Letter: How money buys success at school
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Despite her effective objections to Peter Saunders' work on meritocracy (18 July), Yvette Cooper is still too charitable. Saunders seems to think that it is fair for social advantage to be passed from parents to children as long as this is done meritocratically. But why?
Suppose Saunders is right to believe that their superior, inherited, natural ability helps explain why children of middle-class parents are so likely to get middle-class jobs. How does that make the resulting distribution of income "unequal but fair"? Why should one person earn more than another simply because she happens to have been born with different genes?
Arguing that people should get jobs on merit is one thing: it helps all of us if jobs are done by those best able to do them. But permitting their good or bad luck in the natural lottery to influence how much money people earn doesn't look very fair to me.
ADAM SWIFT
Balliol College
Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments