This week, we’re kicking off with The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits. We’re just kicking it off this week, and at most you’ve read chapter one, so there’s still time to get a hold of it.
Let’s start it off with some general chat about meritocracy. Going into it, how do you feel about the concept of a meritocracy? Would you say the place you work or the society you’re in is a meritocracy? Is it a good thing, or better than other systems of allocating resources?
I'm about to read Chapter 1. I am still recovering from the shock of the introduction. People whom I respect for their intelligence, in my experience, tell stories and bring their readers along with good storytelling and their use of data to support and enhance their points. This introduction was the statement of opinion as fact. The author is a professor at what is argued to be the best law school in the United States. After a long academic ascendence and multiple degrees he lives in a very special bubble. He then makes statements about the middle class resentment based on no facts. I found the introduction appalling.
My grandfather made brooms. He and my grandmother had 13 years of schooling when totaled. My father worked his way through high school (3 jobs, starting at 5 am) and got a non-academic high school degree. My father had a skilled job as a Linotype operator at the newspaper in the small midwestern town where I grew up. He decided he wanted to wear a white shirt and tie and went to the only college that would accept him. He did well, transferred and spent his last year at the main campus of our state university. He did it on his own. My grandfather thought it was a stupid idea, but gave him $5.00 to go to college. My family entered the middle class. I grew up knowing that my survival depended on my going to college. I worked through high school and went to college, paying half myself, then medical school back when it wasn't so expensive. I finished my training in NYC and have lived there my adult life. I ended up on the clinical faculty of an Ivy League medical center. Only 17% of my high school classmates graduated from college. My wife's parents were educated and holocaust survivors who came to the US after the war. She went to an elite public girls school, a prominent Canadian university and worked as a reporter and editor at a prestigious national newspaper for 32 years. One of my children is an Ivy League graduate.
I believe in meritocracy. I, as a pediatrician in NYC have taken care of a significant number of children of privilege. I know how their parents seek to pave the way for them and game the system. What I have seen is that the truly talented kids go to great universities. The others go elsewhere. Fortunately, the US has a surplus of very good universities and there is a place for everyone. I have seen children of immigrants who spoke little or no English enable their children to achieve and move on to exceptional educations.
I don't sense the resentment. I also see a work environment where results, not breeding, matter. This is a very big country with lots of people in it. Harvard, Yale and Princeton are targets of the very rich and some parents can donate enough money to get their kids in (See: Trump, Donald). I think that is appalling. We should stop that. However, that rare environment is only a small part of the incredible number of bright, well educated, non-rich-parents graduates that drive the growth of our economy.
Based on the introduction, the author lives in a bubble and really doesn't understand the United States. The disaffected are folks who are not college educated, often by choice, and expected that doing a job would provide them a secure life and were not able to cope with a rapidly changing economy and rapidly evolving technology. When I started university, my transistor radio had 3 transistors. My current smartphone has over a billion transistors and is half the size of that radio.
The disaffected need to be addressed. There are real problems here in this country and a lot of other developed countries. I do not think, as the author does, that the problem is resentment of the elites taking over the meritocracy and keeping the middle class suppressed. I think there are great problems with income inequality. I think someone who works 40 hours a week should be able to afford adequate housing, support the family and afford transportation. I also think the Ivy League and other elite schools should work to counteract the gaming of the system that wealthy parents can afford and do spend money trying to gain unearned advantage.
Does that mean that "Merit is a sham." No. The author should not start an argument with a conclusion and use phrases like "meritocratic inequality" to validate arguments. A good argument is based on information and plain speech. It sounds like the author is writing a dissertation. Frankly, no one reads dissertations except academic committees and they do that only because they have to.
The author had dug a very deep hole. I am very dubious the Chapter 1 and those following can salvage it. However, hope springs eternal.
I really struggled thru the introduction. Chapter 1 was much better. I fit the "meritocracy" profile in that I grew up very middle class - went to a top tier law school and business school and "paid my dues" at an Investment Bank for 15 years. I left my middle class rural town for the big city - more of a function of my profession than "running away". Is the argument that the "system" is dysfunctional? I am struggling with the concept that my desire to get ahead, etc somehow makes my success tainted. One more thing, I think the author could have cut out one half of the pages in the Intro and Chp 1 to make his points. Felt like I was reading the same thing over and over.
I'm no longer working under the guise of "meritocracy", but I have. Meritocracy was touted by the corporation as one of its core values. It was great … but only IF you were "favored" by management and given the choice assignments. Read here: already in the top tier, that is already privileged -- always white skin, and with one exception male. Working hard for the rest of us was just a way to suck us dry. I resigned when I saw the unethical practices that were prized as part of the meritocracy. I don't make nearly as much money as I did, now working for a non-profit, but I'm no longer ethically compromised.
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" - Percy Bysshe Shelley -1840. I'm not sure meritocracy is causing all the wealth disparity today. Globalization, societal norms and government policies all play a role. In my experience, America gives you the opportunity to succeed and you need to keep going despite these obstacles.
My issue with the book so far is a bit different. I don't think it makes the argument that we even live in a meritocracy. I guess it's more meritocratic than an aristocracy. But it's not a meritocracy. I think we still have a lot of good old fashioned racism and sexism. He made it out that fairness and equity for women at work was an old-timey problem. My eyes rolled so badly they still hurt.
The United States has large income inequality. Elites and politicians who try to avoid the race question will argue that all we really need are policies that level and maybe strengthen the playing field for the middle class, that all that pesky racism and sexism will fix itself. And I suspect that's where Markovits' argument is heading.
There is a serious problem. But it's not what Markovits thinks it is.
To that point, here's my totally unscientific observation. Insomuch as I can guess the gender of the commenters, it seems its mostly men having a strong, visceral "Our meritocracy may not be perfect, but it's okay with me" reaction, whereas the women are saying "Yeah, I don't think we really live in a meritocracy."
The famous Classics scholar F. M. Cornford wrote that “Cynicism is the besetting and venial fault of declining youth, and disillusionment its last illusion.” I feel this quote describes quite accurately the background to this book. The author generalizes his own disillusionment into a crisis of his own creation. Only one as privileged as he is could become so suddenly shocked to find that society does not always, or even rarely, reward merit and that wealthy and powerful people have an overwhelming advantage over others. This not news. Most people learn early on that there is no strict correlation between merit and reward. There are serious problems of inequality in our country, but, as nearly as I can tell from the introduction, this study adds little towards a solution to those problems. Meritocracy is only a trap for those privileged or lucky enough to fall into it, and unwilling to escape once they know it to be a trap. Many people in our society do not have the opportunity to fall into the trap, and many others know it to be a trap from the beginning and wisely avoid it. I for one will pass on this book and wait for the next.
As a conceptual construct - rule by those most fit to rule - I don't see how we could "feel" bad about it, unless we outright reject the idea of "rule", and/or have an extreme egalitarian sense of democracy. I would want the best possible general to be my general, I would want the best possible CEO to be my CEO, etc. All that only makes sense.
The most obvious problem is, how do you assess "most fit"? Who does such assessment?
But there's also the problem of, what do we mean by "rule"? What is the general's actual job? What is the CEO's actual job? How much power should "rulers" have?
I just think that at a high level, meritocracy often collapses, because the combination of inadequate assessment, inadequate involvement in assessment, poorly defined function, etc. all undermine the idea of merit. In other words you can't expect to run something based on merit when the foundation of the whole thing is lacking in merit. Meritocracy, more so than other systems, assumes and requires that the correct decisions are almost always being made.
Nevertheless, much like so many other things, I think meritocracy is a noble goal to pursue, if you don't get bogged down by the construct.
For whatever it's worth, I was given a promotion last month, nominally based on merit. (It certainly wasn't based on knowing the right people or kissing ass or anything like that, because those aren't the things I'm good at.) When I say "based on merit", I mean, based on the deciders' notion of merit. I'm pleased that they thought I "earned" this, and I'm not about to argue with them about it. The key thing here - I think - is that the organization doesn't rely on other things (like who you know) and is small enough that you've got the ability to prove yourself. I've been around other organizations though where what passed for "assessment of merit" was a complete joke. So again - a noble goal, but we should never delude ourselves so as to think that simply by pursuing meritocracy we have one; and therefore a single-minded quest for meritocracy may be conceptually enticing, but it can be very self-destructive.
Wowee Zowee! That introduction!! Two things really stuck with me from the introduction and Chapter 1. One being the new order, that is, suppresses working and middle-class employment today as much as sex discrimination suppressed women's employment two generations ago. The other being that the richest household out of every hundred captures as much income as twenty average earners combined. and the richest out of every thousand captures as much income as a hundred average earners combined.
I used to think meritocracy would promote a society in which people just simply wanted to work harder and more efficiently. Then I got a real job. Now I believe that meritocracy is one of those words that can never be taken truly seriously. There are way too many variables in deciding what is success, how people define "work," and who decides who will receive the "merits" of meritocracy. I am anxious to see how this author's definition of meritocracy changes over the course of the book.
Well it seems like the premise of the book is that the idea of meritocracy being an equitable system is false - I'm not sure I have ever worked or experienced any place that is a true meritocracy.
Oh lastly...I can’t help but wonder if meritocracy is meant to enable movement between economic/power classes. I almost feel it only really permits movement within the classes, if that makes sense. “You’ve got your birth right ... prove you should keep it.”
I’ve been slow in reading comments and in posting. I was a bit startled by the intensity of the introduction. I’m glad I’m not the only one. The first chapter didn’t help much either.
I am cautious in reading on. First I do worry about any bias the author might have ... I’m not sure he is impartial—insightful? yes, impartial? I don’t know. (Bring the facts and counter arguments).
My second caution comes from my own situation. I am one of those 1 in a hundred cases where I went from the poverty line to top 5%. I’ve never fooled myself in thinking it was by skill alone (it played a part, as well as effort and good fortune). But I see exactly the trap the author is conveying for the Elites (sorry, I’m into chapter 2). As I put my own children through the same rigors of training, I don’t want them to exploit themselves in the same way I’ve had to exploit myself.
It’s a dense read. The personal stories aren’t as rich here are the previous books, but they help with what is otherwise a data-heavy read.
I survived the redundancy fusillade of the introduction (well ... he is an attorney) and read chapter one. I thought: "What is the difference between passion and zealotry, again?" I went to the back of the book and the notes section is bountiful, augmented with info tables. Substantiation is everything! I shall proceed.
I'm about to read Chapter 1. I am still recovering from the shock of the introduction. People whom I respect for their intelligence, in my experience, tell stories and bring their readers along with good storytelling and their use of data to support and enhance their points. This introduction was the statement of opinion as fact. The author is a professor at what is argued to be the best law school in the United States. After a long academic ascendence and multiple degrees he lives in a very special bubble. He then makes statements about the middle class resentment based on no facts. I found the introduction appalling.
My grandfather made brooms. He and my grandmother had 13 years of schooling when totaled. My father worked his way through high school (3 jobs, starting at 5 am) and got a non-academic high school degree. My father had a skilled job as a Linotype operator at the newspaper in the small midwestern town where I grew up. He decided he wanted to wear a white shirt and tie and went to the only college that would accept him. He did well, transferred and spent his last year at the main campus of our state university. He did it on his own. My grandfather thought it was a stupid idea, but gave him $5.00 to go to college. My family entered the middle class. I grew up knowing that my survival depended on my going to college. I worked through high school and went to college, paying half myself, then medical school back when it wasn't so expensive. I finished my training in NYC and have lived there my adult life. I ended up on the clinical faculty of an Ivy League medical center. Only 17% of my high school classmates graduated from college. My wife's parents were educated and holocaust survivors who came to the US after the war. She went to an elite public girls school, a prominent Canadian university and worked as a reporter and editor at a prestigious national newspaper for 32 years. One of my children is an Ivy League graduate.
I believe in meritocracy. I, as a pediatrician in NYC have taken care of a significant number of children of privilege. I know how their parents seek to pave the way for them and game the system. What I have seen is that the truly talented kids go to great universities. The others go elsewhere. Fortunately, the US has a surplus of very good universities and there is a place for everyone. I have seen children of immigrants who spoke little or no English enable their children to achieve and move on to exceptional educations.
I don't sense the resentment. I also see a work environment where results, not breeding, matter. This is a very big country with lots of people in it. Harvard, Yale and Princeton are targets of the very rich and some parents can donate enough money to get their kids in (See: Trump, Donald). I think that is appalling. We should stop that. However, that rare environment is only a small part of the incredible number of bright, well educated, non-rich-parents graduates that drive the growth of our economy.
Based on the introduction, the author lives in a bubble and really doesn't understand the United States. The disaffected are folks who are not college educated, often by choice, and expected that doing a job would provide them a secure life and were not able to cope with a rapidly changing economy and rapidly evolving technology. When I started university, my transistor radio had 3 transistors. My current smartphone has over a billion transistors and is half the size of that radio.
The disaffected need to be addressed. There are real problems here in this country and a lot of other developed countries. I do not think, as the author does, that the problem is resentment of the elites taking over the meritocracy and keeping the middle class suppressed. I think there are great problems with income inequality. I think someone who works 40 hours a week should be able to afford adequate housing, support the family and afford transportation. I also think the Ivy League and other elite schools should work to counteract the gaming of the system that wealthy parents can afford and do spend money trying to gain unearned advantage.
Does that mean that "Merit is a sham." No. The author should not start an argument with a conclusion and use phrases like "meritocratic inequality" to validate arguments. A good argument is based on information and plain speech. It sounds like the author is writing a dissertation. Frankly, no one reads dissertations except academic committees and they do that only because they have to.
The author had dug a very deep hole. I am very dubious the Chapter 1 and those following can salvage it. However, hope springs eternal.
I really struggled thru the introduction. Chapter 1 was much better. I fit the "meritocracy" profile in that I grew up very middle class - went to a top tier law school and business school and "paid my dues" at an Investment Bank for 15 years. I left my middle class rural town for the big city - more of a function of my profession than "running away". Is the argument that the "system" is dysfunctional? I am struggling with the concept that my desire to get ahead, etc somehow makes my success tainted. One more thing, I think the author could have cut out one half of the pages in the Intro and Chp 1 to make his points. Felt like I was reading the same thing over and over.
I'm no longer working under the guise of "meritocracy", but I have. Meritocracy was touted by the corporation as one of its core values. It was great … but only IF you were "favored" by management and given the choice assignments. Read here: already in the top tier, that is already privileged -- always white skin, and with one exception male. Working hard for the rest of us was just a way to suck us dry. I resigned when I saw the unethical practices that were prized as part of the meritocracy. I don't make nearly as much money as I did, now working for a non-profit, but I'm no longer ethically compromised.
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" - Percy Bysshe Shelley -1840. I'm not sure meritocracy is causing all the wealth disparity today. Globalization, societal norms and government policies all play a role. In my experience, America gives you the opportunity to succeed and you need to keep going despite these obstacles.
My issue with the book so far is a bit different. I don't think it makes the argument that we even live in a meritocracy. I guess it's more meritocratic than an aristocracy. But it's not a meritocracy. I think we still have a lot of good old fashioned racism and sexism. He made it out that fairness and equity for women at work was an old-timey problem. My eyes rolled so badly they still hurt.
The United States has large income inequality. Elites and politicians who try to avoid the race question will argue that all we really need are policies that level and maybe strengthen the playing field for the middle class, that all that pesky racism and sexism will fix itself. And I suspect that's where Markovits' argument is heading.
There is a serious problem. But it's not what Markovits thinks it is.
To that point, here's my totally unscientific observation. Insomuch as I can guess the gender of the commenters, it seems its mostly men having a strong, visceral "Our meritocracy may not be perfect, but it's okay with me" reaction, whereas the women are saying "Yeah, I don't think we really live in a meritocracy."
The famous Classics scholar F. M. Cornford wrote that “Cynicism is the besetting and venial fault of declining youth, and disillusionment its last illusion.” I feel this quote describes quite accurately the background to this book. The author generalizes his own disillusionment into a crisis of his own creation. Only one as privileged as he is could become so suddenly shocked to find that society does not always, or even rarely, reward merit and that wealthy and powerful people have an overwhelming advantage over others. This not news. Most people learn early on that there is no strict correlation between merit and reward. There are serious problems of inequality in our country, but, as nearly as I can tell from the introduction, this study adds little towards a solution to those problems. Meritocracy is only a trap for those privileged or lucky enough to fall into it, and unwilling to escape once they know it to be a trap. Many people in our society do not have the opportunity to fall into the trap, and many others know it to be a trap from the beginning and wisely avoid it. I for one will pass on this book and wait for the next.
As a conceptual construct - rule by those most fit to rule - I don't see how we could "feel" bad about it, unless we outright reject the idea of "rule", and/or have an extreme egalitarian sense of democracy. I would want the best possible general to be my general, I would want the best possible CEO to be my CEO, etc. All that only makes sense.
The most obvious problem is, how do you assess "most fit"? Who does such assessment?
But there's also the problem of, what do we mean by "rule"? What is the general's actual job? What is the CEO's actual job? How much power should "rulers" have?
I just think that at a high level, meritocracy often collapses, because the combination of inadequate assessment, inadequate involvement in assessment, poorly defined function, etc. all undermine the idea of merit. In other words you can't expect to run something based on merit when the foundation of the whole thing is lacking in merit. Meritocracy, more so than other systems, assumes and requires that the correct decisions are almost always being made.
Nevertheless, much like so many other things, I think meritocracy is a noble goal to pursue, if you don't get bogged down by the construct.
For whatever it's worth, I was given a promotion last month, nominally based on merit. (It certainly wasn't based on knowing the right people or kissing ass or anything like that, because those aren't the things I'm good at.) When I say "based on merit", I mean, based on the deciders' notion of merit. I'm pleased that they thought I "earned" this, and I'm not about to argue with them about it. The key thing here - I think - is that the organization doesn't rely on other things (like who you know) and is small enough that you've got the ability to prove yourself. I've been around other organizations though where what passed for "assessment of merit" was a complete joke. So again - a noble goal, but we should never delude ourselves so as to think that simply by pursuing meritocracy we have one; and therefore a single-minded quest for meritocracy may be conceptually enticing, but it can be very self-destructive.
Wowee Zowee! That introduction!! Two things really stuck with me from the introduction and Chapter 1. One being the new order, that is, suppresses working and middle-class employment today as much as sex discrimination suppressed women's employment two generations ago. The other being that the richest household out of every hundred captures as much income as twenty average earners combined. and the richest out of every thousand captures as much income as a hundred average earners combined.
I used to think meritocracy would promote a society in which people just simply wanted to work harder and more efficiently. Then I got a real job. Now I believe that meritocracy is one of those words that can never be taken truly seriously. There are way too many variables in deciding what is success, how people define "work," and who decides who will receive the "merits" of meritocracy. I am anxious to see how this author's definition of meritocracy changes over the course of the book.
Well it seems like the premise of the book is that the idea of meritocracy being an equitable system is false - I'm not sure I have ever worked or experienced any place that is a true meritocracy.
Oh lastly...I can’t help but wonder if meritocracy is meant to enable movement between economic/power classes. I almost feel it only really permits movement within the classes, if that makes sense. “You’ve got your birth right ... prove you should keep it.”
I’ve been slow in reading comments and in posting. I was a bit startled by the intensity of the introduction. I’m glad I’m not the only one. The first chapter didn’t help much either.
I am cautious in reading on. First I do worry about any bias the author might have ... I’m not sure he is impartial—insightful? yes, impartial? I don’t know. (Bring the facts and counter arguments).
My second caution comes from my own situation. I am one of those 1 in a hundred cases where I went from the poverty line to top 5%. I’ve never fooled myself in thinking it was by skill alone (it played a part, as well as effort and good fortune). But I see exactly the trap the author is conveying for the Elites (sorry, I’m into chapter 2). As I put my own children through the same rigors of training, I don’t want them to exploit themselves in the same way I’ve had to exploit myself.
It’s a dense read. The personal stories aren’t as rich here are the previous books, but they help with what is otherwise a data-heavy read.
I survived the redundancy fusillade of the introduction (well ... he is an attorney) and read chapter one. I thought: "What is the difference between passion and zealotry, again?" I went to the back of the book and the notes section is bountiful, augmented with info tables. Substantiation is everything! I shall proceed.