Michael J SandelTyranny of Merit

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

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

Tyranny of Merit is an important book, worth reading. The author is trying to understand and explain the mindset of the significant percentage of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. He also suggests a similar mindset / explanation for the significant percentage British who voted for Brexit; but the book is focused on the U.S.I will summarize the author’s key points, then comment on how effectively the author makes his points – both in terms of style and content, and then provide some of my perspective after having read the book.The author starts with the baseline idea that the U.S. was founded on the principle that all citizens be able to improve their social and economic status based on talent and effort, i.e., merit. This is in obvious contrast to the rigid heredity-based class system of England and Europe from which most of colonists originated. Jefferson talked about creating a “natural” aristocracy based on virtue and talent rather than the “artificial” aristocracy based on birth.The author then explores three questions relative to this founding idea:1. How is the U.S. doing in delivering on this promise of meritocracy? And what have been the political implications?2. To the extent we have created a meritocratic society, is this a positive situation? What are the benefits, what are the issues?3. What are alternatives to the ideal of a pure meritocracy?The first question has been explored by others. A consensus might be that a) the U.S. has been and is more meritocratic than 18th century England or Europe, b) many Americans over the past 250 years have risen socially and economically above their birth position, but c) over the last 30 – 40 years, American social and economic mobility has stagnated, e.g., the probability of a person born into the lowest income quintile moving into the highest quintile is ~ 5%, and even the probability of that person moving into one of the top three quintiles (40 – 100%) is only 33%. At the same time the social and economic mobility within European countries like Germany and the Scandinavian countries has surpassed that of the U.S. We have a meritocratic philosophy, but on an absolute and relative basis, we are currently falling short of delivering on that promise. One of the key theoretical enablers of a meritocracy is education in general, and a college education specifically. The author explores the use of higher education as meritocratic “sorter”, concluding that our current system is not enabling social / economic mobility. As proof points he points out that two-thirds of U.S. adults do not have a college degree, and birth family income level is currently a highly reliable predicator of educational achievement. The author concludes, that to the extent we have delivered on the meritocratic promise, we have a) created an educated, economic elite that looks down on those in the lower economic tiers, and now b) have recently made the tools of mobility, e.g., higher education, more exclusive.The answer(s) to the second question is clearly intended to be the unique contribution of the book. The author states that while continuing to strive toward improving our meritocracy is worthwhile, we need to understand that equality of opportunity will never equal equality of outcome, i.e., meritocracy will create a class structure, this one based on the wealth and status, that result from talent and credentials. This creates an educated class that is intolerant of the less educated class, with the less educated having little respect and less trust for the educated class. Interestingly, he suggests that, given that a pure meritocracy would result in a class structure truly based on the talent and efforts of the individual, versus birth position, those on the top will likely feel MORE entitled and arrogant, and those on the bottom MORE resentful, than in a class-based system like 18th century England.The author suggests these two factors a) stagnating economic and social mobility, and b) mutual distrust between the college educated “elites” and the non- college educated has created the cultural divide we see playing out in our political sphere. Specifically, it is causing a realignment of political parties with the Democratic Party becoming the party of the college educated, and the Republican Party becoming the party of the less educated. Clearly there are exceptions to this rule, including high school educated Black voters continuing to vote largely Democratic, with college educated social conservatives continuing to vote largely Republican.The author does explore alternatives to a pure meritocracy by philosophers like Hayek and Rawls, i.e., free market liberalism – no attempt to create equality except in the justice system, but conceptually splitting moral and economic value of talent; and welfare liberalism – equality of outcome created by meritocracy winners sharing benefits of success with those less fortunate.The author concludes that continued progress toward equality of opportunity is necessary and helpful, but not sufficient, toward creating a society where everyone – or at least most – can find a place and feel valued. Specifically, he suggests we need to strive toward creating circumstances where people who are not upwardly mobile – for whatever reason, e.g., with talents that are not as valued by society as others, can flourish in place, relying on social institutions and shared community resources, including financial support.My view is that the author successfully presents his case that, in the U.S., our progress toward creating a meritocracy has stalled. However, I take issue with several points:1. While I am as convinced as anyone in the value of education, I do not subscribe to the notion that a high level, liberal arts college degree, Harvard, Stanford, etc., is currently the only avenue to a successful life. Other countries do a better job than we do in the U.S. of offering affordable alternatives, e.g., trade schools, and we should work to improve, but hard work to find a profitable, rewarding niche is likely to pay off for the diligent.2. The author argues that our system of higher education (he focuses on the top schools) does not currently enable upward mobility. He cites statistics that show only a small percentage of the college educated rise from the lowest quintile to the highest. However, he neglects to cite the percent of students who come from the lowest quintile that achieve the highest but does indicate the problem is mostly the small number of low quintile students admitted. And he points out that affirmative action programs are largely focused on achieving racial diversity, a worthy objective as well, but are not focused on upward mobility for the lowest quintile. This suggests our higher education system COULD be an upward mobility enabler for the lowest quintile with emphasis and resources.As regards the author’s points about the downsides of a meritocracy:1. I agree that the downsides he identifies can go a long way toward explaining the cultural divide in which we currently find ourselves, including the attitudes and behavior, e.g., voting patterns, of the less educated segment of the country. Therefore, I believe the book is an important read – yes, the outcome of a meritocracy, even one more advanced than ours, creates cultural problems.2. However, the author never really makes a case for an alternative – he does not, and neither does anyone else of whom I am aware, advocate we revert to the class system of 18th century England. His discussion of Hayek comes the closest to suggesting an alternative, but Hayak is more of a band aid to the problem, i.e., philosophically splitting the moral and economic value of talent, than a practical solution.3. Even if we were to arrive at a utopian alternative in the U.S., it is worth remembering a) the natural order is a meritocracy, i.e., the strongest, smartest do best at the evolutionary game, and b) the international order is based on merit – or at least strength and intelligence. The continued success of the U.S. economy and military depend on our best and brightest rising to the top and being rewarded appropriately – if reasonably.So, my post read conclusions are:1. Yes, we have a meritocracy in the U.S., but one that has become clogged in its ability to enable upward mobility for all. We need to work to unclog it, particularly by a) continuing to broaden the types of educational opportunities available to fit a range of talents and financial resources, and b) working harder to enable lower quintile individuals into the system.2. Yes, even an improved meritocracy will create a range of outcomes for individuals, i.e., income / social classes. As Rawls suggests in his welfare liberal philosophy, the winners will need to share rewards with those who do not win. There will always be disparity of outcomes, even with sharing, but it does not have to be the wealth / income gap we are seeing today. We have examples in the Scandinavian countries that can provide idea - not prescription.3. The world we live in is menacing. We are going to need to deal with climate change, a potentially apocalyptic challenge without borders. And, while the U.S. has been the undisputed economic world power since the end of WWII and, for much of that time, the dominant military powers, those positions will come under increasing pressure. We need our very best to rise to address these challenges. First, we need to remove all barriers to finding our “best”, regardless of gender, race, or income class. Second, we need to ensure everybody, regardless of whether they are in the “best” category, are included – “united we stand, divided we fall”. Finally, we need to reinforce our traditional ability to attract the “best” from abroad. Being a magnet for immigration is truly our trump card (pun intended).Tyranny of Merit is an important book, not perfect but an important read.

A vulnerable and orphaned society, devoid of prudence needs to be cajoled, pushed and rise with the help of more crusaders and points man like the author

If you think that you deserve what you have because you effort more than other.. so, yo should read this book to understand the Tyranny of merit

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

Era muy escéptico sobre el libro antes de empezarlo y esperaba estar molesto cuando lo terminara. Pero el libro resultó ser una sorpresa y tuvo un impacto en mi forma de pensar sobre el mérito. A menudo consideramos que el mérito es objetivo y que es algo que alcanzamos completamente con nuestro propio esfuerzo y estamos orgullosos de ello. El libro habla de cómo este ciclo del mérito crea un ciclo negativo de falta de confianza y pérdida de autoestima en el individuo que causa muchos problemas para la sociedad a largo plazo. El libro invita al lector a reevaluar si su mérito es sólo su propio esfuerzo o el resultado de múltiples factores que damos por garantizados y en los que nunca pensamos. Recomendaría este libro a todo el mundo, ya que ayuda al lector a hacer introspección y a conocerse mejor a sí mismo, a la vez que se vuelve más empático con las personas que suelen ser las perdedoras en este mundo de méritos.

This publication takes you out of your zone of comfort. It brings to you a whole new perspective. Since day one in life, I have been hearing that meritocracy is the best way to get the job done. Playing by those rules of hard work and one's sacrifices to conquer your dreams, I played the game and it did work. I am not a millionaire but I have a roof over our heads, a decent income, and a stable and gob job. Looking back to this personal run of mine I did see the public school, universal and free health care, security, science, the infrastructure provided (by tax). For quite a while I have had some insight into the fact that my success might not be so mine and because of that, it is time to do my part to maintain the social infrastructure that others of me would use to get their chance in life. This book explores that and beyond...