Merit Requires Access

The myth of merit and the access we refuse to see

When I was a student at the Curtis Institute of Music, our professor let the trumpet studio observe the auditions behind the table with him. The experience taught me that each musician carries a different story that is invisible to us and that you start to hear more than just the notes.

I began to hear who started early, who had consistent instruction, who had access to high-level training, and who had the kind of support that allows talent to fully develop. And I also started to hear something else… the students who are just as musical, just as curious, just as capable, but whose playing carries the weight of gaps. Gaps in training. Gaps in opportunity. Gaps in access.

At the end of the day, the deliberations often came down to a very small percentage of those who auditioned with very little to no gaps in what we heard—only one trumpeter was allowed in each year. The explanation we fell back on was that “it’s all merit-based” and I’ve come to believe that’s only partially true.

An hour before my Curtis audition (February 2005)

Merit is often described as something clean and objective. The most prepared student advances and the best wins. The outcome reflects ability and effort. But sitting behind the table, it’s hard to ignore what’s actually being measured.

We’re not just hearing talent, but we are hearing years of accumulated opportunity, quality of instruction a student had access to, whether someone in their life knew how to guide them along the path, and whether they had the time, resources, and environment to practice at the level required. We’re hearing access layered over time and expressing itself as readiness. However, we’re calling that merit.

Over the past year, we’ve been hearing that everything should be “merit-based,” as if that will swing the pendulum back to where some want it. But that statement only makes sense if we believe everyone has had a fair chance to develop the merit we’re measuring.

And that’s where the story fell apart for me behind that audition table many years ago.

Because the reality is, many young musicians never get the chance to fully realize their potential because they didn’t have early exposure, consistent training, access to quality instruments, or even the knowledge that this path was possible. When those students fall short in an audition room, it can look like a lack of merit instead of a lack of access.

At Equity Arc, we’ve had the chance to watch something remarkable happen. When students are given high-level instruction, financial support, opportunities to perform and grow, a community that celebrates their identity, and expectations of success, they transform.

Students who might have been overlooked begin to dedicate more time to their private practice, win seats in competitive ensembles and programs, earn significant scholarships, gain admission to top conservatories, and step into spaces where they are underrepresented. Not because the standards changed, but rather because their preparation is at a place where their merit becomes undeniable.

What concerns me right now is not just the persistence of inequity, but the way we’re still talking about it. There’s a growing tendency to frame efforts to expand access as somehow being in tension with excellence. As if opening doors means lowering standards and providing opportunity means compromising merit. Access doesn’t dilute merit, but simply reveals it.

If we truly believe in merit and want a system where the best musicians rise to the top, then we have to be honest about what it takes to get there. Merit is the result of investment, opportunity, exposure, and belief over time. Is there enough time in two, four, or six years of collegiate study to take the third, fifth, or seventh ranked trumpeter and help them flourish? Is there enough time in a ten to fifteen minute audition to figure that out?

So instead of asking “Was this earned?”, I’ve started asking a different question: “Who had the opportunity to earn it?” And maybe more importantly: “What would it look like to ensure that every student with the potential to excel actually gets that opportunity?”

I don’t believe we need to abandon merit, but I do believe we need to redefine how we understand it. Because if we continue to measure outcomes without examining the conditions that produced them, we will keep mistaking inequity for fairness. And we will continue to overlook extraordinary talent because it was never given the chance to fully emerge.

The goal isn’t to replace merit. It’s to build a system where merit can truly exist. And that begins with a simple truth: Merit requires access.