a little thread on meritocracy. When I was applying for my PhD I had access to journal articles (behind a paywall), had been taught what a research proposal looks like, had years of experience writing in the language/style of the country I was applying to study in. 1/8

I also had two people at institutions in the UK who were willing to read my research proposal & give me (very) helpful feedback, before I submitted my application. I had referees who were positioned at elite institutions (& had ties to Cambridge). 2/8

I also had flexible work hours, a quiet place to work, enough money, no kids to take care of. I could write my research proposal in peace, with no distractions and spend all the time I needed on it. 3/8

Comparing a research proposal like that - that has come from a place of privilege, access to social, cultural and material capital, to a proposal of someone who did not have some, or all of those things, is not meritocracy. 4/8

Unless the resources someone has to excel are similar or comparable to someone else, comparison makes absolutely no sense. Admissions Committees should look at circumstances & give weight to those. 5/8

If someone can produce good work from a place of precarity, imagine what they can do with access to resources & support. 6/8

& a PhD is definitely long enough to learn skills necessary to complete it - to perfect one's english, to figure out demands of *very* particular UK academic institutional writing, how to structure an argument - things we all struggle with in some way. 7/8

So, when boards of admission rely on elitism and call it meritocracy, they're not actually being fair - they're just valuing privilege more than potential & as long as that's the case elite institutions can't be vehicles for meaningful social change. 8/8