achieve upward mobility in today’s economy despite extreme toil and effort. Instead, they land in the lower or middle tiers of the labor market, where wages have stagnated and costs continue to rise. Understandably, many feel disheartened and angry when hard work fails to yield the promised American Dream. Similarly, students and adults whose efforts are not rewarded often give up and stop trying at all.
Despite these cultural, economic, and sociological dynamics, our meritocratic system continues to promote and reward extreme, often unhealthy efforts to achieve. Elite institutions highlight impressive social networks and higher average salaries among their graduates—suggesting financial success and increased social status that will prove a game changer throughout students’ lives and be worth all the extreme effort to gain entrance into these exclusive clubs. Yet gaining entrance is becoming increasingly difficult, as these same schools invest heavily in marketing to attract more and more applicants without expanding their class sizes — choosing exclusivity over accessibility. In an effort to gain access, privileged families pour immense resources into enhancing their children’s chances of admission, with some estimates suggesting that the investment required to gain a leg up rivals a portfolio that would yield $10 million in the stock market.
The early-age meritocratic game has even entered the world of finance. Venture capitalists are funding companies that specialize in elite admissions consulting—such as one profiled in The Wall Street Journal with the headline, “The Guru Who Says He Can Get Your 11-Year-Old Into Harvard.” That the Journal gave this story prominent placement reflects a cultural assumption: its readership—often part of the educated elite—aspires to have their children become the next generation of the educated elite.
Such developments point to a larger transformation in the nature of meritocracy—one that, in practice, scholars argue has begun to mirror a caste system. As author David Brooks argues in The Atlantic in "How the Ivy League Broke America," individuals are divided early on by class and test scores. Those deemed as gifted, extraordinary, or “Special” are elevated and celebrated. Meanwhile, as Daniel Markovits argues in The Meritocracy Trap, the wealthy provide their children with increased opportunities to become extraordinary — effectively turning “merit” into a vehicle for inherited privilege. The result is a self-perpetuating system that intensifies inequality while exhausting those it claims to reward.
Despite these criticisms, some scholars are advocating to promote Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (M.E.I.) initiatives (e.g., Dr. Roland Fryer, who recently made such an argument in a Wall Street Journal article). This may sound appealing and have may justifications. Yet it also risks further entrenching merit-obsession—a cultural tendency that ties self-worth to achievement and leaves even the “successful” feeling burnt-out, disillusioned, and terrified of falling behind.
Thus, if M.E.I. initiatives are promoted, several questions must be addressed, including:
Will it benefit everyone, not just the people deemed to have the most merit, excellence, and intelligence?
How will we define “merit,” “excellence,” and “intelligence”? As Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences reminds us, intelligence is not monolithic. Yet widely used IQ measures such as the WAIS or, for children, the WISC, focus narrowly on verbal comprehension, working memory, perceptual reasoning, and processing speed. Will these metrics determine our professional, social, and economic standing?
What about other human capacities? We are more than our test scores. Narrow definitions of merit risk crowding out important traits such as social and emotional intelligence, passion, creativity, ingenuity, resilience, grit, determination, and empathy—traits that sustain families, communities, and institutions.
Will MEI initiatives support innovation and adaptability? When the focus is on proving one’s intelligence or credentials, individuals may default to “playing the game”—cramming for tests or tailoring résumés—instead of developing the creativity and adaptability that a complex, fast-changing world requires.
Can we still build meaningful lives? Focusing so much on merit and excellence risks overshadowing the importance of creating a fulfilling life, potentially driving work-related stress at the expense of mental health and well-being. It is also worth considering whether constant striving for merit may conflict with life goals such as parenting or community-building.
If our society equates our worth with merit and intelligence, we not only risk alienating those who can’t, or won’t, play the game, but we also fail the very people who are supposedly succeeding. A truly healthy society is not one that simply identifies the top performers and hands them disproportionate rewards. It is one that ensures all individuals, regardless of background or test score, have the opportunity to thrive and live lives of purpose, meaning, and well-being.