As I graduated from a well-funded high school in a majority white community, I found

myself feeling able to take on the rigors of college and a higher education. Reflecting upon my

high school education, I had a variety of resources that I could turn to when I began to struggle

academically. The community of Clovis, the town I went to school in, was fairly well off;

however, the school district next door was not as fortunate, the Fresno district. This district was

noticeably less funded and in a poorer area of town. Bullard High School, a school in Fresno,

received a rating of 3 out of 10 when it came to test performance of low income students

(Greatschools.org). Whereas, Buchanan High School, the school I attended, received a rating 9

out of 10. Additionally, Bullard was rated 2 out of 10 in equity overview while Buchanan was

rated 10 out of 10. Equity overview essentially measures how well schools serve the needs of

disadvantaged students. Because Buchanan is well-funded, it provides numerous resources to

low-income and disadvantaged students. On the other hand, Bullard was not as well funded is

not as able to support its low-income and disadvantaged students. The correlation between the

performance of low-income students and disadvantaged students is not out of the norm. This is

because low-income students are the disadvantaged students, and when they are given resources,

they perform just as well as other students; Buchanan is a prime example of this.

The podcast, “The Problem We all Live With,” by Nikole Hannah-Jones, dives deeper

into this phenomenon. This podcast gave me a greater look into what education is like for

students in lower-income communities such as Fresno. Demographically speaking, majority of

low-income communities are black and latino communities. Hannah-Jones’ guest Ira Glass

notes, “The US Department of Education put out data in 2014 showing that black and Latino

kids in segregated schools have the least qualified teachers, the least experienced teachers. They
also get the worst course offerings, the least access to AP and upper level courses, the worst

facilities” (The Problem). This trend followed suit with the educational system in my hometown,

with Buchanan being a predominantly White high school. The roots of this problem lie in the

structure of meritocracy because it selects people based on their ability to perform on tasks such

as standardized testing. While meritocracy may reward some gifted students, it ensures that the

playing field between students is never leveled.

Throughout CTW 1, I have gained more perspective on this disparity between schools,

and I have learned a lot about the underlying forces that create this disparity while writing my

rhetorical analysis activity. ​Hayes illustrates the essential principles of meritocracy. Initially,

Hayes describes Hunter high school, a school in which students are enrolled based on “merit.”

Students are admitted based on how they score on a test. He describes the unique aspects of

Hunter, including not ranking its students and not having valedictorians. Hayes uses evidence

that presents Hunter in a positive light, speaking of its “unparalleled education” and vast amount

of resources for students (Hayes 32). When I first read Hayes’ essay, I thought meritocracy was a

really good system of values to have; Hunter seemed to be a beautiful safe haven where students

could follow their dreams and passions as well as inspire each other. Meritocracy seemed to be

the best way to reward students for their individual talent. However, Hayes’ essay dove deeper

into the sad truth of how meritocracy actually becomes a wrongful justification for inequality,

segregation, and unequal opportunity. In reality, meritocracy allocates the majority of resources

to students who already have access to a lot of these resources already. He asserts that “Hunter’s

approach to education rests on two fundamental premises. First, kids are not created equal: Some

are much smarter than others. And second, the hierarchy of brains is entirely distinct from the
social hierarchies of race, wealth, and privilege” (Hayes 35-36); these are the Principles of

Difference and Mobility respectively. Hayes depicts how these principles contradict each other,

leading to a vicious cycle of inequality and injustice; students who are underfunded and lack

resources will obviously not perform as well academically as students who have the funding and

the resources. This causes a gap between students of higher socioeconomic class and lower

socioeconomic class it is extremely hard for students in districts such as Fresno to compete

against students who have access to more resources. Meritocracy is inherently self-defeating.

Hayes provides evidence for this in the form of​ a graduation speech given by Justin Hudson, a

senior at Hunter High School. This speech illustrates the flaws of solely using standardized test

for admission. Hudson confesses his guilt for going to Hunter and taking advantage of the

resources that other kids didn’t have. I resonated with this feeling of guilt as I too have taken

advantage of resources not available to all students. Hudson describes the Hunter system as

“broken” (Hayes 33). Hayes introduces the downfall of meritocracy and how it affects

communities in reality. The institution of pure meritocracy at Hunter has led to a division

between places such as the Upper West Side of New York and South Bronx. Hayes uses the

example of Hunter to show us how meritocracy is built upon a false premise. Even a student who

benefitted from the system of meritocracy could recognize its flaws and now I can too.

After reading Hayes’ piece, I have gained much more perspective on the education

system. Personally, my educational background resonates with this article because I had a fair

amount of resources to look to when I was in need and even more so here at SCU. During high

school my parents were able to afford test prep classes for me, an example used heavily by

Hayes. These test prep classes taught me test-taking strategies and how to “conquer” the SAT in
the most efficient way as possible. My original score was around 1200 when I started test prep,

and at the end I managed a 1340 on the SAT. This improvement was only made by learning how

to take the specific test itself, rather than my ability to learn new information. Reflecting on my

experience with test prep, I have gained a further understanding of Hayes’ point: standardized

testing is not as accurate at measuring a student’s intelligence as it seems. I have come to the

realization that I am extremely fortunate to have had the safe and resourceful education that I

received in high school as well as college. I am a student who has benefitted from meritocracy all

throughout his life, my good grades have been rewarded with more and more opportunities.

During my senior year of highschool, I tutored two students who were in the 8th grade.

They were both first-generation Vietnamese students who went to school in low-income latino

communities. I tutored them for free because I simply wanted more insight on what it’s like in

their community and school systems and outside my bubble of Clovis. One student, Phuoc,

struggled in math at his school. His mom was unable to find an affordable tutor so they turned to

me. As I worked with him, I learned about what it’s like to go to school in these communities.

Phuoc was not really motivated to do his work as he didn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.

He didn’t see what school and education could do for him. He didn’t have a clear path or idea of

where his education would lead him as his parents did not really have the funding for college.

This is an example of how students are affected when schools are unable to provide enough

resources to their students.

There are millions of students like Phuoc, victims of meritocracy. These students are

trapped in a system that sets them up for failure. Standardized testing is a myth: there are an

endless amount of unforeseen circumstances that contribute to either the success or failure of
students, and a simple test could not accurately measure whether or not a student should have

access to various resources; additionally, students who already have access to these resources are

far ahead of their disadvantaged counterparts. Students, like myself, who are fortunate enough to

have reaped the benefits of meritocracy should not feel guilty. This is because we can all become

apart of the solution to this problem by promoting and contributing to education in lower-income

communities. Specifically here at SCU, students can look to the the Ignatian Center for

opportunities to help other students in lower-income communities through organizations such as

the Arrupe Program.