Quote

Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means - and in any context, whether it's judicial or otherwise - I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system.

I am a believer in people succeeding on merit.

We all want merit to mean something, and we all may be tempted to reduce that meaning to something measurable and concrete like an SAT score. The reality, though, is that who deserves entry into an institution depends on what the institution exists to do.

Merit should count more than academic background.

Her great merit is finding out mine - there is nothing so amiable as discernment.

In politics, merit is rewarded by the possessor being raised, like a target, to a position to be fired at.

You don't need to know someone personally to be able to discern whether their work is high quality or not. The idea of a meritocracy is that it's what they do, not who they are.

Merit, however inconsiderable, should be sought for and rewarded. Methods are the master of masters.

Meritocracy is a good thing. Whenever possibly, people should be judged based on their work and results, not superficial qualities.

When you bring an idea that has no merit to me, and you ask me to comment on it, I'm going to tell you it has no merit.