Advantages of Meritocracy System in Malaysia Education

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

• The system was introduced in Malaysian education year 2002, in conducting students intake in the institution of higher learning

• Bumiputera refused to accept this system

• However, the intake for Bumiputeras’ students still increase impact to the implementation of this system

1.2 Statement Of Problem

• Meritocracy system has changed the Malaysian Educational system especially in institution of higher learning.

• To determine the advantages of meritocracy system as general in terms of gender, races and socio-economy

• The respondents : the students of UiTM Melaka City Campus

1.3 Purpose of the Study

• To evaluate how far and how successful meritocracy has brought our education and the impact of meritocracy system

1.4 Objective of The Study

• to describe the current Bumiputera’s students’ responses about the meritocracy system and the advantages of meritocracy system.

• to inform Bumiputera students about the meritocracy system, to make them work harder and serious in their studies.

• to investigate the extend of knowledge and anxiety levels of the students in Malaysia about potential of the meritocracy system.

1.5 Research Questions

• What are the advantages of meritocracy in terms of racial discrimination?

• What are the advantages of meritocracy in terms of socio economy?

1.6 Significance of the Study

• the proportions of students according to races also have changed

• competition among all races is getting higher.

• extensive studies could be planned for the future and the standard of Malaysian Educational may improve in the long term.

1.6 Scope of the Study

• to determine the advantages of meritocracy in education in Malaysia

• 50 students in UiTM Melaka City Campus

• A set of questionnaires was designed to gain primary data from the respondents about the topic of studies

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

• According to Stephen J. McNamee and Robert K. Miller, Jr. (2004) state that America is the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit, which is generally viewed as a combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity.

• According to the merit of individuals, we challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility

2.2 Meritocracy Versus Demeritocracy

• According to Bruce Ackerman (2007) state that the ghost of Montesquieu is haunting Britain. His theory of the separation of powers famously misdescribed the political dynamics of 18th-century England, which was already moving in the direction of parliamentary government. Yet his arguments for dividing political power hit home in America, and as the United States rose to prominence, its Montesquieuan model proved attractive to the Latin American countries in its sphere of influence.

• If this seems too pallid for strong democrats, there is one other move worth considering. Call this the ‘mirror-image’ design. On this system, all members for the upper and lower house have the same terms, and all are free to run for re-election, but electoral laws make it virtually impossible for different political parties to win in the two houses.

2.3 Meritocracy and Socio Economy

• As Stan Grimes (2006) argues that Meritocracy refers to a society in which individuals of status, wealth, and income are assigned their status through competition (merit). In other words, if you have a Masters Degree in Social Work you have been given more merit than a bus driver has. The USA and many countries determine status through educational merits. For example, a medical doctor is assigned great merit in this country. Doctors are as close to God as you can get no matter their ability. The diploma hanging on their office wall defines them.

• We indeed are a democracy, but we have allowed classism and meritocracy to rule our culture of work and our culture of poverty. There is no reversing this system. It is embedded and deeply rooted in the upper economic levels of our society

2.4 Influencing of Meritocracy On Races, Sex and Class

• According to Matt Prewitt (2008) state, we never question whether meritocracy is a good thing. Its desirableness is practically embedded in the word itself, because the idea of valuing merit connotes a high-minded dismissal of unfair biasing factors (i.e. race, sex and class). Meritocracy gains many adherents due to its lack of bias. Furthermore, it turns out to be an excellent foil to Marxism on account of its class-blindness. In particular, we collectively misunderstand one of meritocracy's properties: we assume that it prioritizes the interests of individuals, when in fact it does the opposite. Our confusion arises from the fact that meritocracy allows skilled people from underprivileged backgrounds to succeed. This single attribute does not represent the essence of meritocracy, and it misleads us into myopically focusing on meritocracy's upside.

• there are illegitimate reasons why meritocracy has become a widespread ideal. Nearly everyone stands to gain from publicly espousing meritocratic perspectives. Underprivileged people often argue that meritocracy is good, because if we had more of it, they would probably be better off. Rich and powerful people frequently argue that meritocracy is good with the not-so-subtle implication that it explains their success. Both arguments are feeble, self-interested half-truths. Because people don't want to be accused of corruptness or ineptitude, they only rarely question whether that elusive perfect meritocracy would actually be desirable

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

• The main purpose of the research is to know the advantages of meritocracy in Malaysian educational system. To assess and evaluate the information and knowledge on meritocracy, students in UiTM Melaka City Campus with nearly 2000 students’ population was chosen. Data for the research were collected through questionnaire.

3.2 Respondents Of The Study

• The respondents of the study were the bachelor degree students from different courses in UiTM Melaka City Campus.

3.3 Research Instrument Used

• This research utilized the quantitative research methodology. The instrument used to collect the data was questionnaire. A set of questionnaire containing 20 questions divided into 3 sections was developed. Different question-types such as yes-no, open-ended and rating were used in the questionnaire.

3.4 Research Procedure

• During the study, the questionnaires were distributed at various locations on campus such as library, cafeteria and classes. Respondents were approach and given a brief explanation about meritocracy before giving respond to the questionnaire given to them.

CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Overview of the Study

· Research conducted to know about the advantages of meritocracy system.

· A set of questionnaire was constructed and response from 50 students in UiTM Melaka City Campus was obtained - from this, we would be able to know their view and opinion on this subject of matter clearly.

4.2 Restatement Of The Objective

· This research set out to know about the advantages of meritocracy in our education.

4.3 Review Of Findings

· The research has shown that by the implementation of meritocracy in education, Bumiputera may improve them in education.

· The result of the research shown that students in rural area have to work harder to compete with students in urban areas.

· The findings of this study suggest that in general meritocracy has resulted more female students rather than male students in university.

4.4 Implication Of Findings

· The results of the research indicate that meritocracy has created a more competitive educational system and Bumiputera now has viewed education as one of the important elements in their life.

4.5 Limitation Of The Study

4.5.1 The Data

The findings are only true for UiTM Melaka City Campus. The same study needs to be conducted with students from other universities. From that, we will able to see if there are any similarities with the factors that will influence students’ opinion towards meritocracy.

4.5.2 Respondents’ Knowledge

This limitation has come across when we distributed the first few sets of questionnaire to our respondents. Many of the respondents do not really familiar with the term “meritocracy”. However, after a brief explanation given on the term, all of them have been able to give their best answer.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Recommendation Based On The Findings

· The government should pay, more attention to students in rural areas by providing more facilities, infrastructure and setting many educational programs.

· More intensive education and motivation should be implemented to the male students. This is because many male students do not really conscious on the importance of education and by this way, they would change their mind setting and start to become more competitive in educational environment.

5.2 Recommendations For Future Research

· It is recommended that further research be carried out on students from other universities such as Multimedia University, Universiti Putera Malaysia and others in order to see whether there are any similarities in the findings.

· Further research should explore the opinion of non-Bumiputera respondents as well. So, it is recommended to conduct the further research to the respondents from both Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera. It will help to identify if there is/are any gap/s between these groups of people.

· Lastly, although meritocracy in education is focused mainly about students, it is recommended if the further research could have different group of respondents, for example teachers, lecturers and parents.