Doctor one has a 3.9 GPA from Harvard medical.
Doctor two barely passed your state's medical school
Which do you want doing your operation?
The "meritocracy trap" often caves into "wealth and privilege" and this is not meritocracy.
You might have a stronger argument in other medical specialties where theory is more important. But heart surgeons are more like athletes in a way.
You simply presented a chicken and egg problem...
Does the mediocre surgeon get all the surgeries and therefor become excellent at it?
IMO it would even be helpful for surgeons to do some time as carpenter, mechanic, fitter/turner etc for some time to really drill the hand/eye before they start on humans.
And this is EXACLY what they do, using cadavers, schooling, and internships. Their work on cadavers is graded, much like most of what they do. This goes back full circle, grades do have an input into the quality of a surgeon. It may not be the "best" or "only" indicator but it shouldnt be outright discounted.
People with high GPA's work hard to get them and have a high level of understanding of the topics at hand.
My ex is excellent in math and always scored very high on tests, but she is not very practical.
If i a math problem i'd have full confidence her answer was correct. If i asked her some non-math questions my trust would be adjusted.
Contrary to the a priori hypothesis that care would be compromised by so many of the top cardiologists being gone, they find that adjusted mortality for high-risk heart failure and cardiac arrest is lower at teaching hospitals during the cardiology meetings than during the rest of the year. And although patients were less likely to get a percutaneous coronary intervention for a myocardial infarction during the convention times, there was no associated decrement on myocardial infarction–associated mortality.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
My comment is merely that the criterion you are mentioning is actually not a great one for selecting who to perform surgery on you.
The meritocracy trap obviously does not imply that competence/merit does not matter: it implies only that we should be much more careful and critical about whether we measure competence/merit fairly and properly, especially a posteriori.
I would say that your example illustrates a very shortsighted conception of competence/merit.
Ask the wrong question and you will rarely get the right answer.
Good lord, this really encapsulates the level of this debate, and how it is about anything but actual merit.
One student went to the most expensive private school and had private tuition. They recieved AAABB. Anothers student went to a poor school and never had private tuition and recieved ABBBB. Which should be accepted for a single University place?
I've never been to med school but my understanding is you learn how to be a doctor in residency, where there are no grades. Medical school gives you theoretical knowledge but not the practical knowledge you need to actually do the work.