Is Science a meritocracy?

Update -Finally publishing the draft from dec 2019 

 

Somebody on twitter found it absurd to call science a meritocracy. I would agree to it in the past but now I am not sure. My prime focus is on marks. It never bothered me until I met two researchers from Max Planck institute in a symposium. Apparently, the grades are taken very seriously in Europe for PhD admission. Just like in India.That is ridiculous on two levels. One, the message it sends out- ONLY high scoring students can, and should be privileged to, make a career in science. Second, the assumption that those students will be good at doing science. Because unlike PhD admission, these may not be followed up with an interview and only based on merit the batch of students is prepared. And the majority, the <85% scoring population, has to look out for other means to show how competent they are. And that is really really worrisome for anyone who wants to increase the engagement of society in STEM on all levels.

If it exists, which it does very visibly in India, we do not have to ignore this, really. Grades and merit do matter and there is no denying it. Let us see this with a student's, A's , perspective who gets into academia. Right after her schools, A chooses the best college suited for her and applies. Note that "the best" here almost always means better quality of education which depends on the quality of their faculty and resources which, in turn, depends on the funding and working environment of the college and how is the funding chosen? on a competitive and merit basis! Sorry, I am getting ahead of myself. So yes, A chose the college, joins, does well, and graduates. Assuming she does a Master's, repeat the same process, i.e., choosing the "best" college. For the Ph.D. she would require a fellowship, let's suppose she gets it. Here, is a fun fact worth mentioning. If you get selected through GATE and you are in top 100, you qualify to sit for interview in Indian Institute of Science, the best institute in India. LOL

Our A now is now in a reputed institute, doing research and she finally submits it, defends and becomes Dr A. *tears of joy*. Now again she has to choose a lab to do a post doctoral research, say somewhere abroad. She does the exact same thing! Find the "best lab" in her field. Her employer does the same thing from the applicants, only this time she focuses more on the kind of work they did as well! That does not rule out the "importance" of doing well in academics (even though the same people go somewhere else and claim "our education system sucks"-_- #hypocrisy). Applying for jobs, if at all available, is the same, promotion is the same. Where isn't meritocracy?

So yes. I do believe that this criteria is flawed and should be more inclusive and marks obtained should not be the first filter. Although I do agree that a high percentage can indicate a student's good work ethic, intelligence and discipline. But these aren't anything unachievable. So if you are saying you'd not like to train a student because of this, that makes sense as an employer. That student, if given equal opportunity and is willing enough, will find ways and means to do it. The process will only be longer than the 85% scorer but she will get there. 

I am speaking from my experience and acquaintances and would like to see how the rest of the world does it. Is it prof specific? school specific? or is that how their local scientific community works?