"Does America as a meritocracy exist?"

While The Great Gatsby is quite a boring read on its own, there are legitimate questions that are inquired by this novel about America in the 1920s, questions that even translate into today's America. One that caught my eye out of the many interesting topics to cover was this question: "Does America, as a meritocracy, exist?"

First, it would be helpful to define what a meritocracy even is. A meritocracy is a system where people are given power based on their own personal ability, or what they can contribute to the country or society. Obviously some would say yes because America is capitalistic: people gain money by working, and gain power through their monetary gains. However, some people could claim that America isn't a perfect representation of a meritocracy because of the many factors that affect American workers: your gender, age, and race could all affect your salaries, some people earn money by doing less skill-intensive work than others, and equally-skilled people in different professions might be paid different depending on their respective jobs. It is interesting to dive into this question because there are several examples in The Great Gatsby that tackle this question, although the side that they support is unclear. 

Take Meyer Wolfsheim for instance. According to Gatsby, Meyer Wolfsheim is an old friend of his who also "'...fixed the World’s Series back in 1919'" (Fitzgerald 74). While this bit was meant to plant seeds of doubt in Nick's mind about the origins of Gatsby's wealth, it can also be used as an answer to this thought-provoking question. Wolfsheim is someone who is portrayed as very rich in the novel, and judging by his shadiness and his connection with influential people like Gatsby, he is powerful as well. However, the fortune that a person could get by fixing a massive event which is bound to have many betters is massive. People who are against the idea that America is a meritocracy would say that Wolfsheim unfairly cheated the capitalistic system and gained power not through means of merit, but lies and deceit. However, there is a counterargument to this claim, as people who still believe America is a meritocracy could claim that it would take a lot of charisma and persuasion to make this whole ordeal happen, which is a skill that should be recognized along obvious ones like strength for laborers or academic proficiency for scientists. The case of Wolfsheim is indeed split, but we could also take a look at Gatsby himself, who claims that he got his fortune from his dead ancestors and has used it ever since to go on adventures and do the craziest things. Many would argue that riding the coattails of your ancestors to become powerful is not deserved and if America was a true meritocracy, then this would never happen.

Personally, I agree with this notion. I believe America isn't a meritocracy because of the lengths it will go to add factors into the economy that mess with raw skill level. For me, this is most apparent not within the economy, as I am still in high school, but for college admissions. Colleges think more about admitting diversified applicants (different genders, different races, different living conditions and states) than measuring raw skill level, which is obviously because of their marketing and trying to seem like a progressive school. This disturbs the measure of raw skill level, which I think is unfair to people who have to be more competitive and stress out more over these kinds of things, which leads to stereotyping in schools (especially with Asians, the most common victim of these selective admissions) and other problems.