Is Meritocracy to Blame for Our Yawning Class Divide?

This is all well and good, but what is the alternative? Rule through divine right? Mob rule? Perhaps a theocracy?

Yes, America does have a caste system. All you have to do is look at the color sorting that surrounds us: The color of the diners and the color of the workers at nearly every eatery in all the "nice" neighborhoods across Manhattan and Brooklyn. The color of the children in the public schools and those in the private schools. The color of the woman sitting with their eyes closed on a recliner and the color of the woman attending to her feet. The color of the families that live in Park Slope and the color of the nannies taking them to the park. The color of the owners gutting and renovating brownstones here in 95% black Bedstuy, and the color of the clientele of the many pockets of businesses catering the gentrifiers. All you have to do is open your eyes.

In the U.S., in all but our earliest years going through our educational system, we all learn the meaning of the following words: Capitalism Communism Socialism Anarchism And surely earlier on than any of the above words, we all learn the meaning of this word: Meritocracy And we know the meaning of all these words in exactly the same way that the Chinese, for example, know the meaning of these words. Indeed, the existence and the respective structures and institutions of both the U.S. and China crucially depend on their populations' knowing the meaning of these specific words. And these two populations know these meanings as these are incessantly drilled into people through the dominant ideology of "free market" "Capitalism" here and "Communism" there. But there we see this as indoctrination and here we see this as education. And this is precisely why this book & this book review must come into play in our system, because: "What is important in the present context is the contribution of the harshest critics (within the mainstream) to reinforcing the system of indoctrination, of which they themselves are victims—as is the norm for the educated classes, who are typically the most profoundly indoctrinated and in a deep sense the most ignorant group, the victims as well as the purveyors of the doctrines of faith." (Noam Chomsky) "Meritocracy" is not so much a destructive "myth" as it is the central doctrine of faith purveyed throughout school—and again right here.

Dr. Daniel Markovits does us, left out gullible middle class , a great favor: he draws the drapes, letting the light in our brains to be able to see the present reality in all its ugliness, I have seen it with rich people that I know and their children, but it is important that a professor of an Ivy university writes bout this. Americans are living in an old, decaying Capitalism close to cronyism.

Ivy League universities, television, movies, magazine covers, Broadway plays, professional sports, actors, dancers, artists, musicians, rap artists, newspaper reporters, disk jockeys, talk-show hosts, award-winning writers, social workers, cops, nurses, firemen, web-page designers and doctors. Wherever I look these days, I see an increasing number of blacks who are making out well. Still a very long way to go of course. But I see an enormous amount of progress.

Of course, rich, highly intelligent and hard-working people meet at elite universities. Then they marry and have rich, highly intelligent and hard-working children who in turn go to elite universities and the pattern continues. People like this boneheaded professor try to mix things up through affirmative action, but it doesn’t work very well since, as it is said, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” — Plutarch

We can all talk about exemplary people. Yes, there's Dave Thomas and Oprah Winfrey. Awesome. Wonderful. Up from nothing. What about the lives of ordinary people? What happens to them? A poor child shouldn't have to be a genius to have half a chance at a job that will pay them enough to live. As a society, what do we want for ordinary people, and what do we want for the people least able to support themselves?

NOT REALLY - There is more in this story, this very sad state of affairs, while the inequalities of capitalism are so pronounced, that is those who control the means of production (especially in a political context, the facilities and resources for producing goods) are amassing considerable fortune while the vast majority of workers continue not to be sufficiently remunerated for their hard labor hours. The very sad relation between the rate of return on investment and wealth of the possessing class and the working class, as shown by its different positions within the economic distribution – income, pay, wealth - sure can be a threat to democracy itself. However, what today may be cause for the practice of the Prophet Muhammad’s disease, “Terrorism,” but first for the terror groups’ manipulative recruitment tactics to be proved effective, is the abominable condition of life in the slum or impoverished neighborhood – by all measures, an unwanted continuum, since it can also be corrosive and toxic.

I haven't read the book, but based on the description. Markovitz's thesis is flawed. It is the uneducated people who vote for Republicans who favor tax cuts for the rich, don't want free college, and in general favor policies that hurt the poor. The educated population favors Elizabeth Warren, who has plans to help the poor, gain an education and measures to reduce the concentration of wealth this country is seeing. She started from poverty in Oklahoma. The wealthy population has its Tom Steyers as well as the Koch Bros..

To level the playing field, the worst students should be afforded a college education, while the best and the brightest should be limited to blue collar jobs. That way, those who need a lift, get a lift, and those who don't, don't.

"what we call merit is “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.” The unjust distribution of advantage apparently did not prevent Prof. Markovits from reaping the benefits that he seems so intent to deny his fellow professionals. Let's face it: meritocracy and the rule of law established by the Founders made this country the superpower it is. It made United Kingdom and Rome superpowers they were. Nepotism, corruption, affirmative advantage to select privileged groups made Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Honduras what they are . We are messing with meritocracy at our peril. The greatest mistake the Professor makes is his excessive focus on money. Meritocracy is just another word for the family and culture where intellect is prized, as are the love of art, civic engagement and accomplishment. You cannot close the academic gap by promoting those who do not deserve it - all you do is diminish the academic standards for everyone. What you need is enrich family life and stability - a much greater challenge than redistribution of money, Prof. Markovits.

Is this truly our culture of choice? Isn't this predictability of behavior and of fates far toward the insipid? Have we so little interest in and use for our fellow humans who measure poorly by a one dimensional yardstick? Of what should a life consist?

I am disappointed that there is no discussion about the Asian American experience. "If you know what you’re doing and if you have enough money to spend on expensive tutors and prep schools, the meritocracy is easily gamed — which basically ensures that people who are rich because they went to a fancy school will have kids who will also go to fancy schools and thus also become rich. " This is absolutely not the Asian immigrant experience, yet, they have made it work. Any discussion of the the successes and failings of American meritocracy, as linked to schools and academic success, is incomplete without addressing the experience of Asian immigrants.

It has long been an open secret that the children of the wealthy who donate to the schools have children that are freely admitted and rarely show up to class. The wealthy don’t realize something. Everything is cheaper for them. If you can afford to buy a years subscription or more you receive a discount. The most expensive place on the planet is being without capital. All my life I’ve seen how wealth attracts wealth. People don’t go to ivy leagues to get an education they co there to network and be part of the club. Some people go for an education if they are an idealist but for those who have it’s an aristocratic club. I can not name a person of wealth that I respect. Ive worked on CEO’s personal computers after university and seen how they act in the office and abuse their power. Some are “okay” but detached. Many people in power are corrupt. They are bullies and used the ladies on the office. I’m done with the corruption. Trump reminds me of all that is wrong in the world. It’s time we stop turning the other cheek and end the corruption of the donor class. It must end or humanity will apathetically end as it should. A society that is incapable of higher virtues towards one another naturally burns itself out and destroys itself. Consider this the universal open secret. To take our place in the stars required us to be a community that cares about each other and upholds higher virtues. We are more than an animal. Step up or perish. That’s our purpose

It is not meritocracy. It is how merit is defined. It is in summary, lack of moral principles. One more time," noblesse oblige". A meritocracy without principles, is a false aristocracy.

Inherited wealth and locally-funded education do not make for a "meritocracy." Until we tax inheritance at 90% and use that money to fund truly equal education for all kids, no matter where and to whom they are born, we do not have an actual meritocracy. So what is the point in even asking the question.

This is hardly news to anyone paying attention to the indefensible rise in college tuitions over the past 30 years. Why should school tuition inflation be so much more than other cost of living items over that time? Do tax free colleges and universities pay that much more for electricity, heat, and telephone than the rest of us? No they don’t. The rise is due to greater demand, largely from the already well off both in this country and from overseas and who can afford large contributions to school endowments to help ensure their offspring will be well prepared to compete in ever more challenging global workspace. It should alarm anyone concerned about a ruling plutocracy that soon enough only the richest among us will be able to afford college. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario.

What I loved the most about this review is: "the idea that the economy rewards the able and the diligent.....is one of the oldest and most familiar American illusions".....I believed in that illusion- that diligence and hard work would buy my American dream. After working incredibly hard to attend an elite school solely on merit, and years after joining the work force, and many long hours to get to an executive position, it was SO extremely disappointing to find out some of the people I work with have a job because their mother or father is best friend with someone in my company. Alas, I'm older and wiser, the illusion burst, I will not hesitate to help my children and grandchildren to get ahead the way rich people do. I call it survival.

NOT REALLY - Inequality, in different size or degree, because not all of us, men and women, have attained the same level of education, have the same ability, or even are of high birth, for example, will always be with us. But the painful issue of concern is when inequality is too much of a very bad thing, that of life of blanket crushing poverty, for instance, and as affirmed by the fast and widening gap between rich and poor across the globe. For instance, the richest 10 percent of Americans earn half of all of income; in Britain, further reported the British Broadcasting Corporation, commonly known as the British Broadcasting Corporation or B.B.C., on the day of January 12, 2016, the top 10 percent hold 40 percent of all income. For many, principally the issues that are associated with inequality continue to unfavorably determine their quality of life; the same men and women, with a reduced purchasing power or one that is ‘de minimus,” preventing them from also being some of the factors to have caused demand for goods and services to go upward; what else, many other issues associated with so, such as a decrease in supply; and more, as the economy as a whole, or capitalism, in the negative terms, has become the enemy.

Two observations: one big problem with meritocracy that isn’t even mentioned here, but also, the current imbalance has much to do with institutions over-charging for education. The plutocrats who formerly ran our land recognized that their position was one that Fate had bestowed on them, so they generally felt pre-disposed to sharing their good fortune, through public service and charity. The current round of meritocratic think they got their wealth solely through their own efforts, so they are quite happy keeping it all for themselves, not even sharing their good fortune with their employees. But also, the middle class is being destroyed by the high cost of education. The American middle class was largely created by the free education given to returning servicemen. Now that their grandchildren have to pay such high fees for the same education, no wonder the middle class is being crushed. Especially when those meritocrats who did make it to the top have either shipped all their jobs overseas, or have converted everyone to independent contractors.

Very insightful. As a blue collar kid transformed from dross to gold by education at elite institutions, I am who the author is talking about. While at the same time being at those institutions, I witnessed the born into wealth elites skate effortlessly above me where they remain , miles above my charming achievement of leaping from "upper lower working class" ( thank you, John Waters) to upper middle class.

Reading this made me recall another, earlier time when a supposedly fair, meritocratic system was actually the veneer for the intense gaming of wealth and privilege. In 1968, many of my high-school classmates had every reason to believe that on graduation they almost certainly would be drafted and serve in Viet Nam. Many did and many died. The supposed "meritocracy," though, decided that because I had been admitted to an elite school (one of those implicated in the recent bribery scandal), I would get a four-year reprieve that those without such "merit" would not get. And it gets "better." Actually worse. Four years after benefitting from all my magical merit, when the specter of the draft again was raised, my place atop the merit heap, along with my privilege, gave me access to a group of extremely skilled draft lawyers who, completely within the meritocratic law, kept me in tie-dye until the war ended. And let's not forget the wealthy who bought replacements during the Civil War. Constructed to rationalize privilege, indeed.

The endowments of the major universities are under performing resources. In Jennifer Schuessler's article/profile about Daniel Markovits' new book "The Meritocracy Trap" states: "He has crunched the endowment numbers (Yale’s stands at about $25 billion), and argues that if growth trends continue, the 10 richest schools will “own the entire country” by the middle of the 22nd century.” Others in the top ten: Harvard $38.3 billion UT $30.89 billion Stanford $26.46 billion Princeton $25.92 billion MIT $16.53 billion Penn $13.78 billion Teaxas A&M $13.52 billion Michigan $11.9 billion Northwestern $11.09 billion Source: NACUBO Elite schools should expand their enrollments. If they are so successful at producing brilliant people, why aren't they producing twice as many graduates since their endowments have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled? The elite schools' lack of community involvement is also problematic. Yale, for example, has failed to solve the problems of New Haven. With deep pockets and brilliant people, why haven't they been able to engage and successfully address the needs of their broader community? We need to expect more from our elite institutions. They should be embarrassed that they are not delivering effectively for our society. Wealth has been concentrated in fewer hands. The keys to future wealth, power, and leadership are also not being shared broadly as our population and wealth expands.

Top universities are trying to get the smartest applicants they can, while still maintaining diversity. If anything, they don't value meritocracy enough. If Harvard only valued intelligence and high test scores, it would be 100% Asian, but, as is well known, they discriminate against Asians for the sake of diversity. I disagree with the thesis that unviersities are perpetuating inequality. Anybody can go to a good school if they get good grades. But poor students tend not to get the best grades, through no fault of the universities. One problem is clearly inequality in primary education. Until you've achieved equal funding per pupil in every public school, you've got no business blaming universities for disparate outcomes that are mostly determined by high school. Another problem is that certain segments of society place more emphasis on the importance of education than others. Many rich children grow up assuming that they will go to college, with their entire childhood centered around that goal, while the poor have different priorities. That is also not the fault of universities, who actually lower their standards to accomodate disadvantaged groups. Low income families who want their children to succeed need to encourage educational excellence from an early age, prioritizing it over all other activities. They need to aim high and not settle for vocational training or low-skill jobs. Scholarships are abundant for low-income and minority students who show promise.

Unfortunately income inequality is the inevitable result of meritocracy. Yes, in the present case it does seem to be augmented by widespread fraud, but fraud isn’t necessary for the outcome. If the best and the brightest are not held back by some sort of restrictive caste system they will inevitably figure out how to have all of the good stuff for themselves. Admiration of the meritorious is so deeply embedded in our culture now that I don’t know how we escape from its spell. For example, remember the financial crisis of 2008 and the huge number of people who had been duped into taking out loans they could not afford. Millions held underwater mortgages yet there was no real movement to relieve their distress because it was felt that they, in some sense were responsible for their situation and any kind of remedy would only encourage further risky financial decision making. In other words, helping them because they needed help took a back seat to emphasizing that their behavior had not been smart. Changing the tax code may be one way to deal with income inequality but unless the code is extremely simple there will always be ways to game it. What we really need is a change of heart. We need to realize that smart is not always the same as good.

The problem is not meritocracy it's the lack of opportunity for the talented but not affluent to achieve their potentials. We do not offer children in average income and low income neighborhoods the same opportunities as the children in high income neighborhoods. It shows in college admissions, even in public institutions. If anyone grows up in a low income district, they just are less likely to be prepared for higher education.

Calling the elite college admissions process one of "meritocracy" also enables the elite types to gaslight themselves into believing that their children were selected for admission due to their academic achievements and intellectual strength. The reality is, much more often than not, students at elite universities are there due to legacy status, financial payoffs from the parents, potential athletic contributions. The system perpetuates itself, outsiders need not apply.

Interesting premise. My gut instinct is one of strong disagreement, but - perhaps because I have 12 years of post-secondary education - I'm going to read the book and see if my mind is changed by it. I don't think most folks pursue multiple degrees in order to maximize their wealth; rather they do it to maximize their potential, and a comfortable income (and hence life) usually - but not always - follows. Realistically, I believe that most Americans "find their spot" in society. Some folks are brilliant and moderately-hard-working; others are of average intelligence and extremely hard working. People in either of these groups can achieve great things, including advanced degrees if they so choose. Or they could enter a field historically not populated by brilliant and driven folks, and succeed tremendously there. I admit that meritocracy leaves behind people who are of below-average intelligence and/or below-average focus and drive. But I have far less of a moral problem with that with artificially elevating such people just because they are part of an "aristocratic/royal" lineage, such as how things were done in Europe. And yes, there are a handful of not-very-driven, possibly-not-too-intelligent people in America who have been born in to vast inherited wealth and who enjoy special advantages because of that. But they are few and far between relative to the rest of us, and I doubt their lives are especially fulfilling. It's nothing to be jealous of.

There is nothing new going on .. we have simply made most college graduates = to what high school was 50 years ago. My oldest sibling (+16) had much more work then I. The pecking order is still there ... even though I went to top east coast schools and that well known one in London. Was asked if I played lacrosse by one interviewer ... and squash by another!. This for my first wall street internship. Got the drift. And the middle class -- it's easy .... we don't make things in the USA any more. A job at Applebee's is not going to ever pay what a good manufacturing job paid 30 years ago. I still get nice checks from selling manufactured goods .. we have plenty of workers -- they are just outside the USA. 25 years ago ... we had 6k workers in the USA. We still have 4k workers -- only 100 in the USA. Good jobs that pay real wages .. What will happen -- the Applebees will close. They can't raise prices to pay more to attract workers .. or they will automate. My guess -- many will close.

But most of the Professional Class is the middle class or, if you like, upper-middle; that is, those who work in traditional salaried jobs and have incomes in the low-to-mid six figures. These folks are the heart of the so-called meritocratic elite and I rather doubt any of them would consider themselves rich, much less upper class unless they come from an old-line family and have supplemental inherited wealth. Sure. some lawyers, doctors, executives, bankers, traders, etc., earn in the millions annually but the median incomes are way lower. Generally speaking, people succeed financially through a combination of their skills and initiative. Not everyone is ever going to succeed equally no matter how strenuous the efforts of social engineering.

If you ask me, Community Colleges are the unsung heroes of the American Education System. They clean up much of the mess left behind by our public schools - taking kids who weren’t prepared for college when they graduated, and preparing them. They give poor kids the academic help that rich kids pay tutors for. They teach the STEM professions that top tier universities seem to scoff at, as well as low level academic courses - in which they over much smaller class sizes than the public universities. And they do it for far, far lower tuitions even than the public universities. . And I’ve seen many aspects of it. I have both a BA and a masters degree myself. My father is a professor at a top tier Liberal Arts College in the northeast. My wife is a professor in a Community College

I think at one time so few people went to college that even if you weren't from a family of means and your ancestors didn't go to "the Ivies" you could still do pretty well getting your degree(s) from a public college. I don't know that this is true anymore. I doubt very much that the top financial businesses, elite law forms etc are lining up to woo graduates of colleges that aren't also considered "elite". Sure, those who graduate from Harvard, Yale etc are smart and talented but so are many who graduate from ordinary colleges. I think the sorting out happens really early on now when the elites get their toddlers into private expensive nursery schools and then they feed into elite grade schools etc. This is coupled with access to the music lessons, camps, travel and other opportunities not to mention tutors, SAT prep etc that will help pad college applications. Actually, it begins even sooner when the offspring of the elite meet at the elite colleges and marry each other which is way more common now than before. They then beget elite offspring who will likely do the same. Couple this with the business connections of the elites, the inherited wealth etc. and it's harder and harder for those not descended from elites to have a fair chance of making it anymore in the US. To me it feels like many of us have been left behind and we are all squabbling over the leftovers.

We need more doctors with an expanding population, more complex diagnoses, and aging cohorts of both doctors and patients. Yet the AMA limits the number of seats in med schools. Just one example. Rigged systems are part of this rationed system with strings pulled behind the scenes.

Fantastic book review by Mr. Frank. The corporate media is a huge part of the problem as well. In all of the Democratic debates not one corporate media journalist asked a candidate about income inequality in a substantiative way. And yet this is the major issue of our day and is fueled by the so called meritocratic education system. The myth of meritocrats who arrived where they are due to honest hard work and exceptional talent is false. Most are average kids with tons of advantages. As for the regular middle class kids who eek their way into the "elite" schools due to perseverance (or sports skill) and obsessive goal setting by their parents, it seems to me that they just desperately want to catapult their kids into the 1% by giving them access to the children of oligarchs. I also saw Mr. Markovits interviewed on PBS NewsHour last week and will buy the book.

Before anyone can begin to think about ending the class divide in the U.S., it's necessary to know something about it. I mean something more than that some authors may choose to call the class divide "yawning." I can neither disagree nor agree with that assessment until I have, like, one actual fact about it beyond the adjective "yawning." Facts, anyone?

Complain about how the current “meritocracy” is now practicing, but pose no viable, let alone better, alternative. It is like saying that the current meritocracy is the worst process “except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

The privileged have mostly filled the ranks of our top business leaders, government officials, and many professionals. But, not all. There are those who come from ordinary households. Before throwing rotten tomatoes at the elite, keep in mind that to rise, and stay, at the top of any field requires brains, education, and self discipline/determination to keep going. Ever work for tax attorneys, who do make hi six figures? They put in extra hours that many 9 to 5 folks wouldn't tolerate. We all know brilliant people, from middle class families, and sometimes from less than middle class, who have worked extraordinarily hard to make it. Of course the rich are far more advantaged, but keep in mind if someone is mediocre, even with privilege, he/she will not always graduate the elite universities, let alone make it through law school, medical school, etc. and into lucrative careers. It's still hard work and grit once you get in. How to motivate the brightest kids from ordinary, or less than stellar, households to become high achievers. The obstacles to success are not only financial. Are there not some brilliant kids from inner cities who are scorned for academic achievement by their peers? Some give up. We are products of our particular cultural backgrounds, and those from families that push studying hard, don't care what ethnic or racial background, are more likely to make it. How to motivate bright kids not born into these families is the challenge.

While I have not read the book and agree with a number of points made, I question the importance attributed to elite universities. The vast majority of students, by far, are educated outside these universities in state and local institutions. Does the “middle class” not have access to these or are they doing such a dismal job that students coming out of these institutions are incapable of pulling themselves into a greater level of prosperity! Are opportunities in the US, and now globally, so limited that they are captured by elite university alumni, as the author seems to imply. I am not disagreeing that the deck is not stacked at many of our power and influence wielding institutions.

Eh. Not everyone gets into or can survive tough law or medical schools, but that's to be expected. Inequality is fueled by resistance even to applying oneself in junior high and high school.

We only need, maybe, 50,000 ringers to do brilliant things that fill our world with apps, penicillin and flat screen tv’s. These 50,000 need powerful material incentives. The remaining 340 million of us could share the bounty of our economy equitably without diminishing our country’s productivity in the least. In other words we should only have the amount of inequality that we actually need.

I couldn’t agree more. A system based on merit alone reinforces success for those with resources vs those that do not. As a society, we cannot simultaneously have equality and inequality. They are mutually exclusive.

Wow! I think Markovits has really done it. He has identified the able and the diligent as a serious problem. They are interfering with his view of the way things ought to be in the world of college admissions. Has he lost his mind? All of the problems notwithstanding, to attack the able and diligent students as a solution is a leap too far.

Competition always tends to increase differences among individuals in outcome (unless you kill the losers). It's as true for individual businesses as it is for individual people. But the way out is not to ban competition but to reduce its negative effects while retaining its positive ones (e.g., motivation to innovate, work hard, plan ahead, meet unmet needs). That's the rationale for anti-trust laws in business: competition often leads to monopoly as winning firms gather ever more capital. It should be the rationale for high estate taxes and state and nationally education for people. That's the way forward ... NOT ditching meritocracy.

"......... they sense also that thanks to their inability to gain admission to elite schools, they and their families are now an excluded people." Give me a break. Are we supposed to believe that those who attended less than elite schools are excluded in this country, along with their children? And, I guess, grandchildren. There are plenty of less-than-elite colleges and universities out there that are supplying us with smart, hard working, well paid citizens. Black and white arguments must sell more books.

There are so many things I might say in response to this article. For starters, how about those wealthy families who tried to pay their way into those meritorious colleges? But here's a simpler point. After receiving an MFA from a UC college I went to work as a software programmer in Silicon Valley. This was in the late 1980's. Why was I hired? Because I was able to prove I could code. I did this by carrying a floppy disk with programs I wrote to company interviews. Now -that- is meritocracy in action, though no one used that word. Someone needed a programmer and I could program. The world was moving pretty fast at that time, through the 1990's and into the 2000's. I took classes and learned the new stuff, OO, database related, multiple new programming languages, etc. I continued to work until I retired in 2015. But somewhere in the middle of that time period the word "meritocracy" began to be thrown around. And my fellow women programmers began to thin out. I eventually moved into management .. but even there many fellow managers and programmers, all men, started seeing me more as an older lady and less for my abilities. I experienced both sexism and ageism, and the field that I had loved before I grew to loathe. Today I mostly detest Silicon Valley companies. Why? Because the people in them are so incredibly clueless, conforming, and not especially innovative.

And who are the "highly educated ruling class" going to call when their infrastructure collapses and waste backs up? The middle class will then show their merit.

Another glaring problem with using a fig-leaf myth of meritocracy to cover our shameful inequality is that nobody has any control over the genes they are born with, and nobody would be born below average intelligence by choice. There is absolutely no justification for the grotesque levels of inequality and poverty in the US, and our society would be much happier and healthier on average (yes, even the most able) if inequality were to be greatly reduced. It might even stimulate the economy, since consumer spending underpins the economy and many are too poor to participate.