What's ripping America apart is that >75,000,000 Americans have learned the hard way that they have no economic value to their nation's economy: They are economic dross.
This moiety is only valued by demagogues, and only during the run-up to elections. Too bad that American bread and circuses are so awful.
To these tens of millions of economically irrelevant Americans, college is irrelevant.
14
Freedom is actually a bigger game than power. Power is about what you control. Freedom is about what you unleash.
Harriet Rubin
11
"For ye have the poor always with you..." Matthew 26:11
And the corollary, For ye have the rich always with you...
There really is nothing new under the sun, Mr. Brooks.
As the late, great Ray Charles taught us:
"Them That Got"
"That old sayin them that's got are them that gets
Is somethin I can't see
If ya gotta have somethin
Before you can get somethin
How do ya get your first is still a mystery to me
I see folk with long cars and fine clothes
That's why they're called the smarter set
Because they manage to get
When only them that's got supposed to get
And I ain't got nothin yet
Whoah, I tell you all
I ain't found nothing yet.”
8
Mr. Brooks , a journalist, and Mr. Markovitz, a law professor are shockingly ignorant on how high tech operates
In high tech, your education credential count zero. What counts is what you can do. If you went to Cal Tech or learned it by yourself plays no role whatsoever. See Bill Gates and Steven Jobs. All that counts is how much you can contribute, evaluated every 3 months in a performance review.
Mr. Markovitz , as a professor of Law and Yale should concentrate on the role of "meritocracy" in law, noting that every one of the 9 Supreme Court judges went to either Yale or Harvard.
Given that there are over 150 accredited Law School in the US, a statistical improbability. That indicates that in Law, as opposed in the Tech industry , you advance on the social connections you made at law school.
Both he and Mr. Brooks, however, have no idea on the tech industry works
My homework assignment for both is to find the Universities the 13 full time employees of Instagram attended
I challenge to post the results in the comment section
23
Oh, yeah, sure.
Changesfor the extremely disgustingly wealthy won't help at all.
It's the professional working class that needs to share its bounty to fix society's problems.
4
It seems part of the problem is that the old American path to the middle class, that is; attend an affordable public university, get a degree & get a good job. Now that option looks more difficult, as a degree comes with so much debt.
14
Pundits seem to bandy about the word ‘meritocracy’ without addressing its relation to the root word, merit. In ordinary discourse, ‘merit’ implies approval, approbation. But what merit describes the ‘meritocracy’ that David Brooks and others so freely use?
Here and there, Brooks mention ‘skills’, but which skills are at the core of ‘merit’? What ‘skills do ‘merit’- based society value? What relation do they bear, if any, to goodness, to ethics?
Absent clarification of the content and meaning of ‘meritocracy’, people should avoid the term, and simply talk about elites, about being successful greasy-pole-climbers.
9
Whenever I read columns such as this one, and the comments that they draw, I am struck by how unrepresentative and irrelevant these kinds of issues are to the vast majority of Americans -- the folks beyond the narrow gauge of the New York Times and the cosmopolitan coastal elites. A lot of you people have no clue as to what most of your fellow citizens deal with, every day of their lives, or what they hold near and dear. Hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with how to get their kid(s) into the Ivy League. You really need to go out and discover America. You'd be surprised at what you find.
17
Must you mock?
2
A truly outrageous column by @David Brooks, whose beloved Republican Party has spent decades slashing funding for public universities. It all began with @David Brooks's hero Ronald Reagan defunding the Universities of California -- which used to be free for residents of the state, as did most state colleges and universities. It is the height of hypocrisy to bemoan the consequences.
30
I wonder if Republicans voted for Donald Trump because it's the closest they think they will ever get to 'exclusive meritocracy'. Of course, Donald Trump inherited his wealth, went bankrupt (at least) 4 times, and brags about abusing women. Let's call that 'conservative meritocracy'.
14
I still don't get the "ripping us apart" part. That last sentence seemed to come out of nowhere. Ripping the nation apart? I don't think it is the meritocracy that is doing that. Plain and simple: its the Republican Party!
21
Yale isn't all about merit. Didn't Trump graduate from Yale? Or Bush, or both?
You hear "Yale" and you assume merit. "Yale" is a sign of merit, virtue, & hard work. But The sign is not the thing itself.
Lots of signs are intended to be misleading. They cover up the thing itself.
Every Chrisshun Church bears the sign of the cross. But that tells you nothing about what the members practice and preach.
The sign of the cross, again, crossed fingers behind the back, is made to facilitate equivocation. Lie in the name of God, followed by murder in the name of God...
4
David,
This is the inevitable consequence of savage capitalism, greed, and individualism.
13
Says the man who went to the top high school in Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago. Not convincing.
6
Parents of worthy applicants, be aware: you are up against other parents.
3
Wow, a conservative FOR public higher education!
Good to hear (assuming he IS still a conservative!)
6
So what's the end game? Revolution? Americans are too well fed to initiate a revolution.
6
I just finished reading “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” and the title and subject of this essay are not much different from David Brooks’ ideas cited in that 15-year old book. Perhaps Mr. Brooks is concerned about mending the divisions that damage our society, but his continued use of the wedge of exclusionary elitism does not seem to be helping.
4
American meritocracy has always been a ruse used to arbitrarily and unjustly oppress those deemed by those in positions of power and wealth, to not be worthy.
It's long in the tooth in 2019, or perhaps better described as being long in the fang, predatory.
3
I think that part of the desire people have to live an exclusive lifestyle has to do with urban planning.
Living in a big metropolitan area involves so much traffic and so little open space.
It seems that the very wealthy just want to get on a private jet and get away from all of the people.
Central Park is so wonderful because it is for everyone, although to live near Central Park, one probably needs to be pretty well off.
Life as a middle class American in the 1970’s was better than it is today, except that everyone used to smoke cigarettes back then.
4
"Merit" should be measured in contributions made to the health and happiness of one's fellow human beings.
7
This is the best piece of intellectual property I have ever read from David Brooks.
It asks the basic question America needs to answer. Who defines meritocracy?
Maybe America has already answered with it is the least meritocratic.
4
Were the people of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s insane?
If not, then why did they agree that the very rich should be heavily taxed in order that the country develop properly and that people of modest backgrounds would have a decent shot at life?
Do today's liberals and conservatives alike all forget that those decades were the best the country has ever seen?
19
I went to all the best universities and so did our children, and they had the best preparation. Now they are part of the globetrotting elite. And I don't buy the "stress" model in which parents push their children but everyone pays a price. They loved every minute of it and wanted more.
But it certainly is obnoxious to attribute one's own success to superior ability and therefore to believe that you deserve it in some sense. Everyone should be encouraged to do his or her best, and we all should go out of our way to recognize effort and achievement in every form.
8
"People in this caste are super-skilled and productive"
people in the "lower" castes are often super-skilled and productive as well, we just don't make a lot of money. teachers are by far the most influential people in the country, but they make $40k a year. writers and artists make even less, although their work is essential to the country's cultural wealth.
this entire article is based on the idea that the measure of all value is money. and that's the problem. everywhere.
37
@slightlycrazy
Yes, teachers are the real heroes.
7
The Age of Austerity How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics
Worth reading. Inflation and loss of our economic domination after WW 2
Have made risks of losing the struggle for economic security more serious.
Our current politics represent this.
Its not the meritocracy that's tearing us apart, it is a growing mentality of scarcity that is doing so.
Many see their potential piece of the pie getting smaller and harder to attain. This motivates them to work harder and to put more pressure on their children to achieve academically. It also makes them less likely to lend a helping hand to others.
We're becoming bit like a pack of starving dogs scrapping over the last morsel.
16
To be sure, my kids are working harder in high school than I ever did. But the relative inaccessibility of top colleges is creating an interesting dynamic among many in my set: as the Ivys and similar colleges become more impossible to get into, the list of "acceptable" options grows - by necessity. And those former second and third tier tier schools become more prestigious and desirable. Whereas 20 years ago, I might have thought that my kids "had" to go to one of five to seven schools, now I would be overjoyed to see them get into any one of twenty - or more. And quite frankly, I'm not so sure I'd want my kids to go to a school that accepts 10% or fewer of the applicants. Imagine being in a school filled with those types of grinders. No thanks.
11
I don't know if a 'meritocracy' is tearing apart America. I do know that a 'mediocre"cacy in the White House is breaking America down. While some part of income disparity is due to diverging skill levels, an equally impactful part of the past few decades trend is due to the few at the top leveraging access and opportunity to 'stack the deck' in favor of themselves and their children. Consider the degree and effort that Trump's father went to to deceive the government and avoid lawfully-due taxes in order to pass on wealth to his son. Consider then how that son, Trump, used the lever of power he has now to enact a "Tax Reform" that save himself and his heirs tens of millions or hundreds of millions in formerly due taxes. Eliminating the federal estate tax did nothing for hundreds of millions of Americans... but for a few thousand already very wealthy and privileged families, it saved millions. Meaning that the millions of ordinary taxpayers, with estates too small to be taxed, save nothing and pay their ordinary taxes, while the wealthy few pay less in taxes than ever. All thanks to the access and leverage they bought with Congress. Trump, with his own leverage and access, dealt for himself and -his- family a massive tax advantage (and check out the special provisions for 'real estate' in that "Tax Reform" bill, too. Why? Because he could...).
16
Great to see Mr. Brooks targeting more feet on the ground topics. For a while there when he was having existential angst about the conservative meltdown he retreated to musing about meltdown of morals and such. Am I am detecting more concern for social equity?
7
"Meritocracy ripping America apart" seems overdone. I thought that Trump and Fox and right wing talk radio had a monopoly on ripping America apart.
I'm always amused by articles like this in the Times. Having as it does a large East Coast audience, it seems that the Ivies are the center of the universe of opportunity with dire consequences for those who don't enter them. Credit Brooks with discovering that there are other colleges in America, often in far-away and less academically glamorous places where kids attend college and live satisfying lives afterward, even lives filled with leadership. Amazing. Welcome to America, Brooks, at least an America that is seldom acknowledged in the Times.
10
I wonder what percent of ASU graduates find decent work and pay off their student loans. I graduated college in 1979 and found that very little of what I studied had any practical value in the work force.
I believe college is not much more than a weeding out process. If you get into one of the prestigious schools you have already been weeded out and there is a higher probability you will be successful
5
It seems to me that someone at ASU sent Mr Brooks a few links to some websites and he took them at face value. Some of his statements are laughable, like this one: Faculty members are treated less as scholars within rarefied disciplines and more as interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneurs. The goal is immediate social impact as much as expanding knowledge, so, for example, A.S.U.’s Watts College of Public Service & Community Solutions is enmeshed with local residents to transform a Phoenix neighborhood.
8
Mr Brooks mentions, "radical inclusion" as an element of the Kansas Leadership Center. From first-hand experience, we can all learn from the community experiment that is Burning Man.
Its core principles include Radical Inclusion, Radical Self-Reliance, Civic Responsibility, Gifting, and Participation.
It's amazing what can be accomplished and how positive interpersonal relations can be when the focus of the culture/community drives people together vs apart.
2
Burning Man? Really? How about that Orgy Dome?
2
I am not sure how to react to this. I went to school in a blue collar neighborhood. The kids that I hung around with came from middle class homes and today are all multi millionaires. None of us went to fancy coastal colleges. We all worked for years and saved. We mostly are politically conservative, can’t stand Trump, and think most of the Democratic candidates are way too far left. One observation is that compared to many years ago (I am 68), there seems to be far more marriage of high earners to high earners which may cause some of what David talks about.
10
Mr. Brooks' term, "exclusive meritocracy," is an oxymoron, as a meritocracy by definition cannot exclude from power based on criteria other than a failure of merit. The Oxford dictionary defines "meritocracy" as "a society governed by people selected according to merit." If people are selected for positions of power or status based upon the political or financial power of their families, as Mr. Brooks describes the group he labels "exclusive meritocracy," then it is no meritocracy at all but its very antithesis. The societal problem isn't meritocracy but it's polar opposite, power selection based upon political or financial advantage. The greater inclusiveness and opportunity he describes at Arizona State is more in line with the proper use of the term, "meritocracy."
9
Interesting argument, but I am not sure that the "type" of meritocracy necessarily results in ripping things apart. My belief is that we've allowed the concept of "meritocracy" to justify a "winner takes all" belief as to material success.
In essence, you are entitled to keep all of the rewards that you have earned, because you have done so on the "merit" of your own hard work and effort. You can share them, or not, with whomever you please. There is no larger social obligation.
Obama was attacked for his "you didn't build that" speech, but that was essentially his point. Opponents claimed it was an attack on success. It was not. Instead, what he said was that if we look at our success, there are elements that happened because of our work, but also elements that happened due to the work and effort of others.
Historically, we would hear stories of successful quarterbacks (the "pretty boys") who made a point to recognize and reward their linemen (the "big uglies"). In our current society, whether the quarterback came from an exclusive program or an open one, we believe he is entitled to all of the rewards of his next contract. There is no talk of the obligation to share some back to the linemen. That's the problem.
14
@Tom I wish that I could award 100 "recommends." Your point is excellent and well stated. I hope that David Brooks reads it. I have an engineering degree from Princeton so I am a little sensitive to the "elite meritocracy" criticism, but I can tell you that for many of us it is not all about the money and the power.
2
Really like this: "the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people." As a Russian immigrant, when I first encountered the American admission system with my oldest daughter applying for colleges (36 ACT, graduated from rural New Mexico public school, rejected by all Ivy League and such), I was appalled by how unfair and unaccountable it is, and even more appalled by my American friends claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is "meritocracy," "affirmative action" etc. while it is simply getting rich kids into best colleges and keeping out everyone else. Everyone else, if you do not count a tiny number of random students from disadvantaged/underrepresented groups, preferably with some heartrending story, who are used as a sprinkling of these elite schools to make them (schools) look good. It's like miners and collective farmers sitting on various Soviet governing bodies, giving legitimacy to the claim that it's "working people" ruling the country while all real decisions were made by the Party bureaucrats
15
"The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people." So, the wealthy and the elite willingly give away their wealth to support causes that challenge the capitalist economic and social structure that enriched them? Do tell. And, by the way, it's only accurately termed a metitocracy when everyone begins from the same place. Otherwise, it's known as an oligarchy.
4
I'm a labor union lawyer who graduated from a public university and law school. We routinely matched against Big Law and their Ivy League graduates who represented management, and knew we just had to work harder to best them, which we did many times. It's laughable to think they were any better than us. I just wish there were more of us than them!
14
Where were the NYT fact checkers around the statement that "affluent parents invest that affluent parents invest $10 million more per child"? The statement is ridiculous on its face.
In his Commencement Address, which I listened to you YouTube, all that Markowitz said was that kids from households in the top 1% in some way receive "the equivalent of a traditional inheritance of between $5 million and $10 million." What the kids ultimately "receive" doesn't appear to be the amount that parents spend or ever spent out of pocket. For one thing, the bottom 75% of the top 1% doesn't have anything like that kind of money. Markowitz is clearly throwing out some kind of calculated number, most likely based on the typical increased earning power of the last generation of children of meritocrats.
It's the kids themselves who deserve credit for their achievements, through their hard work, conscientiousness, consistency, intelligence, creativity, innate talent and skill. Brooks and Markowitz do these hard working, dedicated and honorable students a great disservice by attributing all they success to money spent on them by their parents. They accomplished this themselves, and will their will live by their wits to earn their way in the future, if they can.
6
Brooks' broad brush does everyone a disservice.
The problem isn't "the meritocracy," whatever that is, it's the way the extremely rich have captured the attention and devotion of politicians. They're intent on making the US a 'winner take all' place where those who are already at the top of the wealth ladder can't fail their way out of it. Most of the people at the top didn't get there on 'merit,' unless merit includes connections and nepotism, and often corruption. These people just like to pretend hard work made the difference. Many millions work hard, so it wasn't hard work that provided the filthy lucre. They like lying to themselves, and us, to justify their success. And a credulous press, as well as philanthropic whitewashing helps hide the ugly truth.
A far better example of the problem is looking at how the second and third and fourth generation Kochs, Waltons, Scaifes, etc, have invested in bending the law to further enrich themselves, and further impoverish almost everyone else.
Brooks brings up that "affluent parents invest $10 million more per child." That has nothing to do with the results--just look at the Trump clan. Fred Trump might have been an overachiever, but his kids only succeeded because of his wealth and connections. And Donald Trump's kids the same. They're not "highly honed, high-performing" by any stretch of the imagination. Those affluent parents already have what their needs use to get ahead--social networks and nepotism.
15
At a minimum, every single person merits life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We hold these truths to be self-evident. If a market says otherwise then that market is wrong. Poverty is a failure of the economic system to efficiently distribute available resources to those who merit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
8
I find it interesting that in almost all discussions of educational policy, never is mentioned the motivation, responsibility, tenacity of the students themselves. I'm rather sure that if you take the same miniscule cohort that is selected to go to an ivy league and send it to Podunk U, the results will be very similar to those achieved at the elite schools. Granted, the Ivies have a advantage in placing students in enviable jobs slots upon graduation, however; 10 years later productivity and achievement will win out. I find it laughable the extent parents go to ensure their kids go to an ivy--probably the real reason is that they can stick a Harvard sticker in the back window of their car.
6
Mr. Brooks seems to be using the words "meritocracy" and "exclusive" as somehow interchangeable. Does he actually think that the people in elite universities, ritzy vacation spots, and well-known conferences are all there because they are the most skilled?
11
Does a Jared Kushner from Harvard have any more capability than a good student at ASU? Very likely not.
Does he have more opportunity to enter the higher echelons of earnings and wealth in America? Absolutely yes.
A good measure of chances of entering the meritocracy is being already connected to it.
14
Is this the first of two or more parts? I don't see anything about how these two forms of meritocracy are "ripping America apart."
3
Again.... 50 hours a week ain't nothing! And there's a big difference between changing coffee filters in the office and changing adult diapers for a "client".
4
In other words, "public university's can improve the democratic ideals of inclusivity and diminish inequities."
Brooks's jab at highly paid professionals notwithstanding (of which group he's a member, but since he's not a liberal, that doesn't count), this is an argument for improving public education and expanding access to it. Sounds a lot like Socialism to me.
4
There is a difference between the intelligence, work ethic, ambition and drive of human beings. One of the reasons we have the most prosperous society per capita on the planet is that parents with health and brains and ambitions aren't able to set up their children for a lifetime at the same standard of living, so they inform the kid early on that they too will have to produce. Sure, some will fail, but most won't. Pretending that parenting doesn't matter, no matter what socioeconomic class you're in, just spend enough resources per child and all will be well, is disastrously naive.
2
If meritocracy is selection based on personal merit, i.e. skills and potential, your premise is false. This is because legacy and wealth are the dominant forces instead of talent. Wrong again, Mr. Brooks.
6
The Ivy League is in no way a meritocracy (though it may be exclusive) if you can buy your way in or if get in because your daddy got it.
15
David while I agree with most of what u say, PLEASE stop the doctor shaming ! A cardiologist who saves your life SHOULD Make $10 million a year . Why not make that sentence about what the CEO of an medical insurance company makes relative to the nurse! So overall, you get a fail for doctor shaming. If a neurosurgeon cures your brain tumor - what is that worth to you ?Priceless, no ?
4
Because cardiologists are only in it for the money? It isn’t a calling, like we say to teachers? They don’t save lives because they love doing good?
6
This column focuses mainly on institutions, but of course individuals must do their part for meritocracies, or societies generally, to thrive. Institutions can help, but they can't propel people forward on their own.
Does the typical American today work as hard and sacrifice as much to get ahead as his or her parents did? Grandparents?
The answer may be uncomfortable but revealing.
1
I love my kids and would never wish such unnecessary stress upon them (70%?!?!). I'd rather send them to ASU than Yale!
65
@CD Do you not remember the email that surfaced in the college admissions bribery scandal (in which one actress today received a 14-day jail sentence)?
The husband of another famous actress, who himself has been charged with a crime, wrote a witness:
"We just met with (our older daughter's) college counselor this am. I'd like to maybe sit with you after your session with the girls as I have some concerns and want to fully understand the game plan and make sure we have a roadmap for success as it relates to (our daughter) and getting her into a school other than ASU!"
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2019/03/12/asu-mentioned-university-bribery-scandal-court-documents-lori-loughlin/3141574002/
Apparently some people are willing to resort to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to *avoid* having to go to Arizona State.
6
Interesting the article would mention Piketty--the one thing Piketty forgot to include (in his hugely flawed bood) as part of "capital" is HUMAN capital. Which is the kind of capital all high wage earners employ (via undergraduate and professional degrees) to command such high salaries.
3
Brooks implies that the recent substantial growth of ASU is due to a desire to help more underserved students.
A more likely explanation is money. The state of Arizona has repeatedly cut funding to its universities, so that now the vast majority of universities' budgets come from student tuition. So in order to survive financially, ASU has increased its number of students, which increases the tuition dollars that they bring.
11
@Tony that was my first thought as well..expanding for the same reason as Walmart, Starbucks, Amazon and every other business...
4
My granddaughter had applied to med. school, Georgetown U., was disappointed to be told she'd been wait listed. Not accepting that decision she immediately sat down to write a three page letter to the Dean explaining why she should be accepted to Georgetown Medical. One week later received a phone from the Dean himself that she's been accepted. Fours years of hard work, I know first hand she lived with me for two years to save expenses, she is now in her residency. If her acceptance did not occur she would have been enrolled in a State University and worked just as hard as she did at Georgetown.
She left Georgetown as one of there top med. students. Once asked her opinion on the difference between her school and a State school, her response was not much. Fundamental medicine is pretty standard in all schools. Her thought on a good doctor and an outstanding doctor is just a matter of hard work.
5
Exclusivity is a necessity in my profession - that of a government (tax payer) funded research scientist at a public University. In order for me to conduct research and to teach the next generation of scientists how to do research, I must secure grants from the federal or state governments or from private foundations. The funding rate for investigator-initiated research projects is between 1-10%, depending on the agencies. In my profession, a minimum of 60 hours a week is required to stay competitive, most of us work 70-80 hours a week. By the way, we are in the non-profit sector of the economy and none of us are wealthy and our children mostly do not want our lives! I get your point, Mr. Brooks, but, I want you to know that exclusive meritocracy is not all bad.
3
Sounds horrible: 70/80 hours a week. Owe your soul to the NSF?
This isn't new. Marx argued that markets divide people 150 years ago.
6
David I worked very hard as a teen to get into Cal Berkeley and so did my wife..
We both labored for years in Academia and Wall Street and are now retired and worth about $5 Million..
I got up at 4AM to work in a hellish environment in a trading pit fr over 30 years..
I can’t help it if most Americans can’t cut it..
62
@paully
I think the author is describing the ultra-wealthy, whose wealth starts at around the $50 million mark, your nestegg is good, but ultimately chump change to the elite who run this country's institutions.
79
@paully I worked for a major retailer for 16 years more that 60 hours a week. They went belly up and I ended up with a small pension. Retooled myself to go into Info Technology after 6 very dry years and recovered somewhat. Sometimes fortune plays a part. Pride goeth before the fall.
102
@paully such a condescending and materialistic comment. There is more than admission to Berkeley, accumulation of wealth, waking up early just to make more money from money, or some other arbitrary materialistic measure to determine if you "cut it" in America. I'm proud of my degrees from a "land grant" institution from the Midwest. I may not have amassed as many greenbacks (or entered the realm of the exclusive meritocracy) as a result of my education by a more openly meritocratic institution, but at least I've used it in other ways that have benefited not just myself, but also my family and community.
146
Getting into college is not graduating from college which in turn is not producing a viable product once graduated. I've seen great students who fail in profession and/or in life. I've seen academically mediocre beer drinkers graduate and start up viable businesses and retire early. The direct route from good grades to success isn't so direct. How about motivation, the ability to be agile, the ability to accurately prioritize, perseverance as a life skill, and the ability to tap a keg? In my 40+ years in science and engineering, I saw more creativity in the conference center bars and Friday happy hours than at subject area reviews. We often joked that provisional patent applications that were drafted on the back of bar napkins as being the best.
3
David, this is a very confusing piece as was one of your last ones. Everyone has pointed out how your definition of meritocracy is off base so I won’t bother. I fail to see how schools are hurting us by opening their doors to have more students and teaching how the system works. The only thing that concerns me is that these students have to understand the past and it’s problems and not repeat them...a hard task when we cut down on classes in thinking and history. Think what would happen if most people in this country took time to think constructively about bettering them selves and others, understanding that we are in this together
5
I attended Yale, and was glad I did. It was a great education and many classmates have gone on to do great things. But it (like many elite schools) is now vastly over-priced and thus ever more a "closed shop." (I came from the middle class at a time in the 60s when Yale tuition was still within reach.)
Higher education has become like health care in this country: vastly over-priced, and vastly smug despite its liberal protestations.
We can nationalize health care (Elizabeth Warren, are you listening?), but we cannot nationalize our free universities. But something has to give. Maybe an answer is enhanced federal support for universities which do not charge exorbitantly...and for community colleges, which is where the real potential gain is for so many Americans not in the middle/upper classes.
2
As Paul Krugman has pointed out there is a big difference between the top 1% and the top .01%. The latter have been really benefiting from Republican policies and getting ever richer.
There was a time when white Protestant males were admitted into the best colleges and the best jobs. Then came tests and the system was opened. In came Catholics and Jews. Too many so geographical diversity was added to the process. Maybe it doesn't matter how skilled and talented people are but I am guess the top 0.01% will still find ways to grow richer and more powerful.
2
A meritocracy is a system where waste sinks to the bottom rather than floating. We obviously do not have a meritocracy. Consider the recently publicized scandals in which wealthy parents purchased entrance for their offspring, regardless of any merit. In institutions that are being used as the proof of a merit-based system. The mechanism by which wealth perpetuates wealth is unrelated to merit. In Santa Barbara, California, there are wealthy trust fund kids galore who cannot write complete sentences or fill out the 1040 EZ. But they could buy a spot at Princeton.
180
@ralph Princeton, Harvard and MIT were not involved in the recently exposed college admissions scams. Neither was CalTech, Harvey Mudd etc. These schools are really hard to graduate from once you get in.
12
@ralph
The 'elite' meritocracy is anything but. Children in this class certainly have superior education and other resources to give them a leg up. But, their education, as you note, is often curtesy of legacy admission. Nearly everything they will have in life begins with the advantages of family and money and continues with the social capital into which they are born.
And, try as Mr. Brooks will, these are not typically 'progressive' families, but Republican voting wealth preservationists who are outraged that they should have to pay additional taxes of a few hundred dollars to fund health care for the hoi polloi and have no sense of social responsibility to anyone.
26
Working 50 hours a week is not unique to the super-rich. Many of the super-poor, holding two or three jobs to make ends meet, are putting in even more.
426
@MACT - However, actual statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics tell a different story. The average number of hours worked by a household in the bottom quintile is about 15, while the average number of hours worked by a household in the top quintile is 45. Naturally, these numbers are averages, and the actual amount of work in any particular household may vary. But generally speaking, the more you work, the more you make.
7
@Jonathan - In all likelihood, many in the bottom quintile are elderly or disabled.
35
@Jonathan give me a break. I work more than my doctor does.
21
Nah. I went to Harvard and enjoyed a wonderful liberal arts education that I appreciate every day. It was a great experience and the reason more people didn't go there too is because there are only so many spots at that school. I got in because I set my sights on it when I was 7 and worked consistently toward that particular goal. I was right for the school and it was right for me; most of the other schools I applied to rejected me. I earned two degrees after that, one at a public university and another at a Catholic university. And thirty years after graduating with honors from Harvard, I make about $40k per year. And I'm happy as a clam, doing the exact work I want to do. I work *way* more than 50 hours a week, always have, and did so as a student too. It's because I love learning, and I love the work I've chosen. So this piece doesn't describe me at all. It doesn't describe my fellow Harvard friends either. I guess I'm hanging out with the few who don't fit what this opinion piece is talking about. Or it could be that this piece is stereotyping Ivy Leaguers.
230
@Joe You're unusual in that you went to Harvard and then went to a public university for a degree. Most Harvard people wouldn't do that I think - there is the whole "pedigree" thing and most of the most ambitious will focus on pedigree as well as the learning part.
You went to Harvard to learn. A lot of people seek to go to Harvard because of the name. I can't really understand that.
40
@Joe You are one of the exceptions.
13
@Joe Thank you, Joe. This piece doesn't describe my son either, who worked his way into a top ivy, no legacy, no sport, no coveted demographic, just very hard work, dedication, and a surprisingly good fit for him. The resources this school has are terrific, and it is truly a privilege for him to attend. No sights on high paying jobs or dreams of being a multi millionaire, and no, his dad and I won't be leaving him buckets of money. We are just grateful he is having such a fine experience and education. I guess he's just one more unicorn.
28
A cardiologist has to go through an extraordinary amount of training and schooling. A registered nurse goes to 4 years of nursing school.
There total cardiologist population is estimated at approximately 23,000, with the annual number of cardiology fellows coming into the workforce at around 700. There are 3.9 million nurses.
Of course cardiologists earn more! It's a profession that requires skills and commitments that are order of magnitude higher than those required to become a nurse.
5
I guess I fail to see how the exclusive meritocracy is spinning out of control. Only a vast minority aspires to Ivy League schools anyway, so it's hard to see how not getting into Yale requires a national conversation.
Rather, the cost of life in America is undermining the lives of all BUT those occupy exclusive meritocracy culture. The four horsemen of the middle class apocalypse--healthcare, child care, education, housing (and possibly retirement, but that ruins the four horsemen metaphor)--just become more and more expensive, more and more inaccessible.
Most people don't want to get into Harvard. They just want to not be bankrupted by a surprise medical bill.
939
Thanks - best, smartest and most sensible post on this thread.
53
Elder (parental) care is also a big concern for many in the middle class.
34
@David
There are more issues on stake than these financial everyday problems of the middle class. It is understood that the issues you have mentioned are at the top of the social agenda in USA and that tackling the "meritocracy problem" cannot help in this regard because it doesn't matter for the average 99% who is chosen for the infamous 1%. But this is an issue nevertheless - particularly when you look at the current leaders of Anglosaxon world who are products of the so-called meritocracy.
You may blame Mr. Brooks to run away from the simple and expensive need to cope with the "four horsemen" in his columns most of the time. But it doesn't make sense to ignore this additional problem Mr. Brooks has addressed here. There is definitely no lack of problems to fix at present.
10
Mr. Brooks,
I agree with your thesis. However, the piece really only compares and contrasts elite and non-elite education systems giving the impression that these two systems run in tandem and fill the need of their respective constituencies. A more thoughtful analysis of the consequences of our dual education system is needed to justify the conclusion that it will tear our country apart.
I'm interested to learn what Mr. Brook has to say about the unintended consequences of either framing of meritocracy. Perhaps shedding light on this blind spot might reveal more about our country's divide.
The beauty of having attended (and graduated from) one of the elite STEM institutions was that, in 1972, PC was not a word. Eventually it would mean Personal Computer. And that is all it should mean.
1
"Between 2009 and 2018, the number of engineering students grew to 22,400 from about 6,400."
I absolutely love it! This growth rate in engineering students is unmistakably remarkable - you can't dismiss it or spin it in any negative way.
1
I embrace Mr. Brooks' overall thesis. That said, he is an odd messenger/advocate for the "open meritocracy." I find it curious that he singles out Stanford University as an elite exemplar. Why not his own alma mater, the University of Chicago, which is tied with Stanford at sixth in US News' rankings, has a smaller student population, and costs more?
It was at an exclusive event for this institution where Mr. Brooks effectively got the job that subsequently vaulted him to his exalted position at journalistic backwaters like the WSJ and NYT - along with one or two other members of the "exclusive meritocracy."
5
THE NBA -- as an extreme example of meritocracy lets examine the world of sports and especially the NBA. Would you say this is an organization that marvels about the idea of meritocracy? Based on this article the NBA would be a prime example of self-motivation leading to the merit of your skill set. Why is it so convenient to announce that the field of education, especially when it focuses on the elite institutions and high paying professional careers, that somehow meritocracy is a demon that must be rectified yet in sports it not and issue? Common sense tells the spectator of this ignorant concept that there really is a reason for meritocracy and that is if you are gifted and practice your gift you deserve to own the court. Meritocracy is what a person of accomplishment earns and has nothing to do with shunning those without the God given talent and desire to develop it to its fullest opportunity. Basically when it comes to merit you have to earn it yourself and you should have the opportunity to be graciously rewarded for it. If you believe this article, then your life will be one of under achievement, self-pity, and resentment at your own determent.
1
IT ISN'T 'GOING TO'... It started some time ago. It will simply continue to RIP further and faster...
2
Oh gosh... This kind of exclusivity operates only in the "more refined " corners of a University from fine arts to law. If you want to excel in chemical engineering, the U. of Minnesota beats Harvard, if computer science CMU in Pittsburgh beats Yale - hands down.
And I know of no other language but English that have the equivalent of "Ivy Leage" or "Oxbridge" -must be an Anglo Saxon cultural thing going back to 1066 where the English got their ruling class.
2
1066 brought the Norman French. You think French and German education systems are not exclusionist? Wow
Brooks manages to reinforce the exclusivity doctrine in his article by stating matter-of-factly that Yale is the best law school in the country.
How does Brooks define "best"?
I've read enough of Brooks to read his mind so here is how Brooks defines "best":
Yale provides the best contacts. Going to Yale allows you to schmooze with elite types. Yale is the best because it will allow you to glide right into that cushy corporate job right after you graduate.
Best has nothing to do with the quality of the law professors or the quality of the courses or the quality of the books used versus less prestigious law schools.
7
It is more of a hereditary oligarchy with legacy admissions to the Ivy League schools being routine for the offspring of alumni who make big donations.
7
Edward Snowden is publishing a book in Paris to explain how the American meritocracy is spying on everybody through their big Tech firms and their complicity with the US administration.
Google gives private data about immigrants to ICE .
Apple listens on your conversations and stores them to analyze them and possibly resell the information to third parties without your knowledge and consent.
At the same time this meritocracy is invading Europe by being registered all fiscally there and cheats to fraud the fisc.
They all cheat to not pay taxes.
Google just offered 1 billion euro ( 1.2 billion $ ) to the French government to stop an investigation into Google's fiscal fraud from 2015 .
That is the American meritocracy: spying, cheating, stealing, conducting dishonest business , denying, paying to avoid justice, etc...
1
ASU also offers reasonably priced psychological counseling.
1
Great column.
Probably deserved a shout out to his colleague Frank Bruni and his excellent book, "Where You Go Is Not Who You Are," which also discusses ASU.
2
Brooks' point is important: higher education institutions need to be more open in accepting all strata of society, not just the upper classes.
But there's a more important point to be made about meritocracies: people shouldn't have to be extra smart or extra hardworking or extra clever at exploiting a capitalistic system in order to make a reasonable living. Our current economic system has regrettably gotten to the point that if you aren't getting by and are working 40 hours a week, well, that's your fault in job training and choice.
The Wall Street broker who does nothing more productive than shuffling dollars as numbers from one account to another makes 100s of times what the janitor gets paid who does the essential of keeping our surroundings clean. That's just wrong.
Our current meritocracy is wrong because it values the wrong things as worthy of merit.
8
Good for ASU! Their courage rocks.
Boy, I'm really behind the times. I've always thought that "meritocracy" referred to a system in which people gain employment and advancement based on skill, talent, and intelligence. I have no trouble admitting that I want to live in a society where those in power and those in all fields of endeavor are actually good at what they do. I think that's pretty close to any dictionary's definition of the term. Apparently it has now been appropriated by various writers and commentators to mean something else. I'm not even sure what that something else might be. I'm not even sure Mr. Brooks knows what it is, but, apparently, he thinks it's bad. So, forgive me, but I will continue to vote for the most qualified candidates, go to the best doctors I can find, and despite my confusion over this column continue to read the Times.
8
It is seldom I have a chance to thank David Brooks for an op-ed that is well conceived. All too often thinking back to the 1917 Creel Committee explains much of Mr Brooks' writing but this is excellent not only because it germane to today.
The name Piketty brings up that too much of what we think of as merit is simply the ability to adapt to neoliberalism and as with every cult a basic understanding of the cult and its values and ethics.
The Irish starvation and the removal 20% of the population by death or deportation was neoliberalism's greatest victory. The Economist was barely three years old when it succeeded in turning the Swiftian nightmare of his Modest Proposal into a reality. We are not wired to understand starving the bottom 20% of a population in a land whose economy is based on food export as a cull of those unable to contribute to the economy. It took the newly established The Economist and its neoliberalism to promote starvation to cull the Irish ultra poor peasantry during a boom in food production and food export. There was no famine in Ireland just lots of poor people living on potatoes and a blight that destroyed their only food supply.
I am 71 so my Asperger's never defined me even as it disqualified me from joining the meritocracy. I remained an outsider, I survived and needed to summon all my observational capabilities just to survive.
America is crashing and about to burn because its meritocracy cannot handle the reality of Piketty, Saez and Zucman.
2
@Montreal Moe
Uh, what? Political liberals caused the Irish Famine?
Have you heard about the Corn Laws put and kept in by the English power structure that deepened and lengthened the famine? Was that done by the liberals?
1
Three Ivy degrees in, my opinion is that an ivy liberal arts undergraduate education is something that most people, if they've not had it, can't even dream of, truly. I also, however, agree with that the institutions serve (exploiter) class interests and that the talented middle and lower income students are there to provide the cover and shine of the school's academic standing for the rich kids who are there as just another stage in their lives of privilege greased by continuous corruption, exclusion and nepotism. As far as grad school, it so varies according to school and degree that I don't have a sense of the larger picture, except that credentialing is a big part of grad school -- or all sorts.
1
FWIW, Princeton is making a BIG effort to accept more students, by expanding the student body. It also tries hard to encourage students to consider alternative careers to Wall St, Consulting of Big Law (it doesn't have a law school besides).
Those ultra-competitive professions have career tracks in a 'tournament' format. Your typical starting law firm associate or investment banker has a 1/20 chance of becoming a "partner" and earning the really big money but few of them make it. It's insane. There's more to life than that. Same thing with making it big in venture capital, getting venture funding and scoring a "liquidity event."
1
It is not just for the "excellent" education at the elite institutions that it is worth attending, but for the exposure to, and the bonding with the same type of individual that the Ivys value.
That means that when the time comes to choose someone for a job among the hundreds of applications, they are far more likely to choose someone from the same "club". That is just another form of nepotism, not meritocracy.
3
1. The Meritocracy Trap doesn't negate Piketty's Capital. The accrual in income isn't easily spent by high wage earners, it accumulates into capital wealth which is the main contributer to inequality.
2. In the 80's, the Republican Reagan Revolution was predicated on the promotion of the intrinsic value of income/wealth/material acquisition, not as so many conservatives argue: Christian moral values, geopolitical neo-liberalism or even a robust free-market competitive capitalism.
From the 80's YUPPIES to the 90's dot.com to the OO's real estate grabs, the entire country, liberal or conservative, rich or poor, urban or rural have bought into the idea that money is the measure of all things.
So no one should be surprised to see the emergence over forty years of the social structure outlined in The Meritocracy Trap.
The question for us all, is what and how we are choosing to value our lives as workers, citizens and conscious selves aware of the passage of time and each of our own eventual passings.
It turns out that even a little bit of freedom does not enable most human beings to not continue to be yoked to some system or belief that actual constrains. Money and Things turn out to be just as powerful as Popes and Kings. The proof is the crazy amount of hours worked and the money spent on the children of this new caste.
At some point historians will write that this caste was just the continuing tragic and foolish human pursuit of trying to determine the angels on pins.
2
The richest country in the world with the ideals we have embedded in our Constitution should be willing and able to provide health and education to its citizens. Instead, baby boomer extreme capitalists decided it would be best (for them) to gouge everyone else at every step who tries to seek medical care, get an education, find childcare, afford a home, etc., etc.
Greed, and the politicization of greed via policy, is why we are where we are today.
3
It’s not the college educated that industry is cry for, it is the skilled tradesmen. In the housing industry it’s the skilled craftsmen. Too bad our educational system puts so much emphasis on college.
1
The jabs at the Ivies seem out of proportion. Then there's this about Arizona State:
"The quality has risen along with the size. Research expenditures double every six to eight years, and a number of academic departments are nationally recognized as among the best for the quality of their research."
Oh my god, is ASU trying to be elite?
I am surprised that the famous "moderate" of the NY Times opinion page does not see that this issue (almost above all others) requires moderation. Yes, people spending $10million to give their kids a perfect pedigree and a slot at Harvard is ridiculous, as is the demand by elite schools that students be perfect in every way, as well as being athletes and concert-quality musicians. And yes, it is laudable that some universities are more welcoming to all types of students. But we need to be pragmatic too. A student should only be an engineer if they can master a huge amount of math and if they are willing to study constantly for many years. Same with cardiology and many other fields. They shouldn't just be ushered into a job because "everyone is welcome here". Sure, the elite schools should dial it back a bit. But articles like this that basically say that everyone should be in any job are just incorrect. There is still a place for true meritocracy: the best writers get to write for the New York Times, and others can work harder until they make it. Right?
1
Too often your view point is myopic with the result of being misguided.Not today. Well considered and worth articulating to all of us.
1
Picketty's argument, based on longitudinal historical data, is that most of the world's wealth is transmitted from one generation to the next through family inheritance. The gross inequalities stems from that basic fact.
2
The problem is technology. A small number of experts plus computers or robots can now do the work of millions. More to the point they can do it cheaper, even after paying hefty salaries and bonuses to the human component of this machine. The old mass-employment manufacturing model is as dead as the old mass-employment agriculture which preceded it.
This is a fundamental change. It is not going to be fixed by political or cultural tweaks. The relative power the middle and working classes enjoyed relative to the elite in the last century, notably in America, may be gone. We are heading for high-tech feudalism.
1
I find this story inconsistent.
If you're paying $10 million per child to retain status in the elite class, giving your child every advantage, as they say, this is not a meritocracy. It's an unfair playing field. with consolidation of wealth among an elite class.
Rather it's an echo chamber meritocracy--a meritocracy within a class that already is destined to be successful. Yes, some become even more wealthy, and push themselves to build wealth, but others are wastrels, yet still remain within the 1% because of their inherited wealth.
Yes, some may rise from nothing to become the elite, and some elite may ultimately fall into penury with extreme mismanagement. Both of these stories are extremely rare cases, but often mythologized in our culture.
The stats about rising work week hours are just a symptom of guilt around rising inequality--the PC coating referenced. People that are making obscene amounts of money feel like they need to constantly be working to help explain and justify their income. Thus within the highest level of organizations, the executives, there is a culture of workaholism. They also will cite exclusive education, and how hard they had to work to "earn" their place. Yet again, without their inheritance, odds are they'd have never escaped the lower classes.
4
Malcolm Gladwell makes an almost identical argument:
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/32-the-tortoise-and-the-hare
Brooks makes a good point about ASU, but a better example would have been the top three schools in Canada:
University of Toronto: 88,700 students
UBC: 61,100 students
McGill: 40,500 students
The numbers speak for themselves. Citizens with high hopes for the next generation will prioritize making excellent education as widely available as possible. The US system seems to create a modern version of the English Public School; Stanford is the new Eton.
2
Mr. Brooks cites statistics that show that you can get a great education at places other than the Ivy League schools. My own experience verifies this. I have worked at two State Universities and one Ivy. The rigor of the courses is comparable. Serious students emerge equally well educated. The difference at the Ivies is rubbing elbows with rich friends who can help you get a job in the "who you know" world rather than in the "what you know" world in which I work.
4
“Leadership is an activity, not a position.”
Leadership is, in addition, an opportunity to BE
personally accountable as well,
when conditions enable,
to be a model for embracing and fostering
each and every “risk” to “Fail better.”
Leadership, in addition, is a process,
not just an outcome, to “risk”
the paths of questioning, with their built-in
quests and not the safety and
shields of satisfying answers.
Inspiring leadership remains a challenge;
rare. Perhaps bordering on becoming extinct.
2
I would argue that medicine should be taken off Mr Brooks's "meritocracy" list. Yes, there certainly is a "meritocratic elite" (Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Duke, Hopkins, etc) but the pipeline is full of graduates of other places. Over 1/3 of all newly-minted interns have gone to medical school in the Caribbean (where most students are Canadian or American) or overseas (foreign nationals). Most American medical school graduates have gone to state allopathic medical schools or osteopathic medical schools.
Well, I don't know much about the law and humanities majors but the kids entering the STEM programs at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the likes are brilliant; they are open to challenges that most colleges are not able to provide, both in terms of resources and faculty. And then who do you think create most start-ups if not they? They work hard, they get rich, and they want their kids follow their steps. What's wrong with that?
Very exciting and encouraging concept. Thanks, David
I can't disagree with anything Mr. Brooks writes.
My father, who graduated from Harvard Medical School, was singularly nonplussed by his pedigree. His main quote about Harvard was: "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."
I don't think that much has changed.
2
@David L, Jr.
Excellence is vitally important to encourage — we need learning opportunities for the best and the brightest —but what Brooks is pointing too is not aimed at undermining excellence and innovation but rather pointing to the vast income and wealth stemming from inequality of opportunity.
1
Because of the poor quality of schooling, and poverty, there are masses of kids who never get within a mile of anything that is being discussed here.
Every human being is gifted with brilliance, even those who are developmentally disabled. Largely based upon racial and class lines, the American tradition is to recognize the intelligence of a special category of people, and reward them over and over.
Those who don't look or speak or have the same life experiences as this elite, are failed in the public schools, can't pass tests, and because of their lack of literacy, aren't even eligible to serve in the military or work at McDonalds. Lots of them end of in prison or inherit lives of poverty, which are passed down to their own children.
Why doesn't Mr. Brooks have a single word for them, ever?
2
Hmm, using land grant colleges that are notorious (really!) for paying starvation wages to adjunct faculty (of which they have many) as an example of success is hardly fair - or even smart.
Talk instead of the tremendous work done by public and non-profit institutions. The teachers, nurses, police, fire fighters, social workers, etc who are the glue.
I worked for private industry and made good (not outrageous) money for years. I went to public schools, capped by an Ivy grad school. I have NEVER forgotten the public support for my success. Taxes are a privilege not a burden (if you make more money you SHOULD pay more in taxes).
And I worked with plenty of people who fit your described “meritocracy” during those years. While some were entitled jerks, there were plenty who deeply understood how privileged their life had been.
I think this editorial is written by someone who doesn’t understand his own privilege.
6
He also fails to mention legacy admissions.
2
“Leadership is an activity, not a position. Anyone can lead, anytime, anywhere.”
Mr. Brooks, you must have missed the decades "outside the meritocracy" in which many schools switched to "open enrollment," sports teams decided that it was "unfair" that some teams lost so they threw out "scoring" in favor of "inclusivity" so everyone "wins," classes were "pass/fail" because grades were oh so elitist, and merit was frowned upon in favor of "diversity" which usually meant lowered academic standards, which helped no one except those who were unqualified.
Actually, leadership results from many qualities. One of those qualities usually entails some degree of learning.
While we admire the "common man," our Revolution was led by men who knew the sciences, mathematics (often in the original Greek), Hebrew (for Bible studies), Latin, oratory, philosophical logic and argument, and poured their energies into political movements for all.
I'm almost certain that "while anyone can become a leader," it was to our common good that the Continental Congress gave command of the army to George Washington instead of his aide de camp.
There is nothing wrong with "open enrollment," or "exclusive" institutions. As long as the aspirations of each are toward a better society.
It is our determined obliviousness to each other that is "ripping us apart," not our individual strengths and weaknesses.
Or we could be on the same level, economically, socially and politically.
It's called Communism.
2
The author understates the ruthless, brutal competition within the elite caste. Many NYT commenters, and obviously parents, assume someone just gets into an elite school and someone from an unnamed inner circle hands him the keys to the kingdom. In fact, while these schools are gateways, many, many, many are called and few are chosen. Aristotelean logic says just because a lot of the final winners come from certain schools does not mean everyone from those schools is the final winner. The vast majority of Yale Law School grads are people that few people, outside family and close work associates, would recognize. People from these schools perceive the competition just started at graduation. Then the real show no quarter, take no prisoners process starts. Consequently every person involved from Yale to Bugtussle Jr. College thinks he is in a dogfight that never really ends. Opening the caste just gets you to The Who lyric: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
2
Brooks tells us that 70 percent of YLS students have mental health issues. Not a very meaningful number without knowing what percentage of Bugtussle Law School students do.
1
I believe the author means "Aristocracy"
Consider the last 6 of 7 GOP contenders for the big prize
All lesser sons of accomplished men, each having achieved what little they had because of a more successful daddy.
TRUMP - lesser son of a mean, prejudiced and predatory man
ROMNEY Lesser son of George. Hired into business for his name this aristocrat told his audience 47% of us were not worth his time
Mccain - mean spirited, angry, son and grandson of admirals
Bush2 - 40 years a drunk, lied us into war killed the economy
Bush1 - son of Prescott bush cited for dealing with the nazis in WWII.
How dole got in there I have no clue -
The GOP is the party our founders feared the most - a party to establish a permanent aristocracy in the US
The deletion of the inheritance tax - was what this class was most interested in achieving. It's much easier to establish a royal class if they can keep from supporting the nation that raised them
4
Brooks cites Arizona State University as a wonderful example of higher education, unlike the evil Ivy League schools. First of all, ASU's president (seemingly for life; he's been president for over 16 years now) earned $690,000 this year, plus a $150,000 retirement money bonus. Granted, that's not as much as the Ivy League presidents make, but Arizona taxpayers pay Crow's salary and the school has a comparatively minuscule endowment, unlike Harvard, Yale, Columbia or Princeton.
I taught first-year English in the ASU writing program in the 2000-2001 academic year and made $3,000 a course. That was actually not bad for an adjunct at the time. However, the next time I taught at ASU in 2014-2015, the salary was $3,150 a course -- a pitiful raise in salary over 13 years and given inflation, less real income.
The English Department has a cadre of full-time "faculty associates" who were earning $32,000 for teaching eight sections of first-year composition a year in 2014. ASU then told them they would have to teach ten classes a year for the same salary before backing down under a barrage of outrage.
(See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/arizona-state-u-backs-down-some-details-controversial-plan-writing-instructors )
Moreover, ASU's Tempe campus is grossly overcrowded and has the feel of a factory with over 50,000 in a campus that covers a square mile or so. Of the 20 colleges in 4 states that I worked at in 40 years , it is the one where I felt least comfortable.
5
It seems to me that higher education offers two distinct outcomes. First is knowledge or skills. The elites product may be marginally better than the good public schools, but not that much. Second is resume/cachet/brand value which is vastly more valuable than the public universities can offer. I can't think of any system that would force Wall Street bankers, D.C. law firms, or Silicon Valley tech companies to devalue those Stanford or Ivy League degrees.
2
Many of the people in the elite set of institutions are not happier. They work long hours and have a busy social schedule that equally important to their careers, they stress over their relative position to their peers, they have too many assets and stuff to worry about and maintain all the time. Plenty of drug and alcohol abuse, suicides and strained family relationships among the wealthy and successful too.
Of course, they lack the even worse stress of poverty and not having enough resources.
Seems like the right balance is to try to get on a career track where you can get enough financial security without having to "lean in" all the time and give it your all. I feel blessed right now to have a mostly 40 hour type professional job that is enough for a modest home, car, vacation and retirement savings - I dont want anymore. I was offered a promotion for a lot more money but also would mean I would work 50-60 hour weeks and I said no. I would rather be time rich. I do not view having extra time to just read, or sleep or go on a walk as unproductive and worthy of scorn.
4
@NH you have figured out what is enough and what is important. That is a hard won thing, and rarely taught or encouraged in American society.
3
"A few years ago, people in this elite professional caste seized on research by Thomas Piketty, who argued that rising inequality is caused by the shift in income away from labor and towards capital." Well, no. Not exactly. I just finished reading Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and this is not what he said. But I can understand why David Brooks apparently had not read the book, as it is a 753 page tome. The broadness and depth of Piketty's research elucidates the myriad factors over the course of nearly 200 years that have given rise to income inequality in past epochs, analyzes in exquisite detail the economic shocks of the twentieth century that led to more egalitarian distributions, and uses both of these to make scholarly and informed projections about the economy of the upcoming decades. So sorry to see this brilliant author overly simplified. I hope this encourages people to read the book.
3
Your characterization of the meritous as "highly productive" ignores the massive contribution to their "productivity". In the cases of Lawyers and Doctors, the government allows them to create monopolies that exclude other Americans and most foreigners from competing against them (and for lawyers, their money comes from laws that give them that money). Let foreign doctors and lawyers come practice here and watch the prices drop like it did when we allowed foreign manufacturing to compete here.
For the tech and pharma "highly productive" again, it is government monopolies in the form of patents and copyrights that allow them to extract such enormous rents. We've designed a system that allows many to extract rewards far beyond their actual productivity.
This a system of allocating wealth the we have chosen, and the wealthy use that wealth to perpetuate and expand it (look how lobbyists have greatly extended copyright life). It didn't have to be this way--we could choose a different system.
3
When working for a small biotech company started by a couple of local State College graduates we were bought up by a Very Large Corporation who loved our large profits. They sent out a Wharton Guy to manage the company after the original CEO left with his payout. It became clear very quickly that the Wharton Guy was there to toe the company line and push us to do the same and achieve greater heights - though he had no idea what that would be - he was a financial guy with no practical experience the field we operated in. He had never started a company and never managed one and never invented anything. He did work hard and tried to get us on the corporate boat - always available 24/7 to satisfy his every managerial whim, pushing for more and more and more. The original company was enjoyable to work at, very innovative and very profitable. Once the Wharton guy had been there a year most of the original people had left and all they had was the products and some people to make and sell them. The innovators left to go somewhere better. So much for elite education....
5
This article is part of the problem. To say that there is a very best law school, medical school or what-have-you buys into the false narrative that propels so much of the stressed out striving plaguing Americans. Plenty of research shows that if you are bright and capable enough to get into the "top" school you are going to do well pretty much no matter what university you attend. Opening up the meritocracy is not the solution, because it focuses on the wrong problem. Part of problem in the US is that there is so vast economic inequality that it's virtually a winner take all economy, and given the insidious nature of social comparison even those near the top of the pyramid feel there is a chasm between them and "real" success. Secondly, we already generate enough top notch college grads to fill the economy's needs. As it is top notch PhD's and other college grads end up taking inferior positions. We do not need to open up access to meretricious college education, we need to tamp down our raving economic inequality and open up access to good, rewarding jobs for everyone.
4
It seems that the ‘higher’ up you go, the more plastic you must become to fit a mild where you are expected to harden into. The higher up you go the more parts, if not all, of your life is dictated to and controlled.
I live in a high needs section of town. My front yard is a Wild Bee sanctuary, so a forest of sunflowers, the driveway is a pumpkin patch and more. If I created this in an affluent neighbourhood, they would scream and eventually force me to tear it down. And this is just a front yard.
I have found that the elites have a very low tolerance for diversity, in everything: ideas, clothing, etc. It’s always unnerving when you find you have broken one of their rules that you know nothing about and makes zero sense.
2
Brooks accurately notes that exclusive universities get that way by . . . . well, excluding lots of people. He seems to think this is problematic because it is "unequal," or something. But how could it be any other way?
Everyone can't have prestige. Prestige, by definition, only exists to the extent that there is a very limited supply. Trying to square the concepts of "equality" and "prestige" is thus a fool's errand.
This fundamental contradiction is why Brooks is 100% correct in noting that: "The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
At the heart of this is the supposition that everyone is equal. We're not and you can't force us to be. My brain was not interested (or wired) for Economics, Medicine or Engineering. I found what I liked, pursued it and succeeded. Me having the money to attend the Wharton School of Finance would've been a waste. I hope someone who likes chemistry, and has an aptitude for it, finds a life in it. Better for all of us.
1
This article is so true! The last paragraph says it all!
We have to rearrange this culture to give hope and opportunity to many more. Thank you for saying this so graphically.
So often I read a David Brooks column and just immediately have a visceral reaction. Today was no different.
That David Brooks gets to "Investors are to blame!" from his reading of Thomas Piketty, whose major work is Capital in the 21st Century, drives me nuts. David, *that* book is about capital and especially capital that can be invested in the means of production. (So, I have a bunch of capital, real estate, my house, that is not available for investment in any business venture, particularly.)
The very next sentences confuse the issue. You conflate assets with income! F'r crying out loud! If we tax wealth (Piketty's proposal) then we address the issue of wealth inequality -- and he recommends at most a 2% tax on wealth.
Here's what you wrote: "But, Markovits argues, roughly 75 percent of the increase in the top 1 percent of earnings is caused by shifts in income within labor. These highly educated professionals attract vast earnings while everybody else gets left behind. A cardiologist used to earn four times as much as a nurse; now it’s seven times as much." So yes, there's also *income* inequality and that is troubling, too.
But if we taxed incomes above say, $2 million a year at a 49% rate, those earners who are in the 1% of *wealth* possession would *still stay in the 1% of wealth* all other things being equal.
It is in my estimation a favorite ploy of conservatives to conflate wealth and income when speaking to the poorly educated.
"I love the poorly educated!"
2
Brooks doesn't go far enough here. Throughout this column there's an assumption that the Elite Meritocrat caste is genuinely elitely "super-skilled productive", citing BigLaw PPP and Instagram buyout number as proof of this - basically in Brooksland, $$$ indicates productivity -> the foundation of which is laid by elite preparation
Nothing could be further from the truth, from personal experience of having been at those law firms for quite , none of those law firm partners or associates are elitely productive as compared to their predecessors - the fact is that technology advances in the information age have made it possible for them to capture more value by cutting costs. This has nothing to do with elite training, and everything to do with basic advances like the invention of e-mail.
Likewise there's nothing elitely productive about Instagram, they found a more successful way to edit photos and benefitted from network effects - a lot of that is just luck and timing as opposed to elite production.
Here's the even bigger possibility that Brooks should investigate - Elite productivity may not actually produce very much of value to society and may be cancelled out by its ever-upward redistribution.
3
Elite colleges are not meritocratic. In the contrary they are complex entitlement systems. They don’t produce better education. The connections formed in the elite circles determine success not the teaching or obtained skills. These people also don’t work harder, they just get higher pay. To the point of self denial they claim to earn the riches by harder work.
2
Leftists complain about the rich rigging the economy, then they support policies that don't intend to undo the rigging but, rather, would rig the economy worse. We hear a lot about corporatism from the Left, but this is mostly nonsense. What they want to do, however, is in fact a kind of Middle-Ages corporatism where the politicians determine which companies can and must do what.
Of course an elite institution rejects most applicants. That is why it's called elite. Leftists seem to think everyone is born the same and it's only a rigged system that differentiates them. But people are wildly divergent in physical and mental capabilities. And it is this fact that makes liberty possible: If everyone was equal, who could say which man would collect the trash and which man do cardiovascular surgery?
Allowing talented people to flourish, unburdened by the state, has enkindled immense technological transformation to the benefit of us all. When we think of fixed interests fighting off technological change, we think of workers. But not until the invention of asset markets did elites even begin to be comfortable with technological change. Canal interests, turnpike trusts, and carriage companies all opposed transportation innovation.
It is helpful to note that a pure meritocracy would be both impossible to spot and undesirable. Finding a middle between dynamism and security is important, but I fear "accountable capitalism." When capital is seen as communal, that's worrisome territory.
Part of why elite schools are so in demand is that getting in signals to prospective employers that they are hiring someone smart, well-trained, AND, above all, highly motivated and stress-tolerant, without having to assess those qualities themselves in the interview process (which is very unreliable). Maybe some of that certification of quality will lose its luster after all the revelations of how the admission system can be gamed, but it seems to be holding up.
2
The hardest part for the isolated person is that most educational or job retraining opportunities are scams and by the time the scam is exposed the job path is no longer hiring. So we are all forced to wing it, whether the unknown is a law school, a dog grooming school or a coding boot camp. At the same time there is so much cheap learning available that you can frugally burn away years of your life and still maybe get no job.
2
Take a look at what Henry Adams wrote about Harvard. For him the Ivy League provided no model in his day, nor does it furnish one now, for reform. Computer studies fracture the curriculum more radically than math and the sciences ever did. Contempt for any canon of key texts, no matter what their source, has not helped either. Yes, more money for more and better teachers for truly egalitarian education! But how to orient their efforts to take all students from the past into the future?
The meritocracy invests in exclusivity branding so that the people who are a part of it may evade the fate of us, the hoi-polloi. Because it is hard to have a decent life, one must have an exclusive life. To do so, the children must be inserted into the race and run it correctly very early and all the way through. Doing so prevents much of any divergent activities. They get good at the 60-hour week stuff. They rarely experience anything outside of the well trammeled and hard won path. Anything beyond is unnecessary and other people's work. The demands, conditions and rewards of this meritocracy insulates them from a ripe tomato or water around their feet that isn't at a beach resort (or a chlorinated pool). The value things that aren't branded (Tuscan tomatoes, French wine) escape them. Everything needs a provenance.
3
I sort of get it, but beyond status I am not sure. I practiced neurosurgery for 40 years in both University and community. I never could tell a difference between Ivy school educated undergraduates who went on to medical school and State University undergraduates who became doctors. I taught medical students and I could not sort out differences either. The knowledge after all is in the public domain and it was the knowledge which was necessary. The other dimensions of character and social consciousness also seemed to run the equal spectrum in each back ground. And the willingness to breakdown barriers and embrace interdisciplinary ( or resist it ) seemed to run the same spectrum in both types of backgrounds.
I am a bit puzzled by this attempted dichotomy. I wonder if comes as a surprise to Mr. Brooks that high level scholarship can come out of pedestrian schools and poor scholarship can come out of elite schools. I do remember a young East coast educated elite college grad be astounded the top four students in his MBA school came from University of Arizona. There is excellent education going on in both places.... if the student strives for it.
9
Kurt Vonnegut wrote Player Piano in 1952 that showed the problems associated with both the meritocracy and the rise of automation. Ultimately, the two of them combined makes everyone useless. I think Vonnegut saw 2019 better in 1952, than most people see it today. What I think Vonnegut missed and that Mr. Brooks is missing here is that degrees from exclusive universities are essentially no more telling about a person's merit than a noble title. Ivy league schools are essentially aristocratic institutions that pump out American Dukes and Earls. It is as phony as the French aristocracy before the tennis court oath, with their powdered wigs and silk clothes. Now they wear Patagonia and feign concern about the coarseness of American politics while holding their nose and voting for anyone that will keep the capital gains tax at 15%.
11
Medicine does not draw the bulk of its employees from the super elite universities. It’s not even statistically possible for that to be the case. If there’s any problem in medicine, it’s that we don’t have enough medical school slots to remotely fill our residency slots. So we bring in grads from other countries while denying opportunities to our own citizens, despite having a plethora of qualified, interested young people.
11
"The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people." I guess Brooks can't help but to slam the progressives given his fragile ego about what "conservatism" in America is about. What is tearing America apart is a racist "conservative" President, but I guess that doesn't fit Mr. Brooks fixed narrative that progressives (who support free college) are ruining America.
We should applaud what ASU is doing, but there are plenty of other large state institutions that are educating thousands of students each year. Unfortunately, as conservatives have sought to shrink the state, they have reduced the subsidies that state schools received and therefore state college costs have gone from something that a student could swing with a job on the side in the 1970s, to something that leaves students in significant debt when they leave college.
And yes, US News and World Reports rankings are a big part of the problem also. Instead of measuring the quality of a school by the improvement in students, they focus on how exclusive a school is, how much money they spend on professors, and other factors that have nothing to do with actual improvement in outcomes.
Interesting thought experiment: Two rich kids are magically given a degree from Harvard, one never actually attended. How much of a difference in outcomes are there after 5 years? Probably not much because "Daddy" will ensure that the faker falls upward.
5
It is not a meritocracy. It is careerism based on credentials. The failure to see that the meritocrats have no genuine merit is the essence of the problem. Anyone who is honest and has met enough people knows that there are plenty of mediocre people at elite institutions and an impressive number of smart, able people in any inner city park.
8
An interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneur is a fad to promote rabid profiteers who operate any which way at all. Nevermind standards and ethics.
1
This was an interesting piece. It would also be interesting to have insight into how ASU is accomplishing what can only be considered extraordinary results in the face of pressure on colleges and universities described in this fascinating piece from the NYT magazine section:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/magazine/college-admissions-paul-tough.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=The%20New%20York%20Times%20Magazine
1
Before the age of 11 I enjoyed school, a lot. Eleven is the age in England that kids took the 11-Plus exam to determine their future education. I had chicken pox, was not allowed to take the test at a later date, and thus got a score of zero, which was gleefully plastered on every wall in the school. My parents were mistaken in thinking that my past academic standard would somehow save me from being tossed down to the lower tiers. They were wrong; from that moment I was classed as borderline stupid at every stage of the remainder of my school life and classes bored me to death. Eventually, if you treat a kid as stupid, he will rebel, which is exactly what I did. I hated teachers from that moment on. And I think every other kid must have too, because they closed my school down 3 years after I left it, at 15. What I did start doing, though, was inhaling books, all types of books. I can run rings around most history professors in a conversation, but I can't get into a university to save my life - not as a life-long ditch-digger. One sick week of my life changed the trajectory of my life, and for the better, as it happens. Rote education is not everything. We all have the ability to learn. Although I fear that these days self-learning is looked down upon, instead of admired.
2
What a silly column. So-called "elite" colleges and universities don't set out to have the lowest possible admission rates. They have exceptionally low admission rates because the number of applicants greatly exceeds the number of places at these schools. Admission rates plunge every year because more and more high school students apply -- something exacerbated by online applications. It's way too easy to apply to every Ivy League school simply by pushing a button. (I still remember writing my college applications by hand. Those were the days.)
The problem, Mr. Brooks, lies not with these colleges and universities but with the students who apply to them. Too many students believe that education is about labels, that it says something about you to have "Princeton" emblazoned on your forehead. But labels are irrelevant; college isn't clothing. Better to attend ASU, study hard, and learn something than to attend Princeton, do little, and learn less. But that's all about the students. It's not about Princeton -- or about ASU.
3
Not sure why you assume that the elite schools aren’t trying to keep their admissions percentages low. In fact, many of them solicit students they know they wouldn’t accept for the purpose of keeping those numbers low.
1
Getting into an ivy school has been a ticket to a seat on a board of directors for a company (not doing much but collecting huge $$$), getting into political office (again not doing much), getting rich paybacks (getting appointments as diplomats to various countries, ambassadors and so forth) and then using those connections to enrich themselves, all on tax payers dime! The ivy schools are just that. Just look at lots of companies' profile of their "leadership" team, and you see so and so went to Harvard, yale and so forth. Sickening.
2
This is the lie: "The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
The more exclusive the venue, the more likely one is to find unreconstructed snobbery.
3
Brooks has spent most of his career as a propagandist and apologist for the big business wing of the GOP. It's not surprising that he tries to mislead people about the role of capital in causing economic inequality. Time and time again his party has passed tax cuts by pretending that middle class taxpayers benefit while the bulk of the benefits actually go to the rich and big business. This happened again during the first year of the Trump administration. The GOP claimed cutting corporate taxes would benefit workers. What really happened is that businesses spent most of the extra money on stock buybacks and other actions that benefited shareholders, not workers. Please stop lying, David. You're not fooling a lot of people.
4
@Mrsfenwick
agreed.
Very well said, Mr. Brooks...this exclusive meritocracy ethos is what made me quit my cozy corporate career for the gig economy. Tho the gig economy has its own issues, it better suits my values–like you mention briefly at the end of your op– and it took a mental breakdown and other heath issues to make me realize that changing my core values is not worth the nice salary.
Please write a Part 2 on this topic bc I personally experienced the transition of moving from "one culture to the other" and I'm still struggling through it. This transition has been a 3-year process and tho I am better off now compared to how I was in corporate, it was still a painful journey. I only transitioned bc of my husband and friends who have started their transition years ahead of me.
Also, you should have included 'traditional' in your "leaders" joke. I come from a background where 'traditional' leaders work harder than the employees–the leader puts us to shame, and I mean that in the most endearing way as the leader was an example of integrity, perseverance, courage, all the good stuff. So it's funny how far removed "traditional leadership" has become from its roots.
1
"Elite" is just another PROPAGANDA campaign word for right-wing so-called conservatives. They're a bad joke on America.
1
This reminds me of a comment made by an army officer 40 years ago who came up through the ranks. Evidently, some of the officers at the time were considered the exclusive elites because they attended West Point.
These officers with the very selective educations were known as "ring knockers" because they were known for letting others know they were West Point graduates by knocking their gold class rings on the table.
This cannot make for good morale and "cohesion" in the military.
3
There is no meritocracy. To claim there is, you have to ignore the richest consolidating money at the expense of the masses. And the fact that a lazy grifter who squandered his inheritance is president.
3
I’ve read enough of this mea culpa claptrap. Virtually all of these “elite” institutions have needs-blind admission policies: If you’re smart enough and poor enough you’ll get a free ride into the college of your choice. Gosh...It’s just so terrible that people push themselves to succeed academically and professionally and that those people want to be around others who share their values of success...and those in that elite class don’t care what color you are nor about your religion nor where you came from. For the most part (with some sad notable exceptions), it’s a Merry Meritocracy not bound by Old World prejudices. Professor Richard Florida (now with the University of Toronto) has been writing about this self-segregation for over a decade and it’s old news. The entire op-ed piece wreaks of sour grapes and a subtle wish to prevent or destroy the entire ethos of learn-hard/work-hard/play-hard.
What is ripping America up is the Republican Party that uses racism as a primary political force. Donald Trump is the face of the GOP and a virulent symbol of their efforts to destroy our democracy.
4
If Brooks wants to talk about sharing bounty, he should be talking about taxes, not online colleges.
2
There you go again. Your mindless war on "meritocracy" ignores the problem that the only historical alternative is hereditary privilege. The advantage of that system, of course, was that no one worried about having to climb the achievement ladder because there wasn't one. You were born to a certain station and knew you would die there, so why worry?
@charles
I know you are being facetious, but the answer to that is in the old saying that "too much nothing will make anyone mean".
Most studies place inherited intelligence at about 40% - many of the kids of successful and smart entrepreneurs who marry other smart people are smarter than other kids.
People hate to say it in an 'egalitarian' society but raw mental horsepower gets you far in life and it can't be faked - you're not going to fake your way through any EE program.
1
Yea, inclusivity! More degrees for all!
Congratulations, young person, you've graduated from ASU! Here's your Starbucks application.
[I don't mean any denigration of ASU. From all accounts, it's a GREAT school--it's just that this article promises to have a point and never delivers]
Oh, you wanted to use your degree to earn a living? I'm looking through your record here, and I don't see Harvard, Yale, OR Princeton. Sorry, our best positions go ONLY to graduates of the ivies. We don't even have a recruiter who visits your school. Again, sorry.
Have you considered pursuing a graduate degree?
"The quality has risen along with the size. Research expenditures double every six to eight years, and a number of academic departments are nationally recognized as among the best for the quality of their research." --David Brooks
Quality education? Oh, sorry, you misread the brochure. According to Mr. Brooks, we define quality by our RESEARCH expenditures and the quality of our RESEARCH--are you by any chance a noted professor, hoping to publish soon? We're hiring.
No, you're just a student? Oh. nevermind. Here's your Starbucks application.
Thanks, David, for once again having no point.
2
@RJ
Funny.
My brother in law is a retired insurance executive and one of “them”. His social security check goes to his wife for “mad money”...ha, ha, ha. I’ve been to his ‘club” once...think Bushwood with several dozen Smailes. These people make me ill.
1
And when was the last time The New York Times hired an ASU graduate? It would be a better newspaper if it did.
2
Down with merit. Up with mediocrity. You go, girl.
2
Oh my God! I agree with David Brooks!
Tee hee. "Meritocracy."
Wasn't the Revolutionary War fought to undermine the stronghold of the aristocracy on the fortunes (taxation sans representation) on ALL the members of the fledgling communities?
Do we want to be a First World Country (Europe) with a huge middle class and middle class standards or a Third World country with rich and poor. (We are such a rich nation that even our poor are relatively well off.) We NEED single payer, universal healthcare (the price will diminish once the infrastructure is built and tweaked and results with data sharing should be better-- this is a multi-stepped process reining in all the various leeches -- drug companies, advertising agencies, insurance companies, malpractice lawyers , others I can't think of now (companies that provide helper at double what they pay the helpers), some intelligent rationing.. few MDs now tell patients "No" -- some do.
Indeed, FREE college for all WHO Qualify, as in most of Europe.
Perhaps, insist that private tax-exempt institutions admit X no of students at a government rate of tuition! -- I know there are also now in place FREE tuition plans for blind admissions at several schools.)
It will be harder to get America's nobility from hiring their own or with better names and fortunes, then to open the education system. OTOH on occasion an outlier does get thru: best known example is RIP Epstein!!
1
"The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
Is that really true? It is tempting to portray the elites as snobs, but progressive zeal seems to correlate more with age than economic status, in my experience. Currently, we have a whole, new generation on the Left—the so-called Twitter Democrats—whose "coating of P.C. progressivism" could not be thicker. They are not all high-earning meritocrats.
I do agree that high-pressure parenting plays a role, but again, I question whether only the meritocrats of Brooks’ description have had demanding parents. Something else, something intangible, is at play.
1
Mr. Brooks secretly wishes to be woke while at the same time thinking "wokeness" is an absurd thing. This creates a harsh dissonance in his writing which is frustrating and confusing. He so wants to move forward but is so mired in the past that whatever salient points become worthless.
Brooks' core problem is that he cannot escape the narrative that informs everything he thinks he knows. Even using the term "meritocracy" in this context is absurd because this has little to do with merit and everything to do with social status. The term "elite" is also suspect in this age where anyone supporting a liberal agenda is tarred with "elite" status. Also the idea of productivity when speaking of lawyers misconstrues the true meaning of production. Yes, lawyers can be busy and skilled but what exactly are they producing and how do their efforts fit into the owner/worker paradigm? Many laborers put in over 50 hours a week but they can NEVER reap the rewards and benefits of law firms.
To continue to argue "meritocracy" is pointless because it is all a lie. In the past 40 years the Conservative narrative have labeled some worthy of wealth and others wanting something for nothing. That idea fails in the face of the reality of income inequality. The fact is the government didn't protect us from those that had no problem taking more than was justified and facilitated the greatest shift in wealth in the modern era. This is about greed and superiority irregardless of merit.
4
Maybe Harvard, Stanford, and other such schools should move to a lottery system. All applicants who meet a cretain baseline criteria are put into a lottery. My local county magnet school does that. Seems to work fine.
4
ASU is an antidote to our increasingly feudal society led by rabidly secular folks from our "best" schools who try to inflict their divisive progressive views on America while basking in enclaves of wealth and privilege. Who needs such people?
It is high time we improved the masses and stopped coddling and worshiping the so called classes. Up with ASU!
1
I think what Mr. Brooks is talking about boils down to this:
With a rapidly changing global economy there is a lot of economic anxiety. Job security is a thing of the past. Parents feel this and they pass that anxiety on to their kids.
Parents also attempt to insulate their children from future economic change and turmoil.
Because of decades of poor economic policies, the middle class is being hollowed out. When faced with the choice of being a "have" or a "have not" parents rationally hope to place their children in a position to be a have.
It seems the obvious solution is to shrink the size of the have not population and expand the middle class.
The ASU approach is one mechanism.
However, it will take massive political reform to really make this happen.
Donald Trump and Moscow Mitch along with rest of GOP stand in the way.
We need bold new thinking. As with FDR, we will have try new things and experiment to find what works. There will be failures but there will also be successes. But none of this is possible unless the American people decide they are tired of the status quo.
4
It is a shame that, in a column explicitly devoted to meritocracy, Mr Brooks chooses to discuss the wealthy rather than the competent.
In my opinion, were the United States to devote itself to meritocracy in place of its present devotion to plutocracy, the world would be significantly improved.
4
The endowments of the major universities are under performing resources for good. 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 endowment in the top ten: Harvard's is $38.3 B UT $30.89 B, Stanford $26.46 B, Princeton $25.92 B, MIT $16.53 B, Penn $13.78 B, Teaxas A&M $13.52 B, Michigan $11.9 B, Northwestern $11.09 B) Source: NACUBO)
I agree with his statement that 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? Their ROI is shockingly bad.
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 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.
4
@Jay
Hey, why hasn't the brilliant GOP solved New Havens problems? The issues are as obvious to them as to the Democrats. Oh, wait: could it be that a lot of the people who live there (shock, horror!) aren't WHITE?
One of the few times, I find myself in agreement with Brooks. This "caste" system is a betrayal of some of our key values and, even if they can't articulate it, many Americans sense it. They know the system has become uneven in ways they can't overcome. It's part of what spawned Trump, who oddly enough appealed to the elite and the left-behind with his toxic mix of defending exclusivity while blaming outsiders for the problem.
2
The problem is not exclusivity in universities and colleges. The problem is the de facto exclusivity of pre-K through 12th grade.
Fix the public school system so that everyone is afforded the same excellent education and then colleges can back to letting in students strictly on academic merit.
Also, can every single adjunct in the country please strike at the same time so universities will crumble to their knees? Thanks!
3
I talked to a young man from an affluent family a few years back who was debating graduate degrees in two different fields. One--the one he loved--paid significantly less that the other, but certainly still paid enough to have a good life.
He was clearly worried about this investment of time and money and did not want to make a mistake.
I asked him, "Have you sat down and thought about how much money you need to make to be happy?"
He looked at me as if I had posed a Buddhist koan or a riddle without an answer. Apparently, the question had never occurred to him.
If we don't teach young people to examine their values and their needs and wants or to consider whether they are making choices for themselves rather than based upon the pressure of others (his parents wanted him to choose the more lucrative professional track), they will never be able to make the kinds of choices that will help them happy.
5
DAVID BROOKS As usually, has written an excellent, thoughtful, provocative piece. I've found that, though I did attend a top-ranked undergrad school and a top ranked Ivy League grad school, among others, first and foremost, the costs were radically lower. In the mid 60s, my first trimester at Penn State cost about $395 for tuition room and board. My expenses were mostly books and other incidentals. During my time at Penn, the tuition for a full semester was $1,000. I could not afford to go to either school today without accruing crippling, lifelong debts. I enjoy living frugally. People in the 1% become, as Plato put it, slaves to their belongings. The couldn't possibly live in a house that cost $49K, drive a car that cost $18K and send their kids to schools that cost $15K to 18K per year. In enjoy the freedom. In my travels, I heard about a speech and language specialist who treats 2 year olds for language "problems," so they'll be able to get into Princeton. Talk about a gold digger. Frankly, I'm glad that I'm excluded from the pressures of being of the 1%. Beyond that, I believe that the US belongs to We The People. Lincoln, during the Civil War, observed that, A House Divided Cannot Stand. We are engaged in a civil war 2.0 of the 1% versus the 99%. Lincoln's words ring as true as they did during the Civil War 1.0. Obama correctly observed that if you built a business you did it using things built by We The People, using roads and utilities,I pluribus unum!
2
At ASU David says: “Faculty members are treated less as scholars within rarefied disciplines and more as interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneurs.”
To translate, for Engineering Faculty anyway, at ASU faculty is viewed as grant grabbers and funding sources. Not as professional folks with valuable expertise to pass on to future engineers, but salesmen with the gift of technical lingo to impress donors and fill up large classrooms.
4
I’d add to this remark that in engineering, unlike most other disciplines at universities, a check upon complete commercialism is periodic program accreditation by professional organizations like the IEEE without which standards would not exist.
Maybe I missed the point. Is this about education or work? If we open all the colleges to anyone who wants to study, it would be great for those seeking knowledge not just to learn a skill. I had a "classical" education in a Jesuit HS, where took latin for 4 years and Geek for 3 years, then I ended up studying Medicine which is actually kind of a trade. So are you speaking of education (Art History) or tech training (Medicine)? If you want to be a writer or an artist or a scholar in say Anthropology, go for it, find a nice job in a bank or as an administrator. I don't know what the "meritocracy" discussion is all about, but if less well off people have to struggle to get Art History for their children, but have great opportunities in say Nursing at the community college, I'd say get the nursing degree and do the art history on your own time online, its there for the taking. The well off people will get their kid an art history degree and they will still go to Law or Medical School, and get the big bucks. And that is income disparity. The poorer don't get the same opportunities. Our concept of education is less connected to liberal arts, and more to tech fields. Still what about jobs? We would like to think that only the best students get to be Heart Surgeons, or any other top jobs. The winnowing process is not entirely without reason.So what is "meritocracy" if not a symptom of wealth disparity? and yes Capital vs Labor.
1
@William Trainor
How do Jesuits teach Geek?
I think this piece has merit but of course David has to slant it to not contradict "conservative PC". So for example, he talks about the top quintile of people working "more than 50 hours a week" and associates (of course) the success of this elite with the hard work they put in..and that fails for a couple of reasons:
1)People outside that top elite are working longer, harder hours than ever. The idea that those of us who didn't go to elite schools, work for companies in the more mundane jobs, are working 9 to 5 ,5 days a week is a lie.....and unlike that very top, our wages have not gone up, if at all. IT workers not working for startups , office workers of all kinds, managers not at the exec level, work long hours at the office, then work at home, too, checking emails, etc.
2)Sure, young doctors and lawyers work long hours, but once they make it, they don't work those kind of hours, and most executives aren't putting in the midnight oil, I guarantee that. Not all the elite found startups (lot of them are founded by people who didn't go to Harvard), lot of them go into corporate America and they make a ton of money without the hours.
And you are dead wrong when you attribute the wealth of the elite to cash salary, it isn't true. The billionaires and millionaire CEOs and the like make 90% of their wealth in stock David, so it is all about stock price, whereas the rest of us get it mostly in cash, and the lack of cash income increase is directly tied to stkholder mgmt
6
Credit where it's due: this is deeply true:
"In the exclusive meritocracy, prestige is defined by how many people you can reject. The elite universities reject 85 to 95 percent of their applicants. Those accepted spend much of their lives living in neighborhoods and attending conferences where it is phenomenally expensive or hard to get in. Whether it’s the resort town you vacation in or the private school you send your kids to, exclusivity is the pervasive ethos. The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
2
This piece brings to mind the quote, "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple."
4
People who inherit their money tax free don’t work incredibly hard at anything other than trying to keep more of their money away from taxable income.
They may be wealthy but most are not smarter or better workers or better at what they do- like Donald Trump they were born in third base.
6
Mr. Brooks states: “Thomas Piketty, … argued that rising inequality is caused by the shift in income away from labor and toward capital”. While this is correct, it does not correctly convey Piketty’s views on the specific meritocratic group Mr. Brooks is discussing in his own article.
In this regard please refer to Thomas Piketty and “Capital in the Twenty-first Century” for Piketty’s actual findings. Specifically see: Chapter 8, p 271 ff, "Two Worlds", and more specifically Piketty’s discussion beginning on p 276: “From a “Society of Rentiers to a “Society of Managers” and sections continuing thereafter. See also Piketty’s discussions of what he refers to as the “Meritocratic Model”.
Piketty explicitly states in 2013 p, 278 ibid, "... we have gone from a society of rentiers to a society of managers..." and that "...income from capital assumes decisive importance only in the top thousandth or ten-thousandth".
3
This essay fails to do business with the ultimate meritocracy that controls all the others, IQ. The arguments presented here are relevant to those with a 120 or higher IQ, a small fraction of the total population on the high end of the bell curve. It might be more interesting to map the employment opportunities of the next few decades against the intellectual distribution of the populace. Such analysis will show that the high paying jobs are increasingly out of reach for a greater percentage of Americans. That’s why they pay so well.
@Jack
You are absolutely right Jack.IQ is the best predictor of success unless you are an incredible athlete or singer which makes your life extremely easier.When the book "The Bell Curve" came out in the early 90s almost everyone rallied against its premises because the authors made a comparison between IQ and race.Even if this thought was controversial the basic premise of the book is correct and all their predictions have come true.This country is becoming the playground for the cognitive elite of the world and if your IQ is average I would strongly recommend that you move to a different part of the world.Having fast internet and cheap movies is not worth your dignity as a person
@george: What about the many who are significantly above average in IQ but chose the wrong parents or neighborhood? Don’t we need their talents in our society?
1
@Heliotrophic
It is a sad fact that these unlucky high IQ individuals who are born in the wrong neighborhood or family will never see the light.Exceptions occur of course but the present structure only allows the ones with sociopathic tendencies to rise up
The bigger issue is that our Supreme Court is made of graduates of those elite institutions. Their lives are "vacuum sealed" without any contact or exposure to the rest of us and it shows in many of their recent dubious decisions. To succeed as a democracy, America, or any other nation for that matter, has to be a middle class country with equality of education, opportunity and representation in its government. A national economy can demonstrate statistical progress with only a few benefiting but at the same time still fail as a democracy.
2
@Wally
This is a most important and well stated point that Wally raises. Even the one victim of Kavanaugh who did report and through her courage at least get heard, occupies, through her intelligence and other strengths, a favorable position in society.
The six Roman Catholic schooled members of SCOTUS, who are also members of the 1%, argue about constitutional originalism and how many angles dance on a pin; while the 0.1 % relentlessly redistribute wealth toward themselves and importantly their inheritors (see: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017).
If the open meritocracy institutions teach their wards to fight like parents in exclusive meritocracy do, then the nation will benefit. Progressive and not-so-progressive ideas will find a voice and we will be all happy!
1
I never found it difficult while attending top rated universities or doing national legislative work for significant clients around the country. It was easy. Law school was easier than high school and while I was in college there was plenty of time to protest and enjoy drugs. The notion that you have to work hard is absurd. All my roommates did well and made lots of money. The way to do it is to find something you are good at and enjoy doing. You can rise to the top of your profession or business if you do that. If you have to work hard it means you are not very good at what you are doing. You don't have to be rich or go to top rated prep schools. This article just perpetuates propaganda that discourages people from figuring out how easy it is to be successful. The rich don't work hard they just know what to do.
2
@Bored
You are right provided that you belong to this rare class of people born with the gift to know what they want to do.If you have the gift you dont need to work you just enjoy the ride.The problem in this country is that people believe the fairytale that everyone is talented at something.NOT TRUE!! Only 5%of the people are truly talented.But try to tell this in our world of political correctness.So enjoy your easy and affluent life my friend and dont forget to thank God or nature for the gifts that you have.As for the rest of us the only consolation will be that when our life is almost over we will feel an incredible feeling of relief.
1
@Bored
>> If you have to work hard it means you are not very good at what you are doing. >>
This is the single stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Einstein was brilliant but struggled all his life with Physics; E = MC^2 did NOT come easily and he was among the best of the best. Physicians work INCREDIBLY hard in a difficult, complex, and high-stakes profession (lives in the balance) not because they aren't good at it, but BECAUSE THEY ARE and there is a lot to do. Air Traffic Controllers work incredibly hard because what they do is very, very difficult and high stakes (lives in the balance).
I could go on and on, but the point is if that you are working hard, it is NOT necessarily because you stink at what you're doing. People who truly can't cut it don't usually last very long unless there are extenuating circumstances (like being the son of the owner).
Of course what Brooks calls the exclusive meritocracy is differentiated from all other forms of meritocracy by virtue of the fact that it is in effect the legacy contingent of the plutocracy. Subsidized out of the infinitely deep pockets of the one percent, it has guaranteed funding for its education and all of the extras that are the hallmarks of an elite class. The exclusives have the considerable advantage of almost entirely rubbing shoulders with others who are equally privileged. Ask any student at an elite school what distinguishes the experience from less well endowed institutions and she will tell you it is the opportunity to be with others of like mind--and privilege.
We have returned to the values that dominated during the heyday of the robber barons and the gospel of wealth. The brief interregnum of the New Deal could not withstand the forces arrayed against it even before the Reagan-Thatcher counter revolution. We now have wealth acquisition with a vengeance, and it won't be easy to get the one percent to give up their current status.
3
I've lived most of my adult life in these bastions of exclusivity: Ivies and equivalents, the Bay Area, the academic labs, the law firms.
Mr. Brooks' analysis is fundamentally correct. What surprises and worries me is how many readers appear to misunderstand its thrust. (Perhaps the short form isn't enough; Brooks links to Markovitz's book, which deserves to be an object of sustained and serious attention.)
Accumulation of money is only part of it. If that were Brooks' whole case it would have no force and he would indeed be open to the charges of hypocrisy that his Republican associations (as wan as they may be today) render easy to level.
The part of the argument with real teeth concerns motivation. You can be for or against various degrees of wealth redistribution and, believe one, or both, of two things:
1) That the purpose of excellence is differentiation - distinguishing oneself from others. This often calls itself excellence for its own sake, or claims roots in ageless ideals of sublimity. Yet a free-floating excellence is a cipher, and becomes relativistic by default: I am excellent; you, less so.
2) That the purpose - even the definition - of excellence is service to others. This both sounds better and aligns with meritocracy more cleanly. But in isolation, it crowds out other notions of human dignity: namely all those unconcerned with utility.
This troubles both right and left with equal force, because the real sacred value is utility; yet mercy is non-utile.
2
David, the debate about meritocracy and inequality seems to be missing discussion of small business owners, which by some data hold the vast majority of wealth in the US. Many of them work hard but have a great lifestyle that does not meet your description of workaholics in the professional class. In my experience, they don't really worry about elite universities and professionals or whether their children make it into the elite (and they don't read the New York Times). My suspicion is that Mr. Markovits may not know many people in the small business owner class, and thus, while his conclusions about the elite ruining their lives working themselves to death may be accurate, his conclusions about the unhappiness of the non-elite may be more theoretical than real. He may not have heard the words of the country song, "happiness ain't just for high achievers."
3
There's little room for you at the top; more in the middle; and the bottom has an endless capacity.
That seems the way of the world: We have only one Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Socrates, or Buddha, but lots of wannabes.
In the financial realm, perhaps we can contrive ways to redress such imbalances. Just recognize, however, that it is a contrivance. That the rich get richer and the poor poorer is working as planned. Mission accomplished. Thanks, God or Nature or Life!
(Am beginning to fully realize that Earth is not heaven. There shall always be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm running out of tears and teeth. To gnash or not to gnash: That is the question today.)
@Jim Muncy
You are right my friend.Earth is not heaven.It is the manifestation of a very malicious creator if that creator exists.Using the fake word "freedom" the elites have managed to create a society that is almost Darwinian in nature.By the word almost I mean that while in nature the prey can always fight and defend against a predator in our society the predators are shielded and protected by the police and the private security firms.So the motto for our society should be"blessed are the sociopaths for they have inherited Earth"
1
2M new US students attend to college each year and just 25-50,000 attend these 'elite' private schools. Maybe 100,000 total if you include all the top public schools. Generally that is between 1-5% of all the students, so yes, there is a lot of selectivity and competition. If you add in all the foreign applicants it is even a smaller percentage.
No way you can make the selection process please everyone. Base it on merit, people complain about privilege and/or lack of diversity. Base it on diversity, people complain about affirmative action. Around and around we go. It will never stop because there is too much scarcity of spots.
2
The problem, Mr. Brooks, is the endgame is Harrison Bergeron. Where sameness is enforced and meritocracy is that everyone has the same merit.
It is a complex knot to unwind that yes, meritocracy, by definition is "exclusive" and that those with merit are not immune to showing "outward signs of inward grace".
The wealthy and the driven invest in their children. Should they not? Is that investment "unfair" and should be banned? That investment yields higher performance - is that not good? - higher performance yields higher results - is that not good? - higher results yield higher pay.
"I love the uneducated" says Donald Trump. And they love him back if it means bringing down those who have the arrogance to excel.
3
@OneView One might consider that degree matters. Why be excellent in the first place? To what end, and to whose? How much its enough, exactly? What degree of difference is sufficient reward? What holes in ourselves must we fill with excluded or bested others, and precisely how many?
1
@OneView
Meritocracy is not "sameness".
And Trump et alia love the uneducated because they are easier to manipulate.
Nice to hear that a tax-exempt institution, ASU, is actually living-up to their intended tax-exempt benefits.
We already know the elite institutions, including many of the state universities, are not making good on their tax-exempt social contracts. In fact, they seem to rub their exclusivities (which have certainly benefitted from their tax exemptions), in our collective faces. This needs to be righted.
1
There well may be two separate meritocracies, as DB says, one on the way up and one clinging to the top.
More to the point is the relationship between merit and privilege. Merit leads to success; success is granted the privileges that come with it. Privilege, once grasped, will defend itself by hook or crook.
The vector of success is measured in wealth and/or power. Priests aren't often wealthy, but they can be so powerful as to feel themselves protected beyond the reach of law.
Exclusivity encourages cheating. To get into an exclusive school, one must give a sign: the sign is the scores that show that one deserves the privilege of attending an exclusive school.
Privilege seeks to control the market on privilege, inflating the value of scores > the diploma. Making a false claim of virtue: "My high scores > diploma are a sign of my virtue." The 50-hour work week is The Protestant Ethic.
Merit abhors a democracy. Which would you rather be: free to fail or guaranteed to succeed? Privilege drives the economy. Never in human history was privilege so open to talent as in America.
Vested privilege well may be one of many things tearing the nation apart. But vested reward is also America's magnetic North Pole for merit.
Yet, I often think of Hamlet's remark to Polonius about treating the actors as they deserve. IIRC: "Give every man his deserts, and who would 'scape whipping?" Hamlet, a Prince cheated out of his kingdom, a brilliant student, isn't just being PC.
1
Meritocracy in America?
It's a good question what both top and bottom of society will look like as nations strive to become stable entities in the 21st century, not go to war with each other like in great wars of 20th century. History seems to demonstrate that societies can be quite turbulent, that people can be quite violent and irrational, and that those in power historically have often used war as a safety valve, outlet of mass energy to direct the masses to preserve political and economic stability.
The 21st century seems to suggest that in say, America there will be no historically typical outlet of energy for the masses, that the bottom of society will be a roiling, turbulent mass of people pitted against each other for employment, that a rough and vulgar culture will exist, and society will be a controlled yet internally warring state overseen by an elite which calls itself a meritocracy but will probably be closer to the familiar aristocracies of wealth found in the historical record.
I find it interesting that no one seems to seriously ask what form society will take when war really is ended, when stability of society becomes definite. People say that means peace, but it seems to me rather a polity of boxed in irrationality and an upper class striving to sit on the lid of this box. Which is why we hear so much talk of removing guns from people and why at a ground level we are of so disordered mind. The masses are minds at war; the elite generalize, stay aloof.
David Brooks is relentless in trying to refocus attention away from the ultra-rich.
Someone brought up a great analogy. They said if wealth was a step, most Americans are on step one. The top 20% is on step 5, the top 10% -- the upper middle class, those cardiologists Brooks mentions! -- who have a few million, are on the 11th step.
A billionaire, however, is 10,000 steps up! And Jeff Bezos? 133 MILES. That’s the problem.
9
One problem is that public schools were ruined by the Federal government in many areas. Powerful Federal laws resulted in consolidation of public schools. As a result of government policies, many kids are now shuffled off to mega-schools in unincorporated corn-fields, where once nice community city-schools in the town-square had flourished. Because they are so massive, these schools track kids, letting millions fall through the cracks. Opportunities in sports,music, or simply better teaching, are rationed in such large government institutions. Also, no-fault divorce and the welfare-state that created single-mothers have ruined schools. The people attaining high success in the meritocracy are often from in-tact families, indeed often from quite patriarchal and loving immigrant families -- immigrant versions of the Leave it to Beaver/Ozzie and Harriet nuclear families mainstream America spent fifty years making fun of as oppressive and hypocritical. I'm a college professor and I would say most of the kids I teach are either international students or first-generation. I meet their wonderful families at Parent's Weekend and the culture of divorce, feminism and single-mothers has not (yet) devastated their loving, intact families. Their fathers are respected, involved, and making good cash.
1
Hilariously unconvincing.
2
@Darkler As someone who taught college for forty years, it was highly convincing to me. Even at ASU, my best students were mostly international students or first-generation immigrants from Latin American or Muslim countries, the kind of people Trump wants to keep out. Maybe he's afraid that his grandkids can't compete with them?
1
I just find it ironic how Mr. Brooks is aghast at the inherent disparities which exist in our educational system. Flash David, these disparities exist within our broader society also. And they exist in large part because of the economic system you and your ilk have been peddling since Irving Kristol outlined the main tenets of conservatism. An ideology buttressed on the myth of meritocracy and the firm belief in the righteous ideal of the hierarchical nature of man and societies.
Mr Brooks, your group exacerbated this inequality with your lord of the flies polices now you want to complain. Amazing!
5
"People in this caste are super-skilled and productive. There are more than 70 law firms, Markovits notes, that generate over $1 million in annual profit per partner. When Instagram was bought by Facebook for $1 billion, it had only 13 full-time employees."
Wow -- we're going to equate "super-skilled" and "productive" solely based on the accumulation of monetary wealth. You just can't help yourself, can you David?
7
Most of the good die young.
For every 1 great achiever from Stanford, over 400 people die in despair.
Something's wrong
2
America is not great at all. It is incompetent and uncaring.
1
Are you confusing "meritocracy" with "oligarchy"?
10
Brooks always starts his pieces with a false premise.
Then smears someone or entity, in his endless attempt to make the evangelical base seem like normal people.
When you use Bible as your sole science book, you have no right or basis to call anyone elite.
Study something more than the Bible, and you will be less resentful, and a lot less certain that the "elite" are plotting against you.
Brooks should write about the right-wing propaganda campaign, and the terrible damage that has done to America's future.
It ain't the elite's causing the problems David, it is the devoid devoted evangelicals that never learned to reason. Deliberate ignorance is the very definition of stupidity.
6
People who live in NY (George Packer, David Brooks) are obsessed with where their children go to college. The rest of us, not so much.
4
That's because Packer and Brooks are worried about being the elite.
1
@Darkler
Correction: they worry about REMAINING elite.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
While we appreciate your thoughts on the evils of meritocracy, it may be interesting for your readers to learn by how many times the salary of an opinion writer exceeds the salary of the average reporter who works for the Times.
7
It's the liberal, politically correct, and progressive elite who are ripping America apart? Piketty, an economist, had the causes of inequality all wrong? What distorting prism is David Brooks looking through? Right wing sophistry is just fascist thuggery in disguise. It must be hard to let go of an ideology that defines your identity.
3
@Anam Cara
If he speaks against the current GOP/conservative orthodoxy, he loses his access to that elite, and that worries him: he might have to get get a job working with his back, not his fingers. He knows he'd just be written off as another traitor to the cause. Remember the moderate, thoughtful GOPers who got written off and discarded as RINOs? Lowell
Weicker would be drummed out of this GOP. So would a Reagan by any other name, which is pretty darned funny.
1
For those who can read French, the interview of Thomas Piketty by le journal Liberation.
The history of the USA shows a 70 to 90 % tax on high capital that
gave a twice bigger growth of the economy than we have to day.
https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2019/09/11/thomas-piketty-chaque-societe-invente-un-recit-ideologique-pour-justifier-ses-inegalites_1750740
2
Great article I agree 100%.
2
If this editorial tells us anything, it's that meritocracy is itself a sham perpetrated by the well off. It hearkens back to the myth that the well off are that way because they are among the chosen, not by mere luck of birth.
2
I understand perfectly well why David Brooks would be against meritocracy. After all, merit cannot possibly explain his continued employment at the Times.
3
How is it that this is news worthy? Ya think wealth corrupts? Sure ..... it....does now replace it with empathy i.e. Elizabeth Warren.
3
Exclusive vs open meritocracies. Many commenters seem to desire a different path - throw out any connection between creativity, innovation, hard work, intelligence and compensation, and instead install a complete “idiocracy” where citizens are all the same, and patronage is the currency for everything. Being run by the “idiots” will lead to horrible collapse.
1
Sort of got hung-up on the word "radical" as in: "The atmosphere [at the Kansas Leadership Center] is one of radical inclusion."
I always find it interesting that (as Mr. Brooks’ piece shows) the opinion columnists of The Times have (for MANY, MANY decades) written extensively about the negative effects of income inequality, the overvaluing of “elites”, the issues derived from emphasizing social class distinctions, etc., etc., etc. At the same time, the “soft news”, “lifestyle” content of The Times (Style, Fashion, etc.) fawns upon hyper luxury clothing and jewelry, parties in the Hamptons, houses that can be purchased for $2.5 million, etc. This is necessary to attract the advertising dollars that luxury retailers are willing to spend, and has been a big part of the engine of TNYT’s growth since the beginning of the 20th century. When I started working at TNYT (before President Kennedy was assassinated) this was not an issue, but as P.C. became more focused, this disconnect resulted in some REALLY embarrassing decisions, whose resolutions proved to be a bit “costly”. And NO, I’m not going to be specific here.
1
And the NBA should not exclude very short people. And Silicon Valley companies should hire people on a first come first hire basis.
Now with your support for reparations and the elimination of scholarly performance (plus other criteria) for admission to the Ivy League and related schools, you are appealing beyond your former base.
Your logic turns society upside down (literally).You could have written about ASU ad KSU as examples of giving people a second chance. But to argue that “meritocracy” is destroying this country enables us to contemplate unqualified people (like DOnaldTrump (?) to be President.
David, for a journalist who once had “values”, and wrote about “Character”, your columns have become trivial pursuits.
David Brooks went to a super-elite university, the University of Chicago. It's probably where he learned the rhetorical skills to pander so thoroughly to those who didn't.
2
This blows my mind.....my parents were poor, came from Europe, didn't go to college. I worked hard they worked hard now Im successful. That's just hard work, try it some time. The rich stay rich because they inherit, based on the work of others, also not a meritocracy. Some rich blow the money, where is that ever documented?
Work hard and you will succeed. Wait for democratic hand outs and you will not. Do you know how many McDonald's workers now own? Did you know the CEO of United started as a baggage handler?
1
Excellent!!!
David, good to see you coming around. But for as long as I can remember you’ve been praising the meritocracy. Please explain. Have you been listening to Tucker Carlson or something ?
Mr. Brooks, what have you got to say about the elitist University of Chicago, your alma mater, well known for its “savage exclusion” of those who did not meet its strict and meritocratic selection criteria?
1
"Latte-sipping liberals are the REAL elites:" Brooks has been spouting this canard for the last twenty years, and this column is simply one more iteration.
1
Again, I say, David relax. This is another overwrought column. I think you are spending too much time in the echo chamber. The well to do have always excluded what we used to call, “regular people”. Regular people know that except for an occasional unicorn, gifted by athletics or pure intelligence, their kids are not going to Harvard. It’s ok. They will somehow muddle thru life. 😉
2
"The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
PC political correctness is context sensitive:
PC for progressive elites means one can 'never' use
the n-word.
PC for #45's rally nitwits means one can use the n-word.
PC needs a qualifier:
Elite-PC is polite, deferential, and intelligent.
Trump-PC is rude, crude, and stupid.
1
Meritocracy is a myth or why do we have the most unqualified rich man as president.
Reinstate the inheritance tax at reasonable levels so we don’t have a stupid billionaires giving birth to other stupid billionaires who control most everything and who trash the way of life for everyone else.
Right On, David Brooks!
Another incoherent piece by Brooks.
All those Wall Street hedge fund managers and millionaire cardiologists with mansions in the Hamptons are ‘progressives’? Give me a break.
1
This article makes me think of Jack Lew.
"Whether it’s the resort town you vacation in or the private school you send your kids to, exclusivity is the pervasive ethos. The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
Wait I get you now. You think rich people are lefties because you believe right wing liars. The amount of rich lefties in America is tiny compared to rich far-right wingers. All rich people are GOP except for hollyweird and a few Liberals. The right wing like Brooks always projects to get their point across and I will not allow it. I know of not one rich lefty where I live, not one. So tell me where do you get your lies David?
1
Where are the selfless American elites who believe in the greater good and don't seek or need validation? I'm looking to replace my Che t-shirt for someone new!
Ok, David this column hits the heights of stupid. Your column talks about exclusive meritocracy and open meritocracy. From what I can ascertain both exclusive and open meritocracy cover people who have college degrees. How would you classify the remaining 66% of our population? Dead beats? Welfare queens? Illegal immigrants?
David, you denigrate the privileged elite but any reasonable reading of this column highlights your jealousy and envy about not being a member of this self same elite.
Don't lose any more sleep David, I'll help swing the pendulum towards the direction you desire. All you have to do is read my free book http://stoopjuice.com/the-stories-i-tell-myself.pdf
How to write a Brooks column in three easy steps:
1. Pick generalization
2. Lather with pop-psychology and current cliched verbiage
3. Garnish with cherrypicked anecdote
3
Had to stop at the paragraph where Brooks said: "these people were super productive". Lawyers, super productive? The legal system in this country has done nothing but screw over the common man for decades now. From being the prospectus writers for garbage mortgage consolidated products to defending the criminals who sold them when they began to smell and infect people. How is that productive? Defending scum like the Slackers and the other drug pushers in the corporate sector who poisoned us. Brooks is a fraud. Since he won't voluntarily remove himself from the filed he should be fired by the NY Times. He does you no good and degrades your brand.
The high-pressure parenting that Brooks refers to, can not only lead to high-performing offspring, but to what Paul Begala is quoted as calling, "overeducated, over-caffeinated, over-opinionated, pain-in-the-ass white liberals." http://tinyurl.com/y2czl8ws
I doubt such a colorful description applies only to the exclusive meritocrats of Brooks’ description. The high-pressure parenting and resulting offspring seem to have become a generalized condition of the American Left.
@Ron Cohen
Um., it's not only the children of the left who wind up at elite universities. Another right-wing simplification of a complex issue.
It's not entirely accurate to say "elite universities reject 85 to 95 percent of their applicants" without adding that elite universities grant many minorities without elite family incomes access to their universities.
The assumption that most of the kids walking around Princeton are from very rich elite families is not accurate at all. Do not be mistaken.
@M
Many minorities??????????
Can’t help outing self.
Princeton has many Richie riches from rich families in the middleman east and African and China and Brazil etc etc. In this context they are “minorities.”
Princeton has many “majorities” from families of modest means.
Brooks spends too much time on the East Coast.
The Land Grant universities of the mid west have done a fine job of educating their populations to enter the business world and professions for a very long time. Even today many of the students are the first in their family to go to college.
I admit this is being done despite the attempts by Republican governors and legsilatures to deprive the schools of the resources they need to continue to educate their citizens.
This is a big country that mostly is West of the Hudson.
3
I don't understand what this article is trying to say.
The bulk of this article describes the differences in culture and accessibility between highly exclusive and less exclusive universities.
The tone of this article is negative towards the exclusive organizations, such as Yale, and positive towards the less exclusive organizations.
It makes an assumption that the less exclusive universities are better than the exclusive universities. In its conclusion, it even states: "The exclusive meritocracy is spinning out of control. If the country doesn’t radically expand its institutions and open access to its bounty, the U.S. will continue to rip apart."
What does "spinning out of control" mean?
How are the ultra-elite universities ripping the U.S. apart?
Why are the more accessible universities better, as this article implies?
This leap in virtue between exclusive and accessible is not explained at all, it is simply assumed.
1
Regression to the mean defines our culture. Sadly. It is time more respect be given to those who in fact excel, inquire, and demand excellence. The value of “the mean” is sadly overvalued in this article. Demand excellence, or else we all lose.
1
Mr. Brooks' column struck home with me, as I went to ASU for both college and law school in the 1970's, and my daughter went to the Ivies. She could have gotten a full ride at the ASU Honors College. No doubt she could have also completed her PhD at this state university, had she chosen to do so.
Instead, she completed her bachelors at the University of Chicago, and her PhD at Harvard (in history). We paid her way to UChicago, and grants, fellowships and various teaching assistantships paid for her PhD. She left school with absolutely no debt.
My daughter now has a tenure-track assistant professorship at one of the nation's highly regarded liberal arts colleges. She has this position because of the caliber of schools she went to, for her degrees.
Now, had she gone to ASU, she could have received a fine education, no doubt, but had would then have had very few professional opportunities available to her in her field upon graduation.
And my daughter didn't go to these top schools to try to become wealthy, or to try to enter into some kind of elite "cabal". Instead, she simply wanted to have a path to remain in the middle class and do work in her chosen profession.
Now, I'm sure someone will comment here that their child went to a state university and did just fine. But this anecdotal evidence does not weigh favorably against the data. Degrees from top schools provide young people more, and better professional opportunities. Is this fair? No. Is this reality? Yes.
6
It is fair enough.
@Donegal
The Arizona State undergrad can be cleaned up by the University of Chicago grad degree. Happens all the time.
I attended an elite undergraduate school and then another elite graduate school, the only one of five kids in my family to go to college. Neither of my parents went to college (although they are successful small business owners). I have been astonished at how many more opportunities I've had in my life than my siblings. My husband and I are comfortable and affluent. My siblings depend on, or work for, the family business. My entire social circle is made up of people like me. My siblings' social circles have very few people like me. When I'm at family functions I feel foreign because my world and my world view is so different than so many of my family members. There's something untouchable about me among my family members, whether or not I deserve it, because I've succeeded in their eyes. All of this is to say, I'm not sure I worked harder than my siblings although I know I worked more strategically. When I was younger I didn't think about this as a meritocracy. But now that I'm 50, I see that my education and the connections that afforded me helped me to leap over everyone else in my family. If I were a parent (my husband and I didn't have kids), I'd invest heavily in their education because I know it's the ticket to a life like mine. Whether that's right or wrong, I know it's true.
5
Do they really work that much harder than everyone else, or do they start so far ahead of everyone else that the wealth is pretty much guaranteed?
3
Living in the NW End of San Francisco...I have watched as the old middle class has died off and their children have sold off their housing which has inflated grossly over the decades to a new wave of people.
These people who are buying them are the young late 20's to mid 30's Meritocracy. They are digging in and starting families.
The tone of the NW section of San Francisco has changed and not for the better. They are very insular in that they do not interact with people they perceive that are not part of the Meritocracy. I am your age David, and I can tell you that it was different here decades ago.
I remember I used to sit and have coffee with two men. One was a recovering alcoholic who lived in a granny unit and one was a man who owned a half dozen buildings in upscale Marina District of SF. Both were friendly and we would talk for hours. One had little money and one was outright rich. IF you did not know which was which you would not know who was the poor man and who was the rich man. Both showed respect and genuine interest in what each other were as people.
Today, when you meet the "new" people in the hood, you feel like you are being sized up by a used car salesman if you are worth the trouble to talk to.
They are creating a set of islands for themselves. In another 30 years, San Francisco a lot of us joke, is going to be a c.1950's Country Club. Entrance to that club is going to be color blind, the only color that will matter is Green-Backs.
3
We don't have equal opportunity, so the American dream is a sham. Too many public schools push along students who never become educated. This is not entirely the fault of the schools, because many of the students in these schools do not have the family support and safe surroundings outside of school. It's not just unfair to these kids; it's a waste of material for the United States which is in cutthroat competition with China. I don't know what the solution is. But we need to take a clear-eyed look at public education and not pretend that rising graduation rates are an indicator of anything except administrators fudging the numbers to satisfy their overseers.
The problem arises when members of the inclusive meritocracy are deluded into thinking that persistence and hard work will gain them access to the exclusive meritocracy. They don’t realize that the latter group determines how much or little the former will be paid, how far they will rise in their careers, and how hard they must work.
The wall between the two is longer and wider than anything Donald Trump can conceive at the Mexican border. And the exclusive meritocracy holds the keys. They’re not going to let you simply waltz in with a degree from ASU and disrupt their status quo. Oh, they may let you in to perform a little menial labor, like a maid or housekeeper. But at the end of the day, you’ll be ushered out with barely enough compensation to make ends meet. It’s the American way.
2
I just watched a documentary called, "A Good American" which traced the career of William Binney and his development of the "ThinThread" program within the NSA well before the 9/11 attacks on America. Subsequent analysis of collected data with ThinThread technology shows that it could have averted the attacks which have convulsed our nation ever since. Nonetheless, Binney and his small team lacked the "elite credentials" to have the necessary credibility within the NSA executive management team to be given the green light to go live with the ThinThread program. Instead, they were shut down while elite consulting companies were hired to do a "moon shot" program that never got off the ground. I experienced the same collision with executive management prejudices at Apple while leading the Power Mac program in the '90's. They did everything they could to kill my small team of "blue collar" engineers, including one ASU grad, in favor of throwing multiple millions at an "elite" team made up exclusively of MIT, CalTech, and Stanford engineers who were no doubt amazingly capable but asked to engineer a successful "moon shot" on their first try. We only succeeded with Power Macintosh because I wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Ask an executive to risk their career on a strategic initiative and they will manage that risk with the exclusive meritocracy every time.
2
No. This has everything to do with unimaginable wealth beyond the scope of either of these social paradigms, and nothing to do with merit, leadership, exclusivity or inclusivity. When all of your classmates are millionaires, and the super duper stars are one, two, or even three billionaires, what does that make the rest? Unicorns, dragons, godzilla? Just let me know when my suite on the Avengers flying heli-carrier is ready, so I can tell all my friends who will never be invited.
1
Good on you David Brooks. Too true, US meritocratic institutions ensure that in order for a non-wealthy student to make it during and after her university years, for as long as she has to pay those student loans (ie., the rest of her life) she needs to have 1) the brain power of all NASA employees combined 2) the psychological resilience of Kafka’s Gregor and 3) escape from her reality as quickly as Rick Stein drops his satisfied knife and fork on an empty plate.
1
David Brooks is a human pinball careening back and forth, bouncing off the latest political, economic, or cultural analysis, the latest think-tank revelation, and breathlessly passing its wisdom along to us. Of course, the cherry-picked wisdom needs to support his conservative worldview.
Which is why it is so surprising that he chooses to talk about Markovits’ swipe at meritocracy. Need I remind Mr. Brooks that meritocracy is a cornerstone of the conservative creed, joined at the hip to individualism and the right of individuals to strive and achieve? Meritocracy is self-reliance. It’s the path to the American Dream. It’s the blind conservative gospel that declares that all have equal opportunity.
But now Brooks says: “If the country doesn’t radically expand its institutions and open access to its bounty, the U.S. will continue to rip apart.” What’s happening here? Is Brooks going socialist on us? He is arguing for a redistribution of American bounty? That’s blaspheme!
We will never know what’s going on because Brooks will never admit that his long-standing support of conservative values, like the myth of meritocracy, is misguided. He will never admit that conservatism, because it privileges the individual rather than the collective, doesn’t work as an effective strategy for social organization– that you need institutions, like government, to level the playing field because human nature won’t do it on its own.
What we will never get from Brooks is a mea culpa.
4
With all due respect, it's not the difference between Yale or Columbia that's ripping this country apart, it's the refusal to admit the distinction between fact and fiction and the concomitant rise in racism and xenophobic nationalism that's destroying the United States.
4
We can fix this.
In my experience the graduate from elite schools are no better than those who didn't (but earned the same or similar degrees). Many people who attend state institutions are just as talented, have more diverse life experience, are down to earth and don't play stupid status games; they just get things done, and often at less cost.
Just reject the notion that the Harvard or Stanford graduate is implicitly better when making hiring or similar decisions and take the time to better understand your applicants. You won't be disappointed.
1
There's much to ponder in this piece, but like so many of Mr. Brooks columns in general, it slides easily into glib and facile. "The coating of P.C. progressivism?"Aside from the language --progressivism for these people is just a coating", let's revert to critical thinking here: is there evidence that whatever "progressivism" these "meritocrats" "coat themselves in" is not genuine? That it is their desire to appear "good people" rather than a conviction that progressive ethics and values are right that drives them? And is there data to show that there aren't "meritocrats" aplenty that hold opposite (conservative) views? Here's a clue to Mr. Brooks thinking on this question: consigning meritocratic progressivism to just "P.C. It's not as frequent in his writings as, say, facile false equivalency, but it lurks and shows itself. Facile. Glib. Faulty reasoning. All there.
1
Meritocracy my sweet..... Sorry, The draw of these schools isn't the quality of the education. Their no better then some no worse then others. It is the connections people make and the networks they plug into that makes these schools considered such a value. To say otherwise is to close your eyes to the reality. Pretty much most of our government leadership in highest courts, much of politics, and finance and big chunks corporations graduate from a handful of schools. And they don't get these positions out of "Merit"! They get these positions because they have connections that help them up the ladder and they do the same for people coming up behind them. It's no different overseas everyone who runs France pretty much graduates from a single school. In the UK everyone who actually has any say graduated from either Oxford or Cambridge. And the reality is for all of the claims, that when a graduate of cowtown U and a graduate of an Ivy League school go for the same job? We all know who will get it, don't we? And if they both go for the same promotion? The Ivy league graduate will get it! If only because he moves in the "Right" circles & knows the "right" people. Or did you honestly believe Bush II got ahead on "Merit"? We are very much a caste system for all the claims. Why pretend otherwise?
4
@Stephan, I agree with your description of the time in which we find ourselves. However, for a brief time in post-war USA, there really was the opportunity to move across circles. The economy was booming and so many smart men were going to college on the GI Bill, where they encountered other smart men from all walks of life, who had the shared experience of the War. They believed in each other and helped each other. (women and black, latino and asian men were notably excluded from this.) We boomer kids thought this would last forever. And at least in CA, it did last for awhile. Almost everyone attended our strong and well-funded public schools-- and the HS in Palo Alto wasn't that different from a downtown SF HS. Anyone could go to and graduate from one of our top drawer levels of public college: our amazing community college network, our fine state universities, our two great polytechnic universities, and our truly excellent UC system. After which we got good jobs or attended great graduate schools. History grad here-- I can't quite grasp when this changed, and what the events were that led to the change. Poli-Sci grad here can't figure out why we let it happen, and why the so-called leaders didn't stop the change from occurring. But that past is a long time ago now, and there is no way we are going back. I do not see a UNITED states ever again.
1
The higher the bar, the larger the percentage of unsuccessful leaps. Lower the bar, and the number of successful leaps. increases. Duh.
The most predictable forces in the universe: Electromagnetism, ionic bonds, and David Brooks false dichotomy.
2
What's ripping America apart is a President who cuts taxes on the wealthy, eggs on white supremacists, denigrates anyone who points out the truth, lies about anyone who opposes him and many of those who support him, and who doesn't even know the location of the state of Alabama.
This meritocracy hobby-horse that Mr. Brooks keeps riding is a minor sidelight.
@Dan Styer
One cannot separate Trump from the exclusivity of elites. They excluded him for one or more very obvious reasons, and he has since carried out his revenge by any means necessary.
I always carried with me the admonition of the Dean of my engineering school on graduation day who told us: “Be modest and don’t think you know anything. You know very little. What the piece of paper we grant you today means is simply that you are capable of learning something.”
Do the elite universities do a better job than less prestigious state schools in that respect? Please allow me to be skeptical when elite schools such as Wharton produce men such as Donald Trump.
It’s this false meritocracy that is leading us to question how much of that $10 million spent by affluent parents on their children was spent on teaching one’s child to think, and how much on greasing the palms of the elite universities’ endowments.
1
I'm sorry, is this news?, or a revelation?, or was this an unknown fact to anyone?
CEO pay etc. has risen dramatically the past 30 years. The affluent get more affluent while working similar hours....50 hours?....oh my!!!, that's called a normal work week for a majority of Americans. With commute times factored into the average American work week, I would bet a majority would kill for a 50 hour work week.
Glad to see you are learning things......though decades late.
1
Special interest legislation is ripping America apart.
The annoying part of many prolific producers is that they only do it for 5 or 10 years.
And then spend half a century gloating in interminable repetition,
" I worked 80 hour weeks and pulled myself up from my own bootstraps!!! "
All the while leching off society, presiding atop their pile of accumulated wealth.
David Brooks fawning description of the success and privilege of his “meritocrats” is astonishing on so many levels it is difficult to respond. Consider this one observation”
“...affluent parents invest $10 million more per child.”
Most Americans will not earn anything close to $10 million is their entire lives, much less have that kind of money to spend on one child.
Praising ASU for expanding its student population is a dangerous red herring. According to an NBC/WSJ poll: “By 2016, [low-income whites with college degrees] had grown to form 14.3 percent of all voters” (NYTimes, 8/28/2019).
You may need to read the above statistic again.
How dysfunctional is a society when over 14% of adults hold college degrees, but are still defined as “low-income”?
Banks are too big to fail and child predators are to rich to jail, but hardworking Anericans who have taken on mountains of debt to get a college degree are trapped in near poverty.
This is what capitalism looks like when it is allowed to metastasize into a system of concentrated wealth and unconscionable privilege.
The “meritocracy” is a chimera of the lowest order.
3
This article is reminiscent of Charles Murray's Coming Apart. Message is clear. Country is divided by Socio-economics.
And what are the A.S.U. students studying? Are they taking humanities courses and learning how to think critically and to be good citizens? They likely are taking computer science and other STEM courses in the pursuit of a job and success. In other words, they are jumping on the meritocracy treadmill so that they can get a job and work the 70 hours a week that American capitalism – under the banner of meritocracy – demands. They are playing the very meritocratic game Markovits warns of.
Brooks conveniently doesn’t talk about Markovits’ real point – he just cherry-picks the “hard work” part of Markovits’ book to support his own conservative agenda.
For a more honest evaluation of the book see the review elsewhere in today’s Times which shows the Markovits’ book to be “a fierce indictment of a [meritocratic] system he says is undermining democracy and making everyone
miserable...the real problem, Mr. Markovits argues, is that elites have set their children up to out-achieve everyone else, then justify their rewards as stemming solely from ‘merit.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/arts/meritocracy-trap-daniel-markovits.html
But in Brooks’ benighted vision, A.S.U. is a shinning example of inclusion and democracy. But, in reality it is producing more of the same dangerous meritocracy – only on a larger scale.
In his desperation to reinforce his conservative worldview, Brooks twists the truth. Such is the pressure from living inside a bubble.
1
Well, David is worried that hard working folks, particularly those from top colleges, have the wrong values and are destroying the USA. This worry seems to blind David to the more obvious evidence that a short list of billionaires no longer concerned about “working” are running (ruining) the GOP, the Senate, half the Supreme Court, and half of State Legislatures. Not to mention running an unparalleled brainwashing apparatus of Tweets, YouTube videos, pernicious Google searches, Fox, Spencer media, talk radio, ... An apparatus that makes Goebbels look like an amateur and has almost half of American voters glued to alternative facts and crazy conspiracies.
Is it too big a focus of an elite upon work or too much propaganda and corruption from a few Oligarchs that matters most??
3
The only insight gleaned from this column is that David brooks finally seems to have learned that his (and the rest of the punditocracy's) notion of what constitutes The Meritocracy has all along beenmuch too narrowly defined.
Put simply: The rest of us out here in the real world have known all along that good ideas and great people go to and come from lots of other colleges besides Harvard and Princeton, and from lots of other companies besides Facebook and Google.
It's about time that Brooks understands this.
The rest of the column, well, meh. The dichotomous comparison that he draws is false, and is based on his usual uninformed and gratuitous bashing of liberalism.
And it all continues to ring hypocritically hollow to watch Brooks (whose entire career has been rooted in the elitist meritocracy) dis the "evil" meritocracy.
We choose employees and college applicants based on the same subjective judgements of objective merit as the New York Times chooses its editorial staff and columnists. One set of merit standards of speed for a horse race or typing necessarily exclude another merit standard for survival or sales.
How, for instance, does the New York Times make hiring decisions based on its standards of merit? How do any of us select dentists, medical doctors, attorneys, accountants, physical trainers, etc? Or mates? There is no escaping a subjective but elusive part of any standard that we have to pick and choose just about any personal preference for ourselves or our children—by different standards of merit. Our preferences, buying habits, and personal choices more often than not are guided by the marketing industry’s manipulation of what makes us feel comfortable. In the end one columnists’ meritocracy is irrelevant to another one of, say, a commenter.
A.S.U. sounds so much more interesting and exciting than Harvard or Yale.
1
"The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C...."
A la Bret Kavanaugh?
2
Excellent point, but rather than writing an ad for ASU you might have checked the inclusiveness and diversity of CUNY and SUNY right here in NY.
2
460 journalists from the French news paper Le Monde signed a common declaration asking for editorial independence from the capital investors of the paper .Mainly 3 owners .
One of the owners has publicly agreed .
Followed today by the support of 500 celebrities : artists , Renzo Piano, Isabelle Huppert, intellectuals, Salman Rushdie, etc...
A clear philosophical French statement against false meritocracy and capital.
https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2019/09/10/nous-journalistes-du-monde_5508541_3236.html
1
Yet another "Blaime the Dems" column. I wish David would have been a columnist in the 1930's and 40's. Who would be responsible for World War Two? Why Roosevelt and the New Deal, of course!
1
The meritocracy Mr. Brooks describes has been going on forever. The most extreme was/is called divine right-God choosing those to have power and wealth.
America was supposed to level the playing field, but so-called conservatism, wrapped in a flag and toting a bible, continues to deny those rights to all.
By warping the Constitution and spreading lies, fear and hate they've brought us to today's crisis. They chose a corrupt, ignorant man to lead them.
There's still time and a way to rid the country of this menace. Vote them out. Now.
Wait a minute!
Brooks' meritocracy is mainly lawyers and financial manipulators who attain prosperity and privilege but contribute little or nothing of worth to our society.
Lawyers in Congress and state legislatures make the thousand-page, loophole-riddled laws that provide themselves and their buddies with lucrative opportunities for litigation, prosecution, defense, and judicial appointment.
The American "criminal justice" racket, which is run by and for lawyers, costs taxpayers trillion of dollars. It requires the
cruel imprisonment of more than 2 million unfortunate souls, and impinges on the lives of several million more persons under supervision.
The onerous "patent protection" racket, which is the bread and butter of thousands of lawyers, embroils American businesses in litigation. Loosely-awarded patents and overly generous protections suppress innovation and undermine free market competition.
Brooks's meritocracy is a self-sustaining bunch of parasites!
Surely David doesn't believe the situation is more dire now than in the 1950's when those same institutions were not open to women, blacks and in some instances Jews. He reads a book, gets all enthused & goes off on one of his exploratory trips. Hard to understand why his columns don't appear in the Book review.
1
Nice try to tie progressivism to elitism. But surely we all know better. Well, most of us.
1
The dirty secret of liberal Dems, simple! Reagonomics works for them. If you mention wage inequality a liberal Dem will bring up the "deplorable" white working class meme. As is to justify that the working class doesn't deserve any more than they are getting., and of course, that the meritocracy does deserve theirs.
1
Google has offered to pay 1 billion euro to France to end an investigation from 2015 about the " aggravated fiscal fraud " committed by Google in France before that time.
It does not say whether Google continues the fraud or not .
Probably yes. If you pay to stop the work of justice, it is because you risk more there .
An other exemple of argument against that false idea of meritocracy versus capital.
https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2019/09/12/fraude-fiscale-google-va-verser-pres-d-un-milliard-d-euros-pour-clore-les-poursuites-en-france_5509646_1653578.html
I think the brand name university thing carries more weight in Brooks’s small circle than in the rest of the world. I went to an Ivy League school, live in a small city, don’t do elite anything and work hard at stupid progressive causes like climate change. I know others with the same pedigree, and, emphatically, nobody cares.
I suggest he get out a bit more and stop basing his views on the East Coast clique which he inhabits.
1
This columnist didn't do his homework & got lost in the tall weeds of academia PR. None of what he writes makes any sense. Everything is on a mass scale at ASU because it's a publicly funded state university. It graduates more Jews than Brandeis because it has more money, more resources courtesy of the state of Arizona. Brandeis is a tiny private university in leafy Waltham, Massachusetts with 5000 students & 360 teachers. ASU is a public university on five campuses across the Phoenix metropolitan area, & four regional learning centers throughout Arizona with 80.000 students & over 4400 teachers. They aren't remotely comparable on any level. It's a ridiculous & absurd comparison. Public universities exist to educate the masses. Private colleges exist to educate the elites. They have different missions. It's always been that way & it isn't changing anytime soon. The Ivies are never going to have a student body close to 80,000. A Starbucks barista can flourish at ASU because the course work is geared to her intellectual capacity. She wouldn't last two weeks at a pressure cooker school like MIT. The so-called Meritocracy is not ripping America apart. To write those words is tantamount to spreading a pernicious lie. Where are all the scientific breakthroughs & technological marvels coming from? Not ASU. Savage exclusion isn't tearing the social fabric it's holding it together. What's hurting our society is the complete intellectual bankruptcy of public education such as it is.
Meritocracy? What the hack is that? Nobody here is talking about. This term is almost never been used.
Without any doubt the word is based on mixed Latin (merito-) and Ancient Greek (-cracy) roots. So I checked whether there is a synonym in German, something like "democracy" and "Demokratie" or "bureaucracy" and "Bürokratie" as most frequently used words in both languages.
There is. "Meritocracy" is "Meritokratie" - with a giant "But". The almost unknown German word is nothing but a borrowed word as a result of a translation from English the Doctor All-know of our times, Wikipedia, says. The first use in German was due to the translation of the American satire "Rise of the Meritocracy" by Michael Young in 1958 as "Es lebe die Ungleichheit: Auf dem Wege zur Meritokratie" in 1961.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritokratie
Here it is!
The term had no relevance here before because the social concept of power described by the word had always been esteemed as extremely fictional as an far aberration from reality. Moreover the article says "It´s an unsuited model for a stable society as it is considerd by Mr. Young also" (Sub "Bewertung") The underlying meritocratic principle "the best shall rule" is supported, but not as form of rule. (Sub "Anwendung meritokratischer Prinzipien")
Until now all Non-American and most Expat commentators cannot base anything on this word either. This term seems to be very specific American. "Exceptional" if you like. But not in a good sense.
David is sounding downright Progressive. Welcome to the club.
1
Some educated elites are commuting from a suburb of Phoenix to lend a Phoenix neighborhood a hand , well just raise me up, thank you. CUNY has built entire campuses in all five counties of NYC, and SUNY puts out a multitude of meritorious doctors from the depths of Brooklyn and yes we still compete like crazy to enter high schools that may never win a city football championship or know a swirly in their restrooms unless our missing mayor has his way. Kansas, really Toto, are we back?
2
Don't forget race baiting ..... meritocracy, and voter suppression....meritocracy? And let's all flat our ignore and lie about Russian intervention in our elections ... meritocracy .... all groundbreaking areas of Republican self-centered 'vision' for America! ..When the aim is to destroy any level playing field for labor, education or say...affordable health care. David and my five year old niece should open a School For Let's Change the Subject From What's Really Going On. (In her case its cookie pilfering.)
Breaking news: Brooks has discovered state supported universities!
If he had stopped to think just a bit more he would realize that these universities exist because all state taxpayers put something towards their continuing existence-- and it's not evil socialism!!
He left out community colleges but then again he probably didn't pay attention that Mrs. Biden, Dr. Biden, is a professor at Northern Virginia Community College
And the bonus round is name some amazing work that has come from state universities--Like Hathi,like the PennState artificial heart, like James Watson from Indiana University-- oh yeah-- I guess the shallow meritocracy conceit for this article doesn't really fit after all.
He graduated from the University of Chicago. In history.
1
"If the country doesn’t radically expand its institutions and open access to its bounty, the U.S. will continue to rip apart."
One is put in mind of H.L. Mencken: -- “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
The rabble masses are incapable of raising enough normal children who would take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that exist or could potentially evolve.
Meanwhile -Thank goodness we have enough competent high
achievers to keep the ship afloat while the waters rise exponentially.
So the answer is Tempe Normal? Renamed as ASU?
Or is that the problem?
Did Brooks face a deadline and not get his piece done?
2
I used to hope that David Brooks was just an incredibly naive man who couldn’t break out of the bubble of right-wing right thought. This blatantly partisan, nonsense- and outright lie-filled column put an end to that.
“The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people”? That is pure Republican Commentariat propaganda. Per Brooks’s definition, that makes Trump’s country clubs bastions of progressive PC.
“In the exclusive meritocracy, prestige is defined by how many people you can reject”? The top colleges are applied to by tens of times the number of students they can actually educate. That is the simple truth. And it is hardly the case that everyone in big law, medicine and tech went to elite colleges, another inconvenient fact.
As for Brooks’ admiration for online college degrees, how many people who enroll actually end up with a useful, job-gaining degree? His tidy little story of Starbucks workers who repeatedly dropped out of real college but got online degrees through ASU is another of his typical dishonest arguments. He mentions no important details such as how many of these people he talked to (one? Two?). What are these online degrees? How many dropped out of the ASU program also? How much debt do they owe whether they graduate or not? Are these people able to get a job with their online degree?
In other words, this is just more devisive Republican propaganda meant to tear society apart.
1
ding, ding, ding! "The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people."
1
Not to defend the indefensible, but part of the equation might be risk-aversion. Allowing "more open access" to giant piles of money (either directly through hiring or indirectly through granting degrees that lead to hiring) could go quite poorly. The downside of exclusivity probably seems less severe and more distant.
Many interviewers, especially institutions, are not great at the very difficult task of assessing someone's talent level or character in one or two meetings. The result is an over reliance on credentials. The result is more over-hyping of the credentials themselves and further angst over who gets those credentials.
We have two children graduating from elite Ivy league schools. Sadly, a large number of their comrades are neurotic; dancing with depression; addicted to some type of chemical; wanting to change the world or their gender without a clue how to change a bad habit or tire; and, super smart and widely arrogant with access to power to run the world someday. Sure, like every generation, we will get through this somehow. But there will be a heavy cost crouching in the shadows. Deep down, the high performers who run these institutions know there is a problem. But their playbook doesn't offer them the right stuff to deal with them. They should get out in the real world and listen every other Tuesday after the yoga and vegelatte.
1
The problem is not with meritocracy per se. Rather it is with US tax policy which allows individuals to accumulate obscene wealth without having to pay commensurate taxes on that wealth -- thus denying hard working Americans a similar level of benefits that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world -- i.e., free health care, free education, living wages, generous pensions, and affordable public transportation. Meritocracy is a good thing. Failing to tax meritocrats appropriately is not.
2
The real issue is that the elite upper 1% now have about 42% of all wealth and 23 percent of all national income according to Piketty and Saez. So yes there is more competition to get into this elite even though this "competition" is rigged in favor of the children of the elite (who Brooks reports receive $10 million more in benefits than non-elite children).
Our capitalist system has turned into aristocracy for the 1% and feudal serfs for the rest of us. It is an unstable and unjust system that is incompatible with democracy. Our political system is debased; our economy unviable with this income and wealth distribution.
We need to restore the income tax and inheritance tax rates of the 1940s and 50s--90% inheritance and income tax rates for the top richest households. These large corporations that aided this imbalance need to be broken up and/or socialized into government run entities.
There will always be elites and rich people even under this system, but our national income and wealth would be more even distributed so that every American can have a decent life and have some wealth and dignity. We would not have 20% of our country living in poverty, millions homeless or near homeless, and children growing up hungry and poor and without a good chance to rise one day into the elite.
2
Most liberals readers don't want to grapple with the nuance, but meritocracy and inequality are not inconsistent.
Bill Gates might have been born rich, but he is still a brilliant person--one of the smartest and hardest working of his generation.
Even if inherited wealth was abolished, the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. would exist.
Even if children were taken from their privileged families and raised in government nursery farms, you still would see wildly divergent life outcomes because natural talent, aptitude and work ethic is not evenly distributed. Nor is luck.
We should ensure every child can be all they can be, but complaining about intergenerational transfers of social capital (aka "privilege") ain't a helpful solution.
Ultimately we need to teach all parents how to adopt the attitudes, mores and practices of these affluent families--where a child's education and development is a central focus of the family. This is the explanation why the majority of the kids at Stuyvesant High are first-generation Asians on food stamps.
2
This is a very true observation.
I am in the exclusive meritocracy. Silicon Valley, high tech, 50-60 -70 hrs a week, high pay and great compensation. My kids are successful but also suffering in this environment.
The system of education (not specifically Ivy League Schools) is a problem. We have had decades of neglect and economic segregation in our public institutions.
However I think American society predominately values economic success over all else: capitalism will find the center and optimize outcomes.
This gap between haves and have-nots is going to be very, very hard to normalize. The haves are going to have to have less. Good luck.
I don't quite agree with your formulation, despite being one of those you are talking about.
The meritocracy is not ripping America apart; the people that circulate through Ivies and the banks and corporate executive suites are destroying America, through their self dealing, lobbying for personally favorable laws, and other methods.
Top universities need to radically alter their admission policies:
1. End legacy admissions.
2. Limit admissions from private schools to 5% of the class.
3. Limit admits from schools in uniformly wealthy areas to 5% of the incoming class.
4. Reserve 90% of seats for students from economically and racially integrated school districts.
5. Consider no activities or experiences in the application that require an expense of more than $100 per year.
Congress needs to pass laws that:
1. Limit campaign donations to individuals, given anonymously.
2. Make public all lobbying by corporations and individuals through the use Go Pro cams worn at all times.
3. Require half the members to be working jobs that pay below the country median income for the 5 years up to running for congress.
We need different people in the halls of power. Very, very different people.
1
@Djt "Limit admissions from private schools." This gave me a chuckle. When my husband was admitted to Yale (undergrad) in 1962, he was a "diversity" admission - a white male (only males need apply) who - horrors - had attended a public high school in southern California.
Meritocracy : an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. Right on Mr. Brooks. The ivy league seeks status instead. Determining the recipe for corralling meritocracy in practice is difficult. It takes vision.
1
Mr. Brooks has written a terrific column. The programs he cites are marvels. But there is a danger within what he cites as "the thicker coating of PC progressivism"--and that is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. That is a line that our progressive fellow-citizens all too often cross.
Here in Portland, we are in the midst of a nasty fight that, stripped of efforts to obfuscate, is centered on blatant attacks on what the progressive view as citizens (a word they never use) who are, as a group, too old, too rich and, worst of all, too white. At stake is $millions in taxpayer dollar. Disproportionately paid by the people who are now, officially, the object of efforts to disenfranchise and isolate them.
That's the devil in the details. Mr. Brooks should make this a subject of his further thought.
Way too much attention on college, why is this? Self-supporting, law-abiding citizens who are equipped to contribute to society are made, not born, and this formation process needs to start by kindergarten and continue in a much more efficient and effective way throughout K-12. If this were to be done right, much college curriculum would be recognized as redundant. College should be for the few who have the intellectual chops to want a true higher education (liberal arts and/or medicine, engineering etc). I think college was, and is, a setting for privileged, antsy young men to play slap-and-tickle for a few years as a bridge between completion of puberty and induction into organized adult responsibilities. Today we seem to look to colleges to repair every kind of cultural, family and public school failing inflicted upon our youth. Too late.
3
There is also a small but growing phenomenon called the 'aleatocracy' - those in the right place at the right time that reap a benefit all out of proportion to the effort. Our mass culture and of course the internet bends that way. There is an interesting book, "Capitalism without Capital", that touches this and the likely trend to the concentration of wealth implied.
"Faculty members are treated less as scholars . . . and more as interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneurs. The goal is immediate social impact as much as expanding knowledge." In effect we have here a plea for shifting human resources from knowledge production to knowledge propagation by "intellectual entrepreneurs." The implication is that surplus knowledge already exists in stockpiles just waiting for intellectual entrepreneurs to market the stuff. Also, the stuff's useless until and unless marketed to the general public which has a vast unsatisfied appetite for academic research. No evidence is introduced to support any such implications.
2
My daughter attended a very competitive public high school, where some of the children go on to attend elite schools. She struggled while there and always felt like she wasn't smart enough. She applied to many elite school and was rejected, but was accepted into Arizona State's engineering school. I was very impressed by how they supported her, and the other students. It wasn't about weaning kids out of a tough program, it was about retaining students and meeting them where they were, and educating them. She thrived and got her confidence back. I wish that State Governments would make public higher education a priority and stop cutting funding to these schools. It's where most of these kids will go.
8
While the benefits of attending elite universities is real, there is also much hype. Lists of ranked colleges add to this issue. Clearly many innovators come lesser known arenas, but we cannot discount the role of intellectual capacity, well rounded experience, and hard work in success. I am also amused by writers like Mr Brooks who have attended and taught at elite universities telling others that there is a better way. I would be interested in where his children attend college.
For another column - spend some time at UC Riverside, which was just ranked #1 in the nation in social mobility, this year and the fastest-rising ranked university in the country last year. They seem to be doing something right on many fronts; what exactly is that?
1
Interesting article, the premise of which seems to (surprisingly) parallel some of Clarence Thomas’s views on elite universities and the racism they promote. Justice Thomas believes that exclusivity is the hallmark of elite universities (and institutions hiring their graduates), and that affirmative action programs prolong the elites view that other classes (races in the lower classes) are below them. The premise of this article and Justice Thomas’s thinking merge with the thought that there must be a paradigm shift in order to create true diversity, with elite institutions allowing admissions from all demographics and classes equally. Of course this would be the end of the Ivy Leagues ....
1
Unfortunately, I don't think post graduation success as measured by earning power is an adequate proxy for merit, i.e. Merit = Monetary Success. That seems to be the overarching thesis of Markovits's volume.
You mean to tell me that Trump, Wilbur Ross, Mulvaney, Mnuchin etc. or the lawyers / law firms protecting them contain any merit ?
McKinsey & Co. hires from some of the most elite schools. They make a huge noise about the company operating purely on merit. They also make consulting judgments which more often than not lead to atrocious end states. Conclusion?
Bear Stearns and Lehman hired straight out of top tier MBA programs as did the now defunct Salomon Bros?
Merit or network?
Schools like Harvard, Yale, Chicago, etc. encourage building networks within the alumni population which leads to a kind of incestuous hiring. That is what one has to attack, as opposed to the notion that elite = merit.
Nothing is farther from the truth. You will find good merit at the University of Michigan just as likely as you will at Harvard. My bet would be on the former.
Attack the networks. That is where the issue lies.
2
It would have been helpful for there to be space dedicated
to analyzing the cuts in state university systems funding (and related tuition increases) by state legislatures who can't seem to care less about the positive features of the knowledge based economy.
This short sided and naive approach to effective resource allocation of state spending (and yes, that means taxes that should be progressive not regressive in nature) is at the heart of why there is so little
of the open meritocratic (an odd name for what used to be called public education or non profit institutions) systems outside of a few special cases.
The standard rationale for cutting spending is that companies will migrate to where taxes are lowest, without regard to the
skill sets of local or regional employees.
This may or may not be accurate, but what it surely reveals is a structural weakness of the American political system, which keeps states in an enforced zero sum game that cannot be overcome without effective regional planning, an idea whose time has not yet come.
That mindset makes it very difficult
to justify long term planning and insure appropriate funding
to realize its goals. As a result, state higher education, in particular, is inadequately funded in many parts of the country. Open meritocratic systems at the state level are then rendered less capable of a larger scale blossoming to the detriment of the state's citizens.
He had me up to "radical inclusion" which is Burning Man jargon, and it can stay there where anarchy is welcome. The Kansas Leadership Center's atmosphere is one of demand for diverse perspectives, which goes beyond even extreme receptiveness to diverse perspectives because it actively and assertively seeks them out and brings them in, rather than just welcomes them. Invitation to and active gathering of various perspectives is not radical, it's necessary for strong leadership, and any leaderhsip center worth anything would have that approach, especially becaue such centers are the source of theory and doctrine development, and they cyle through classes so can see a very high volume of diverse participants. It's harder in practice where the pool of people is limited and can't include so much variety. Leadership is not a position, and it also is not exactly an activity, it's a state of mind. That state of mind should be open to inputs, and be able to recognize gaps in perspective.
We wish everyone is a leaderhsip position recognized that.
I work in education and I see your point. And I've met a lot of snobs and and self-interested types flitting about academia, and, of course, it has always been that way on some level. But I also feel you are asking the tail to wag the dog. Education's current deep issues as an enabler of inequality is a function of the neo-liberal economic order we have been living with for the past 30 years. It is interesting how many middle class parents are looking at higher education with a much more jaded attitude. Will social class privilege become the new civil rights issue on campus? I hope so.
2
Why is it that people only talk about income when they discuss wealth. Wealth is income less expenses over time.
I grew up on a farm in the Midwest, went to land-grant colleges (I had $100 in my pocket after paying tuition and room and board), got married, and we have both worked 40 hour/week jobs for 30 years, never even made it into mid-level management.
The result of this is that we have a four acre waterfront weekend/retirement house (paid off), an apartment in town, and just over $3.5 million in savings and a $50,000/year pension.
Simple answer is that I have saved at least 10% of every dollar I have made. In college that meant working every bad job you could find. Oh AOC, when I was your age bar-tending was considered a good job, it was indoors and if you were good you got tips. No one ever tipped the guy emptying the tank that held the used cooking oil behind the bar.
If that meant buying a 25 pound bag of rice and 10 pounds of beans to get to the end of the semester, 10% still went into savings. When it came time to buy a house, I had 20% down and bought a place we could afford pay 10% extra on a 15 year note, paid it off in 12 years. It was small but nice.
I bought my first "New" car for my fiftieth birthday, is was also our first second car. That $100/month cable bill is worth over $100,000 30 years later. Guess what you can get a lot of movies at the library.
Retiring soon, plan on spending a couple of months a year in SE Asia and the Mediterranean.
2
Redistribution of material wealth is different from redistributing the intellectual wealth. In fact Harvard, Yale, MIT etc are giving away intellectual wealth (ocw), and I wouldn't want them to have the challenges I have at a state university. Redistribution of material wealth is the political party in charge.
While I agree with the essential argument in this piece, as others have pointed out, there are many other public universities that are perhaps better examples of this. In particular, the University of California system features many campuses that are ranked in the top 10 public universities on academic merit, while also focusing on inclusion. They deliver a great return on investment. Some of the individual campuses enroll more Pell grant students than the entire Ivy League combined. I think Mr. Brooks should focus in a subsequent piece on encouraging companies and donors to support public universities where their $ and hiring will have a much larger impact. The challenge is that self interest incentivizes an exclusive meritocracy, which in so many ways is not meritocratic.
1
If a politician wants to make a statement about this situation, which Brooks has correctly identified, the next president, should appoint justices to the supreme court who are alumni of land grant institutions located west of the Mississippi, and as a corollary to the above not possessing a law degree.
Since the big stuff the supremes handle is political in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with the law, a degree or experience as a judge elsewhere is totally unnecessary. And furthermore, the constitution does not require supreme court justices to be lawyers.
David-I am not sure you meant to, but you have made a tremendously strong argument for both a very progressive tax structure and a very significant estate tax.
2
I researched the price of an online degree from Arizona State University. $13,750 covers tuition for 2 semesters. Living expenses, Internet, books, etc are typical. A degree then costs $60k. It beats $60k / year but is still quite expensive. I don't think there's a solution for social ills in this template. The solution is not found in the private for profit college spectrum.
I appreciate the call to expand institutions in the sense of admitting more to college. But the problem remains getting a quality education and finishing the degree. Graduation rates from college are abysmal. The least expensive community schools have the least successful students with 28% graduating in 4 years for a 2 year program. At least the elite schools do a good job of graduating those they admit with better than 90% graduating in 6 years for a 4 year program.
We really need a shim in between high school and college in the model of traditional nursing programs -- sponsored by the employer and graduating someone who can do the job specified.
David got it wrong again. Exclusive meritocracy has been with us for centuries, it is nothing new and it is certainly not the driver for income inequality. What is new now is that the information/knowledge part of the industry is much larger than it used to be, affording those employed within an opportunity to increase both their numbers and their income. On the other hand, labor outside the knowledge industry, mostly in manufacturing and services, has depreciated substantially because of globalization. American employers now have access to an additional 3 - 5 billion workers in manufacturing, while access to highly educated workers in the knowledge industry is substantially lower than the demand. This is what drives the income inequality, not exclusive meritocracy. As access to labor in manufacturing and services is increasing, wages would tend to decrease to subsidence level, as Ricardo noted.
2
It would really help for this change to reach the highest echelons of our government and business communities. Enough already with every single Supreme Court nominee coming from Yale or Harvard.
The "in-group/out-group" tendency in humans is universal; anthropologists have long noted it exists in every society. The radical message of Jesus (no, this is not a religious rant) was that all of us belong--a message Christians and others still struggle to implement. As Brooks points out, the degree to which the "in-group" is exclusionist and insulated is commentary on the health of a society. The rarified atmosphere of academia is the perfect exemplar of exclusion, and always has been. What's changed in our society is the disturbing trend to a smaller and smaller pool of people at "the top" who are corralling vast amounts of wealth. And what is most alarming about this trend is how many of those lottery winners don't seem very interested in changing the system to benefit more of us.
2
The core of this is the good quote of the Kansas Center that “Leadership is an activity, not a position. Anyone can lead, anytime, anywhere.”
But Brooks then gets it all backwards by proceeding to assume that leadership is a position, that is, some kind of fixed "status" which you either are privileged to "have," or not. Which appears to be the assumption of his audience who mostly just want to grouse that they don't think they have a status as elevated as they think they deserve. Who said life was fair? It is what you make of it from moment to moment and in context. It is not a "status" or social "class" you have or are "given."
2
David Brooks makes a good point about the exclusive meritocracy, but doesn't go far enough. This is the group that fraudulently got their kids into elite schools through fake donations, then wrote them off their taxes.
But it was okay because they had tons of money and were doing "what's best" for their children. Felicity Huffman is being sentenced today for what she believed was 'best.'
Yet another commentary about what ails America with nary a thought to, in this case, the support you have provided the meritocracy or how to fix this problem. The United States has become rigid in our social, economic and political stratification since World War II due to the success we've had and allowing the elites to write the rules that have primarily benefited them. Trump's victory was partially due to this backlash. The question is how do we return to and implement our more-lower case d-democratic values?
I am 81 and retired. Merit is not exclusive to the upper echelon. Neither of my parents graduated from college. Not a top student, I was persistent and hardworking. Thanks are due to many people who helped me along the way from a small liberal arts college to big city university, and well regarded state university. A career in business and later in higher education and a wonderful marriage of 60 years with a woman I adore. Life is not easy, so don’t make it any worse. My motto is never give up on yourself, and find those will offer you a hand.
3
I normally don’t follow David Brooks but the title of his opinion piece certainly intrigued me. He extols the policies at ASU but omits a number of elements that contribute to the failure of the meritocratic socioeconomic culture of the United States. While he celebrates the acceptance and graduation stats of the university there is no analysis of the quality of its graduates - and they might indeed be well educated. In my many years in academe I served in a great variety of positions: professorial, administrative and as a national evaluator of engineering programs. As with many elements of a system that fits the needs of America’s neoliberal model the universities and its enrollees “demand” the degree - the ‘union card’ so to speak - that will get them into the remnants of the middle class. As such, I would get a lot of flack from students who seem to feel they were entitled to the ‘gentleman’s B’. And if a university held to its advertised standards, its graduation rates would suffer with consequences for its national rankings (and its ability to attract applicants and more importantly alumni contributions). Moreover, if he relies on the writings of Daniel Markovits then I would like to recommend Thomas Frank to him - “Listen Liberal”, and particularly “Rendezvous With Oblivion” - for a more comprehensive view of our pending calamities.
1
Meritocracy is the wrong word. Part of what you're talking about is plutocracy, and part of it - the 50+ hours per week part - is pathological. Workaholism is the only addiction that is sought out, praised, and rewarded in this society, even as it withers families, unbalances the workaholic's overall life, and leaves him/her in existential despair when the inevitable day of retirement comes because the job is the identity. A lot of us have lost sight of the big picture and the reasons we work. As the old saying has it, no tombstone ever said, "I wish I'd spent more time at work."
6
While going to a great public university in California I happened upon an article about hiring of graduates
by corporations. This was during the tail end of the Vietnam war. The article stated that corporations and other elite institutions would widen their search because of the convulsions going on at elite institutions like Columbia and Stanford. It never
Happened; the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The picture painted here of open meritocracy is what I feel is the approach that a truly great America is based on. Just reading the article made me feel good that we can erase the dark stain that represents our current situation and move into a far better future. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
Something is wrong with the numbers. Even in the "exclusive meritocracy" almost nobody has $10 million X however many children to spend on their education. 12 years of private school @ $50,000 plus 4 years of college @ $70,000 is still less than $1 million.
Far beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, but not $10 million.
You'll get a better education at Stuyvesant or Boston Latin and some other free public schools. Most of their students are children of working-class immigrants.
1
"People in this caste are super-skilled and productive. There are more than 70 law firms, Markovits notes, that generate over $1 million in annual profit per partner."
Although lawyers might make a lot of money, I've never thought of them as being especially productive. Making money and being productive and two entirely different things.
4
Amusing the Mr. Brooks believes the wealthy graduates of the Ivy League are likely to be liberal progressives. While I’m sure some exist, the vast majority know where their bread is buttered and will subscribe to the GOP’s version of how to govern our country.
2
To the extent the “elite” schools serve the plutocracy, Mr. Brooks is right, as he is about the progressive patina their graduates often cultivate. And yet. As a very poor kid I attended one of the nation’s top public universities. Had to work while going to school, had two foodless days a week my senior year, got an incredible education. Went on to Harvard Law, still a very poor kid, barely survived my first summer financially, took on loans that , while small by today’s standards, took me ten years to repay.
Yes, I joined a major law firm, and had a successful career working those fifty-plus hours a week. Still have helped raise a number of kids, none biologically mine, through two marriages. They attended public and private schools in K-12 through graduate school. They were “groomed” to be good, responsible people, and were and are.
Am I a progressive? You bet. Because I came from poverty, and those degrees, while life-altering, were not for show. I got superb educations at both my universities. And had many incredible colleagues from schools with less burnished names for whom I had and have the greatest respect.
What I am saying is that the two worlds can and do intersect. It is to the loss of both when snobbishness or envy make them suspicious or enemies of one another. The major fault clearly falls on the plutocrats, of which I was never one. Unless our society confronts that, we will fail, sooner than later, thanks in large part to our toxic POTUS and GOP.
3
"Between 2009 and 2018, the number of engineering students grew to 22,400 from about 6,400."
If this trend continues nation-wide, engineer pay may soon be no higher than burger-flipper pay at McDonald's.
The Supply and Demand Effect on Wages 101.
1
@MaleMatters
Not to worry.
Brooks does not give numbers for those who graduate. He's just telling you how many are paying tuition.
David Brooks has got it right.
As I questioned before - why do we give so much credence to the so-called elite schools? Is their education so much better than the other great colleges in our country?
If we keep pedestaling the same "exclusionary elite" institutions, we should expect the same results. Why should we expect something different?
Time to change the paradigm.
1
Somewhere along the way some elites developed a mindset that they are better than everyone else. In Ayan Rand world the elites have special talents and powers that no one else could possibly have. If people don't agree with them they will take their ball and go home and pout.
Some CEOs make 1000 times more than what their employees make. And the average CEO makes almost 300 times what their employees make. This is up from about 20 times what their employees made fifty years ago.
Why does society think these people are so special? What is different about them from the rich elites fifty years ago? How much luck and being in the right place at the right time is partially responsible for their success? Are there not other people just as talented who could do these jobs better for less money? Or do we have a closed system based on this so called meritocracy? You are in the club or you're out of the club. And if you are in the club you get the rewards because there will be no one to question you.
2
You MIGHT be able to turn engineering and scientific faculty into entrepreneurs; in fact there's a long history of profs in these disciplines starting companies on the side. But these profs often neglect their teaching duties and use graduate students as unpaid employees, which is not fair to the institution or the grad students.
Besides, what was the original purpose of a state university? To educate the children of the residents of the state. It sounds like ASU has decided to make education a side activity of the university, imagining it can be run as a business.
Does Brooks not understand that essentially all research grants are subject to a significant "tax" called indirect costs? The amount is often around 40% and flows to the administration, who decides how to spend it. One can understand why ASU would like its faculty to operate as revenue generators. Meanwhile, who is in the classroom? Adjuncts! Temporary faculty who are paid very little and get zero benefits. It is essentially a gig economy for PhDs. And how has that worked out for workers in general?
I doubt this approach can succeed in most humanities departments. What company would they form? A research paper writing service? I kid! But the humanities have already been dominated by adjuncts for years, showing that this is just a scheme for replacing tenured faculty who have job security, a living wage, and good benefits with folks who have none of these.
How does this have anything to do with meritocracy?
3
Brooks perplexes me once again. I somehow don't feel like cardioligists making 7 times more than a nurse is unreasonable. Somehow he didn't mention the CEO pay to average worker pay ratio of 361 to 1. Lawyers, doctors, phd professors have earned their pay. The tippy top .01 have not. The DeVos family, Waltons, Bezos can not have possibly worked hard enough or smart enough to earn their billions. We need to correct thar. To go after wealthy working people seems ingenuous.
5
How can you say these things. Let’s take Congresswoman Omar. In her birth country, she would hardly be noticed and allowed to participate in the economy except to be maybe a maid. Here in America, she is able to become a congresswoman. Very fortunate any only possible in America. Of course she has gone on to make hurtful remarks about America and 9/11. And yet, we still provide her with opportunities she never would have had in Somalia. America is a great country!
1
Agree with the thesis of the argument that merit should not breed a caste system or hierarchy and that it sometimes does.
However, not at all in agreement that elite schools are a conveyer belt for highly qualified output or that spend is proportional to merit. There is no data to justify that unless an entry from Harvard to Goldman Sachs is a proxy for merit. Why is it that working for an investment bank or a silicon valley firm is the only measure of merit or intelligence? That is ridiculous.
I work for an aircraft engine manufacturer that makes some of the most complicated and technical equipment known to humanity. You all rely on our engineering expertise more so than you rely on Facebook or Goldman Sachs. Most of our graduates come from UConn.
America is still a place for scrappers to succeed, for college dropouts to dream, for middle aged people to get an education and yes, for merit to climb the ladder. Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Edison, Rentschler etc. are proof of the pudding.
How else do you want it to be ?
3
I object to the use of the term "meritocracy" in reference to what Mr. Brooks here calls "the exclusive meritocracy" -- the one populated by the "affluent parents" and the children who are the beneficiaries of "$10 million more per child" than the children of the non-affluent. Of course there are hard-working meritorious people among "the exclusive meritocracy," but as a class they are surely no more meritorious than those who lack such social advantages. Use of the term "meritocracy" in reference to the greater power, wealth and success of the highly privileged members of our society flatters them for their privilege, not for their merit. There really are not "two or more kinds of meritocracy." There are many kinds of merit, but being privileged, powerful and wealthy is not one of them. Being born into wealth, being more insulated from traumatic life experiences, being educated at a fine school like Georgetown Prep, being assisted by legacy admissions, being connected to networks of privileged people--these and the like, but not merit, are surer criteria of admission into the governing elite. Simply put, while most of us as individuals value merit, as a society we are not governed by it or by those who possess it.
1
Thanks for the strong endorsement of public education at all levels. That is where and how access and opportunity happen. It needs to be well supported and affordable at all levels from day care through graduate and professional schools.
1
The more exclusive the university "the heavier the coat of PC progressivism"? Support that statement, please Mr. Brooks. You still cannot accept that the driving force behind this income concentration is your beloved conservatism originating with the worshipped Ronald Reagan.
Even accepting your statement at face value, perhaps it means the more educated one gets the more likely one is to reject the empty pail that is conservatism. There is too much inconsistency in conservative thought for a critical thinker to accept it. I WILL give an example: The chimera that is the conservative stance on fiscal policy. It is more dependent on who the President is than any actual rational thinking.
I would like to draw a distinction on rejection rates. I see two different circumstances:
1. A university has, let' say, 5,000 places available, receives 10,000 applications but admits only 4,500. The number of rejections indicates the earnestness it places on its values and demonstrates its exclusivity.
2. A university has only 600 places available but receives 10,000
applications. It is inevitable that it will reject a huge percentage of applicants. The rejection, therefore, does not say anything about its exclusivity. It shows its popularity, however.
1
Several times I noticed in negotiations that some of of the participants had their hands awkwardly clasped on the conference table with class rings showing, rings from the same prestigious university.
Class rings? These were elderly men! I had graduated from a midwestern land grant university, and I passed on the class ring. But winning is the thing. So I toyed with buying a class ring from the prestigious university at a pawn shop. In the end I didn't do it.
2
Human nature assures this trend will continue until our democracy collapses upon itself.
2
There is NO meritocracy in America. A sad statistic is that a person starting out poor in this country must put forth the same effort (both physically and mentally) to reach the middle class as a typical middle-class person must do to become a multi-millionaire, yet no where (especially from those who haven't suffered in life) does anyone mention it, provide accolades for it, write articles about it, etc.
I used to ask the question that if we accepted the hypothesis that genius drove society forward and posited that society could be divided into quintiles by wealth, which quintile produced the most genius?
The answer - None. Genius is based on DNA, not wealth, yet our nation doesn't see anyone in a minimum of 80% of the population. In a true meritocracy, those at the very bottom of society would have the same chance as those already nearly at the top of rising to the top, yet that's not what happens.
I would agree with Mr. Brooks about exclusion, but I wouldn't call it a meritocracy. Those individuals living near the top don't fall to the bottom if they're incapable, as they should in a proper meritocracy. They're protected by their parents' wealth. We see this time and again. I would, however, disagree with him about there being any form of 'open' meritocracy. We can rise or fall within very strict limitations of our socio-economic status at birth with only very minor exceptions. That's no meritocracy at all.
4
The flaw in this essay is conflating merit on the level of becoming a cardiologist or nurse and "merit" on the level of becoming, say, a New York Times op-ed writer. There are scores of columnists, essayists and bloggers who are better writers than David Brooks or any of his colleagues; their accession to the "paper of record" is evidently a result of access to the elite social channels that encircle such an institution. At any college, depending on one's course of study or lack thereof, there are some who must learn the right answer and others who must make the right friends to succeed.
2
Exactly! If we don't get this 1% problem under control the pitchforks will eventually come out and it won't be pretty. Opportunity needs to be more generally shared and the exclusive group you mention are very selfish for the most part. They think if they share then there won't be enough for them so they become economic hoarders.
1
It is all about branding and seeing it as an exclusive brand at that. We would all like to have the best and be seen as the best because of what we have - including degrees.
An Ivy League degree is just that - a brand - with only the guarantee of it being expensive. It also looks like a ticket into the top 1% social hierarchy when you get that job at the law firm, investment bank or whatever other top notch paying industry wants Ivy League (another brand name).
Social hierarchy has always been around, is around and will be around. So get used to it and figure out why you want to get in - usually just an ego trip until the bills start coming in and coming due - including slave hours and no climb up the ladder if you are not well connected or talented.
For every Jamie Dimon, there are 10, 000 Ivy League has beens.
I do appreciate the irony of a Conservative using a university in ... Arizona to pontificate on elitism and the need for more democratic models.
Michael Crowe "corporatized" ASU. He's always been about the money and the numbers. Education? Not so much. Undergraduate education? Really, really not so much. Within 4 to 5 years of his arrival at ASU, the running faculty "joke" was "whoever could get out was getting out."
One of his first projects was to disempower faculty governance. One of his second was to create a required one-credit course about "entrepreneurship" to be taught to first-year students. He wanted faculty and administration to volunteer to teach it (no pay for it, just add it to one's already full assignments). Guess what? The only people who "volunteered" were administrators. The president of a university isn't permitted to create curriculum and force it upon teachers and students. Eventually, it fell apart and disappeared into the mists. Meanwhile, he has spent years monetizing departments, even now demanding that liberal arts departments find outside money sources to fund their research, etc. The Honors College faculty is entirely made of contract instructors. Only the director is tenured.
I spent 25 years on the faculty at ASU, and I got out. The pay was great if one were a "star." The rest of the faculty got peanuts. Even more important, he brought strife and haughtiness to each and every department. My own department became a backbiting, nasty, competitive milieu. Students are widgets there now.
Mr. Brooks, you were had.
7
Great article. Great points. My undergrad was at an accredited engineering school that was a land grant state school in the South. My masters was from a very good school in New England that was not part of the Ivy's. (MBA). I have rubbed shoulders with this elite and saw how they did things. I grew up in my own elite sub-culture. Dad was a pilot in USAF and the best of the best. Mr Brooks makes very good points. I personally do not see the value in putting people through this. The value of an Icy starts in Boston and goes to DC. The rest of the country not so much. I had a great network in Boston, and I knew tech and engineering companies who would not hire anyone who had gone to an Ivy or MIT, as they found them too difficult. Points on state schools in the rest of the country are well taken and appreciated.
1
My partner and I are arguably highly educated (masters, bachelors) with decent jobs. We feel battered on a sea of dramatically rising healthcare costs coupled with a simultaneous decrease in benefits. We have two new utilities (broadband and cellular) to add to the mortgage and all that goes with it. We have seen our standard of living stay more or less consistent but at the cost of losing any back up savings or substantial retirement.
We both are aware that “retirement” that our parents enjoyed is gone, for us and for most Americans - we will work until we can’t anymore. The choice is merely what that work looks like. White collar professional or greeter at Walmart standing on a concrete floor 8 hours a day?
While the present genuinely sucks, the future looks even worse. That all said, its hard to complain. We have it good compared to most. We just hope to hold on.
5
Well okay, but I still think we're going to need to eat the rich!
We need a cap on inherited wealth. Much higher taxes on the top 5 or 10%. (Sorry, but that's most NY Times readers no doubt.)
It took me 16 years to earn my degree. I don't think many kids could do that today, it would be too expensive. Some of that time was due to my own dysfunction, I got better.
Hard work and effort should pay off. But you shouldn't be able to pass too much on to your kids.
For some reason, we are no longer willing to talk about IQ. It isn't 'fair' that some people are smarter than others, but it does have a lot to do with 'merit.' For good or ill IQ seems to be largely inherited, most, not all, wealthy people are pretty damn smart.
But - the happiest people I've ever met have not been amongst the smartest.
2
The word "meritocracy" is not appropriate anymore. These people do not acquire power through merit. They inherit it from their parents, though they have to work hard to build the facade of deserving it.
5
Exactly!
The irony is that very conservative people fault the Universities for being too left. But this is where their ranks come from. The Ivy League is one of the largest contributors to our growing and unstoppable inequality. America does seem to be over.
Take a closer look. An awful lot of the money made in any skilled based sector is not made by the skilled. For every skilled worker doing the labor there are at least three or four managerial types, the elites, with little or no skills collecting a bigger paycheck. The elites hate meritocracy, they hate labor. These days skilled labor is not actually valued and so the only way they can get a bigger paycheck is to move from job to job.
1
Agree with the basic analysis but, as a doctor, I take issue with you including medicine in the elite. We have money but no clout. Two out of three of the top Democratic candidates would eviscerate our profession if they could.
In addition, going to an elite private school is a bad way to be a doctor. Go to state, blast your classes and the MCAT, and go to a public medical school. In medicine, you're no better off graduating from Johns Hopkins than from public university and you wind up with less debt.
1
I'm an ASU alumni, class of '83. I have tended to view ASU as simply some kind of education machine. David's op ed will change the way I view ASU.
So I think what Mr. Brooks is saying is that the Republican party must be soundly defeated if there's any hope of the U.S. not continuing to be ripped apart.
2
I think Brooks has it about right. In all societies the uber elites figure out how to perpetuate themselves. But the ASU approach echos the great innovations in american education: the Morill Land Grant Act that funded state universities in each state and the GI Bill after WW2, and the National Defense Education Act of the 60s that funded the education of STEM specialists. Look hard and one will find that many of the antecedents of today's uber elite are downstream beneficiaries of these and similar national policies. I say, forget the Ivy's and similar schools and ensure public investment in state schools. The Times and others should stop worrying about the elite schools, worry about state colleges and universities. My father taught at a state engineering school. Tuition was $100 per semester. No gyms, no teams, no cable TV. Virtually all students lived at home or in apartments and worked. They got excellent STEM educations and prospered. The business of prolonging a cosseted teen age lifestyle was not a part of the college's mission.
1
Did anyone else notice Brooks’ math re: ASU enrollment? Quadrupled enrollment in engineering since 2009. Quadrupled enrollment of 1st generation students since 2002. So, in other words, since it took almost twice as long to quadruple the percentage of 1st generation students, the percentage of engineering students who are 1st generation is going DOWN. This doesn’t mean ASU is doing anything wrong. Or failing. But, it does tell us that Brooks is willing to be a bit loose with the facts to advance his presumptions.
1
That’s why it’s so important to get in the system—but once you’re in, you’re in.
2
AI should take care of the eighty hour work week and the under paid or no pay of an intern. I openly embraces the future when we can get back to poetry, art, and music. To observe what is around us and ponder how to make this our once in a lifetime living more enjoyable more presence.
3
It’s worth noting that not everyone who went to an Ivy had such advantages growing up. I was raised by a working class, single mom, was eligible for free school lunch, and went to public school all the way through undergrad where I earned a 3.99 GPA while working 30 hours a week to put myself through school. I was fortunate enough to go to an Ivy League law school, where I encountered both the children of privilege, but also people like me. I and many of my working class friends went on to pursue careers in public interest law. So there are many problems with meritocracy, but sometimes it does work like it was supposed to. I guess it’s easier to editorialize with a broad brush though.
8
There is no such thing as a meritocracy in the US. To pretend that the Ivy League is elite is delusional. Universities generally turn out people trained in conformity.
It's nice that some universities have good PR programs, but they don't really teach different content or teach the content better than others. It is likely the PR programs that are their real success, and the success of their graduates due largely to reputation or the inside connections one gains from specific schools. Reputation and inside connections are not legitimate measures of merit. In fact, they are very much the opposite, they are favoritism.
1
David Brooks has the strange capacity to cite what he feels is important to his conclusion. As a former professor, who has often been , on panels, conferences delivering papers; I have come to know that brilliant teachers teach everywhere though-out this country. By the way, do we all know that Brooks graduated from the University of Chicago, known to be perhaps the "top," whatever that means, university in the country.
2
Despite fallacies in Brook's black/white characterizations, there is an exciting truth to the main thrust of what he has written. I say exciting because it really is, to see not just schools but leadership driven non profits are on the ground doing nutscand bolts inclusory confidence and skill building at a substantive level. Nexus in St. Paul, MN is one example. I agree we have to break out of the rut of giving meaning only to super performers, while the rest of us are ignored as if we are inconsequential. This is a metaphysical as well as concrete issue. The push for excellence and integrity should be recognized as the many faces, at myriad levels, as it can be.
The model ought to be an updated version of the Land-Grant colleges of the post-Civil War era, or the transformation of colleges under the post-World War Two era wrought by the GI Bill and its concomitants. Why not?
So Brooks uses examples from two states which constantly attacked K-12 teachers benefits and pay, then praises these same states for rebranding their higher education mission statements. And rapidly increasing their online university presence - which doesn't incur additional faculty expense.
One thing to note - for all the additional enrollment at ASU's engineering school - the actual percentage of students graduating with an engineering degree is maybe 20%. Accepting any warm body, but flunking most of them out means that the beginning classes are just too large or online to give individual attention to students. Most of these students would've done better attending college prep programs at community colleges.
My former private university, that ranks very high on national ratings, decided decades ago that study abroad, service learning, and fraternity leadership topped academics. Thus, the faculty were valued for getting high teaching evaluations and parroting the line that our students were the greatest and our university was the greatest! If you visit the university it looks like a country club with beautiful buildings and near lilly-white students. The administration believed we could not do too much for the students and our job was to help them prepare a great resume that would open doors upon graduation. Very few of these students could gain entry into an Ivy school, but they choose us because we promised to take good care of them. Unfortunately, my philosophy differed greatly from most of my colleagues as i see college as a time of learning, exploring ideas, and making mistakes. Many of my students told me they did not read books and a few told me academics were not important. They would be hired based upon their extra-curricular record. Wow!
"Tears the social fabric?" Brooks says this but knows better. There are multiple causes of a growing income inequality in America that are far more influential. Let me list the obvious causes:
1/ Predatory capitalism unhindered by regulation leading to monopolization.
2/ Computerization of jobs.
3/ Automation of produciton.
4/ Outsourcing jobs to the third world.
5/ Inheritance with ever decreasing taxation.
The resulting impact of all of these trends is to enrich the most talented and educated at the expense of capitalism's "losers." Brooks makes the claim that the small elite professional caste somehow prevents the masses from making more money. That is nonsense. The reality is that there are just not enough high paying jobs being created by our economy.
The solution? How about having a strong federal government that works to balance the playing field to give the masses more equal opportunity? How about a strong federal government to oversee an enhanced public school system to prepare our children to more effectively compete with the elite? How about a strong federal government that regulates the economy to prevent the corrosive growth of monopolies?
2
I don't understand this argument. These schools are "exclusive" because they have HUGE applicant pools. People WANT to go to them. They can't admit everyone who applies. Most colleges and universities in the country have higher acceptance rates because they don't have nearly the number of applicants; in order to maintain enrollment levels, they have to accept more students. It's not some sort of benevolence. It's supply and demand. I'm not that familiar with A.S.U but I'm guessing a lot of their expansion has to do with online programs, non-traditional students, and commuters; even if they're gigantic, they can only cope with so many physical bodies on their campus.
3
Doc Markovits' refers to a corrupted system that denies qualified people a fair shot (i.e., people admitted and/or hired to join exclusive circles of power and prestige for their socioeconomic pedigree, not qualifications - over more qualified people who lack the pedigree). The reader has no ideas, at the outset, that he uses the term 'meritocracy' ironically.
Doc M's ideas are an easy sell; clearly more people are left out than let in. Proposed solution too, is intuitively appealing (top universities double and triple enrollment). No one would argue that, if the top 100 Univs double their graduates, everyone is better off.
Which raises the question about the validity of the proposed solution: Has the large number of free (and excellent) universities in Germany reversed the 'traps of meritocracy'?
I ask on behalf of not the top tier institutions, but those situated in the bottom half - who turn away virtually no one at all as long as they can pay tuition. If we double our enrollment to reverse perils of meritocracy (a notion that does not have a real world analog because the paying students just aren't there, and schools are overtly dependent on tuition and not endowments), the distance between the highest ability and lowest ability kid in the class will be so large, that any kind of curriculum and instruction will frustrate everyone.
Ruing over, and celebrating the problems of a corrupted meritocracy is one thing. Reliable and valid solutions are something else.
David, though I love your enlightened view on our culture, I've never heard you admit that you are a part of it's evolution. What we need is Republicans to come out and admit that they were wrong in thinking that the all mighty dollar was going to be the answer to our problems. And, I am not saying that Jesus is the answer either. Creating a culture based on the GNP is the problem. What would be the opposite? Creating a culture based on the well being of people and the rest of the planet is the right answer.
1
FWIW, the top three universities (per the World University Rankings 2019) in the United States are not Ivy League. In order, the schools are: Stanford, MIT, and Cal Tech. Assuming that Stanford is in this list due to their extensive work in AI, engineering, and sciences... I don't see any of these schools "radically expand its institution(s) and open access to its bounty." Either students can prove they can do the work, or they don't. I really do not see them giving slots in their incredibly competitive AI/engineering/science programs to someone with "lower" grades for the sake of a being a diversity admit. Conversely, these same schools are less likely to "bought out" by very well to do parents in exchange for admission. Just imagine how devestating it would be to MIT's engineering repuatation that a student's admission was paid for by their parents and is known to have poor grades and performance?
Also, to note: these schools demographics are much like the top-performing specialized NYC high schools. Just saying.
3
One tiny step in the right direction would have been to refer to Yale as the "most exclusive law school" rather than the "best."
3
There's just one problem with this point fo view. We don' t have a Meritocracy. If we did, tRump wouldn't be in the Oval Office. Everybody knows it's not necessarily what you know, but who you know.
5
weird stuff, all backwards.
The people who have all the money only want ivy grads to guard it. Fundamentally, there are very few good jobs available because they are all focused on the narrowest goals - preserving the rich folks money. Investment in basic research, regional infrastructure, public health is at all time lows.
People with wonderful ideas at ASU and OSU and local colleges have very little access to serious capital and marketing savvy. States have cut taxes so they cannot support incubators or stable long-term funding to these efforts.
2
If David Brooks had actually understood Daniel Markovits' book, he'd know that "meritocracy" as he, Brooks, uses it -- without irony -- would be more accurately described as luck, privilege and hereditary entitlement.
And no, I don't care long the day is at Goldman Sachs. Or whether their bankers are "super-skilled" at putting together collateralized debt securities. And we even inquire whether anyone who can't distinguish Mahler from Brahms or Dickens from Joyce can be fairly described as "highly-educated".
But it seems that, ever few weeks, Mr. Brooks feels compelled to write another column explaining that he actually deserve his wealth and megaphone.
7
David (and all), another approach - since you mention ASU's online presence - is to do more with technology to manage the foundational knowledge needed. Former Harvard Dean of Social Sciences and educational entrepreneur has applied the principles of human sciences to the business problem of limited access to Associates degrees (AA). He and the staff of foundrycollege.org have built an instructor-led approach that uses technology to recognize and guide groups of students with similar profiles, dealing with the 'bell curve' problem of large classes having students with a wide range of capabilities. We can look at a technical approach to also help bring in new classes of students who did not receive the lifetime of cultural expectation of college that some families bring to their children.
2
@JJ Sorry, I forgot to mention the name - Dr. Stephen Kosslyn - who designed the approach to foundrycollege.org and other educational innovations like Minerva Schools. It is a model for mass education needed, I think, for our increasingly technocratic and complicated world shifting to knowledge workers.
So what's the problem? Elites are acting like elites and the rest of us go to state schools or into trades. I don't see a crisis here. The rich are not the enemy.
If Brooks's lays out a problem (if), he also lays out a solution: ASU.
Here's to the Jared Kushner's of the world, moving through elite circles, living an amazing life, yet, in the end, is just another realtor.
Time to re-read Vonnegut's Player Piano.
5
I’m 74 and retired, and I want to attend Arizona State!
191
@Frank Church
No, you don't really want to attend ASU. It's smoke and mirrors. Look carefully at the details, some of which are mentioned in comments. The folks in charge are monetizing the university.
If you are lifelong learner, watch Great Courses or find good websites. Or check out extension courses at your local university or college. ASU does not serve their students; they serve themselves. Sad!
16
@Frank Church
Easy to do. Go to EdX.org and take a course for free! And if you want to convert it to college credit at a later date you can. Really.
They allow students to take some intro courses online for free and if you followed their preparatory instructions and you obtain a "C" or better, you are allowed to then apply for credit to ASU.
Go for it!
15
@Frank Church: they have some of their courses online at Cousera dot org. Check to see if ASU online would offer you free tuition as a retiree.
9
Big Business makes money by hiring the most talented people they can find. They are not dumb enough to think that this talent only comes from elite colleges. They know how to test potential employees, no matter where they got their degrees, and they know high talent when they see it.
2
This piece reeks of envy and acts as though you cannot be successful, happy, and content without access to exclusive and elite education. This is utterly ridiculous and shamelessly materialistic. One can be happy and fulfilled without requiring the best of everything, I certainly didn't, and most people I know are not stewing in perpetual resentment over not being able to go to some east coast school, though some of them were probably bright enough to have got in they'd tried.
There are many things you will never be able to accomplish or experience in your life through no fault of your own. Learning to accept this is part of maturity. You can't always get what you want. Forgive me for not shedding a tear over wannabe-elites who didn't get into Harvard or Yale, I'm sure they'll be fine with their second or third choice, a still very prestigious school better than what most people can aspire to.
Maybe some people just need some perspective and to stop coveting the success of others.
5
@Joel How soon should drastically underpaid nurses stop feeling annoyed about the grossly overpaid physicians they work with?
Great progress, David. Now when you write about what you see and experience when you are immersed most days in the elite meritocracy, please stop attributing those maladies to the entire society. And please guard carefully against your perceptions being clouded by elite meritocracy group-think. And definitely please try to curb temptations to just reflexively cut loose with elite meritocracy epithets — you have great skills at digging down to the real facts (e.g., this column) and writing in a carefully considered and thoughtful voice. And we need more of that.
2
This is one of the few times that I agree with your sentiments. However, look at the parallel stories coming out about exclusive meritocries; i.e. the Lori Lochlan, Felicity Huffman, et al. stories. Look at Jeffrey Epstein and his fellow pedophiles, (we'll see who they are) but they are all from the exclusive meritocricies. Look at Boeing and its coziness with the FAA, or anyone in this administration's associations with Saudi Arabia and Russia. It's not just that members of the exclusive meritocracy ( I question whether they are a meritocracy at all) work harder it's that they are so corrupt and feel so insulated from any punishment for their behavior, that they have established an entire separate country where lawyers and judges keep them out of jail (Trump, Epstein, Wilbur Ross and probably thousands of others) elite universities accept their money for yet another building, and then accept their mediocre children into elite programs where these mediocre children become political and business leaders, lawyers and doctors and the whole quality of our country is diminished because of this constant inbreeding. It's not just higher education (I would never allow my child to go to Harvard, MIT or Stanford), they're rotten to the core. One more note: the exclusive meritocracy does NOT work harder than the rest of us. They delegate.
7
Meritocracy - A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
I don't see how buying your way into an elite college fits this definition. The advantage of an elite college is the contacts you make there. You are liable to meet people who will be involved in running the government and will be very valuable to your future.
3
America has never had a meritocracy except in a very few places and that depended on who was there making it happen. Otherwise it is just as corrupt as it always has been.
Note- One ploy of those who try their best to prevent meritocracy from becoming the norm is to identify those folks who do naturally begin to rise up by their merit and make efforts at diverting them and manipulating them to keep them from the trajectory they are on.
1
@magicisnotreal
These diversions often appear to be advancements like praise for normal things, raises and promotions into positions in which it will be much harder to look as good making it seem to all that the potential that showed itself was not what it seemed.
1
Maybe...
I would argue that the complete lack of leadership with integrity is what is tearing us apart. We have NP clearly grasping power with an iron hand to refuse impeachment when it has been clear that it was the appropriate response to DT's actionable behavior. We have MM refusing to do his job and stealing SCOTUS seats without consequence. We have Second Amendment fury and warped representatives telling Democratic presidential candidates that their "AR is waiting" for them. Provocations abound... civility, common sense and mature responses to incredibly impactful societal nightmares are tossed aside to position oneself politically. I often struggle with the far left 's passion and their language that reflects a lack of maturity, but I am increasingly more worried about the provocations, death threats and vitriol,t in response to people who might use better judgement when they make statements. Forgiveness is a Christian value. Compromise is necessary for governing. We will not survive as a Democracy if this continues. I would ask that those who find their passion in keeping this vitriol going rethink their stances. This is not America.We have let those who want to keep power and/or weaken us divide us. We will lose everything because we forgot who we are. Anyone who fought and died for this country, who died to end fascism who fought to assure our independence from tyranny is being spit on. This is not America
2
The human animal cannot resist any opportunity to preen and peacock for local observers after accomplishing a hard task or achieving an important goal. It is built into our social genetic code that members of any group will strive to appear successful within their social grouping. It is the essence of leadership to crave being followed by significant numbers of those with faith in the leader’s resume as advertisement of fitness to lead, just as followers crave to be leaders. No one works a lifetime just to survive and follow an ordained leader or to be ignored compared with others striving to enter the leadership class in some definitive fashion. Anyone participating and succeeding in an ‘open meritocracy’ assumedly does so in order to be considered to be like those in the more ostentatious ‘elite meritocracy’ and hopefully someday to be considered ‘elite’ at something respected cohorts can follow. In essence every human in today’s world strives for & works toward leadership status at something; otherwise what’s the point of any immersion in the modern world economy locally or globally if not to succeed and be revered for one’s accomplishments. No one other than off-grid survivalists puts major effort into simply maintaining a static position in life. There will always be ‘elites’ in any group of human beings striving to maintain advantage over those worker bees less favored by birth origin. Society’s real goal must be to limit the social distance between workers & the elite.
2
I am about to retire from an elite (top 20) university, and never have I read a truer statement than Mr. Brooks's comment, "The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we're all good people."
298
@JAL--I have no idea what this means. Translation?
12
@JAL A neighbor of mine staked one of those signs in her front yard about everyone being welcome at her home.........gay, Muslim, refugee,etc. We live in an all white neighborhood with no refugees or Muslims. Those people won't ever see that sign in our neighborhood.
Safety pins anyone?
23
@JAL
Good People are deserving people, right? So it's natural to minimize the spin of the wheel of Fortuna, by emphasizing one's goodness, one's natural right to all that glitters.
7
The example of the cardiologist earning more than a nurse is a poor one to choose. At this time a cardiologist spends 8-10 years in training ( after the first 4 years of college) and runs up staggering costs (a million?) in tuition. He/she will start earning and paying off those debts in his/her mid 30’s?
Let’s look perhaps at what we pay the CEO in comparison to the average worker.
7
@Joan
Coworker's daughter is a neonatal nurse. Earning >$150,000 a couple years out of school. No significant debt.
Meritocracy is what higher education should be all about. No legacy admissions, no affirmative action, just merit. The Asian American student population is a great example of the beauty of meritocracy and hard work. Efforts to place a quota on Asian American students because there "too many" of them, such as the quota allegedly implemented by Harvard, are racist and antithetical to the American Dream.
6
Dear Mr. Brooks,
A meritorious essay! Wouldn’t it be grand if we could become a nation of butterflies rather than vultures? Pollinators generating fields of flowers rather than cowardly succulents who hoard all the water and wear a suit of armor brimming with needles?
Perhaps a nation of cacti may yet yield to a culture of shared compassion.
Yes, and perhaps gravity will lighten up and relinquish its grip.
But a lovely story nonetheless, sir.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
2
This is quite perceptive, and the open paradigm is the answer to the reactionary populist anti-intellectualism that grips a certain self-serving mob that wears red caps.
3
David, please have a look at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine. Dedicated to moving minorities through med school and into internships in prestigious institutions. Located near the Apollo Theater. Ask for Dr. Robert Goldberg.
1
It's a bit laughable to say that anything about US education is meritocratic. From the first day of kindergarten, a child's school is funded based on the value of the houses in the neighborhood. We entrench inter-generational poverty in an anti-meritocratic fashion from day one.
16
There's the old quip, "Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you've got it made!"
The same goes for intelligence and academic merit. I don't know how many math teachers I've heard complain about their students knowing how to work equations while knowing nothing of why they were doing it, how to apply it, or what it meant.
Certain kinds of students who are supported with certain kinds of parents who have the means to send their kids to certain kinds of schools, basically put their childhoods (and, later, their social and emotional lives) on hold while they work on building their college resumés in order to work hard and grade grub for eventual applications to high-paying, prestigious jobs. They are very sad and calculating people, and many of them fail in all aspects of life.
If we always focus on ends while forgetting about the means, then we end up as paper tigers living the legends in our own minds.
8
Only Brooks would count the stocks received by CEOs as "labor income." He, in effect, reviews Markovits, but doesn't understand Piketty. In America, "Merit" simply means you have money, and whether that money - income and wealth - is merited is just ignored. Just ask The Donald!
5
Mr. Brooks’ point about wealth inequality is well taken.
But what is the point of gratuitous, unsubstantiated claims like:
“The more the exclusivity the thicker will be the coating of P.C. Progressivism to show that we are all good people.” ? Donald Trump is a product of that exclusivity. Nor are his country club pals.
And why talk about the top quintile of workers? The lawyers and medical professionals work hard. But most of them are not in the elite .01%, who with a few notable exceptions, inherited their fortunes. And there are many who put in long hours but don’t come home with fat paychecks.
Why find more grounds for divisiveness? Is it impossible for Mr. Brooks to praise and lift up those who aren’t born to great wealth and privilege without exacerbating divisions?
3
There's only one remedy to this problem, David, and that is the type of policies being proposed by some of the Democratic presidential candidates, like Warren and Sanders. Tax the successful meritocrats- God bless 'em!- and use the proceeds to help the rest of us pay for health care, college, early child care, and increased social security. Give the struggling middle class the tools they need to succeed without putting them in debt. That will improve lives across the board.
4
Isn’t this what Edward Blum’s “Students for Fair Admissions“ is doing? And what about former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s legacy of leaving in NYC the most segregated public school system in the country? Those students don’t have a ghost of a chance, which is probably the point on both points mentioned above.
1
The sentence that stood out the most for me is: "The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people." Progressive political correctness and diversity is a facade. The progressives pay enough lip-service to make it seem like they are open and welcoming, but they expect the unwashed masses to embrace political correctness and diversity. The unwashed masses should reject the tyranny of the elites.
3
@Southern Boy: ‘The unwashed masses’? I suppose it would be ‘p.c.’ to point out the arrogance.
Why is it that ‘conservatives’ and Trump true believers like ‘Southern Boy’ consider garden variety human decency and respect for others is an undesirable ‘liberal elitist’ trait, while lying, bullying, vulgarity, corruption, fraud and hypocrisy are uniquely suited to ‘conservatism’ and its faithful flock? To quote Fearless Leader, ‘Sad!’
The very name southern boy from Csa sends chills down my spine, as does the attack on progressives, which in context is a clear call for white privilege
" The need for higher education is greater than ever, so A.S.U. has rapidly expanded to meet that need. Between 2013 and 2018, undergraduate enrollment rose by 45 percent. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of engineering students grew to 22,400 from about 6,400.
Who is teaching all these extra students? Have they added faculty? What is the quality of the instruction of these 3x extra engineering students and about 2x extra students in general?
2
Brooks apparently thinks that members of the 1% belong to "labor" when talking about pay distribution. Actually "labor" is more or less by definition those who do not have unique skills, training or other advantages such as being born in the right families. What has been spinning out of control is the way that capital, as represented largely by CEO's (no, they are not "labor"), has been reversing the advantages that labor had gained by collecting bargaining and political action. Income and wealth inequality have been increasing because of the increased political power of the capitalist class, not because some of them work harder or more efficiently.
2
I'm struggling to understand how one could spend 10 million on one's child. An elite boarding school like Exeter is 50K, presumably the best daycare/preK wouldn't exceed that, so 900K for the first 18 years. Throw in full freight with room and board at Harvard is 70K so 280K. Harvard law 100K/yr x3 another 300K. Note Ph.D students usually get comped their tuition plus a stipend so this is an upper limit. So that's 1.5M for education. Throw in awesome summer camps and enrichment, 20K/yr=360K. Tutors, 10K/yr, so 180K. Nannies for the first 10 year, 30K/yr, 300K. Still can't get much passed 2M. Where else could you spend? Massive university donations to gain admissions? Seed capital for their businesses?
2
Brooks argument, while generally correct, is also fundamentally misleading. There is American meritocracy, an attempt at equal opportunity for all, which is a very good thing. And then there is American aristocracy -- the perpetuation of wealth and privilege over the generations -- which is what Brooks is really railing against, and is indeed a very bad thing. However, given his conservative political leanings, Brooks cannot bring himself to call this crucial distinction by its true name.
4
The road to a higher education or a marketable skill has become increasingly expensive. Also the lack of funding at the state level for quality education must be taken into account. There are those who would try to change this but they are branded as “too liberal “. As long as serious change is too liberal,the the status quo will remain.
2
Extreme and rising income inequality is a critical problem,but it's time to dispense with the notion that this is all about admissions to a small number of exclusive colleges and universities. We need both places like Stanford and Arizona State. As for ASU, they are doing good things, but Brooks overlooks the fact that they also benefit from favorable demographics.
And Republican tax policy has made this worse, increasing inequality and moving us toward a permanent aristocracy. We tax income from capital at a lower rate than income from labor. The capital gains tax rate has to become the same as the normal tax rate. The wealthy, like the corporate raiders and other types have lobbied exceptions to turn ordinary wage income into capital gains income. The highest tax bracket has been reduced. The Republicans keep trying to eliminate the inheritance tax. Social Security taxes have an upper income cutoff. This severe effort to cater to the wealthy is a search for campaign contributions. It wasn't always like this. Eisenhower had a 90% top tax bracket. Reagan taxed capital gains at the same rate as wage income. More and more loopholes are added to our tax code to favor those with the wealth to lobby Congress.
The cardiologists' incomes are rising, compared to nurses. The cardiologists who do surgery are leaping ahead of the cardiologists who diagnose, advise, and prescribe effective medications for patients. Why? It's how the government sets Medicare reimbursement rates. It's how non-taxed, not-for-profit hospitals are regulated. Like highly paid athletes and hugely wealthy owners of sports teams, doctors' 'factory' is not taxed and paid for by donors or the public (government).
2
Not sure what does any of this have to do with meritocracy, but he lengths to which those with privilege go to maintain it are astonishing.
Consider federal courts -- I discovered in my First amendment litigation (in which I insisted that all authors get direct and equal access to the "marketplace of ideas," not just the ones with connections to third-party publishers) that federal judges simply replace in their decisions parties' argument with bogus arguments of judges' own concoction so as to decide cases the way they want to, not the way they have to. When I sued those judges for fraud, DAs who defended them pointed out that federal judges gave themselves the right, in Pierson v. Ray, to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly."
The press, to its everlasting shame, refuses to cover this outrage. Yet, this is how far the privileged go to defend their privileges. Needing to be "corrupt and malicious" does not stop them. The ends justify the means...
David Brooks makes an important point, but may have been missed by some. People groomed to go to the elite schools and then run the country are not any smarter as many have noted in the comments. What sets them apart is that these schools make them members of an elite network that controls the hiring for top jobs in many fields. As an example, look at the Supreme Court; If you didn’t go to a couple of Ivy League schools you aren’t getting in. We have created a leadership caste that nowadays, more often than not, you have to be born into.
5
I'd argue that the problem is that we DON'T have a meritocracy. People don't get ahead due to their "merit" (skills, aptitude, work ethic) but rather based on inherited wealth and the connections and privileges that come with it. The goal should be to give every child equal opportunities with an understanding that they will not necessarily have equal outcomes. Brooks, of course, doesn't want the government to have any role in this and will never admit the role that GOP policies play in keeping the 1% in power.
Instead, Brooks just seems to want to rail against "elite" institutions.
1
Maybe this article should have spoken about types of classes. I mean tutorial with written papers versus mass class with some testing. The whole thing is to get kids to gather facts, observe, evaluate and think.
1
The words "merit" and "meritocracy" are being defined falsely. What is meant by what Brooks says and what many commenters are saying and lamenting is "acceptability" or "desirability." Neither is necessarily based upon merit, though they may be, depending on the values and culture of the accepter.
Surely there are institutes of higher education that seek those who have achieved and represent merit.
Do we discount and suspect hard work and higher grades that enhance desirability for entrance into the so-called elite institutions?
Are we penalizing excellence or the aspiration toward it?
It ain't the meritocracy, it's the American Delusion that is tearing us apart, it's the devaluing of most work. It's why many argue against paying fast food workers enough to live. American capitalism has taken the idea that those who work harder and/or acquire more skills deserve more to justify giving many people less. Anyone can make it, you just have to work harder. No one expects you to flip burgers forever, it's a sort of internship for life success subsidized by corporate largesse. Of course, if every burger flipper went to night school between their 2 jobs and earned advanced skills in coding, coders would suddenly be paid like burger flippers. No wonder the "elite" fight tooth and nail to keep their position. With American capitalism, it's the only way to "deserve" to live.
2
This may be the first time I have agreed with pretty much a whole column by David Brooks. I am emeritus faculty, prestige university, prestige education and dandy success. But the nastiness of our day did not start with Trump, it started long ago and persists in the form of winner take all in parts of our society that are pretty pleased with themselves, even now, for blindingly bad reasons.
2
The question here is not to evaluate whether meritocracy is merited , the real conceptual problem is to identify meritocracy as a screen to hide the influence of capital ( also in education ) and to analyze in what way that meritocracy pursues the same ideology of capital . The capitalist ideology to name it.
The funny exemple is that argument : " yes but they actually work and they worked a lot during their studies ! "
Yes they work for the capital. Like the masses . Just as quarter masters .
But interestingly : they don't think. They cannot think.Because they are the little masters of capital. Just the grey matter .
And the intellectual level, the philosophical perlaboration in the US education is rather shallow.
1
I'm often baffled by Mr. Brooks' constant flipping from one topic to the other. Personally, I liked him better when he just did politics.
Be that as it may, as several people have pointed out, the meritocracy was always an illusion. The only time there was any kind of democratic assess to colleges and universities was after World War II when the GI Bill sent so many men who otherwise wouldn't have had a chance to attend college to college.
However, one important idea about that time and those men was that they were already a highly motivated and disciplined class of people. They had gone through the military and war and learned the necessity of determination, discipline, and plain ole gumption. When those men matriculated out of college, higher education reverted to its old ways.
Listen, college isn't for everyone. Nor should it be a sign of success. What the "meritocracy" has destroyed is the working middle class. Most people in America don't want to make $1 million a year. But they also don't want to work 80 hours a week, and they shouldn't have to. Most people want a living, a "pretty good life," and perhaps a vacation every once in a while. THAT is what's been destroyed. Who cares about rich kids and their million dollar jobs? They seem to have always done fairly well. Look at our president.
3
There is always going to be examples of organization and institutions that have good relationship with the people and communities that they touch. But it's not enough to just hope that more of society adopt a better sense of good will. Government needs to set these standards, and what we have now is a grossly inadequate system of capitalism that devalues the average worker and fails to recognize our true interconnections. We need a system that goes beyond the establishment of a flat minimum wage; one that doesn't lead to the country basically working to make a small percentage of people absurdly more wealthier and influential than everyone else.
2
The meritocracy has its merits.
I did well in school, skipping two grades before attending an elite high school which I graduated from with honors, but I was never the equal of my college classmates who excelled in math and the sciences.
You make up for this by excelling at something else. In my case, it turned out to be running homeless shelters and paying close attention to the vagaries of the stock market. For others it could be teaching or dentistry or music or cooking or playing basketball.
You do what you like to do and are able to do, work as hard as you can and hope for the best.
Now closing in hard on 80, I think back sometimes about what a fine surgeon I might have been, before speculating on the question of how many very nice people I might have done in.
4
I went to a middling state law school. My wife went to the Ivy Leagues. Having met a lot of people in both places, I can tell you there's not a whole lot of difference. There were brilliant people at the state school, and there were dullards in the Ivies.
When your applicant pool is potentially hundreds of millions of people from all over the world, there will always be far more people qualified for admission or employment than there are positions to fill. And when getting that spot means earning vastly more than the people who didn't, those left behind end up feeling not only that the process was arbitrary but so are the rewards.
This is why steep progressive taxation is perfectly fair. If you won the rat race lottery, you can afford to give back, and if you lost, it wasn't necessarily because you were less intelligent or hardworking. Redistributing the payoffs of a warped system merely restores balance and legitimacy to the system.
4
There is meritocracy, and there is inherited aristocracy.
The best predictor of future success is the socio-economic level of the parents.
4
I read the recent article in the Times interviewing Markovits and I disagree with the situation he discusses as being “Meritocracy”. Parents that invest large sums of money to send there children to elite daycare through prep-schools so that they are admitted to Harvard are simply gaming the system. Unfortunately this system is what we have. There is no guarantee that a Harvard graduate will be any more competent than a graduate of state or municipal college. True merit is what the nation really needs and the measure of this requires more than diplomas from “elite” schools.
1
The trickledown impact of elite college’s exclusivity is the proliferation of charter schools, which, in many cases result in the underfunding of public schools, once the foundation of our democracy. We have somehow reached the point where we measure our success by where we are able to travel, who our friends are and which schools our children attend. Although each of these things makes some sense individually, taken together they form the foundation of the same cultural exclusivity as we see in the top one percent, differentiated only by socio economic status. The meritocracy is present top to bottom even though the circumstances might be different.
2
There is the meritocracy, and there is the legislation that supports it. Change the legislation and the distribution of income and opportunity changes.
1
Where did all of those engineers come from who put us on the moon? I would guess that most of them didn't come from the Ivy league.
There have been huge contributions made to the US from lots of graduates from good old state U. Mr. Brooks is making much to much of the real contributions of the meritocracy
Law firms that generate $1 Million profits per partners isn't a sign of highly productive employees-it is a sign that we are a hugely legalistic society and there are a lot of people with a lot of money who need lawyers and can afford to pay them ridiculous sums much beyond their value to society.
6
It's laughable to assume most of our own princelings are the highly motivated, productive wunderkinden Brooks paints them to be. Much of that $10 million dollar investment was spent paving their way through life and if they worked hard, it was because every moment of waking life was pre-planned to produce a college entry application for the ages, a task they uncritically shouldered. Such a program has a much better chance of producing a trained seal than a fearless innovator.
410
@stan continople
A lot Is inherited, too.
19
@stan continople
Make not light of trained seals. A trained seal can become a good brain surgeon, a highly successful cardiologist. He /she can fit in easily into the meritocracy and train his/her children to be trained seals too.
13
@gratis MOST is inherited.
7
Mr. Brooks is forgetting something here. The "exclusive meritocracy" has gotten that way because that's what people want. They vote with their feet (tons of applications) and with their money (tons of cash, loans and donations). Nice neighborhoods, like colleges, are that way because people WANT to get in. All the Ivy league schools have tremendous financial resources for accepted students.
The ASU inclusion story is a good one. But as long as the elite schools are perceived as desirous, they can command elite status. That's called American market forces at work. The ASU model seems to be working as well. I see nothing ripping the country apart by having different models serve different "customers".
1
Can't disagree with anything Mr. Brooks said, though I remain puzzled about the emphasis on elite Ivy League schools. Yes, they're the "gold standard" to which ambitious young people the world over aspire--I applied to Harvard as an undergraduate, and luckily did not get accepted. But by definition, most people don't get accepted, and most people go on to live their productive lives anyway. In my case, I attended a large state university, then law school (at that same state university), and did just fine in my long career. And paid far, far, less money for my very good education. In my law practice, I often encountered lawyers who attended Ivy League schools (as undergraduates or law school), and found them to be no different in skill or intellectual ability; if anything, they were often just more annoying. So I conclued that the Ivy League thing is just branding--it's like buying a Mercedes because of it's reputation as an excellent car. But a Honda Civic really functions just as well for half the price.
716
@Steve Precisely, you are buying into a brand and the access that may bring to the upper class. Commodity fetishism as education.
43
@Steve B
This is a fantastic point and one I remind my students in as they stress out at college application time. I went to an 'elite' school for undergrad and arguably for graduate school, and have found that the best veteran teachers in my building come from the local state colleges. My wife attended the same elite college I did for her BA, but she formed far more valuable insights into her nursing career from the community college she went to for her ASN and the nurses she worked under in local hospitals.
I value the marriage, friendships, and quirkiness my alma mater nurtured, but it's 'elite' status had little to do with that and nothing to do with our careers.
34
@Steve B
Well said. I am an attorney as well and while I am impressed by the work ethic and knowledge of young attorneys from Ivy League schools, I often find there is a practical aspect to their practice of law that is missing, e.g. spending 20 hours to research and write a memo about a point of law that I can advise on in 5 minutes. Same goes for arguing before a judge (I practice mostly in state court where less judges hold Ivy credentials) or a jury.
29
Somewhere near the core of this debate is a contrast in personal goals. Some people choose to seek wealth as a primary motivation. Others chase non-monetary goals. Why act surprised that these different groups end up with contrasting incomes?
Wealth-seekers make choices that may sacrifice other benefits or pleasures. They may do work (and more of it) that gives them no intrinsic satisfaction. They might live in places that are less than happy, including multiple relocations. And yes, they probably engage in competition with others, even if they would rather not. As long as they follow the law, there is nothing ethically wrong.
Non-wealth seekers also make choices. They might follow passions into careers with much less earning potential, but with greater intrinsic rewards. They might refuse to move, or they might move to a place selected for reasons other than career. Many even reject financial goals, or simply choose not to compete.
Like it or not, these groups have to coexist.
1
@Bob Krantz The issue, sir, is the great advantage those elite meritocrats have over the less fortunate who also are wealth seekers.
2
@northwestman
So what constitutes "unfair" advantage? Almost all kids with a parent who completed a degree will be better informed about higher ed than first generation college students. Should (and how) this advantage be nullified?
And much data suggest that children with two parents fare better. Is this unfair?
The elite label is rhetorically handy, but much harder to define in reality. I predict that many who not not consider themselves elite would be labeled just that by others.
As an artist in residence I've taught at both elite institutions and state schools in backwaters, including HBCs. Over and over I found more resourcefulness, creativity, and deep thinking going on in those poorer schools. They didn't have a lot and the students had not been everywhere and done it all - but they were doing amazing work despite that. I can only imagine what they could have done with a bit more of their fair share. Yale or Harvard are not better places or smarter places. Just richer, more privileged. Rich does not automatically equal brilliant, successful or creative. And to the author - not sure how you can call elite schools 'meritocracies' when gender, racial, and class bias are always at play there from the institutional to the personal levels. If I automatically take men more seriously than women, as an example I am going to listen to them more avidly, and promote them more readily over equally qualified women. The same can be said for race. That is NOT meritocracy, it is a boy's club.
350
@Anda
But it is a meritocracy, just not in the abstract. This is how meritocracy is expressed in actual real life material conditions of our time. It's like saying ancient Greece was not a democracy because 80% of the people were slaves and could not vote, no women could vote, only property owning males could. This was democracy at that time and in those conditions, not in the abstract.
7
@Anda Your personal experience and insight behind your comments give a thoughtful perspective for me to consider—thank you! I’m not sure, however, that the biases you ascribe to the “elite” class of universities are as prevalent as the economic class of those who attend.
9
@Anda, you have to realize what the "merit" is that these "meritocracies" are valuing. A lot of the time it's money. Just money.
Which, honestly, seems to be what a lot of the country considers merit as well.
28
Am I the only one that thinks it's fine that a cardiologist makes 7X the salary as a nurse? Do we not value and reward people for learning and excelling at really hard professions anymore? What is the impetus for smart people to delay their lives to go to 4-5 years of extra schooling, and go into debt for it if they are not going to get paid for it?
4
First of all, according to the studies I have seen on the internet, socio-economic mobility in the USA is less than half of socialist Western Europe. One third of Denmark (Happiest Country on Earth).
Secondly, IMO, much of the article is about hard work as much as talent. Merit is judged by production. Production is about time as much as talent. Yeah, the guy that works 60 hours is going to way out-produce the 40 hour a week guy. Me, I had a good job and I am a bright guy, so I advanced in my company despite working only 45 or so hours a week, while others worked 50 and more. But, I wanted a real life. So, it is the time spent at work, as well as the income that is forcing workers to choose between work and a life. And, IMO, a lack of a life is also ripping America apart.
Thirdly, there are people born with very little talent. Society, in my socialist view, should value them as well, if it is to be considered civilized. All workers deserve dignity and respect, and a living wage, with healthcare, and free education in a field they can handle. There should be some minimum level of living regardless of merit. Like socialist Denmark has.
6
Not so long ago there were many local papers with many local writers, many of whom could presumably make a good living. Now there are a small number of papers with vast scale, with writers (such as Mr. Brooks) who have a large influence and presumably make a very good living.
The rest of the economy is undergoing a similar change, with a relatively small number of people able to operate at a very large scale (hedge fund managers managing billions, computer scientists working on sites that will be used by hundreds of millions), as broad swaths of people find much of their work outsourced or automated.
Making excellent education accessible to more people may solve part of the problem (and is beneficial in its own right), but won’t address the deeper changes to technology and the economy that are leaving millions underemployed, frustrated, confused, and prone to demagogues proffering false narratives. Until we have policy changes that provide a basic and stable standard of living for all people, a cultural change in which people do not find their primary identity and value in work that might one day disappear, and politicians and pundits that explain to people in depth what’s truly going on, we may be in for a wild ride.
381
@Alex
Interesting isn't it. That as the world population grows there are fewer "opportunities" for everything then there were before... except maybe in Hollywood, the entertainment industry. Do we even have free market capitalism -- competition is out the window with Walmart, Amazon, you name it... and in a way so is choice... There is less and it's not more.
21
@Alex: A market produce winners and also-rans. The also-rans get by, but for the winners, success breeds success and they eventually control the system, turning the also-rans into losers who struggle but do not advance.
Oligarchy and serfdom are the natural end points of a free market, unless it is designed to prevent that outcome. The government is the only effective countervailing force to make it happen. Seen in that context, the radical right's phrase "government is the problem" can be seen in an entirely different light.
34
@Alex
Good points. A key sentence in brooks piece. "When Instagram was bought by Facebook for $1 billion, it had only 13 full-time employees." A college education is no guarantee of a good job. Focus on a competitive, for employers, field is key" Many new economy jobs employ far fewer workers but there are some areas where opening outnumber applicants and that are set to grow. Medical research. Bioengineering. Skilled trades should not be overlooked either. As Andrew Yang stated, you won't see a robot plumber anytime soon. There is a a lot of aging infrastructure that will be replaced an ungraded over the next decades. That work cannot be outsourced and requires more than muscle power.
12
" Faculty members are treated less as scholars within rarefied disciplines and more as interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneurs."
I cannot figure out what an "interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneur" is, although it seems to make Mr. Brooks and A.S.U happy. It is ranked 117 in national (US) universities, i.e. for all the hullabaloo here, there are many state universities and private universities ahead of it.
No disrespect to Mr. Brooks but he gets fixated on an idea and much in terms of logic falls by the wayside.
"The goal (= of the faculty of A.S.U.) is immediate social impact as much as expanding knowledge, so, for example, A.S.U.’s Watts College of Public Service & Community Solutions is enmeshed with local residents to transform a Phoenix neighborhood."
40 years in higher education (albeit far far away from Arizona) and I never thought that I should be seeking social impact for my classes and students. I thought teaching critical thinking and leading students to first steps (or more) in research was what faculty did.
Time to retire and I do so still believing in standards, merit and excellence and I will never be an interdisciplinary intellectual entrepreneur.
There are more types of meritocracies out there, Mr. Brooks, than you describe in your straw-man black and white presentations.
383
@Joshua Schwartz. There are something line 4000 colleges and universities in the US. U.S. News & World Report ranks about 1400 of those.
Coming in 117 as a not-particularly exclusive school with little historical name recognition seems pretty respectable.
24
@Joshua Schwartz: The fact that you cited US News & World Report College University rankings basically shows you're not thinking critically about the quality of education and that it should change, of which many a credible writer and professor has validly criticized for being subjective and all not that helpful in gauging quality (Google The Atlantic's Education section article, "Your Annual Reminder to Ignore the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings" for a sample of the critiques.)
Why do you think it's a zero sum game that if ASU strives to effect "immediate social impact as much as expanding knowledge" then they're not "teaching critical thinking and leading students to first steps (or more) in research"?
Maybe you need to employ some critical thinking in how higher education needs to evolve to adapt to the changing societal needs.
31
@Joshua Schwartz
"I thought teaching critical thinking and leading students to first steps (or more) in research was what faculty did."
You're wrong- or at least half-wrong. Yes, teaching critical thinking is a core objective, but research? Not necessarily so. A MSW program, for example, turns out social workers attempting to make the community a better place.
Though not necessarily a fan of community work myself, if one's objective is to improve the community via one's own research, is it not logical to actually work in the communities themselves to positively impact them? If I am teaching an undergrad course in urbanization, doesn't working with that city help teach - and understand - what urbanization is at the foundational level? If I'm teaching architecture, doesn't community involvement teach me the impact a design has on community cohesiveness? The list is endless.
Not all classes - nor degrees - are philosophy. Some folks actually (physically) work for a living, interacting with their community on a daily basis.
13
I have read what Mr. Brooks and others have written of the "meritocracy" for some time now, and I may have a somewhat different view of the meaning of a "meritocracy" than what some of those who have replied to this current article. While having social mobility based on what a person can do, his/her skills and not on the chance of birth is what we think of as a meritocratic system, a "meritocracy" in the strictest sense of the word. That is what America presented to the world in contrast to the old "European" social system. However, now, I believe that when Brooks and others discuss our "meritocracy", they refer to the rigidity that has developed in the system wherein only those who have the right "academic pedigree" are considered to have merit. Consequently, the value of other experiences, institutions, backgrounds are de-valued. resulting in concentration of graduates from "the Ivies" in the choice law firms, on the Supreme Court, as CEOs, etc., and increasing and perpetuating the concentration of wealth in America in the few and not the many. As a result, there is LESS (upward) social mobility in America in comparison to the old European countries. This is the harm caused by American "meritocracy" commented on by Mr. Brooks. We must come back to the ideal expressed in the Declaration Of Independence and in our Constitution that all people have intrinsic vale and that our social structure should respect this value and nurture its growth in all people.
4
Attributing "P.C. progressivism" to the wealthy exclusivists is unfounded here and seems arbitrary, but I don't know those folks and Brooks does, so I'll take his word for that. However, to call their closed system of privilege and outsized incomes a "meritocracy" when it is greed and corruption is a debasement of values.
1
Here is a better question to pose: why do we have a system of higher education that certifies a small group of people as excellent or beyond and certifies that vast majority as, what?, okay?
It is a legacy of the way higher education started in America. The oldest schools were largely the province of the wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the population could afford, in human capital terms, to take four full years of additional education after high school. Aside from those pursuing professional degrees, colleges were where the rich sent their offspring to mingle and engage in modest involvement in scholarship before assuming their natural positions in finance, corporate leadership, government or running the family business.
The idea that Harvard or Penn or any of the Ivy League schools, or western counterparts like Stanford, prepare people for excellence is an idea built at least partially on a self fulfilling prophecy: if you send the richest kids to these schools, is it surprising they get rich or assume leadership positions? If you can, in turn, carefully select from almost the entire graduating class of the nation, is it surprising that those students do well and share energy with others like themselves?
This system is, in fact, a knock-off of the British/Euro system whereby the "upper classes" certify their kids to stay that way. Yes, it has changed and expanded, but not that much.
Sooner or later we have to look at the roots of a system of intentional inequality.
464
@Doug Terry the oldest schools were also primarily male only.
19
@Doug Terry-In Silicon Valley, investment in startups still seems to follow who most went to school with and/or mingle with at work. 'Most' = men. Insular again.
23
Exactly. Let’s not forget Harvard was originally about certifying and cementing the bonafides of elite society. It’s transition into an education institution didn’t necessarily leave the roots of exclusion behind, it just camouflaged and obscured them.
36
Brooks's comparison of Piketty's argument with Markovits's needs unpacking. The former's argument is that inequality is being driven mainly by the shift of income from labor to capital. In other words, Paris Hilton's wealth is increasing because the interest on her capital is greater than the rate of economic growth--r>g. Markovitz, he says, argues that most of the increase in income of the top one percent is caused by shifts in income within labor.
Both could be going on. Paris Hilton doesn't work, so her steady increase in wealth can't be explained by Markovits's argument. On the other hand, the large increases in the incomes of managerial labor--Robert Iger's, Mary Barra's--can.
3
@Diogenes I should add that the way to find out whether Piketty's or Markovitz's ideas account for more inequality is by undertaking a quantitative analysis
"Anyone can lead, anytime, anywhere."
Well, no. Our current President proves that.
Nor is leadership "an activity." Being a leader is a quality, and the fact is it is a quality that the majority don't possess. Even fewer possess the ability to be a great leader. That's not a criticism; it's just reality. One's potential to lead can be discovered over time, and it certainly can be nourished and encouraged, but it is a relatively rare quality. Those who aren't leadership material undoubtedly have other areas they do excel in (everyone has their gifts).
But the insistence that anyone can be a leader is as good as an example as you'll find of the flaws with the anti-meritocracy arguments. The brand of "inclusivity" pedaled by this movement is actually quite disempowering; rather than encourage people to find and nourish their own strengths, it sells the fantasy that anyone can excel at anything. That kind of thinking points people away from doing the hard work of self-examination, of seeing themselves honestly, and recognizing and choosing to focus on what they actually have to give in favor of providing them an opportunity to pretend to be something they're simply not.
I support a universal basic income of a sufficient amount to allow everyone to meet their needs for food, shelter and other necessities, but I also would certainly allow those who are willing to work "phenomenally hard" or who show exceptional inherent talent to reap the appropriate rewards.
2
I always wonder what helpful subject students are not learning while they are learning "organizational" skills.
3
Kudos to ASU - a truly democratic institution.
Americans should face up to the fact that they have always had a meritocracy where the rich play be their own rules and take more than their fair share while the rest are left to battle the obstacles to success that have been put in place by the ruling classes to ensure their privileges are not threatened by "the great unwashed".
I still find it immensely ironic that a country whose wealth depends in large part on white folks using black folks as slaves has the audacity to call it's chief organ of law and democracy, the "white" house.
America will not change much or not at all until the rich "owners" give back what they have taken. The old saying still goes; The price of privilege is poverty.
2
Define merit. Lawyers only make a load because no one can vet their work, or jaw down price, or sue them for incompetence. Objectivity is too hard to judge and judges have a conflict of interest in the matter. The cronyism edge is insuperable. Avoidance, the only remedy.
Assaulting merit is an odd appeasement from a once conservative.
1
And some people aren’t really well suited to either meritocracy and deserve to have a decent life as something more than a member of a desperate underclass. Maybe Yang has a plan for that? The meritocracies have value, but they aren’t the only value. There is more to being human.
5
Exclusive meritocracy! Now I've heard it all.
This is a strange and unfamiliar definition of "meritocracy" being introduced here, one that is apparently built on wealth and privilege, the textbook antithesis of meritocracy. What purpose is being served by torturing the word like this?
4
It always strikes as weird me how the conversation always spins around the 'best law school' or 'best percentile' or 'best education'.
If 'best' is truly the goal of all our institutions, companies, agencies and what have you, why is the country in such a bad shape?
Time to redefine 'best' as the superlative we strive for the commonwealth, and not the individual.
Socialism didn't work. But neither is this individual-oriented hyperperforming capitalism. of the very few.
Time for some major resetting back to the common sense middle.
4
The author's point is actually well-made. There are two competing "meritocracies": one based on money, power and influence, the other on knowledge at the service of the community. The two "meritocracies" are at war for the 'soul' of America (and a large part of the world). You are measured, as a human being, by the side that you choose
1
Well, Mr. Brooks, if you must believe all this to divert yourself from what the GOP has done over the last decades to destroy meritocracy and the upward economic path, then fine.
I hope this fantasy comforts you.
1
The "exclusive meritocracy" seems to be about three parts hereditary plutocracy and one part meritocracy.
1
Brooks has done no systematic work to establish a leftist predominance among super-highly paid professionals. Wall Street types, in my experience, are NOT liberals. If they vote for Dems, they’re, voting for the Clinton type, “third way,” pro-biz. They are NOT progressives. They are not for redistribution.
1
The issue is "Followship". Elite learning environments stress leadership at every level, which in and of itself separates us into caste classes, rigid and determined often at birth. They're the leaders and we're not.
Everyone wants to be the leader. But with so many leaders where will the followers come from? Hence "Followship", not dissimilar to open-air slavery.
We need schools that stress "Followship".
The right -- and David Brooks is very much a member of the right -- would like you to believe the "meritocracy" is something imposed on the country by the left. That's why this column contains the ridiculous dig that the more meritocratic any particular group is, the more they will spout "p.c. progressivism". Ha! Has Brooks applied for a job at Citibank or Goldman Sachs or Citibank recently? Talk about exclusive meritocracies. Guess what? The reason people work hard to get their kids into good schools is that there are too many kids and too few good schools. The problem is simple: limited resources. And the reason resources are limited is that the hereditary rich (read: inherited money from Daddy, like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump's children) don't want to pay enough taxes to fund good schools and parks and libraries so that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in life. Then Brooks tells us we should be "inclusive" like ASU. What an insulting argument. Want more places to be like ASU, Mr. Brooks? Advocate for higher taxes for the rich so that there are more good schools. Meanwhile, underpaid "elites" who teach school will continue advocating for opportunity for all. Maybe that's what you mean by "P.C. progressivism".
The description of fervent Trump supporters is spot on. They see him for what he pretends to be, still being blind to the fakery he has been all his life. Trump has been a crook all his life, selling lies about himself and his business. They would probably notice but hate liberals so much that their wishful view of Trump prevails. I’m an atheist but could still quote First John 2:10 to them: “But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.”
1
Is ASU the only great school that is not exclusive?
1
You merely scratch the surface here. Meritocracy is what this country has been since it’s inception. Most if not all those men in the Constitutional Convention were white and rich. In addition, the rich have and will fight to keep it that way. Every single institution is focused on maintaining the rich on top and whites in power. Our culture literally breathes this as it lumbers over most of us who are only wealthy want-to-be’s. College and universities merely lock in the meritocracy by controlling the standards a procedure they commandeered from the students in the Middle Ages but this could change if we simply gave standard setting back to the students. The rich need the meritocracy to control the rest of us so this will not happen.
Let's consider the actual job market.
How strange that David praises the increased output of Arizona State with no consideration of the number of jobs actually available on the job market.
Increased output of graduates is fine when there are more job opportunities than there are graduates.
But when there is an excess of graduates over the number of available jobs, one finds a strange phenomenon, the over qualification of people in lower skilled positions.
An excess of qualified job seekers merely depresses wages.
Ask your friendly bar tender or barista where, and in what subject, she or he got a college degree.
One will find the answers very interesting.
Of course, bar conversation may be a bit more sophisticated than it was in the past.
As usual, David, educated, as you are, in philosophy and questions of "human value" you avoid questions needing quantitative empirical answers.
Sorry, David, be assured, I am a fan of yours despite your glaring blind spot.
I don't understand what Brooks is arguing for - a more socialist system in which everybody earns the same thing?
1
I certainly want my doctor, or lawyer, or bridge-builder, or airplane designer to be very best possible. I'll leave you to take he doctors who are accepted because of affirmative action.
3
The word “meritocracy was coined in 1958 by Michael Young in his novel “The Rise of the Meritocracy.” He describes a dystopian society where status and worth belongs to an educational elite who achieve their position by hard work in school and getting high test scores. The results are bad.
“The more the exclusivity, the thicker will be the coating of P.C. progressivism to show that we’re all good people.”
Perhaps Mr. Brooks can explain what the heck this means. Mr. Brooks seems to have his own theory that exclusive meritocracy is the protected purview of politically correct progressives. It is inferred by this out of the blue blame that exclusive meritocracy contains bad people and broad- and forward-thinking people cover for them. Such blame makes absolutely no sense.
If the inference is correct, Mr. Brooks seems to be conflating two issues - career meritocracy and the transitional social culture between youth and adulthood represented by institutions of higher learning. The questionable assumption presented by Mr. Brooks is the latter reinforces the former, when it makes more sense to address the evolving problem of career meritocracy that pulls up the ladder of advancement, once individuals achieve high career positions, only lowering the ladder to aspirants just like themselves. At best, one can assume such narrow thinking exists across both conservative and progressive individuals.
In the conservative South, “exclusive” career meritocracy is called “the good ole boy network” and it has been going on for many decades.
Like Malcolm Gladwell, Brooks tells us what we want to hear: that the elite universities are really just rich-kid bastions of snobbish misery, or miserable snobbishness, and if only we ventured south in the U.S. News Rankings, we could finally get in touch with our Inner Real American Soul. I heard this sort of thing in the elite universities I attended, and hear it now in the epicenter of coastal elitism that I inhabit. But here's the real test for the David Brooks populists: Imagine your 18-year-old child gets in to both Princeton and Penn State. Which do..... No, I don't even need to end the sentence. And anyone who's thinking "Actually, I would steer my kid to...." is lying to himself.
And one more thing: I don't think we need to worry that the country places just too much value on educational elitism. There's a lot more sweat and many more dollars thrown at sports and botox and the travails of the Kardashians.
3
I was very poor growing up and neglected for reasons beyond a child’s control.
My mentors and my “ godmother” paid for my first year of Nurses Training and then I worked as a CNA then an LPN to achieve funds to continue at university.
My hubby was poor too and his parents gave him no help. He worked part time and paid for UConn and CCSU and when he was hired as an Accountant by the state he continued to grad. School with tuition reimbursement.
My siblings never went to college.
Our kids all have college degrees.
Legacies at Boston College
Careers started with a Community College degree
Careers started with State University degrees.
All except one of five mellenials makes a living wage. Between 60000 on up as tech professionals and in finance and the medical field. The one kid not able to live above the poverty line has a four year journalism degree NOT from an IVY or second tier school. And is now in love with a job as a veterinary tech triage nurse at an Animal Hospital.
We are now retired senior citizens.
I stayed home to raise kids without using daycare. No pensions.
My hubby was very successful and we live off an ample pension he receives.
If I wasn’t married and if my spouse had no pension we would be living on a total of $3000 per month . As it stands we help the kids and our community with funds in contributions and other family needs and wants.
Meritocracy. ?All these labels humans need to create ?
We are so destructive to our society .
Does David Brooks know that there is a vast group of Americans whose lives are based on their daily performance and that these folk, for the most part, have never attended college? Does he also know that they're the ones doing all the work? Yes, I'm talking about the "working-class" otherwise known by Brooks and his wealthy class as "the little people." He can blab on all he wants about elite schools and the privileged, but he's out-of-touch with reality and I often wonder if he even understands just how difficult life is for most working Americans. For him, it's all nice and tidy. In the real world you can be the best of the best and still not achieve your dreams no matter how hard you try.
3
Wow. This is so so offensive.
The author seems to be trying really hard to recognize his privilege, but at the same time justify it. People in his class work super hard--more than 50 hours per week! -- so they deserve their riches. Oh and they have stress at Yale Law. Clutch the pearls.
And he thinks those kids at ASU don't work 50 hour per week or more? He thinks a single parent going to a public regional college who works full time (and more) doesn't experience stress?
He almost gets it, but he won't go there. The distinction he is trying to make is one of birth. Those born to wealth have the chance to stay there. Those not born to wealth have a difficult time getting there.
3
I think people in the States - from all social strata - work harder than people in Europe, and certainly more than people in Latin America which kind of a mess now.
On the low end in the US, people are desperate. They have to work two - maybe three jobs - to make ends meet. Break even. No unions. No collective bargaining. Social Darwinism. Dog eat dog. And, I think they may even be proud of this kind of existence. Rugged individualism.
On the high end - well, all the advantages of the haute bourgeoisie. Education, social connections, inside deals. But I know some lawyers in Manhattan at big white-shoe firms that work 70-80 hours a week. That's what's expected of them. Money? Yeah. Some. But it's the partners who rake in all the money from 70-80-hour crew who does all the scut work.
Quality of life? They have it in France. In Spain. Scandinavia. Germany. Quality. It's not a big value in the US. It's quantity. I think people are working so hard - on the bottom and the top - that they don't have time to think about where they are in all this.
Meanwhile, back at rugged individualism. Nobility of hard work. Raggedy Dick. When Jean-Paul Sartre came to the US in the 50s, they showed him around - Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority - big stuff. And the cities. His take on the States: "Americans feel the most individual when they're acting like everybody else."
That might include working 70 hours/week...
1
Although your thoughtful analysis sheds light on our income inequality and fractured Republic under Trump, a true meritocracy never existed in the United States of America, since our economic wealth derived from capitalism built on the cornerstone of human slavery!
2
I read this 3 times in a vain attempt to draw a conclusion. Exclusive meritocracies are good? Bad? Open meritocracies are better? Anyway, most readers already know from their own experience that it’s hogwash. I worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years, at super successful startups and lumbering tech titans, and everywhere, everywhere, Stanford grads mingle seamlessly with Beijing U., Bangalore U., San Jose State, and Michigan State alums, and not infrequently, they all work for the company owner who dropped out of college. Where are these supposed two rigid mutually exclusive meritocracies in that world? That’s not to say that we don’t have class segregation problems, we do. But a problem with two competing meritocracies? Nothing more than a slightly interesting intellectual exercise which would be a lot more interesting with some facts and figures behind it instead of just random theorizing.
But then again, that’s what we in Meritocracy System 4 expect from Meritocracy 3C level Opinion sections.
3
Mr Brooks just showed the low conceptual level of US college education. He cites an idea developed by Thomas Piketty and he is not able to understand it conceptually.
@JPH yes publish the little bits and grits.
@JPH You missed Wallerstein.
@JPH You also missed Clearstream and CUMex about the meritocracy of the capital.
The Ivy League and Ivy League-adjacent schools operate on a "selection" as opposed to a "treatment" model. When you go to Harvard, your credential consists of the fact that you got in, not what if anything you did or learned once you got there. By contrast, A.S.U. as depicted in this very discussion-worthy column operates on a "treatment" rather than a "selection" model. How you got there is irrelevant. What you learned there is what counts. The "selection" model identifies talent; the "treatment" model develops talent.
Rather than spend a semester abroad, students at the US News and World Report "top 40" schools should consider spending a semester at a place like A.S.U. That would be a priceless learning experience.
I'm acquainted with both earn what one learns, and winner takes all. Yesterday, 9/11/20 I spoke with a working homeless woman. What little she earns is still garnished to pay student debt. Something is very wrong. I've known someone who lost her leg. She was adapting.
David, I would prefer not to be a member of any country in which parents are able and willing to invest $10 million per child, but I was born in Massachusetts so I am a life-time member.
Fortunately, it is still possible for a woman with this higher education pedigree: George Washington University (2 y), University of Houston degree in speech pathology, Rutgers University JD 1976 to become a contender in the competition to become the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party and even possibly to become president. Not a meritocracy member but literate unlike our president, apparently a meritocracy member with bad credentials.
Instead of spending your time at ASU and writing today as an influencer in its service you perhaps should have visited Sweden to learn how a country can have one of the best public health records - for all of us - in the world and can have, to use your example, cardiologists whose entire medical education is paid for, no debt.
The 3 stents in my heart were put there by 2 interventionists who certainly are not paid at the level of the American cardiologist you have in mind. They helped me contribute to the Swedish life-expectancy tables, 87 and still running. They are not members of any meritocracy.
Why not learn about them and the others who keep us healthy?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
6:09 h GMT 2019-09-13
1
I just watched a video of Daniel Markovits' Yale Law graduation address, and I never saw such a flagrant case of humblebrag that I can remember. His message consists in little more than: You are the best students ever -& by extension I am professorship's cream of the cream- but there is a downside: our achievement mania has elements of selfishness, ruthlessness & narcisissism that in the guise of "meritocracy" has effected an Animal Farm style revolution not displacing arbitrary hierarchy & domination, but substituting one (at least largely) arbitrary elite for the previous one, with mechanisms to indoctrinate (including self-indoctrinate) the new brahmins that they inherently mostly deserve their spoils, only "mostly" because hereditary wealth & privilege play a similar role to that in more traditional hereditary aristocracy. In our "meritocracy" you have to "earn" your elite status by "merit" & "achievement," but almost always inherited advantage (money, genetic intelligence, parental cultural capital & connections, or some mix of these) plays an important role. The bottom line: "don't be excessively proud of your attainments, learn to humbly, modestly attach an asterisk to them, but the truth is you are superstars & I, a superstar prof in a medieval robe, attest to it."
I never saw anybody on a rostrum so self-congratulatorily preachy, particularly in admitting his "man behind the curtain" status and acknowledging the structural corruption of a system he personifies.
2
@Anon
Just checked the book out of the library; admittedly his case is somewhat more nuanced than my summary, but the above is his essential point, which is obvious to any thinking person: "Meritocracy" is not all it's cracked up to be, and is largely a defective conceptual contrivance to begin with, that will always be embarrassed by empirical realities, especially as competition sets in. Some pigs are more equal than others. Now, some pigs get $100 billion and have the gall to pretend it's somehow deserved or "earned," just because a market process resulted in it. Again, mostly obvious to any thinking person, and I've made this case in 1500 characters in this forum 100+ times, to the point that a) I feel slightly embarrassed and my repetition, b) assume readers tired of seeing me beat this dead horse.
Funny thing is, though, he seems to think his critique original or profound. Katherine Newman in "Falling From Grace" offered it, as have dozens of others. Michael Young (whom Markovits seriously misreads) and Animal Farm give the lie to "meritocracy," though Markovits' rendition beefs up the argument with decent contemporary ethnographic and sociological observation, in a good summary of what is, again, obvious to any thinking person. "Meritocracy" as it currently operates is a gimmick to promote and justify the skyrocketing inequality on the illusion that it is "earned."
1
Here we go again....
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Markovtiz really need to look up the definition of “meritocracy”. What they are really referring to is nepotism and privilege, not meritocracy.
1
I don't think it is the meritocracy that is ripping us apart. Trump was born rich and went to nice schools. He has never had to earn anything. He and his GOP brethren are the racists that are ripping the country apart.
2
How this man can continue to conflate exclusive "meritocracy" with progressivism is beyond me. Those exclusives are more likely kleptocrats (aka Republicans) who work against any progressive policies that would lead to a more equitable society to ensure that they and their fragile offspring continue to benefit at the expense of the rest of us.
David Brooks' code words and dog whistles are growing more and more obvious. Please stop.
2
The foundations of this were first explained in he 2012 book "Twilight of the Elites
America after Meritocracy" By: Chris Hayes.
David does not rush to understanding.
2
Not so sure that Yale is the "best" law school.
Its small, so that makes it more "exclusive".
2
Will you support political candidates who want more money for public education?
1
Read ‘Distinction: A Social Critique on the Judgement Of Taste’ by Pierre Bourdieu. (It’s available through the Harvard University Press.)
If Brooks inspired your curiosity, Bourdieu will fascinate you. Cheers.
How many people are aware that "meritocracy" was coined to describe a dystopian society?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
Michael Young coined the term to describe a system that would be based on nebulous, exclusively self-perpetuating "merit" as a more palatable and ostensibly fairer alternative to the classism of previous eras. Young foresaw how easily people could be deluded by the idea that their hard work would inevitably be rewarded, and how easily those few who came to rule the new system would come to believe in their own "merited" superiority, as well as everyone else's "merited" inferiority.
Given this origin, it's amazing that "meritocracy" was ever adopted as not only a positive term, but also a model for society. It would be like reading 1984 and collectively taking away that we should be ruled by Big Brother.
1
Meritocracy is a term that ought to be retired. Mostly it’s become a Conservative slur, a way to separate Real Americans from people they don’t understand or, more accurately, whose policies they don’t like.
Meritocracy (based on association)
Clinton (Yale)
Obama (Harvard)
Warren (Harvard)
Not Meritocracy
Trump (UPenn)
Brooks (U Chicago)
Bannon (Harvard)
Using the word meritocracy is a convenient straw man to keep the discussion on the person and off the issue. If you want to talk about housing policy, talk about housing policy instead instead using a small group of California NIMBYs as representative of everyone. If you want to talk about climate change, talk about climate change instead of Al Gore’s airline mileage.
But, the problem for Conservatives/Republicans is that they don’t want to talk about those things. So, they fling the word meritocracy around in the hope that it will shut everyone up.
1
When on vacation, run-of-the-mill Asians without the educational credentials swing on over to Cambridge to visit Harvard as if it were the Eiffel Tower and Big Ben. They take selfies at the gate and they buy and wear the school emblem garments purchased at the bookstore the others buy NE Patriots merchandise. They wear the shirts around their neighborhoods in NY and NJ and Beijing and Shanghai as if they were connected while it is no different than a Mickey Mouse logo.
1
Mr. Brooks notes that "A cardiologist used to earn four times as much as a nurse; now it’s seven times as much." There's no word on when "used to" is, so these data are largely useless, but the CBO document "Trends in Family Wealth, 1989 to 2013"
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51846
notes that, in 2013, "Average wealth was about $4 million for families in the top 10 percent ... families at or below the 25th percentile were $13,000 in debt." This is not a ratio of 7 to 1, this is a ratio of 4,000 to -13.
If Mr. Brooks wants to find the source of this inequality, he'll have to look elsewhere than the training of the cardiologist relative to the training of the nurse.
While he's looking under the rug at one of his two elements of perceived "meritocracy", there's a 4,000 to -13 elephant standing in the room.
1
The Elite colleges have always been there and will always be there.
It's not just ASU, but NMSU serves first in family students, women and minorities. The engineering college has programs in innovation, tutoring and leadership plus special scholarships to help students graduate. Many of these land grant universities, started by Abraham Lincoln contribute the largest part of our economy. https://engr.nmsu.edu/elc/.
1
What the heck is Brooks' point? Harvard and Stanford would be better places if only there were fewer applicants?
1
People able to invest $10 million in a child's upbringing are already at the highest level of wealth. They are not meritocrats, but they are a major cause of wealth inequality.
A meritocratic system means that kids from low-earning families (I was one) can, with hard work, achieve a higher standard of living, say from the 30th percentile as a child to the 70th percentile in middle age. This mechanism is what makes the U.S. unusual, or perhaps unique, and is not the source of an evil income inequality.
According to several economists, Thomas Piketty's analysis was deeply flawed because it did not include the value social security, Medicare, welfare and other payments received by laborers.
1
Though Brooks doesn't mean it to, this column reads like a covert argument for the humanities.
He's appalled by exclusive meritocracy. His solution? Letting meritocracy cast a wider net, to enmesh more and more people in its myths of "leadership," entrepreneurship, more money, more success, more more more, not for the elite few but for everybody.
How is this supposed to work? Have you ever watched a room full of leaders trying to lead each other? How central is entrepreneurship, really, to a successfully shared social world of hundreds of millions? How many more salespeople do we really need?
No, what we need is not an expansion of the ills that drive the elite crazy. We need recognition, best conveyed by human knowledge--philosophy, history, music, poetry, arts--that "success" as defined in the US now is radically partial and deformed.
Only an education re-centered on the humanities can save us.
1
Fascinating article; I knew of ASU's online presence from seeing it on Coursera (full disclosure: I am taking one ASU course online but otherwise have no affiliation with or allegiance to it), but I had no idea of the direction it was taking to serve underserved communities. It seems like higher education, especially public education, should be all about this.
2
Mr. Brooks, first let us re-define what we mean by "labor." A software engineer at a super attractive start-up, or a cardiologist are not in the same bracket as a Starbucks' barista. One of my kids took the latter path to graduate from A.S.U.'s online degree program. While we are hopeful for her future, she is currently not making much more than $ 15 an hour. The money has gone to money at such a hugely accelerated rate, that our world is barely recognizable from 50 years ago.
4
When the tax system was changed by Reagan and the tax cuts of Bush II had no effect in the changing hierarchy of the classes?
2
I hope that the veneer of intelligence and ability that attending a “selective school” conveys is starting to crack. This is really on us- the regular folks from the working and middle classes- to stand up in our lives and reach for leadership roles and high-profile positions and authorities. We’ve got more brains and grit in our little fingers than any molly-coddled ivy-league grad has in their entire body and we’ve had to build our reputations ourself- not rely on some institution to confer it to us. We must be the change we seek in the world and take the reins from this sliver of “meritocratic” elites that occupy so many high positions in our country. Power to the people!
3
The good thing about Brook's column is I have not see this particular analysis of the higher education dynamics before. Full disclosure I am a conservative, suspicious of sociological engineering projects by nature, and I think I like it.
2
so, is this like a call to arms for socialism? Because that's what inclusive institutions look like.
5
@Jason C. Maybe...a bit more in that direction. Socialism is not a dirty word, despite what you've heard for the past 50 years from right-wing media sources. Capitalism alone and socialism alone: Both terrible systems, historically. Thinking in binary terms does not reflect reality and is, therefore, unhelpful. Consider a bit of nuance.
1
@Jason C. Well, democracy appears to be sunsetting...
1
@Jason C. What? i mean WHAT?
Honestly, I feel badly for kids raised in the pressure cooker. God forbid they want to be an artist or a school teacher or a cop. God forbid they hate soccer but have a passion for hiking. Or instead of piano have a love of heavy metal guitar.
I meet these types and they seem dead inside. I meet the parents of these types- with the kids in 8 soccer camps, pushing, pushing, pushing. Always pushing. On the go. The parents seem dead inside.
I dated a guy who was in the National Guard. Single dad, no clue about all the "things for success". Two of the sweetest kids- I mean, polite to an extreme, and very sharp. The kids were above all, very happy. And he just had fun with the kids- water gun fights, they had a little electric mini jeep, tossing footballs. The house was just really very happy.
You can do good just going to a normal college and getting a degree. I went to a state school, I have a decent job with a non profit, drive a used car, travel a lot, and watch my spending. I have insurance. To a lot of "ambitious" people, I'm a loser. But while they are still at work, I'm in the gym, pursuing painting. While they don't use their vacation, I'm seeing something amazing.
Once you get past a certain point of having your needs secured- housing, food, healthcare, transportation- extra money really just buys you status, and at the end of the day, does that even bring you joy?
22
The problem with "meritocracy" getting the most is that for some (perhaps most) it presents mental strain, beyond innate capabilities . In the rich, successful families, there is this necessity of having the child or student appear to be a near genius or genius ---which can lead to the "mental health problems" 70% of Yale students experience.
A life of stress and constantly pushing oneself or being pushed by parents to appear more brilliant than one really is --can lead to success. (Sometimes parents intercede with bribes as we have seen.). These "successful" professionals may attain their success through push and pull --the latter a very important factor.
What happens to the real genius or near genius who is not born into the right family? They are too often part of the excluded group who really should have been allowed entry.
2
There is an entire productive happy world outside of the 1%. Small town lawyers, community hospital doctors , pediatric nurses, librarians , math teachers. There are mid size cities full of culture and beauty. Kansas City Mo being one. Most of us don’t give two hoots about the Ivy League or the 1 % or their kids. Although it would be nice to see a normal citizen on the Supreme Court. University of Montana law school maybe. Happy you are getting out of NYC and discovering the rest of us but I don’t expect the rest of the Manhattan elites to do so soon. Ha they have been to Paris but never made it to Pa or Ohio
18
@Susan M Hill Albany ny law school I would like to see a moderate liberal not from an elite school.
As usual Brooks offers up another apology for growing inequity by pretending the top is populated by highly skilled professionals. He offers a cardiologist as an example of “exclusive meritocracy”. But the growing wealth gap doesn’t have professionals at the top. A hedge fund manager or CEO may make 1,000 times what that nurse makes, not just eight.
How many young cardiologist does he know? Most doctors under forty I know are so crushed by student loans they barely can afford to live in the neighborhoods they grew up in. It takes a little intellectual honesty to note that the parents of the recent college entrance exam scandal were by and large financiers, celebrities, and corporate owners —not doctors.
Let’s be clear: the growing income gap has NOTHING to do with merit.
27
@R Rhett - You are talking about tiny numbers of people. The average CEO of a publicly traded company makes $200K, so you must mean the CEOs of a small number of very large companies. That's 500 people, which is .0003% of the workforce.
That is simply not enough to have any impact on society or culture. They can't take over whole cities or spread out through huge suburbs, driving up prices for everyone, because there are only 500 0f them. If you want to know why you can't afford fancy restaurants or get a cheap seat at a football game, it's the 6 million households who make over $300K, not the CEOs.
In any case, becoming a CEO or hedge fund manager is one of the most competitive races in the world. Tens of thousands of hard-working professionals aspire to the job, but only one makes it. If you enjoy working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, you may have what it takes, but it's probably easier to become a major-league ball player.
2
@Jonathan, to a point, you're correct. But how do those who work 7 days a week, 16 hours per day have the time to attend professional sports events, eat at fancy restaurants, and fly to international cities? What I see is that five residents have died this summer in the assisted living home where my mother now resides in a rural town with a hospital, community college, much less industry and commerce it used to have. Only two new persons to replace those five. In their era, there were still quite a few affluent people who lived in that town. Today, the majority shareholder owner of the businesses that exist in that community do not live in that community, including that assisted living home. However, some of those that do, work there and do other care work on the side for ones who are still living in their homes. One of the ladies who works there told me they ran through their savings caring for her parent and now her mother-in-law lives with them. She has returned to the workforce now as a cook in that kitchen while her husband is on disability and stays at home with his mother. True workers can't afford assisted living for their parents or themselves. According to a former director of the residence who lives in a dual income household, they will never be able to afford such. Hedge fund managers and Fortune 500 CEO's are today's US Zaibatsu. May they meet the same end.
1
@Jonathan
Your response completely misses the point. My point isn’t counting how many CEOs or CFOs or COOs or pension fund managers are making $300k or more. My point is that Brooks continues to perpetrate the myth that this demographic is somehow made up of highly skilled and highly educated professionals who have competed their way into this top income group. f you think those households are predominantly made up of doctors, engineers, lawyers, or architects you are looking at different data than me. This is especially the case for those highly educated professionals who began their careers after 1990.
As for the unrelated point that the CEOs of smaller companies average $200k salaries you must also know that salary is usually an very small part of their total compensation. Our tax system is designed so that they can defer taxes and pay taxes at the lowest rates by taking non-salary compensation, which naturally results in low salaries and outsized non-wage compensation.
Because the highly trained professional now makes several times more than the average laborer, doesn't disagree with the argument of Thomas Piketty when considering how the income of investors and CEOs of large corporations have increased in relation to doctors, lawyers and other such highly educated professionals. The real exclusion ripping the country apart involves keeping a deserving workforce of average laborers from a large portion of the profits that they play a vital role in helping to generate. Considering the situation in this way, it's becomes apparent that what's missing is a more truthful recognition of merit.
2
Excellent article.... as Brooks states, elite banks and law firms only recruit from Ivy League institutions, which perpetuates the cycle... I applaud colleges that are working hard to get more students in, and are looking for ways to make higher education more accessible, particularly fo first generation students... The odds are against them for graduating, yet there student loans will stay forever... it’s time a University system strives to improve education to enable all classes to succeed in life!
4
But to what end? Why do we work so hard?
For years, I've always shared with new parents "If it wasn't for children, the world wouldn't make any sense."
We've gotten to a place that now, even with the children, what we do, and how we do it, doesn't make sense.
The shift in effort, and the type of intelligence we need at this time in our history, must be different than the vocational ed for the 1% that seems normal.
Mr. Brooks - you have taken passion and hope to places I adore. Your journey has changed you, in ways that make things more possible for each of us. The challenge isn't that we need to learn how to become better people, though that would make the days more pleasant and enjoyable for more citizens.
The challenge is a planet that is being destroyed by the very people we celebrate as brilliant and talented. We can't afford intelligence that continues to dredge the last remaining fisheries from our oceans. We can't trust that AI will prevent nuclear weapons from being sent to 'enemies', and 'protect us'.
We need to formulate, across the planet, a way to erase the political lines on our planet, and begin to learn how to live within the biological boundaries that our planet exists - we simply won't have a future to give 'the children' if we don't do so.
The intelligence we have chosen to celebrate are like magic tricks - you have to be smart, and driven, to learn them. Changing rivers, drilling deep, growing food in the desert - we are smart in the wrong way.
10
@David Roy Hear, hear! Indeed, we need a new worldview, one that comprehends the value of the vast interconnectedness of all life forms...all six kingdoms. Exploitation and extraction are inconsistent with an ethics of affirming life & the Biosphere. Paraphrasing Beston...we need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of life on earth--& humankind's place & part in it.
3
I recall a book -- somewhere on a shelf -- written by Alfie Kohn entitled "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" (1986).
Somehow, when competition causes us to be less than we can be -- as a global community -- most of us will end up at the bottom of the heap.
Kohn and I talked on the phone just once, but my observation today, says that global community has grown much worse, since 1986.
The 1980s were the Decade of Greed ushered in by Ronald Reagan.
Thirty-nine years later, it's getting worse, and the answers are not only in front of our faces now -- they are clearly behind us.
From the age of the Robber Barons, into the 1920s and 30s, the evidence is clear.
We had some reason for hope after FDR in the late 40s, sensing a move toward global cooperation, but these are clearly darker days.
Old monotonous patterns of continuity need to change. The 1980s Decade of Greed are still with us, and are being repeated once again.
How will historians describe the Age of Trump?
It's now beyond greed. It's beyond the Age of Post Truth.
It needs to be confronted by an honest reckoning from every corner.
Those who care about their neighborhood must look beyond the fences and decide if the meritocracy is helping or hurting human progress.
6
"But the center doesn’t focus on traditional 'leaders'.”
If the esteemed Mr. Brooks got out more from the elite meritocracy in which he is an establishment figure, he would know that leadership program have been teaching leadership as a behavior or contribution one makes vs. a position one holds for DECADES.
8
Your conclusion is the right one. Unless, of course, we desire to see the "winners" take it all. If you love the way this meritocracy is going, move to China. The ponder that they practice an even more ruthless form of capitalism than we do.
3
"The Meritocrat Who Wants to Unwind the Meritocracy ". The article about Yale professor Markovits book shows the limits of the ideology of the Self .A mathematician who ended up doing a doctorate in philosophy at Oxford (of the science probably ),then a law degree at Yale. Arguing against " marxist " Thomas Piketty and his theory of inequality related to the exponential influence of capital versus work production.
All these meritants actually work and represent the 75 % of increase in revenue within the 1 % of the economic elite.
Good exemple of how the well trained behaviorists are not able to think outside of their self inflicting selfness .Which the title of the NYT articles reflects well.
Thomas Piketty's theory is about the ratio of capital versus work in the whole social spectrum .It is so strange that people with such advanced studies are not able to grasp some conceptual logics . They tend to think by their belonging to a cast ,which is what the capital produces . An elite intellectual class who keeps on cloning the blind eye of its hidden task.Speculation.
3
In the last two years parents in the elite university affiliated high schools in Beijing have become more realistic about the chances of their students getting into "HYP" and other elite universities, choosing the UK and Europe or staying in China for undergraduate studies. Since most Chinese elite students will be fluent in English and Mandarin, a European first degree adds a third language. Many US post grad engineering departments are accepting Chinese graduates. Still, it's clear that a degree from Harvard opens doors and opportunities, as like hires like, in finance, law and consulting, and aggressive parents around the world will continue to mold their children into meritocratic maniacs.
4
True to form you bemoan the meritocracy as a means of bashing progressives. I would urge the distinction between the elite who dedicate themselves to preventing income redistribution by any means necessary, and those that are willing to pay their fair share.
As far as academic credentialing is concerned, it's time we got over the BIG CON that the Ivies are thew only game in town for candidates for the plumb jobs. If the NYT is interested, I can recommend several good candidates from Indiana State University for their next openings. I await your call.
15
If one is looking for just a good career and making a good amount of money, you can get an education at the top elite schools or any other state schools. Most state schools now have an honors college within their institution. Isn't that an elite unit within a state school? Isn't the honors college promoting exclusive meritocracy? Does the honors college need to expand its admissions? Speaking of mental health issues, those are increasing at state schools also. The top schools (even with all its imperfections) exist if one needs the intellectual challenge. It is not necessarily better or worse than other schools, if one is thinking of only the dollars one is aiming to make. Take a survey of all the cardiologists/surgeons around the country and you will find out many went to non-ivy schools. But the exclusive schools serve a purpose with their rigorous curriculum and other schools do adopt their practices over time (for example: some state schools now assign a summer reading book). I think we need to be aware that they are making changes to their admission protocols but also understand their unique role in academia.
4