In the midst of a global debate on the value of higher education, Palantir Technologies —one of the most influential and controversial tech companies today— has launched an initiative that radically changes the rules of the educational game. Through its Meritocracy Fellowship program, Palantir offers recent high school graduates the opportunity to undertake a four-month paid training with the possibility of moving directly into a technical job, bypassing traditional university. This proposal explicitly positions itself as an alternative to the university system, criticized by the company for prioritizing conformity, safety, and comfort over true excellence and critical thinking; with slogans like “Skip the debt. Skip the indoctrination.” and a curriculum combining philosophy, Western history, and technical development.
This move not only questions the necessity of a university degree for accessing tech careers but also introduces a meritocratic model where access is based on company-specific criteria rather than regulated educational institutions. This opens a broad debate about what we understand as education, the role of academic degrees, and the extent to which corporate recruitment practices are redefining or eroding the foundations of meritocracy, both in education and in professional careers.
This corporate model highlights an age-old dilemma: the difference between real merit and perceived merit. The Palantir case is particularly revealing because it uses the language of meritocracy very explicitly to promote its own educational structures, distant from and in clear opposition to traditional ones. On the surface, it offers a direct pathway based on individual talent; in reality, it illustrates how the concept of merit can be redefined—and even manipulated—according to the interests of an organization. Understanding this dichotomy is key to analyzing what “merit” truly means in today’s context.
Meritocracy, or the rule of the best, was born as an alternative to aristocratic systems based on hereditary privilege. In theory, it aims to create environments where effort, talent, and competence under equal conditions generate results and receive proportional rewards. But for merit to exist, there must be equal opportunities and mechanisms for genuine recognition; without these, the concept becomes meaningless. Working longer hours than anyone else without fair compensation is not meritocracy—it is exploitation. Too often, the current meritocratic discourse functions less as a system of justice and more as a narrative justifying the persistence of existing hierarchies.
One of the major problems with simplified meritocratic discourse is that it promises personal results in a structural environment where improvement is practically impossible for many people. Today, we live in a constant frustration between “wanting” and “being able to.” I want to become independent, but rents far exceed my possibilities. I want a family vacation this summer, but I cannot even consider a camping trip 20 km from home. I want to buy a new vehicle, but the current market offers prices mismatched with my means.
Whether in daily life or professionally, structural barriers limit the ability to translate effort and talent into real outcomes. At a professional level, obstacles and hidden barriers can be equally insurmountable. Examples include:
Effort cannot overcome an adverse environment. If the system protects itself to prevent change, progress becomes impossible, and worse, it creates a fiction of a fair reality, where only the persistence of a few is guaranteed. In this scenario, meritocracy becomes a moralistic environment used solely to exert control over people. When society promises social mobility but does not allow it, discourses that disparage formal education and glorify easy solutions proliferate. It is the ideal terrain for initiatives like Palantir’s to present themselves as ‘meritocratic,’ when in reality they redraw merit according to their interests.
Perhaps if I work harder and give 150%, I could improve. This mindset often collides with individual and collective rights and dignity. Being committed to a project at a given moment is one thing; glorifying effort without reward as a virtue is another—it is in fact a mechanism of control.
Formal education remains the paradigm of personal improvement. When told that studies are useless, the message is generally not intended for your benefit, but for theirs. A legion of uneducated young people becomes easily exposed to extremist theses promising shortcuts to extraordinary gains. No effort, no ethics. Individualism above all and everyone for themselves.
These individual and professional difficulties show that effort without fair conditions does not guarantee advancement or recognition, positioning formal education as a key instrument in the redistribution of merit. But this is not a defense of the current university system. Universities must balance social duty, historical legacy, and economic viability; today, the scale tips toward economic viability. This trend leads educational programs to respond more to marketability than to societal or professional needs, and many courses fail to adapt to new demands.
Do initiatives like Palantir’s represent a genuine educational advancement, or are they simply a way of adapting merit to the company’s interests? To what extent can large corporations truly foster talent and individual progress?
![calaix[À]gil.com](/img/logo.png){kind=logo}
