In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position. It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect. The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field - but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.

If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon