This study helps to explain aspects of Chinese culture that the West seems to lack understanding for: a meritocracy has been the foundation for Chinese social movement since the Tang dynasty. Upwards mobility was dictated by academic performance, not some notion of capital accrual.
Academic performance is dictated by access to good educators which has always been dictated by wealth.
The facade of merit has always been used to justify casting away ‘lazy people who don’t study enough’ when the reality is that not everyone can afford private tutors, exotic sports, cram school, travel experience, and every other paid tactic to overstuff kid’s resumes.
Academic performance is dictated by access to good educators which has always been dictated by wealth.
By gender and wealth. Not only wealth.
True. It could be far better, but one thing China did vastly improve on since the 1950s is bringing women into the workforce and providing them with a far greater degree of autonomy and access to real education than women previously experienced.
This might not sound like much since this has happened to varying degrees in many countries, but it’s understated how socially regressive Chinese views on women historically were (and still are). Not saying things are good now, because China is still rife with gender inequality issues. Just pointing out how disgusting and ingrained Confucian views on womanhood are and how much of a stain it has left on Chinese society.
The way I see things meritocracy is a tricky notion. It implies that if you are dispossessed, it’s your fault and not a systemic failure.
Patriarchy is a systemic failure because categorises half the population as second class citizens, and that is the best case senario. Historically, more often than not, women have not been considered as citizens per se.deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not sure if achievement of medieval China or failure of mid 20th century America
It can be both I think.
This social mobility from the imperial examination also probably didn’t extend to the lowest rungs of Chinese society at the time, because the man had to be able to take the exam. A poor man would need a sponsor or mentor to pay for their education, Hout said.
I’m curious how many people that represented.
That’s a great question. Just to note that it is not talking about people, just men.
Definitely true
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Men in medieval China could gain high status in society as easily as male Baby Boomers in the US, according to a new study released on Thursday.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed education, family status, and ranks of officials in the Tang Dynasty, and found that social mobility at the time was comparable to standards in the 1960s and 1970s in the US.
Their epitaphs are highly detailed, and provide a trove of information on the officials’ ancestral origins, family backgrounds, and careers, the researchers said.
Under Empress Wu Zetian, a famed figure in Chinese history who ruled from the year 665 to 705, the imperial exam became far more prominent in the bureaucracy, with at least 16% of male elites after her reign obtaining a degree, the researchers said.
This social mobility from the imperial examination also probably didn’t extend to the lowest rungs of Chinese society at the time, because the man had to be able to take the exam.
The rigorous exams are remembered today in China as a long-lasting symbol of meritocracy that was a game-changer for ambitious men in imperial times.
The original article contains 558 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
