Is Academia really a Meritocracy?

[Xylem]

Does anyone else here believe that some work can be subjectively marked to the point of the marks being innacurate?

All the way through my school life teachers have always given me low marks (c's), due to whatever reasons, but everytime an independent exam came id get top marks.
Its possible i tried harder on the ones that mattered but i dont think thats true.

Now when it comes to university, im still getting 'averagey'
sort of marks that i know im better than, but i dont know what i can do to get better.

Basically my question is can u get screwed by subjective marking?

[Keyser.]

My guess is that you're not as smart as you think you are.

[Xylem]

Ive considered that, even my close friends show me their better marks and say mine was better.
Also i can see myself that my work is better.
Im not the type of person that lies to himself, i give a lot of thought to my assertions and im pretty sure im right.

I know this sounds extremely arrogant, but it really bothers me when i think about this, and how it could affect my future.

[Golden_Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that you're not as smart as you think you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, or you are a huge douche who really gets under the profs' skins.

[mik37]

Academia is absolutely a Meritocracy. I am, for the most part a B student. Knowing this, and knowing that life is all about personal connections and networking, I became friends with all my teachers and TA's thus raising my grades to A's. Last semester I got a 3.6 with simple monthly meetings with each teacher. Without meeting them I would have gotten a 3.0. Showing interest in your teachers makes them want you to succeed in their class.

[T50_Omaha8]

Based on the way your posts are worded and the way you present your argument, it is very likely that you overestimate your intelligence. Either that or everybody hates you.

I was all ready for a discussion of BS professors getting tenure in nonsense "disciplines"...

[Windmilla]

Yes, I believe it is. It just so happens to be the state of nature that people who are wealthier, have more "connections", and have benefits in other ways which would lead one to believe academia is not a meritocracy happen to actually be the ones who have more merit, ability, and talent.

There are many examples of men or women who built their positions out of scratch because they had the "right stuff," and many other men and women who have failed because they didnt have the "right stuff," NOT because academia is "rigged" on a societal level. It is impossible to conceptualize a situation in which a person can not achieve greatness if he was infact the most superior being in his/her area of expertise in at least one higher educational instuition.

[Windmilla]

Note: My last post describes the title of the topic you started, which is DIFFERENT from your specified inquiry. LOL

[Big Poppa Smurf]

[ QUOTE ]
Academia is absolutely a Meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

does not agree at all with this:

[ QUOTE ]
I am, for the most part a B student. Knowing this, and knowing that life is all about personal connections and networking, I became friends with all my teachers and TA's thus raising my grades to A's. Last semester I got a 3.6 with simple monthly meetings with each teacher. Without meeting them I would have gotten a 3.0. Showing interest in your teachers makes them want you to succeed in their class.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mik37]

Isn't a meritocracy a system based success through individual ability/achievement?

Yes, I study hard, but I also work hard on my personal relationships with my teachers. Through studying and using my ability to connect with people I do well in school.