Critique on L&C Ch. 3. Education-Based Meritocracy

In my opinion, some of the ways that the data are interpreted, are misleading. For example, when interpreting Figure 3.6, the authors stress on the advantage that people of salariat origin have in accessing the salariat. However, they hardly mentioned the most important implication of this chart, which is that individuals of working class origin, but high qualification, has 90% chance of entering the salariat, comparable to that of salariat origin. This is a very significant evidence that prove EBM, which they have been trying to disprove.

Also, we should remember that we are comparing an upward movement in class with maintaining class status. Similarly, they have tried to compare people of salariat origin with low qualification entering salariat (maintaining their status), with people of working class origin with low qualification entering salariat (upward movement), which is not a fair comparison at all, and assert that the salariat has an advantage. For the above reason, of course, they can get a conclusion in their favour.

Indeed, here is what my conclusions would be: Comparing individuals of salariat origin, their probability of maintaining their status will drop from 90% to 30%, if they only have a low qualification instead of a high one. For individuals of working class origin, their probability of improving their status will increase from 10% to 90%, if they have a high qualification instead of a low qualification. This evidence shows that education plays a huge role in determining social positions.