The Meritocracy Myth: How MBA Admissions Reward Privilege, Not Potential

Forbes

01-07-2025

The term 'Meritocracy' was coined in 1958 by British sociologist Michael Young—not to praise the concept, but to satirize it. In his dystopian vision, society rewarded ability and effort, replacing aristocratic privilege with a system just as exclusionary, cloaked in the illusion of fairness. Before his death, Young warned that education had not become the equalizer many hoped for, but rather a divider—sorting people by wealth and access rather than raw talent.
More than sixty years later, elite business school admissions reflect the very dangers Young warned about. MBA programs claim to reward drive, discipline, and merit. But in practice, they often reward access—disguising privilege as potential.
Consider the cost of even applying. Application fees for top programs can reach $275 per school. The GMAT alone costs up to $300, not including standardized test prep materials or admissions coaching, which can run anywhere from $100 to over $20,000. Add in transcript requests, travel for visits and interviews, and time off work, and many qualified low-income applicants are priced out before they even hit 'Start Application.'
These financial barriers are compounded by structural ones. Standardized tests—originally developed by eugenicists—have long favored wealthier, white test-takers. Recommendation letters remain deeply subjective and often reflect access to elite mentors more than actual ability. Many programs require several years of full-time professional experience—experience often gained through unpaid internships or early-career jobs only accessible to those with financial safety nets.
Meanwhile, we continue to reward exclusivity. Students from the wealthiest families attend the most resourced high schools, which feed into selective undergraduate institutions. Those institutions invest more in and offer stronger career services, alumni networks, and internship pipelines—particularly into finance and consulting, industries heavily favored by MBA programs. Graduates of these schools build the kinds of resumes and recommendation letters admissions committees are looking for.
But most low-income, first-generation students never enter that pipeline. The cost of attending Wharton's MBA program, for instance, is now more than $92,000 per year. The recent Senate bill proposal would cap federal graduate loans at $50,000 annually, leaving students to somehow find over $40,000 from other sources—not including living expenses. Even students who manage to 'beat the odds' in admissions face a funding cliff that locks them out of opportunity.
The result? A system that claims to reward merit but functions as a finely tuned filter for wealth and access. This isn't meritocracy. It's aristocracy—with a rebrand.
If corporate leaders are serious about building a workforce that reflects the full range of talent in our society, they can't afford to ignore these barriers. It's time to stop relying on admissions systems that systemically exclude those without privilege—and start building alternatives that recognize real ability.
What Employers Can—and Must—Do
Talent and drive exist in every school and zip code—but without removing barriers, we're not rewarding merit, we're rewarding the already wealthy. The American Dream hinges on the idea that hard work and ability lead to success, but today's system blocks millions from even getting on the track.
Equity isn't politics—it's simply good business. Equity is removing barriers so that potential, not privilege, determines who rises. If business leaders truly believe in meritocracy, they must recognize that merit can't flourish without equity. Only by aligning opportunity with ability can we build the kind of workforce—and future—that meritocracy can ultimately promise.
Help us widen the pipeline. Support Leadership Brainery in creating equitable pathways to graduate education. Donate today! Interested in engaging with us or have an idea for a future topic? Submit this brief form.