Attracted to the belief that hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded, I believe meritocracy is a compelling ideal that justifies a certain degree of inequality. However, it is difficult to reconcile this vision with the subjective nature of “merit” and the random nature of circumstances. Ultimately, it is the inevitable association between wealth and opportunity, recognized in Stiglitz's The Great Divide, that makes me cynical about the potential for true meritocracy in a society as unequal as ours. Even with political will, the causes of inequalities are difficult to identify and combat. I was highly praised in the John Locke Institute essay competition, arguing that the persistent gender wage gap is perpetuated by entrenched social norms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay As secretary of the school's Politics Society, I gave a presentation on the ethics and economics of immigration, highlighting the inconsistency between our abhorrence of discrimination based on race and gender and our sending millions of foreign residents into poverty on the basis that we have a greater moral obligation to our own citizens. The rising tide of nationalism poses a major obstacle to a global meritocracy, which inspired my argument for open borders during a debate at the IEA, where I interned this summer. It’s this kind of normative question that makes PPE so exciting to me. Consideration of crucial philosophical and political ideas – such as the conflict between political sovereignty and an individual's right to free movement – ​​is what underpins the economic choices that shape society. To strengthen my understanding of politics and philosophy, I took an additional elective course in the history of modern political thought and specialized in philosophy at the John Locke Institute Summer School, where I received a junior scholarship as the best overall student. This inspired me to read Rousseau's The Social Contract; the distinction between particular wills and general will reminded me of game theory concepts of collective and individual rationality. Furthermore, Mill's On Liberty pushed me to confront the dilemma of how much individual liberties should be restricted to maximize general utility. I also gave a lecture on the more fundamental question of whether political freedom has value if the existence of determinism excludes free will. Intrigued by freedom in the context of government, I entered the Corpus Christi essay contest, reflecting on The Bottom Billion and Why Nations Fail to determine whether democracy is an essential precursor to economic growth. With my school team, I also finished in fifth place in the national final of the IEA Budget Challenge proposing a libertarian manifesto. Both economic exercises brought me back to the ethical question: should we place greater value on outcomes or intentions? Sandel's book, What Money Can't Buy, shocked me by highlighting the link between economics and philosophy, to the extent that economics, supposedly value-neutral, depends on a utilitarian form of consequentialism. . Concerned about the pervasive but simplistic cost-benefit analysis that permeates our society, I entered the New College of Humanities essay competition wondering whether utilitarianism could be defended and won first prize out of 1,800 submissions. Even if I remain torn, I believe that certain values, such as.