By Max Bloom
Thursday, August 03, 2017
There was a very interesting piece in Vox recently, and yes, I do mean that.
Andrew Granato, a recent graduate of Stanford University, writes that top
universities are creating an aristocratic class of highly educated graduates
from elite universities. They cluster together and pass on the benefits of
their station to their children, who in turn find it relatively easy to gain
admission to a prestigious university, perpetuating the cycle. “The new
‘meritocracy,’” says Granato, “means we have replaced direct familial bloodline
as an entry point to elite status with meritocratic achievement, albeit which,
with a lifetime of nurturing from the best money can buy, just so happens to be
highly correlated with direct familial bloodline.”
It’s hard to fully disagree with this analysis of
America’s elite, which is persuasive and well-written. Yes, the graduates of
our most prestigious universities are clustering together into a class that is
increasingly distinct, geographically and culturally, from the rest of America.
Yes, this is pernicious. But is Granato really critiquing meritocracy? His
roster of proposed solutions — anti-discrimination laws, property-tax reform to
boost local schools, occupational-licensing reform, universal health coverage —
suggests otherwise. These policies, he claims, “would form at least the
beginning of an attack on the false god of ‘meritocracy’ and the beginnings of
a society in which being or not being a member of elite communities would not
affect your life outcomes so grotesquely.”
Notice the turn here. Granato shifts from criticizing the
basis on which elite status is conferred in America — our education system — to
criticizing the allocation of resources in the current system. What Granato
really wants is a society where “being or not being a member of elite
communities would not affect your life outcomes” as it does now. The clear
implication is that his ideal society would boast the same elite as today’s
America, merely offering a better life to those outside that elite. Where Granato spends the earlier part of the
essay criticizing what he terms meritocracy, he spends the latter part of the
essay criticizing the supposed regime wherein those left behind by the
“meritocratic” system are denied outcomes he favors. That’s not a criticism of
meritocracy.
More to the point, the “meritocracy” Granato purports to
criticize isn’t really a meritocracy. His piece is typical of a certain liberal
argument that the American system excessively rewards accidents of birth and
access to high-quality education, and that the solution is a regime that would
redistribute benefits to the unlucky souls who can’t reap those rewards. But as
the blogger Scott Alexander points out at Slate Star Codex, such criticisms of
meritocracy are actually criticisms of our existing system of qualifications.
Critics of meritocracy such as Granato’s, Alexander notes, are “using a
different definition of meritocracy” entailing “rule by well-educated people
with prestigious credentials.” We should reject this definition, Alexander
argues, and reclaim the meaning of “meritocracy” as “positions going to those
who are best at them and can best use them to help others.”
I agree with Alexander’s sentiment, but would argue for a
slightly more expansive definition of meritocracy: a system where one is held
to deserve his place in society if he
has the skills and qualities that allow him to do his job well. This might seem
anodyne, but it is actually quite controversial. Meritocracy says that a firm
should not give preference to the children or relatives of those it currently
employs, nor should it be obligated to employ local workers if there are better
applicants elsewhere in the country. It says that seniority at a company should
not protect those who cannot do their jobs well, whether through tenure or a
generous, union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. These are
uncomfortable propositions for many. But they are also crucial to allowing
talented individuals across America the chance to rise to their full potential,
regardless of the circumstances into which they were born.
This is a peculiarly American social order. It rejects
the relatively static social structures of Europe — the way that the British
elite is largely determined by attendance at prestigious boarding schools like
Eton and Harrow, the entrenched civil service and empowered unions of France,
the post-war European push to preserve failing industries at all costs. It is
instead consonant with America’s distinctive culture, which is heavily
individualistic, stressing the importance of personal work ethic over
government assistance and maintaining that success is largely within our
control.
It’s worth noting that Americans are quite happy with
this system. By a 23-point margin, they prefer the “freedom to pursue life’s
goals without state interference” to a system where the state guarantees that
“nobody is in need,” and they overwhelmingly believe that success in life is
determined by factors under their own control. It’s also worth noting that
America has done quite well, comparatively speaking. Incomes here are higher
than in most of Europe — on average, about $8,000 higher than in Germany and
Sweden, $16,000 higher than in France and the United Kingdom, and $20,000
higher than in Italy. Danish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, and
Finnish-Americans have far higher
living standards than Danes in Denmark, Swedes in Sweden, and Finns in Finland.
Of the top 25 universities in the world, 13 are in the United States versus
just two in continental Europe, even though continental Europe has about twice
as many people. Of the 50 largest firms in the world, 21 are headquartered in
the United States, compared with 13 in Europe. To the extent that America has
collectively sacrificed some measure of government-provided security for
entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity, we have profited enormously from
it.
But this does not mean we cannot improve our system.
Indeed, many supposed critics of meritocracy point to meritocratic solutions!
Granato mentions reforms to occupational licensing, which is inimical to
meritocracy since it favors established firms over upstart competitors. The
widespread insistence on bachelor’s degrees as a filtering mechanism for
middle-income jobs that shouldn’t require them makes upward mobility more
difficult for millions of talented Americans, and should motivate a revamping
of the American education system toward trade schools. Credentialism in general
has more in common with the ossified European regimes of old than with the
competitive American spirit. There is no shortage of plausible policy changes
that could help improve the American system. But these changes should be aimed
at perfecting our meritocracy, rather than doing away with it. After all, it’s
served us pretty well so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment