Addressing Economic Inequality through Management Education: Disrupting Student Attraction to the Myth of Neoliberal Meritocracy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, we argue that economic inequality is reproduced because business students uncritically accept the neoliberal myth of meritocracy. This myth advances values and beliefs suggesting that hard work and innate talent lead to equally accessible opportunities and corresponding rewards. These ideas are embedded in the narratives (e.g., stories, exercises, cases, or guest speakers) prevalent throughout the business school but remain “hidden” to students because they are implicit rather than surfaced. We explain that these narratives are attractive to students and, because they are implicit within the curriculum, they limit business students’ abilities to make the systemic changes needed to address economic inequality. In our call to action, we propose a set of tools—literary analysis, plural vocality, and historical learning—that can disrupt this attraction and enable students to critically engage with the myth of neoliberal meritocracy. It is our opinion that a more critical outlook will raise students’ awareness to economic inequality and encourage them to ameliorate this type of inequality as they move through their professional lives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it