Tyranny of Merit

I strongly recommend "The Tyranny of Merit" to everyone. Most critiques of our meritocratic ideals focus on whether or not our society is, in fact, a meritocracy. What I enjoy about Professor Sandel's book is that he takes the bold step of asking whether we should pursue a meritocracy at all. I come away from this book with the impression that the pursuit of a meritocracy, while noble on its surface, leads back to class stratification and all of the strife that goes with such stratification. Also, as the author points out, under the pursuit of meritocracy even being a child born into socioeconomic privilege comes with burdens and pressures that did not exist under previous systems of class stratification since the wealthy were not previously expected to "earn" their wealth. On a more personal note, there was a section of the book that really "hit home" for me. Namely, the "Wounded Winners" section under Chapter 6. I teach computer science courses at a high school in a relatively affluent district in which many students come from households with high-achieving parents (doctors, engineers, military officers, etc.), many of whom went to Ivy League schools themselves. When I observe my students, I can definitely see the negative psychological consequences of the types of academic pressure and helicopter parenting that Professor Sandel describes in this chapter. It is probably more pronounced to me than to my coworkers because I recently transitioned into this profession after an engineering career while my fellow teachers started teaching after college. When I was in high school, we (and our parents) found out about our grades every few months when report cards came out. Now, students and parents can check grades several times a day, and the stress that this causes the students is very obvious to me - I will often get comments about a grade I entered sometimes minutes after I enter it into the electronic grade book. Also, I was taken aback when I learned the statistics on depression and suicidal ideation within my district when I started teaching, but now that I see the pressure these students are under I can definitely understand. Sadly, there is little acknowledgment from the district of the relationship between academic pressure and psychological issues - instead, there is a mentality that the mental health problems can be rectified by adding more work to the students in the form of "social and emotional learning" exercises. To summarize, I think that this book contains some excellent insights, and I recommend this to anyone trying to gain a better understanding of the problems of meritocratic thinking and where we ought to go from here.

Man this book is amazing. Nuanced, well sourced and enjoyable to read. Sandel’s trenchant analysis repeats, expands, expounds and then distills. I didn’t agree with all his points but overall I am totally convinced. And on a personal level it was exactly what I needed to read. This little diamond of prose will stick with me; “To renew the dignity of work, we must repair the social bonds the age of merit has undone.” If you’re interested in better understanding what’s wrong with American society and why, if you want to understand why life seems so hard these days, this is a book you should read.

First of all, let me say that I do love this book. It made me think, and it should inform a serious discussion both now and, in the decades, to come. I especially love that one of the author’s proposed societal solution strategies strangely mirrors an optimization concept that I developed for my aerospace engineering PhD thesis. That’s a deliberate teaser, see below. I have some problems with this book, and perhaps I can contribute to the ongoing discussions that the book deserves. I am a classic product of meritocracy. I'm the son of a dirt-poor boy from a one-parent household in the Depression-era Ozarks. With the encouragement of his hard-working mother and some mentoring from a kindly school teacher, my father earned grades good enough to enlist as a Naval Aviation Cadet, then attended college and became an officer. He had a productive career including aircraft commander, test pilot, and engineering project manager. Hard work brought him from extreme poverty to an upper-middle class life. His kids were never hungry. I, too, worked hard starting from kindergarten. My grades and extra-curricular activities earned me a college scholarship. I managed to get engineering Bachelors and Masters Degrees in four years, plus various activities and honors. I joined a major aerospace company, went to night school for an MBA, started a company, earned a PhD, and spent 5 years after-hours writing a best-selling college engineering textbook. So don't tell me that meritocracy is a fraud, and that people like me are just born lucky, with special privileges that gift them the world on a platter. ...but..... There is another side to meritocracy, impacting the people who do not “make the grade.” This unique book exposes and discusses it in a way that should cause everybody to take a deep breath and think really, really hard. When you first get into it, the background material smells suspiciously like shopworn socialist apologetics, but keep reading. It's worth it. The thesis is simply this: Classic meritocracy – where anyone can rise in position and wealth by hard work and the application of talent - is good for the societies that successfully implement it, and obviously good for the individuals that "make the grade." But what about those human beings who don't make it? What is to be done with them, and for them? Is it really their fault? How can a hard-edged meritocracy give enjoyment, meaning, and a positive self-image to such people when the entire surrounding society reminds them that they didn't make the grade? And what obligations do we - those of us who popped out on top through some combination of talent, work, and luck – have towards those who didn’t win, and may not even have “played” the meritocracy game? The usual unfiltered response is, "they should just work harder" and "I made it; so can they." But some people are simply not born with the talents and intellect to compete in an "unlimited-class" high-tech meritocracy. The world has changed. 200 years ago, even a person of limited intellectual abilities could become a pretty good farmer, learning from one’s father and the surrounding community. This provided a life style about as good as anyone else’s in the village. One didn’t fret about failure to move into the aristocracy – it simply wasn’t possible. Today’s meritocracy promises that everyone can join our modern aristocracy – you too can be photographed sitting on the hood of your Ferrari. The images are everywhere, from the tony lifestyle magazines of the wealthy to the angry videos of popular music and rap. It’s a cruel trick to show candy to children, then tell them that they cannot have any. Then there are people who face extraordinary challenges because they were born with ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, or some other functional issue. While popular TV shows imply that the “Aspergers” low end of the Autism Spectrum is almost an intellectual superpower, the reality is that most ASD sufferers have average intelligence (that’s why they call it “average”) and their peculiar behavioral characteristics are generally detrimental to success in a meritocracy. ADHD, of course, makes it difficult to get the sort of education usually required as a first step up the meritocratic ladder, and makes a long-term focus on the demands of a modern job practically impossible. Other people may have the talent and intellect to win the meritocracy game but never gained the habit of hard work, perhaps due to parenting, peer pressure, or absorption from the local culture. And yes, some people are born into situations where the lingering effects of racism and sexism still affect opportunities for preparation, and impact the selection onto the starting rungs of our oh-so-pure meritocracy. So, what of such people? What of those who “deserve” their dismal status due to their own failure to work for something better? And those who could never succeed because of factors beyond their control? Is our beloved meritocracy really so perfect? Does it really allow everyone who works hard an equal chance to “make it?” The book’s Introduction begins with a college admissions scandal wherein wealthy parents were cheating their kids into top universities, buying enhanced SAT scores, fake sports participation, and other undeserved credentials. While such cheating is universally condemned, the author points out that having wealthy parents greatly increases your chances of getting into an elite university in legitimate ways. These include top-notch preparatory schools, participation in expensive sports, SAT coaching, and paid admissions consultants. Plus, the wealthy parents can pay for those schools without asking for financial assistance. If all else fails, “we’d love for you to donate a new engineering building….” Thus begins the author’s attack on the realities of our meritocracy. His opening gambit is inarguable. More than pure merit is involved in getting in to those elite universities, and they are the first rung on the elite merit ladder of our society. But just when you expect the author to make the usual pitch for “leveling the playing field” and making admission more open to all, he turns the discussion upside down with this question: “Why has admission to prestigious universities become so fiercely sought that privileged parents commit fraud to get their kids in?” He acknowledges the economic benefit, while noting that those kids will have trust funds making work a mere hobby. But he points out that the parents were also purchasing for their children the “borrowed luster of merit.” In a meritocracy, those who make it to the top can believe that their success is morally justified and that they earned it all through talent and hard work. Perversely, admission to a top school is proof positive for the rest of your life that you’re morally entitled to join the elite – even if your parents cheated to get you there! So the “tyranny of merit” isn’t just the remaining tilts in the supposedly-level playing field. It’s the whole notion that the “winners” in a meritocracy are morally superior to the “losers.” The author downplays efforts to create a more-fair meritocracy, saying the concept itself “has a corrosive effect on the way we interpret our success (or the lack of it)” mostly because it “encourages the winners to consider their success their own doing, a measure of their virtue - and to look down upon those less fortunate than themselves.” He describes this as “Meritocratic Hubris,” and says it “makes merit a kind of tyranny, or unjust rule.” Meritocracy tells the less-fortunate that “their failure is their own doing, that they simply lack the talent and drive to succeed.” I personally believe in the concept of meritocracy, both for moral and societal reasons, and I heartily support real efforts to “level the playing field.” But this author has a point about hubris and the “loser” label being applied to those who don’t climb the meritocracy ladder. What can be done? When it comes to workable solutions, the book makes some good suggestions but cannot offer a detailed roadmap. His ideas should serve as a springboard for further discussion. On the core issue of the “less fortunate,” the book discusses both the financial and emotional considerations. Financially, he seems to advocate enhanced transfer payments from “winners” to “losers,” but dodges any detailed discussions of the current status of financial assistance and what he would consider a more-fair distribution. I’ll do the same. On the emotional issues, the author opines that “many working people chafe under the sense that well-schooled elites look down on them.” They suffer from a “social stigma against those who lack a college degree.” In the section “Renewing the Dignity of Work,” he says that people want “an opportunity to win the social recognition and esteem that go with producing what others need and value,” and also that “a fundamental human need is to be needed…The dignity of work consists in exercising our abilities to answer such needs.” But I don’t see where the book talks specifics about accomplishing that dignity renewal. On a more-practical basis, he points out that the Federal government spends an almost insignificant amount on working-class career and technical education compared to its spending on college and university education. Surely there could be some rebalancing, and perhaps a reduction in the government-driven pressures favoring college. The author quotes a succession of politicians, right and left, foreign and domestic, all saying that (college) education is the key to success. That’s the last thing that a tired fruit picker, factory worker, or hotel maid wants to hear after a long day of honest work. But perhaps they’d like to go to a free night school once a week and learn a higher-paid trade, or how to balance the books of the little business they dream of starting. Returning to the college admissions conundrum, the author has an intriguing suggestion. The current college admissions process drives high school students to insane levels of schoolwork and extra-curricular activities, seeking the tiniest margin of superiority in pursuit of that life-changing acceptance letter. He rightfully questions whether the students accepted into the prestigious universities are really any better than those who just barely missed the cut. How can the admissions staff microscopically parse the mountains of straight-A report cards, consultant-drafted essays, glowingly-similar recommendation letters, and yearbook sports photos? Do they really have a comb fine enough to sort out the miniscule differences? So he posits a “Lottery of the Qualified.” Let the admissions staff select from the applications a large list of fully-qualified candidates, then use random selection to pick those who will actually be accepted. Says he, "the most compelling reasons for a lottery of the qualified is to combat the tyranny of merit." He offers an intriguing discussion as to why this would not lower the overall quality of the incoming class, why it would be more fair to all, how it would lessen the high school insanity, and how diversity goals could be accomplished by a slight adjustment to the process. This would also reduce corruption or favoritism by the selection committee. How much could they extort, if all they can offer is entry into a random lottery? As mentioned above, this “Lottery of the Qualified” mirrors an optimization concept that I developed for my aerospace engineering PhD thesis. It works, at least in my own field. I was researching variations on the “Genetic Algorithm” optimization scheme where you optimize some system – in my case an aircraft design – by having your computer create a large population of slightly-different examples (airplanes). Each is evaluated for some “measure of merit” such as cost, and then you pick a small number of them to produce the next generation. The process repeats until you get a vastly-improved design. But how do you select the ones to produce the next generation? A common scheme is a rather brutal “cage fight” in which two individuals are randomly picked, and only the better of the two gets to participate in the creation of the next population. This parallels current college admissions where the staff attempts to exactly rank-order the applicants, and then select from top-down until the class is filled. During my research, I defined a different scheme which I called the “Breeder Pool.” I rank-ordered all the candidates. Rather than picking only the top ones, I picked a much-larger number starting at the top, and let them all “into the pool.” Then I randomly chose from the pool. This is much like the author’s “Lottery of the Qualified.” It produced the best optimization results in my research, and I suspect that something similar would produce a better and fairer college freshman class. In fact, I would consider using the author’s “Lottery of the Qualified” for employment decisions and up-the-ladder merit promotions, where appropriate. I do have some problems with the book: 1) The very title betrays the author’s antipathy towards a belief in merit and hard work as the predicate for obtaining a better standard of living. Perhaps he was deliberately being provocative as a marketing ploy – if so, no real harm and I’ve done that myself. But I cannot support the destruction of meritocracy to further even a desirable social goal. Without a strong “carrot” to incentivize the hard-working lifestyle of most doctors, scientists, engineers, lawyers, financiers, and accountants, or to motivate the risky business of entrepreneurship, many of those people will decide to “dial it back” and enjoy life a little more. Their cardiologists would approve, but the economy – and all who participate in the economy or benefit from the tax revenue generated by those hard-workers – would suffer catastrophically. 2) The author displays what I perceive as a rather low regard for the “common man” whom he hopes to help. Says he, near the beginning of his book, "I show how the tyranny of merit undermines the dignity of work." This implies that work for the common man does not involve merit. Most “common men” think that they have gained and retained their jobs by some level of personal merit - even if their work requires neither education nor even vocational training. This comment also betrays an elitist’s view of non-elite work. In the non-elite world, you go to your job even though you’d rather be doing other things. They have to give you money, otherwise you won’t go. You take that money to support yourself and your family, and hopefully have enough for a little fun now and then. It’s nice to feel that you’re good at what you do, however humble in other people’s eyes, but that doesn’t define you as a person. 3) As an engineer and scientist, I'm used to seeing new ideas presented as a thesis statement, with supporting facts assembled into a chain of statements, inferences, and conclusions. I'm not used to a blizzard of quotes from earlier famous personages as the main support for an idea. Hayek's unproven opinions are no more "proof" than the current author's statements. This is the classic logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority.” 4) The author spends a lot of time erecting an army of pro-meritocracy strawmen, then setting them all on fire. Some of his points are good, others naïve or logically thin, but I’ll let you decide. The “Straw Man” argument is another classic logical fallacy. 5) Due to his unfortunate decision to frame the book in the context of current political events, the author has reduced the accessibility of his important thesis to those who may have different political opinions. This also diminishes the timeless quality which the book would otherwise have. 6) Like an antelope bounding away from a hungry lioness, the author dodges any mention of the effects of IQ upon success in a meritocracy. His only mention is to denigrate the scholastic predictive abilities of the SAT test. Due to the emotional loading of this topic, I too shall bound away. But I would love to see a credible author tackle the subject, without wandering into side topics that have a lingering whiff of racism no matter how carefully framed as “science.” What do I conclude after reading “The Tyranny of Merit?” I do love the “Lottery of the Qualified.” I also enjoyed the author’s proper use of the word “desert,” 41 times, in its stand-alone sense of “reward or penalty.” Only three times did he make it the more-common “just deserts.” I still believe in the underlying moral correctness of meritocracy. Individuals who work hard all their lives do deserve some reward compared to those who choose not to work as hard. Furthermore, societies like ancient China that allow anyone to enter the meritocracy game, and strive to keep it “level,” will benefit by having more-capable, harder-working people in all positions in society. There is also no change in my belief, which this author advocates, that those who do not win the elite meritocracy game but work hard at a regular job are just as worthy and important as the elites. Society should try harder to honor those people, support their aspirations, and reduce the “don’t you wish you could go to college too” messaging (while making it more possible for those who do want to go). Of course, society should not denigrate those who have some personal or medical reason that prevents them from joining the meritocracy game, or from working at all. Some level of financial support for them is a burden that should be shared by all. The amounts and mechanisms are for public discussion, but such people should be “nicely comfortable” although probably Ferrari-less. The last category, people that could but chose not to work, is most difficult. A moral society cannot let them starve or exist in such a sorry state that crime is their only option. But society should not make chosen non-work a comfortable lifestyle or too many will choose it. Again, a matter for public discussion. In the future, though, the work-free lifestyle may be forced upon us. If humanity doesn’t do anything stupid, the ongoing trends in robotics, computer-aided manufacturing, and AI will take over almost all manual and unskilled labor. This can be seen today, with automated checkout counters at the supermarket and ordering kiosks at the local hamburger hangout. Self-driving cars, taxis, trucks, and more are nearly here. Fruit and vegetable-picking machines are being tested. Factories already employ just a fraction of the headcount of 40 years ago. Due to AI, even professions like medicine and law will see drastic headcount reductions in routine activities – like brain surgery and contract preparation. We are crafting a world of plenty, but one where very few people are needed to create that plenty. Certain knowledge workers, professionals, engineers, designers, trouble-shooters, and the like will still be required. But most people won’t qualify for such jobs, which will be few in number. So what does everybody else do with their time? How do they feel needed by their fellow man, when they don’t provide anything that their fellow man needs? This parallels the discussions above, and solutions to one may be useful for the other. Perhaps the lifestyles of the true aristocracy of 300 years ago can give us a hint. For a sense of meaning, they dabbled in art and music, wrote literature and poetry, flirted with science, rode horses, enjoyed lavish banquets, and plotted the conquest of non-Europeans everywhere. Let’s all play the video game version instead.

I read this compelling book in three sittings. It has a lovely philosophical ring to it, by that I mean you have to concentrate to follow its logic. If you get lost or lose concentration you must go back to the bit you last understood and then move forward again. A highlight is the emphasis on production as the real goal of economics, rather than consumption. This neatly avoids the necessity of economic growth which is no longer possible in an environmentally constrained earth. Here in New Zealand we have been lucky to have a prime minister who united our 'team of 5 million' to defeat Covid-19, rather than a divisive leader like Trump. We too paid out a wage supplement and kept people employed. This book and Covid have enabled me to see economics in a new way. Thankyou Michael

The general perception across the world is that meritocracy is a good thing, as it gives chance to the most deserving. Merit is something everyone should strive for and those who make it, is because of hard work and talent and those who can’t, is because they did not put in that much effort. The author breaks this perception with many thought-provoking arguments backed with data. It will make you think all over again about merit and meritocracy.

Gut lesbar, bringt die problematische Fokussierung auf meritokratische Prinzipien gut auf den Punkt und regt zum Nachdenken an...was kann man von einem Buch mehr verlangen...!?

This is an important book that deserves to be read by everyone trying to make sense of current political events. Why have modern western elites seemingly stopped caring about lower-income workers in their own countries, instead dismissing them as “deplorables” or “gammon”? What lies behind the populist backlashes against those elites? What’s wrong with our higher education systems and our concept of merit? Professor Sandel delivers with a thoughtful analysis and more than a few suggestions for a way forward. While US-centric, many readers will find a narrative and analysis that resonates.

Libro que trata de concientizar sobre los peligros contemporáneos causados por en apreciación de la sociedad sobre la importancia de los diferentes grados académicos, posiciones de trabajo y como eso afecta a la juventud.

I like the book but the quality of the co to y I got is really below average.