The post argues against the idea that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. case is responsible for credentialism in employment, presenting evidence that the issue is more complex and widespread. Longer summary

This post challenges the common belief that the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. Supreme Court case is responsible for the rise of credentialism in employment. The author presents several arguments against this notion: 1) The Griggs decision applies equally to college degrees and IQ tests, yet degrees are still widely used. 2) Other countries without similar laws face similar credentialism issues. 3) It's legal and possible for employers to ask for SAT scores (which approximate IQ tests), but this practice hasn't caught on. 4) Fields with standardized tests (like medicine) still heavily rely on credentials. The author concludes that the roots of credentialism likely lie deeper than this single court decision. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends true meritocracy against misguided critiques, arguing for a system based on demonstrated ability rather than educational credentials. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to various articles criticizing meritocracy, arguing that these critiques often misunderstand the concept. He defines true meritocracy as positions going to those most capable, regardless of their background or education. The post argues that the current system, which heavily relies on educational credentials, is not truly meritocratic. Scott suggests that fields should focus more on demonstrated ability rather than formal education, using programming as a positive example. He emphasizes the importance of defending the term 'meritocracy' to maintain a clear alternative to the current flawed system. Shorter summary