The most popular television comedy in the United States, The Big Bang Theory, catalogues the lives of a group of young scientists. The genius detective Sherlock Holmes claims two television series and a movie franchise starring Robert Downey, Jr., one of the most sought-after actors in Hollywood. A team of brilliant experts fighting terrorists on the latest season of Scorpion garnered some of the highest ratings on CBS. American popular culture reflects the skill that we have chosen as most valuable to success: intellectual capability. Intelligence has steadily advanced through the ranks of the traits most desired in a potential partner. Hiring assessment and employment referral companies increasingly recommend screening applicants based on SAT scores and perceived intellect. Though the rigidity of the American meritocracy has been well-documented, there exists little acknowledgement that this system is linked to the form of intelligence ostensibly measured by IQ, and that this measure both reflects and reinforces the inequalities inherent in US society.
Despite decades of evidence proving otherwise, the stubborn myth that America is built on an equal-opportunity meritocracy persists. This contradiction is evident in the realm of education, a sector especially relevant to social advancement when society at large places enormous value on academic accomplishment. Research indicates that this country’s education system has both an unequal distribution of opportunity and disproportionate payoffs for securing the most coveted slots in elite schools. Economic success demands, more than ever, an exclusive education. The Brookings Institution suggests that before reaching their 40s, American children born in the 1950s would have experienced earning mobility equivalent to that of their Swedish counterparts had the economic benefits of additional schooling been similar in both nations; in the US, however, the marginal benefit of education is much higher. The disproportionate benefit of securing a place within an institution of higher education — many of which have long acted as gatekeepers to the elite — creates an economic gap between those who attend universities and those who do not, one more severe than that in similar countries. An economic system dependent on a hierarchy of educational attainment invites a host of other inequalities, amplifying the inequitable distribution of access to educational opportunity. For example, the link between parental income or educational advantage and child academic achievement is stronger in the US than in other Western nations. These clear links between educational success and later economic stability illustrate the great degree to which academic proclivities can affect Americans’ station in the meritocracy. Education is often viewed as a great equalizer, but it accords all too well with a rigid academic and social hierarchy.
We often dedicate substantial effort to differentiating the myriad forms that intelligence may take, from interpersonal to emotional to spatial. But when employers begin filtering prospective employees by SAT scores and acquisition of degrees from exclusive institutions — an inherently skewed criterion given the inequitable distribution of educational opportunity in this country — an individual’s success is presumably determined quite specifically by IQ and academic aptitude. Research has suggested a correlation between high IQ on the one hand and job performance, economic productivity, and educational attainment on the other. The number of positions requiring a college degree are rising and those that do not require postsecondary education are disappearing — even though many jobs that now require a baccalaureate, such as retail management, have not generally become more difficult for less educated people to perform. When employers place a high level importance on IQ, opportunities decline for those who do not possess enough of the version of intelligence we collectively prize.
Though high IQs have been associated with better job outcomes, this differential achievement is not innate to individuals’ capacities. Rather, those with higher IQ (or SAT) scores tend to have more access to social advantages and resources, including advanced classes and professional training that build on a student’s early-demonstrated aptitude. In countries where access to developmental support is not as dependent upon IQ, the link between IQ scores and job performance is much weaker. Our modern form of aristocracy based on intelligence determines Americans’ access to resources and opportunities, and does so in ways that disadvantage a substantial portion of the populace.
As far as David H. Freedman at The Atlantic can calculate, no more than one third of American high-school students is capable of hitting the College Board’s benchmark for college readiness as measured by a minimum score on the SAT. Assuming that this yardstick accurately represents an individual’s prospects of earning a college degree, up to two in three members of the rising generation of the workforce do not possess the kind of intelligence we have culturally deemed important. Yet we ridicule those considered unintelligent: the so-called Darwin Awards highlight incidents of poor judgment leading to self-inflicted fatalities or injuries. Even individuals sensitive to the harm of linguistic slights based on gender, race, or class may rib others for being “a few crayons short of a box” or “not the sharpest tool in the shed.” “Stupid” has become an epithet for a statement at which we take umbrage — or, often, a person with whom we disagree. When we know that our social structure is meritocratic only in appearance, and that the system punishes those who are less able to obtain the academic achievement on which social mobility depends, such mockery seems especially cruel.
We often view modern meritocracy as far more egalitarian than classical aristocracy. However, a social system based on academic achievement is not inherently more egalitarian than one based overtly on wealth and social privilege. If the US continues to value academic skills as the tool for advancing in our social structure, it must more effectively support those who often struggle in school early on — particularly those who come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. While there is some debate over the effectiveness of programs such as Head Start, research generally substantiates the long-term impacts of early childhood education programs in promoting graduation from high school and college, gainful adult employment, and overall health outcomes later in life. When pre-school programs are administered well, gains in test scores and declines in the chance of being held back in a grade last for the involved children. We cannot afford to continue to assure ourselves that our education system picks out the “exceptional” low-income students who make it to the Ivy League — it is just this type of mentality that reinforces a form of intelligence aristocracy, rather than a truly egalitarian system.
Certainly, institutional discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and other aspects of identity affect the lack of mobility in our social organization. These factors are intertwined, quite often, with the support we accord to students in pursuing academic attainment. But our culture disadvantages those who lack sufficient levels of the particular form of intelligence we have deemed paramount, and many commentators have neglected this in discussions of national equity. Policies to reduce the influence of IQ on educational outcomes and social mobility, such as early childhood programming, must be included in discussions of the hollowness of America’s promised meritocracy.