From India to France, the implicit meritocratic bargain that underwrote stable societies by providing advancement to new generations is breaking down.
Protest movements have long relied on students as some of the most ardent foot soldiers. Young people have been on the front lines of protests against war, climate change and racial inequality. But in huge protests that have shaken India and France this fall, students have revolted against the failed promises of education itself.
In India, students took to the streets after the government abruptly canceled the results of a medical-school admissions exam because test questions had been leaked online. Aspiring doctors had to take the test again, after many spent years studying for up to 12 hours a day in hopes of winning one of the coveted spots — and the chance of upward mobility. Young people across the country saw the scandal as emblematic of a broken education system and were furious.
In France, students in poor suburbs outside Paris began protesting the decrepit physical condition of their schools, an opaque university admissions system and absent teachers. French education had long promised to serve as a “social elevator” enabling young people to advance in society, but had fallen into disrepair. Soon, demonstrations spread across the country and, in some cities, spiraled into rioting.
In both countries, the anger of the students shows no signs of abating. And while in many ways France and India could hardly be more different, their unrest was sparked by a similar source of outrage: the breakdown of a foundational social contract that one could call the meritocratic bargain.
It is a promise that lies at the core of many countries’ political compacts. Though specifics can vary, the central proposition usually goes something like this: A fair society rewards merit. Educational achievements are a good measure of merit because education is open to all and leads to valuable skills. Therefore, education should be a route to social and economic advancement.
The value of this system is not just that it selects for those with high ability, but also that it offers a justification for the resulting socioeconomic hierarchy — including who ends up at the bottom. “All selection mechanisms generate losers,” said Nicholas Kuipers, a professor at Princeton University who studies the politics of meritocracy. “The question is, Who do you want to be a loser, and who do you want to be a winner?”