Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose

This paper critiques meritocracy's foundational assumptions, arguing that its focus on ranking individuals according to flawed metrics fosters unhealthy competition, overlooks diverse human talents, fails to account for unequal starting points, and ultimately hinders both individual fulfillment and societal progress. We propose an alternative framework, the Human Interdependence Paradigm, which redefines the purpose of education. HIP emphasizes cultivating unique individual greatness. It posits that the value of this greatness is realized through applying it to solve meaningful real-world problems for others, fostering a sense of purpose and mutual reliance. HIP aims to create learning environments that promote collaboration, social intelligence, and ultimately, a more equitable and flourishing society.

Design/Approach/Methods

Theoretical analysis from historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives.

Findings

Meritocracy has misguided education and society because of its narrow definition of merit and negligence of human differences. Education in the 21st century needs to move away from the narrow definition of merit toward human interdependence, which emphasizes the unique greatness of individuals.

Originality/Value

This article challenges the widely accepted concept of meritocracy, which has been used in schools and societies to justify standardized testing, college admissions, and distribution of social capital, and proposes a new concept for education.

Keywords

Education reform human interdependence jagged profile meritocracy personalized learning

Introduction

In our previous work exploring educational transformation in the age of AI (Zhao, 2024; Zhao & Zhong, 2024; Zhong & Zhao, 2025), we argued for a paradigm shift away from rigid, prescribed curricula toward personalized learning environments that grant students the autonomy to pursue meaningful problems. We posited that the core purpose of modern education should be to empower students to identify and cultivate their unique strengths and passions—their “unique greatness”—and apply these capabilities to address significant challenges. This raises fundamental questions: What constitutes a significant or meaningful problem? Whose challenges merit attention? And how can the value of such pursuits be assessed?

The answers, we contend, lie in recognizing the fundamentally social nature of human existence. The value of human life is deeply intertwined with serving and connecting with others; we are evolutionarily predisposed toward collaboration and mutual contribution (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Grant, 2014; Lieberman, 2013). Yet, traditional schooling, operating under the pervasive influence of meritocracy (Young, 1958/1994; Zhao, 2016b), often steers students toward competition rather than cooperation. This paper critiques the meritocratic paradigm and introduces an alternative framework: the Human Interdependence Paradigm (HIP). We will first examine the rise and appeal of meritocracy, then deconstruct its inherent fallacies, particularly within education. Subsequently, we will propose a redefinition of “merit” centered on unique individual strengths. Finally, we will elaborate on the HIP, outlining how it fosters collaboration, leverages diversity, and cultivates purpose through real-world contribution, ultimately redefining educational success as mutual flourishing.

The rise and end of meritocracy

In 1958, British sociologist Michael Dunlop Young, in his satirical work The Rise of the Meritocracy (Young, 1958/1994), popularized a term he intended as a warning. His book depicted a dystopian future where “merit,” narrowly defined as IQ plus effort, dictates social stratification, creating a rigid hierarchy separating the meritorious elite from a disenfranchised underclass. Young foresaw this system culminating in a populist revolt in 2034.

The term “meritocracy”—derived from the Latin mereo (to earn) and Greek kratos (power)—had been used pejoratively 2 years earlier by sociologist Alan Fox. Ironically, despite its creators’ intentions, the term was widely adopted without its negative connotations. Young himself later lamented this embrace, particularly by Tony Blair's Labour Party, stating in 2001:

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others. (Young, 2001, para. 11)

The appeal of meritocracy

The concept of meritocracy gained traction far beyond British politics, becoming a foundational ideal for many modern societies and organizations (Allen, 2011; Celarent, 2009). Its appeal lies in the promise of a system where status, power, and rewards flow from individual talent, effort, and achievement, rather than inherited privilege or social class. Proponents argue that meritocracy fosters efficiency by placing the most capable individuals in key roles, promotes fairness by offering equal opportunity, and enhances social mobility by rewarding hard work and aptitude, thereby motivating self-improvement (Allen, 2011).

The practice of meritocracy had been in place in some societies way before the coinage of the term. For example, the imperial examination system (keju) in China started nearly 2000 years ago. Ostensibly, this system, a meritocracy, used exams for the emperor to select civil servants, and in theory, anyone who could pass the exams would be awarded government positions and privileges as well as social status. For more than a thousand years, the system led countless people to study for years for the few successful spots, and those who failed could become teachers for others who continued the same path (Zhao, 2014). Despite its apparent flaws, for instance, the wealthy could apparently have more resources to support their children's pursuit than the poor, the keju system was accepted as a fair and just one because it rewarded those who had the capability to succeed in the exam. This system was also exported to South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

While the system was abolished in 1905 in China and modern schools were established afterward, the tradition of meritocracy continues today in China, except that the keju was replaced with college entrance exams. In China and other Eastern Asian countries, exam-driven meritocracy is generally embraced as fair and just by the people, even accepted by the disadvantaged. Modern societies in the West have also embraced the concept with the belief that talent and perseverance can overcome traditional barriers like class hierarchies.

Meritocracy breeds competition and selfishness in education

In fact, modern education systems all over the world have largely internalized the meritocratic paradigm. Young's critique implicitly targeted systems like the UK's Tripartite system, which sorted students based on perceived ability (often measured by IQ tests) into different educational tracks presumed to align with their future roles, albeit with unequal resources and outcomes. While specific structures like the Tripartite system have evolved, its underlying logic—sorting and ranking based on standardized measures of merit (Gould, 1996)—persists globally (Zhao, 2016b). Academic achievement is used widely to sort and select youth into more advanced educational institutions, such as colleges and more prestigious colleges.

Graduates from more prestigious colleges appear to have much better opportunities than those who do not go to college or less prestigious colleges. For example, in the U.S., college graduates, on average, enjoy substantially higher lifetime earnings than both high school graduates and dropouts—median annual incomes for bachelor's degree holders are often 50%–60% higher than those of high-school-only completers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024a). They also face lower unemployment rates and greater job stability, owing largely to access to professional occupations and career-advancement opportunities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024a). In terms of non-economic well-being, college graduates typically report better physical and mental health outcomes—benefits linked to higher socioeconomic status, healthier lifestyles, and stronger social networks (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2006; Schnittker & McLeod, 2005). Finally, higher educational attainment is associated with increased civic engagement, as evidenced by elevated rates of voting, volunteering, and participation in community organizations (Verba et al., 1995).

Schools function both as meritocratic systems and for a broader meritocratic society. Internally, student performance is constantly assessed and rewarded. High achievers receive accolades, better resources, and leadership roles, while lower performers are often relegated to remedial programs or overlooked. Externally, schooling serves as the primary mechanism for differentiating individuals deemed intelligent, capable, and hardworking from those labeled otherwise. School performance, as mentioned earlier, and standardized test scores are the primary mechanisms for a meritocracy to select those with “merit.”

This creates an intensely competitive environment. To gain status, resources, recognition, and access to higher levels of education or desirable careers, students must consistently outperform their peers on academic assessments. Whether through grades (As, Bs, Fs), rubric-based evaluations, or high-stakes standardized tests (like the SAT, ACT, or national college entrance exams), the system inherently ranks individuals (Sahlberg, 2011). Success for one often implies failure or lower standing for another. This competitive pressure is a significant source of academic stress and its associated negative impacts on student well-being (Deng et al., 2022; Sarkar et al., 2022; Steare et al., 2023). Critically, by forcing students to compete on uniform metrics, the meritocratic model cultivates self-interest, positioning peers as rivals rather than collaborators, as individual performance remains the ultimate measure of worth.

The costs of this competitiveness are high, resulting in tremendous academic pressure. Research has shown a clear association between academic pressure and adverse mental health outcomes. Pascoe et al. (2020) conducted a narrative review of educational settings and found that intensified school demands and frequent assessments are consistently associated with higher levels of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbances among adolescents. Complementing this, a systematic literature review by Ribeiro et al. (2018) demonstrated that elevated academic stress correlates with poorer quality of life, decreased motivation, and increased risk of school dropout among university students.

These psychological damages translate into substantial societal and economic costs. Mental illness—including anxiety and depression frequently precipitated by academic stress—imposes a $282 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy, equivalent to the economic impact of a typical recession (Thompson & HealthDay, 2024). Among adolescents, unmet behavioral health needs are estimated to generate up to $185 billion in lifetime medical costs and $3 trillion in lost productivity and wages (United Hospital Fund, 2024). Beyond direct healthcare expenditures, these figures do not account for secondary costs such as increased absenteeism, diminished academic performance, and higher dropout rates—outcomes that further constrain individual life trajectories and amplify fiscal pressures on educational and social services.

Moreover, meritocratic education cultivates a mindset in students that they must compete against each other. In order for them to win, others must fail. This perspective leads students to have a narrow view of opportunities to realize their dream of success. It can prevent them from seeing opportunities in others when they enter society. It also prevents them from seeing the value of diversity.

The fallacy of meritocracy

Despite its appealing facade of fairness and efficiency, the concept of meritocracy rests on flawed foundations, as increasingly argued by contemporary critics (Littler, 2018; Markovits, 2019; Sandel, 2021). The core assumptions underpinning meritocracy are fundamentally problematic, leading to damaging societal consequences.

First, the foundational assumption that merit (talent and effort) can be objectively and fairly measured, typically through test scores or academic credentials, is deeply flawed. The very definition of “merit” is often skewed by cultural biases, institutional priorities, and prevailing social norms, rather than representing a universal standard (Arrow et al., 2000). Young's (1958/1994) original “IQ plus effort” formula remains influential, yet what constitutes valuable merit varies significantly across contexts. The skills or merit needed for a concert pianist differ vastly from those of an engineer or an athlete (Fallows, 1989). Furthermore, standardized tests used to measure supposed merit are notoriously narrow and prone to cultural and socioeconomic biases, failing to capture the breadth of human intelligence or potential accurately (Gould, 1996; Kim & Zabelina, 2015; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In fact, any measure of any human quality is biased, and the result is often distorted. No assessment can accurately and reliably assess the qualities of humans (Zhong & Zhao, 2025).

Moreover, the predictive validity of these traditional measures of merit for life success is questionable. Decades of research indicate that IQ scores have limited value in predicting long-term achievement (Firkowska-Mankiewicz, 2002). Similarly, standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, and GRE show weak correlations with college success and even less with broader life contributions (Hiss & Franks, 2014; Steele, 1999). Even GPA, another common metric, has been found by organizations like Google to lack correlation with job performance beyond the initial entry-level stage (Bryant, 2013).

Second, meritocracy falsely assumes a level playing field, suggesting that outcomes purely reflect innate talent and effort. In reality, individuals start life with vastly different access to resources crucial for development, including quality nutrition, healthcare, stable homes, supportive communities, quality education, and social capital (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Putnam, 2015). Success within the system often correlates more strongly with parental socioeconomic status and education levels than with inherent individual merit (Arrow et al., 2000; Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Reardon, 2011). Berliner (2006) powerfully demonstrates with abundant evidence that poverty is the primary cause of the lack of educational achievement among the students who are deemed failures in the U.S. Those who succeed may attribute it to their own abilities, yet privilege often plays an undeniable role (Brown et al., 2016).

Third, the notion that effort invariably leads to success is contradicted by the experiences of many who work diligently yet face systemic barriers, cultural biases, or unfavorable societal conditions. Conversely, privilege, inheritance, or connections can pave the way for success with comparatively less effort (Markovits, 2019; Sandel, 2021). Numerous people work very hard, yet they cannot achieve nearly as much as those born into wealthy, powerful, and well-connected families.

Finally, meritocracy cultivates a belief that success is deserved solely by the “meritorious,” implicitly blaming those less successful for lacking talent or diligence. This mindset justifies stark inequalities and can lead to social stagnation and resentment (Sandel, 2021). The widening gap between the affluent and the poor, despite efforts to close educational “achievement gaps,” suggests the system may perpetuate, rather than alleviate, inequality (OECD, 2022, 2023; Piketty, 2014; Zhao, 2016b). The social fragmentation and unrest predicted in Young's satire appear increasingly relevant, highlighting the potential unsustainability of purely meritocratic societies (Littler, 2018; Markovits, 2019).

Redefining merit: From uniformity to unique greatness

The fundamental issue lies in meritocracy's narrow definition of merit, which ignores the vast diversity inherent in human populations. Human beings exhibit significant variation across cognitive, physical, emotional, social, and cultural dimensions. Foundational theories of intelligence, for instance, posit multiple distinct abilities rather than a single quantifiable “g” factor: Individuals may possess strong linguistic or logical-mathematical abilities, while others excel in spatial, musical, kinesthetic, or interpersonal domains (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1987). These innate potentials interact dynamically with diverse life experiences, shaping individual development trajectories (Lewontin, 2001; Ridley, 2003).

Furthermore, individuals display distinct patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving, often conceptualized as personality. Widely accepted models like the Big Five framework suggest stable individual differences along dimensions such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (John et al., 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2003). People also differ significantly in their intrinsic motivations and desires. Reiss (2000, 2004), for example, identified 16 basic desires (e.g., curiosity, order, social contact, power, independence), suggesting that individuals possess unique motivational profiles influencing their goals and behaviors.

While all humans possess the capacity to learn, innate predispositions, personality traits, and individual interests significantly moderate the pace of learning and the ultimate level of mastery achievable within any specific domain (Ericsson et al., 1993). Consequently, exceptional achievement akin to that of a Picasso or an Einstein is not merely a function of effort but also relies on a confluence of aptitude, passion, and opportunity. Moreover, the constraint of finite time dictates that deep engagement in one area necessarily precludes equivalent investment in others; becoming an expert often requires extensive deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2014; Gladwell, 2008). Critically, the surrounding environment—including family background, community resources, and cultural values—plays a profound role by affording or denying exposure to particular domains and by actively valuing or devaluing specific skills and knowledge (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Putnam, 2015).

The perceived “usefulness” or “value” of any given talent or expertise is therefore not intrinsic but highly contingent upon specific tasks, societal needs, economic structures, and cultural priorities (Becker, 1993; Zhao, 2019). Talents highly prized in one historical epoch or cultural context (e.g., artistic skills in Renaissance Florence, coding skills in Silicon Valley) might be deemed less relevant or even “useless” in others (e.g., agricultural societies, societies prioritizing conformity over creativity). Meritocratic systems, by imposing a narrow, often historically and culturally specific definition of valuable merit, and by disregarding the crucial interplay of innate potential, effort, time constraints, and environmental affordances, inevitably fail to recognize, cultivate, or value the full spectrum of human difference and the complex realities shaping individual development and societal contribution.

The rise of the useless

The narrow definition of merit causes education to narrow the range of human capacities that schools cultivate, with significant consequences for both individuals and society. For instance, privileging mathematics and science at the expense of the humanities, arts, and vocational disciplines effectively “suppresses the potential for individuals to achieve self-actualization” and disproportionately disadvantages students whose talents lie outside the defined merit fields (Zhao, 2019, p. 65). However, the abilities, skills, and personalities that have traditionally been considered “useless” have become valuable or can become valuable in the age of AI.

Recent labor-market data underscore the growing economic weight of domains outside the traditionally defined merit. In March 2025, the Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector in the U.S. employed approximately 2.7 million workers and is projected to generate more than 100,000 annual job openings through 2035, exceeding the average growth rate across all occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024b). Concurrently, the U.S. freelance economy reached a record high of 64 million independent workers in 2023—38% of the national workforce—contributing $1.27 trillion in annual earnings and driving expansion in creative and service-oriented industries (Upwork, 2023).

Economic valuations of specific creative and service sectors further illustrate this trend. The global video games market generated $184.0 billion in revenue in 2023 (Newzoo, 2024). Recorded music revenues grew to $28.6 billion—a 10.2% increase year-on-year (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [IFPI], 2024). The global sports industry was valued at approximately $326.8 billion in 2023, up 4.6% from the previous year (The Business Research Company, 2023). The global hospitality market expanded to $4,699.57 billion in 2023, representing 7.0% year-over-year growth (GlobeNewswire, 2023). Finally, international tourism receipts reached about $1.4 trillion in 2023—roughly 93% of the $1.5 trillion earned by destinations in 2019 (UN Tourism [UNWTO], 2024).

Global forecasts further highlight the need for educational breadth. The World Economic Forum's (WEF) Future of Jobs Report 2023 anticipates the creation of 69 million new jobs alongside the displacement of 83 million roles by 2027, underscoring the growing premium on creative, interpersonal, and adaptive skills (WEF, 2023). Reflecting this shift, McKinsey & Company (2023) finds that companies with greater workplace diversity—including cognitive and experiential diversity—deliver 25% higher cash-flow returns than industry medians, demonstrating that heterogeneous talent pools are critical for innovation and resilience.

Furthermore, the job market has begun to question the value of traditional merit. For example, college degrees are not considered as important as before. According to Indeed's Hiring Lab report, the share of U.S. job postings without any formal education requirement rose from 48% in January 2019 to 52% in January 2024 (Indeed Hiring Lab, 2024). Notably, in January 2024 Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey issued Executive Order No. 627, mandating that the vast majority of state job postings focus on applicants’ skills rather than degrees (Bouse, 2024; Healey, 2024), and in October 2023 Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed Executive Order 23-14, eliminating 4-year degree requirements for over 75% of state government positions (Office of Governor Tim Walz, 2023). In the private sector, major employers such as IBM, Google, Delta Air Lines, and Bank of America have removed bachelor's degree requirements for many roles in favor of demonstrable skills and experience (State Science & Technology Institute [SSTI], 2024), and consulting firms McKinsey & Company and Accenture—alongside technology leaders like Google and IBM—have begun to “tear the paper ceiling,” recruiting non-graduates based on potential over formal credentials (Hodgson, 2024).

These changes indicate that, besides traditionally defined merit, other talents and capabilities have become useful. It is likely that in the coming years and decades, AI will further disrupt traditionally high-paying and highly educated jobs (Muro et al., 2019). Quite likely, more jobs will not require college degrees. Instead, new jobs probably will require more traditionally undervalued capabilities. Moreover, technological advancement creates potential for developing new professions and jobs, but the development requires skills and interests not necessarily included in the traditional merit system.

Redefining merit

Traditional education systems, guided by the narrow definition of merit, prioritize cultivation of specific, institutionally valued traits while suppressing others. By mandating that all students dedicate their finite time to mastering a standardized curriculum and assessment regime, schools implicitly devalue and leave no room for developing alternative talents or passions (Zhong & Zhao, 2025). This not only selects for the “desired” merit but also actively hinders the development of diverse human potential.

Individuals naturally possess jagged profiles of strengths and weaknesses, shaped by innate differences and life experiences (Rose, 2016; Zhao et al., 2022). When judged against a single, narrow standard of merit, those whose strengths align are favored, while others are often forced into remedial programs aimed at fixing perceived deficiencies, perpetuating the elusive “achievement gap” (Zhao, 2016b). This approach fails to recognize that what constitutes “useful” capability changes over time and across contexts (Zhao, 2019).

Calls to reform education often advocate for new sets of universally valuable skills, such as “21st century skills,” creativity, or entrepreneurship (Pink, 2006; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Wagner, 2008; Zhao, 2009, 2012). While potentially broader, these reforms often retain the underlying assumption of a single, albeit updated, definition of merit applicable to all, measured uniformly (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Zhao, 2016a; Zhao et al., 2019).

We argue for a more radical departure: embracing the idea that merit lies in unique individual greatness (Zhao, 2018b, 2023). We have come to a time when any talent, if great, can be valuable. Thus, in an era where technology automates routine tasks and disrupts traditional industries, value increasingly resides in uniquely human capabilities applied at a high level (Zhao, 2018b). This “greatness” emerges from cultivating an individual's specific combination of skills, passions, experiences, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit. Education's role, therefore, should shift from homogenizing students to fostering the development of these unique capabilities. With ubiquitous access to knowledge and learning tools, particularly AI-driven platforms (Zhao, 2021, 2024), individuals can pursue their interests and develop their strengths far beyond the confines of traditional schooling. This requires accepting neurodiversity (Armstrong, 2012; Ellis et al., 2023) and acknowledging that individuals possess distinct profiles of strengths and weaknesses (Trail, 2021; Zhao et al., 2022)—a departure from the pursuit of standardized, averaged competence (Rose, 2016).

The HIP

Redefining merit as unique individual greatness paves the way for a fundamental shift from an educational paradigm based on competition to one centered on Human Interdependence. In HIP, the goal is not for students to outperform one another on a single scale, but for each individual to cultivate their unique strengths—their jagged profile of excellence (Rose, 2016; Zhao, 2018b). Every form of unique excellence holds potential value (Zhao, 2019).

This value is realized when individuals apply their unique greatness to identify and solve problems that matter to others (McDiarmid et al., 2025). Contributing meaningfully to the well-being of others fosters a sense of purpose, leading toward self-actualization and authentic happiness (Maslow, 1999; Seligman, 2002). When each person develops unique capabilities and uses them to address the needs of others, while simultaneously relying on the unique capabilities of others to meet their own needs, a state of productive and supportive interdependence emerges.

This requires a move toward personalized learning, defined not just as customized pacing, but as providing the autonomy for students to explore interests, develop strengths, and discover how their unique potential can serve others (Zhao, 2018a, 2018b, 2023, 2025; Zhao & Zhong, 2024; Zhong & Zhao, 2025). This process inherently cultivates jagged profiles, making interdependence both possible and necessary. The concept echoes the long-understood economic and social benefits of the division of labor, which enhances productivity and social cohesion by leveraging specialized skills (Durkheim, 1893/2018; Smith, 1776/2016).

While the division of labor is recognized in society and schools may teach the idea in some courses, it is rarely practiced authentically in schools, which typically prioritize uniform learning goals. Even collaborative learning often focuses on generic skills that all students have rather than leveraging genuine differences in expertise stemming from individual strengths and interests. Educational tracking, while differentiating curricula that appears to cultivate different abilities, often sorts students based on past academic performance within the old meritocratic framework, rather than empowering student choice based on passion and unique aptitude (Terrin & Triventi, 2023).

HIP necessitates teaching students to recognize and value their own strengths and to understand how these strengths can create value for others. Crucially, it also involves teaching them to identify and appreciate the diverse strengths of their peers, fostering mutual respect and understanding that weaknesses in one area can be complemented by another's strengths. This perspective forms the basis of true collaboration, which thrives on diversity (Page, 2007). Collaboration, therefore, becomes less about generic skills and more about “social intelligence”—the ability to understand others, recognize complementary strengths, and orchestrate collective effort effectively (Zhao, 2016a).

Cultivating human interdependence through real-world problem finding and solving

Transitioning to the HIP requires more than simply allowing students to develop unique talents; it demands the intentional design of learning experiences where interdependence is actively practiced. Schools must become environments where problem finding and solving arise from necessity, driven by the need to integrate diverse expertise to achieve shared goals.

This can be achieved through authentic, project-based learning (PBL) focused on identifying and solving real-world problems relevant to communities—local, national, or global. Unlike traditional group work, where roles might be superficial or arbitrarily assigned, collaboration within HIP is grounded in genuine differentiation based on students’ unique strengths and interests. Success hinges on the ability both to contribute one's distinct capabilities and to rely effectively on the complementary skills of others, mirroring the dynamics of effective teams and functioning societies (Rose, 2016).

Such experiences are inherently social and ethical, fostering empathy, contextual understanding, and a sense of responsibility towards the well-being of others. These are not ancillary outcomes but central tenets of education's redefined purpose under HIP. Engaging in prosocial behavior—using one's strengths to help others—is intrinsically motivating and psychologically rewarding, contributing to personal fulfillment and sustained engagement with learning (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Grant, 2014; Lieberman, 2013; Maslow, 1996, 1999; Seligman, 2002).

In this paradigm, diversity is not merely tolerated but actively sought and leveraged as a source of strength (Page, 2007). Peers shift from being perceived as competitors to being recognized as indispensable collaborators. This cognitive and cultural shift—from competition to contribution—is essential for preparing students for a future where complex, interdisciplinary challenges require diverse teams.

Implementing HIP necessitates significant shifts in educational structures. Curriculum must become more flexible, allowing for student-driven inquiry into authentic problems. Assessment methods need to evolve beyond standardized tests to recognize diverse contributions and the process of collaborative problem-solving. Teacher roles must transform from deliverers of standardized content to mentors guiding self-discovery, community engagement, and collaborative creation. While challenging, requiring changes in teacher training, assessment tools, and school culture, these shifts are crucial for fostering genuine interdependence.

Teaching students to find and solve problems worth solving is key in this new education paradigm (McDiarmid et al., 2025; Zhao, 2022). Problems worth solving are problems that are meaningful to the individual person but can have a significant impact on others. The problem must be, on the one hand, relevant to the students—that is, connected to the students’ interests and personal strengths. On the other hand, it must carry social, environmental, or personal significance. Unlike most PBL practices, where problems are typically predetermined by teachers, collaboration in HIP emphasizes that the problem must be found by students themselves. Moreover, the problem should be rooted in the students’ interests and match their personal strengths.

It is necessary for teachers to guide students to consider the impact of their actions during the process. When finding and solving problems, they need to think about the positive and negative impact their actions may have on other human beings and the environment. They also need to consider the possible ethical and moral issues involved in the problems they identify and aim to solve. The years in school are the time of moral development for students when they shape their moral reasoning and judgement (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). It is therefore significant for them to expand their moral perspective beyond themselves and consider their own interests in the broad and interdependent human society.

In the age of AI, learning is doing, and doing is learning, which means that learning is not memorization or fake practice in preparation for later activities. Instead, the process of finding and solving problems is learning. Accessing information in partnership with AI, collaboration with peers, and guidance from teachers are all for finding and solving problems. And the experience of finding and solving problems is a learning experience, through which students develop more capabilities, moral and ethical understanding, and knowledge of others.

Conclusion

The meritocratic paradigm, despite its enduring appeal, rests on flawed assumptions and fosters detrimental competition, ultimately failing to prepare students for the complexities of modern life or to cultivate a just and sustainable society. This paper argues for a fundamental shift toward the HIP, redefining the purpose of education around the cultivation of unique individual greatness and its application toward collective well-being.

By embracing personalized learning pathways that allow students to develop their distinct strengths and passions, and by structuring learning around authentic, collaborative problem-solving, HIP fosters mutual reliance and respect for diversity. It moves education away from a zero-sum game of competition toward a positive-sum dynamic of mutual flourishing. Implementing HIP requires rethinking curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy, but it offers a compelling vision for an education system that not only prepares students for an uncertain future but also nurtures their capacity for purpose, contribution, and connection in a deeply interconnected world. It invites education to fulfill its potential as a fundamentally human endeavor rooted in shared growth and mutual support.

Footnotes

Contributorship

The two authors contributed equally.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

(2011). Michael Young’s The rise of the meritocracy: A philosophical critique. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2011.631269

Armstrong

(2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help students with special needs succeed in school and life. ASCD.

Arrow

Bowles

Durlauf

(eds) (2000). Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton University Press.

Bailey

M. J.

Dynarski

S. M.

(2011). Inequality in postsecondary education. In Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 117–132). Russell Sage Foundation/Spencer Foundation.

Becker

G. S.

(1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Berliner

D. C.

(2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00699.x

Bourdieu

Passeron

J. C.

(1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed., R. Nice, Trans.). Sage Publications. (Original work published 1970)

Bouse

(2024, February 1). Governor Healey signs executive order directing state agencies to institute skills-based hiring [Press release]. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-signs-executive-order-directing-state-agencies-to-institute-skills-based-hiring

Brown

Power

Tholen

Allouch

(2016). Credentials, talent and cultural capital: A comparative study of educational elites in England and France. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(5), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.920247

10.

Bryant

(2013, June 20). In head-hunting, big data may not be such a big deal. The New York Times, p. B6. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html

11.

The Business Research Company. (2023). Sports global market opportunities and strategies to 2033. https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/sports-market

12.

Celarent

(2009). Review of the book The rise of the meritocracy, 1870–2033, by M. Young. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1086/648380

13.

Cutler

D. M.

Lleras-Muney

(2006). Education and health: Evaluating theories and evidence (NBER Working Paper No. 12352). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12352

14.

Deng

Cherian

Khan

N. U. N.

Kumari

Sial

M. S.

Comite

Gavurova

Popp

(2022). Family and academic stress and their impact on students’ depression level and academic performance. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 869337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.869337

15.

Duckworth

A. L.

Yeager

D. S.

(2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327

16.

Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(eds) (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. Russell Sage Foundation/Spencer Foundation.

17.

Durkheim

(2018). The division of labor in society. In Grusky

D. B.

(Ed.), Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective (5th ed., pp. 217–222). Routledge. (Original work published 1893)

18.

Ellis

Kirby

Osborne

(2023). Neurodiversity and education. Sage Publications UK.

19.

Ericsson

K. A.

(2014). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericsson

K. A.

(Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Psychology Press.

20.

Ericsson

K. A.

Krampe

R. T.

Tesch-Römer

(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

21.

Fallows

J. M.

(1989). More like us: Making America great again. Houghton Mifflin.

22.

Fehr

Fischbacher

(2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043

23.

Firkowska-Mankiewicz

(2002). Intelligence (IQ) as a predictor of life success. International Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.2002.11770256

24.

Gardner

(1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

25.

Gladwell

(2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.

26.

GlobeNewswire. (2023, April 21). Hospitality global market report 2023: The global hospitality market grew from $4,390.59 billion in 2022 to $4,699.57 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 7.0%. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/04/21/2652031/0/en/Hospitality-Global-Market-Report-2023.html

27.

Gould

S. J.

(1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. and expanded ed.). W. W. Norton.

28.

Grant

(2014). Give and take: Why helping others drives our success. Penguin Books.

29.

Healey

(2024, January 25). Executive Order No. 627: Instituting skills-based hiring practices. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-627-instituting-skills-based-hiring-practices

30.

Hiss

W. C.

Franks

V. W.

(2014). Defining promise: Optional standardized testing policies in American college and university admissions. National Association for College Admission Counseling. https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/definingpromise-fullreport.pdf

31.

Hodgson

(2024, June 10). Employers look to rip the ‘paper ceiling’ for non-graduates. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/d76a953d-685a-434a-8acb-36589fac2478

32.

Indeed Hiring Lab. (2024, February 15). Indeed Hiring Lab U.S. update: February 15, 2024. https://www.hiringlab.org/2024/02/15/indeed-hiring-lab-u-s-update-february-15-2024/

33.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. (2024). Global music report 2024: State of the industry. https://www.ifpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GMR_2024_State_of_the_Industry.pdf

34.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(eds) (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

35.

Kim

K. H.

Zabelina

(2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity assessment help? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 129–147.

36.

Kohlberg

Hersh

R. H.

(1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, 16(2), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542675

37.

Lewontin

(2001). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press.

38.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Oxford University Press.

39.

Littler

(2018). Against meritocracy: Culture, power and myths of mobility. Routledge.

40.

Markovits

(2019). The meritocracy trap: How America’s foundational myth feeds inequality, dismantles the middle class, and devours the elite. Penguin Press.

41.

Maslow

A. H.

(1996). Critique of self-actualization theory. In Hoffman

(Ed.), Future visions: The unpublished papers of Abraham Maslow (pp. 26–32). Sage.

42.

Maslow

A. H.

(1999). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

43.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

44.

McDiarmid

G. W.

Beghetto

R. A.

Zhao

(2025). Making an impact: Educating students to find and solve problems in an uncertain world. Solution Tree.

45.

McKinsey & Company. (2023, November 29). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters

46.

Muro

Whiton

Maxim

(2019, November). What jobs are affected by AI? Better-paid, better-educated workers face the most exposure. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-jobs-are-affected-by-ai/

47.

Newzoo. (2024, January 8). Newzoo’s year in review: The 2023 global games market in numbers. https://newzoo.com/resources/blog/games-market-estimates-and-forecasts-2023

48.

Office of Governor Tim Walz. (2023, October 30). Governor Walz signs executive order eliminating four-year college degree requirements for most state government jobs [Press release]. State of Minnesota. https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-releases/?id=1055-597989

49.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Income inequality (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

50.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

51.

Page

S. E.

(2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton University Press.

52.

Pascoe

M. C.

Hetrick

S. E.

Parker

A. G.

(2020). The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823

53.

Piketty

(2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

54.

Pink

D. H.

(2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. Riverhead Books.

55.

Putnam

R. D.

(2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.

56.

Reardon

S. F.

(2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation/Spencer Foundation.

57.

Reiss

(2000). Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our behavior and define our personality. Tarcher/Putnam.

58.

Reiss

(2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.179

59.

Ribeiro

ÍJS

Pereira

Freire

I. V.

de Oliveira

B. G.

Casotti

C. A.

Boery

E. N.

(2018). Stress and quality of life among university students: A systematic literature review. Health Professions Education, 4(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2017.03.002

60.

Ridley

(2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. HarperCollins.

61.

Rose

(2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperOne.

62.

Sahlberg

(2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.

63.

Sandel

M. J.

(2021). The tyranny of merit: Can we find the common good? Picador.

64.

Sarkar

Das

M. G.

Banik

M. C.

(2022). Peer pressure and its impact on academic achievements of students of secondary schools. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 8104–8123.

65.

Schnittker

McLeod

J. D.

(2005). The social psychology of health disparities. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122032

66.

Seligman

M. E.

(2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press.

67.

Smith

(2016). The wealth of nations. Aegitas. (Original work published 1776)

68.

State Science & Technology Institute. (2024, August 1). Bachelor’s degrees are no longer required for many jobs. https://ssti.org/blog/bachelors-degrees-are-no-longer-required-many-jobs

69.

Steare

Muñoz

C. G.

Sullivan

Lewis

(2023). The association between academic pressure and adolescent mental health problems: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 339, 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.028

70.

Steele

C. M.

(1999, April). Secrets of the SAT [interview]. PBS Frontline. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/steele.html

71.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

72.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1987). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

73.

Terrin

Triventi

(2023). The effect of school tracking on student achievement and inequality: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 93(2), 236–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221107860

74.

Thompson

HealthDay . (2024, April 24). $282 billion: What mental illness costs America each year. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-04-24/282-billion-what-mental-illness-costs-america-each-year

75.

Trail

B. A.

(2021). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students (2nd ed.). Routledge.

76.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

77.

United Hospital Fund. (2024, April 16). National analysis reveals growing adolescent behavioral health crisis, rising unmet need—And the ripple effects on education, family economics, health, and productivity [Press release]. https://uhfnyc.org/news/article/national-analysis-reveals-growing-adolescent-behavioral-health-crisis-rising-unmet-needand-the-ripple-effects-on-education-family-economics-health-and-productivity/

78.

UN Tourism. (2024, January 19). International tourism receipts hit USD 1.4 trillion in 2023. https://www.unwto.org/news/international-tourism-receipts-hit-usd-1-4-trillion-in-2023

79.

Upwork. (2023, December 12). Upwork study finds 64 million Americans freelanced in 2023, adding $1.27 trillion to U.S. economy. GlobeNewswire. https://investors.upwork.com/news-releases/news-release-details/upwork-study-finds-64-million-americans-freelanced-2023-adding

80.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024a). Employment projections: Employment and unemployment by educational attainment. https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm

81.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024b, April 5). Employment situation news release. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_04052024.htm

82.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

83.

Wagner

(2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—And what we can do about it. Basic Books.

84.

World Economic Forum. (2023). The future of jobs report 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2023.pdf

85.

Young

M. D.

(1994). The rise of the meritocracy. Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1958)

86.

Young

M. D.

(2001, June 29). Down with meritocracy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

87.

Zhao

(2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. ASCD.

88.

Zhao

(2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin.

89.

Zhao

(2014). Who’s afraid of the big bad dragon: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. Jossey-Bass.

90.

Zhao

(2016a). Counting what counts: Reframing education outcomes. Solution Tree Press.

91.

Zhao

(2016b). From deficiency to strength: Shifting the mindset about education inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 716–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12191

92.

Zhao

(2018a). Personalizable education for greatness. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(3), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2018.1481619

93.

Zhao

(2018b). Reach for greatness: Personalizable education for all children. Corwin.

94.

Zhao

(2019). The rise of the useless: The case for talent diversity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9743-3

95.

Zhao

(2021). Learners without borders: New learning pathways for all students. Corwin.

96.

Zhao

(2022). Teaching students to identify and solve problems. Principal Connections, 26(2), 52–53.

97.

Zhao

(2023). Learning for uncertainty: Reach for greatness. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 22(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09358-z

98.

Zhao

(2024). Artificial intelligence and education: End the grammar of schooling. ECNU Review of Education, 7(4), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241265124

99.

Zhao

(2025). If schools don’t change, the potential of AI won’t be realized. Educational Leadership, 82(5), 36–40.

100.

Zhao

Basham

Travers

(2022). Redefining human talents: Gifted education in the age of smart machines. In Sternberg

R. J.

Ambrose

Karami

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education (pp. 403–420). Palgrave Macmillan.

101.

Zhao

Wehmeyer

Basham

Hansen

(2019). Tackling the wicked problem of measuring what matters: Framing the questions. ECNU Review of Education, 2(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878997

102.

Zhao

Zhong

(2024). Paradigm shifts in education: An ecological analysis. ECNU Review of Education, 8(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241296162

103.

Zhong

Zhao

(2025). Education paradigm shifts in the age of AI: A spatiotemporal analysis of learning. ECNU Review of Education, 8(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311251315204

From Meritocracy to Human Interdependence: Redefining the Purpose of Education

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Approach/Methods

Findings

Originality/Value

Keywords

Introduction

The rise and end of meritocracy

The appeal of meritocracy

Meritocracy breeds competition and selfishness in education

The fallacy of meritocracy

Redefining merit: From uniformity to unique greatness

The rise of the useless

Redefining merit

The HIP

Cultivating human interdependence through real-world problem finding and solving

Conclusion

Footnotes

Contributorship

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References