America is a meritocracy.

Our forefathers sought this land as an escape to a place where dreams can become actualized despite the humblest of beginnings. The key to a successful life in America, as we are indirectly taught, is hard work, merit, and dedication. A beacon of hope amidst a world of poverty and despair, we insist America to be the Disneyland of nations. At least, a majority of our neighboring citizens would believe so. 80 percent of Americans answered yes in 2007 when asked, Is it possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich? during a New York Times poll (Class Matters: A Special Section). We tend to place the Barack Obamas and Oprahs of this nation on a pedestal, believing our chances are just as favorable as theirs for reaching success. Yet at the same time, we would agree that success is more about who one knows, versus what one knows. We would also agree that students whose parents have obtained bachelor degrees are more likely to financially succeed than are the children of high school drop-outs. There is an apparent disconnect as we claim that the key to success in this country is hard work and dedication in the face of undeniable evidence that some are simply better positioned for success than others. If we truly lived within a meritocracy, our brothers and sisters of less fortunate backgrounds would have the same opportunity and arguably the same outcomes that are available to the more fortunate of us. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Colleen A. Fahy argues, the meritocracy idealism insists that the wealthy achieved their position as a direct result of personal qualities through which they have earned this lot in life (qtd. in Allard 199). The portion of society in which we are the most blinded from this inconsistency is education. Within the American public educational system, there exists an inequality between races and effectiveness of curriculum which not only inhibit the students currently enrolled, but ultimately the generations to follow. If we continue to remain blinded by this breach in logic, our

country will risk operating in this pseudo-meritocratic manner, continuing to reach far less than our potential. EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY DEFINED Before continuing, it would be most beneficial to present criteria of educational inequality from which this paper intends to compare. In many cases, it is generally the highly educated who have access to the research tools required in order to obtain information on the subject. It is because of this that much data on the fairness of education may appear skewed. It must be prefaced that it is fully conceivable that a high-school graduate whose passion of, say, cuisine, certainly does not require a doctorate degree to realize success in the dining realm. In an alternate sense, however, this student would need a basic education to understand both how to communicate and how to logistically operate a dining business. For this reason, the concept of education expressed throughout this paper will be set to what educators have called the Three Rsreading, arithmetic, and writing. Of course, in order to access meaningful data, this standard most generally equates to the level expected of a high school graduate at the least. Therefore, the concept of educational equality used in this paper intends to reflect a high school diploma with adequate preparation and access to collegiate-level of education. Any level which would not successfully prepare a high school senior to access collegiate admittance, within comparably equal provisions, is the standard set here as educational inequality. RACIAL INEQUALITY AND PERFORMANCE When discerning a conviction that there exists an inequality in education concerning race, there oftentimes raises an interesting belief. These antagonists are likely to express that even if there is an inequality between races, this does not necessarily mean one race is going to perform more poorly than the other. Third grade educator, Jane Elliott, documented a riveting two-day

workshop within her classroom following the Martin Luther King assassination which might beg to differ. In all fairness, her attempt at this exercise in the 1960s intended to teach the children a lesson on the hurtfulness and inconsistency of racism; however, she was able to reveal a number of insights of human nature which are absolutely valuable when studying this aspect of education. Elliott began by separating the group of Caucasian third graders based on eye-color. On the first day, the blue eyes were the superior students who had access to various privileges such as five extra minutes of recess, the ability to exit the classroom in front of the brown eyes, and were subjected to praise from the teacher when they correctly answered a question in class and grace if answered incorrectly. Oppositely, the brown eyes on that first day were not allowed to play with the blue eyes, had a curtailed recess time, and were subjected to ridicule from the teacher whenever they answered the question incorrectly and surprise if they answered correctly (Elliott). The experiment came to life as the children began to actually believe that there was a group in the class which was superior and another group which was inferior. As a typical classroom exercise, Elliott instructed the class to practice times tables that day, while separating the blue eyes from the brown eyes. On the first day in which the brown eyes were inferior, they completed the assignment 3 minutes slower than the day before there was any eye-color distinction (Elliott). Nothing had changed aside from this experiment that institutionalized one group to be more superior than the other. The results are unarguableperformance was impaired as a direct result of inequality. It was not until the second day that he tables had turned. Elliott decided it was time that the brown eyes were now superior over the blue eyes. As to be expected, the complete opposite ensued. Elliott was shocked at the responses as to why the blue eyes had completed the times tables 1 minute and 18 seconds slower in comparison to the previous day when they

were on top. From the mouths of nine year olds, the shift in performance was attributed to the facts that, Yesterday it was good to have blue eyes! Today it is the worst! and, The way they treated you, made you feel like you didnt even want to do anything (Elliot). The take-away which ought to be recognized from this story is absolutely key. These third graders responded in the exact way our society responds to this kind of discrimination. The self-fulfilling prophesy explains that we are going to live up to the standards which are set for us and which we set for ourselves (Meyers). If we continue to treat the students of inner-city school districts as second-rate citizens, we will continue to witness the performance of second-rate students. Legalized racism may be buried away in our nations history, however the effects and stereotypes associated from this dark time linger still. INSTITUTIONALIZED INEQUALITY IN CURRICULUM If we can agree that performance is inhibited by inequality, we must also examine the consequences when considering performance is the very element on which university admittance hinges. Grade Point Averages (GPA), ACT and SAT scores are the top three performance determinants for admittance into college. At the surface, these may appear to be fair enough standards to ensure equal opportunity across the board. Problems with the system are not detected until one takes a critical look at how these scores are achieved. The problems we face here occur when students come from high schools which place more emphasis on state or local testing scores as opposed to these major performance determinants. Educators are incentivized to teach according to state testing requirements, but not necessarily above these requirements which might be tested on the standardized national exams. Administrative counselors are incentivized to continue placing students in classes which may prepare for stellar performance on state exams, but not necessarily the classes which offer better preparation for the ACT or SAT, or even

Advanced Placement (AP) credits. In a study conducted in 2012 by the Desert News, New York spends $13,547.13 per capita on education staff, and students achieve an average of 23.4 for the ACT. Comparably, Oklahoma spends nearly half the amount of New Yorks budget at $6,830.20 per capita and achieves an average ACT score of 20.7 (Ferguson). The schools in which this issue occurs less are those in the more wealthy districts of the states. These students tend to have parents who place a high value on higher education, and oftentimes already have in mind the goal of attending college post-graduation. When high schools across the state do not provide equal preparation opportunities, the inequality in preparation yields an inequality in access to university acceptance. The solution to this issue is certainly not as simple as it may appear at glance. We have become blinded to the fact that educational inequality has become institutionalized. To complicate matters more, we must factor in the costs of taking test preparation courses, taking the ACT and SAT tests, and the submission costs of college applications. Furthermore, when colleges accept ACT scores, for example, they receive the highest grade achieved and not an average between all the scores achieved. This means someone who had the resources (both time and money) to take these exams more than their first shot has a higher likelihood of achieving a score which will be acceptable into the college of their choice. As can be imagined, however, not every high school senior in the state of Oklahoma can afford to devote four hours on a Saturday morning in addition to the $52.50 fee (actstudent.org) for the exam to achieve a score of at least 21 to attend Oklahoma State University (admissions.okstate.edu). Moreover, not every high school senior has access to university-granted scholarships which offer more money for students who have achieved higher test scores. The unfortunate reality is that it is oftentimes the students who desperately need the scholarship money who are denied as a result of this unfair playing field.

Proliferations of the problem then occur when these students face difficulties obtaining a student loan, and worsen as they decide it is far too costly to obtain a college degree. The financial burden of obtaining access to a college degree is oftentimes hefty enough for one to consider revoking the dream altogether. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE AMERICAN DREAM With a statement so bold as to deny the system of meritocracy within these United States, there is certain to be some opposition. As a matter of fact, one might worry why the system has not already changed had there been universal agreement to these arguments in the first place. The most prevalent counter-argument tends to be the idea that Affirmative Action initiatives have already addressed a number of these concerns. Admittedly, this is true to an extent. If the issue was a shortage of females and minorities accepted into collegiate institutions, Affirmative Action certainly would have been the saving grace. However, as expressed previously, the issue does not necessarily lie in the numbers of minorities who obtain higher educational degrees, but instead, in the principle that these individuals come from a less opportune background, which serves as the inhibitor reflected in the statistics. M. Christopher Brown argues in his review of Sex, Race, and Merit: Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment, that Affirmative Action tackles the numbers in these statistics, but ultimately neglects the underlying issues. One might conclude, then, that Affirmative Action must have been put into place as a result of an uneven playing field in the educational realm, but has neglected to revolutionize the underlying hindrances faces by minorities (Brown). Still, others might contest simply due to the stories we have all heard. America, as a culture, rejoices in the success of the underdog. We illustrate memoirs of inner-city longshots who are swooped up with a full-ride scholarship to Harvard, then proceed to lead a life of

extraordinary discoveries. These stories are glorified then used as tools similar to the all-toofamiliar motivational posters which insist, We can achieve anything we put our minds to! It would be futile to deny that the United States fosters an environment that would allow for these miraculous phenomenons to occur. Far more fruitless, however, would be to disregard the reality that this is not the case for a majority of society. The system of meritocracy appears to only be sustained for those who were born into favorable circumstances, or whoby mystic interventionare able to overcome the odds. FUTURE GENERATIONS Evidence shows the people surrounding an individual have an immediate effect on their future-planning decisions. Strictly examining income alone, Faye inserts, a 10 percent change in parental earnings is predicted to have a 4.7 percent change in the expected future earnings of the child, (qtd. in Allard 201). Far more significant would be the parental influence on a childs willingness to pursue higher education. That is to say, the students whose parents valued higher education are far more likely to adopt that same value for themselves. Odds are stacked against first-generation college attendees successfully completing a bachelors degree on a 4-year program. The odds prove to be even lower for those first generation high school seniors who dream of attending college, but were placed in school system that does not provided sufficient college planning (such as ACT and SAT prep courses). If the educational system remains on a crooked playing field, we might wonder if we could ever reach a point of economic and educational efficiency (Allard). It should not be too bold to assume the majority of readers have come from a background of a comfortable middle class. At face value alone, it might appear that this paper is insignificant to this audience as it may seem to not directly affect any of us. It may come as a surprise, but the

reality is the inequality gap matters to each and every one of us in this nation. Perhaps this can be better digested if presented as an investment equation. Billions of tax dollars are poured into a system of education, however we are not seeing billions of dollars (in output, GDP, ideas, business plans, etc.) in return. The statistic previously inserted (that Oklahoma invests $6,830.20 per capita on secondary education staff) may come as a shock, considering it does not appear that the return on this investment would equate to $6,000 per capita in this state (Ferguson). It would be outrageous for any investor to buy into this kind of system. On top of this, we are getting high crime rates in inner-city areas, high rates of unplanned teenage pregnancy, and oftentimes the most tragic of all, a net loss of potential within an entire nation. Admittedly, blue-collar workers are equally as integral to our society as white-collar workers; however it is not the unskilled laborers which serve as the innovators in America. We are not globally as well-positioned as we are because of the millions of McDonalds burger-flippers or tire salesmen. We are, however, well-positioned because we are home to inspired game changers who believe they can achieve their dreams; and consequently who work hard enough in pursuing these dreams to make a return on the investment provided by society. CONCLUSION The inequality within the American public educational system still presents a wedge between races and effectiveness of curriculum despite intentional legislation designed to counteract the problem. We are led to wonder why it is that we hear more stories of the poor moving up the class ladder than of the rich sliding down. If our economic system were truly a meritocracy, it would make sense for significant movements between social classes, for both upper class and lower class (Allard). Educational inequality is certainly a deterrent for the students currently enrolled, however it poses an even greater threat to the children born into the

less fortunate within the system. The toll is ultimately paid by the entirety of society in terms of lost potential for unique aspirations. Until our voters, legislators and educators devise a plan to flatten the educational playing field, there is little hope for our nation to emerge as the idealistic meritocracy we all crave it to be.