Pros And Cons Of Educational Equality

Developing people’s capabilities or merits is the most efficient way to extend general equality, as everyone would have an equal opportunity to compete in a true meritocracy; and because this system is relatively just, any inequality that emerges from this system is

5

justifiable, as any inequality would have naturally sifted through the system based on an individual’s natural merit (Mathewson). Social hierarchies within the United States are not solely based on wealth, as they are also based on skill and educational attainment; however, economic inequality has allowed wealthy citizens to have privileged access to excellent avenues of education, and thus greater avenues of socio-economic mobility (Mathewson). Therefore, economic inequality

For in Irvine – the more affluent community, ninety six percent of the population graduates high school, while in Fullerton, which is significantly less affluent than Irvine, only eighty-six percent of the population graduates. To some, a ten percent difference in graduation rates might not suggest a problematic case of inequality, but in statistics, such a disparity is statistically significant; that ten percent represents disturbing trends concerning inequality, as those thousands of high school dropouts are at a huge disadvantage in economic, political, and social spheres of American life. Educational equality ensures general political, economic, and social equality; it also follows that educational inequality ensures general political, economic, and social inequality. Generally, American Educational Policies attempt to equally subsidize schools and universities, yet outcomes in these institutions, such as SAT and ACT scores, are far from equal; this is because our redistributive policies do not consider other personal economic factors that might

Yet, in order to encourage and maintain a meritocratic system, government intervention and regulation must aim to proportionally redistribute resources to the educational system – especially in concern to the least well off in society. Pareto, a once leading advocate of intense government intervention, redistribution and regulation, contended free-market efficiency, favoring his own economic theory instead, Pareto Efficiency; he argued that true economic efficiency could only be achieved by consistently interfering in a state’s systems or markets in order to ensure equally beneficiary economic trades – he labeled these equally beneficiary trades “Pareto Improvements” (Mathewson & Pareto). Pareto’s theory implies that unless a proactive and vigilant redistributive role is pursued by the state, the relatively free-market inevitably proliferates inefficient social and economic disparity that is largely unbeneficial to society as a whole. Therefore, unless