What do you think?
Rate this book
The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World
'This unique and fascinating history explains why the blame now being piled upon meritocracy for many social ills is misplaced-and that assigning responsibilities to the people best able to discharge them really is better than the time-honoured customs of corruption, patronage, nepotism and hereditary castes. Wooldridge upends many common assumptions and provides an indispensable back story to this fraught and pressing issue.' Steven Pinker
' The Aristocracy of Talent provides an important and needed corrective to contemporary critiques of meritocracy. It puts meritocracy in an illuminating historical and cross-cultural perspective that shows how crucial the judgment of people by their talents rather than their bloodlines or connections has been to creating the modern world. Highly recommended' Francis Fukuyama
the idea that people should be advanced according to their talents rather than their status at birth. For much of history this was a revolutionary thought, but by the end of the twentieth century it had become the world's ruling ideology. How did this happen, and why is meritocracy now under attack from both right and left?
Adrian Wooldridge traces the history of meritocracy forged by the politicians and officials who introduced the revolutionary principle of open competition, the psychologists who devised methods for measuring natural mental abilities and the educationalists who built ladders of educational opportunity. He looks outside western cultures and shows what transformative effects it has had everywhere it has been adopted, especially once women were brought into the meritocractic system.
Wooldridge also shows how meritocracy has now become corrupted and argues that the recent stalling of social mobility is the result of failure to complete the meritocratic revolution. Rather than abandoning meritocracy, he says, we should call for its renewal.
' The Aristocracy of Talent provides an important and needed corrective to contemporary critiques of meritocracy. It puts meritocracy in an illuminating historical and cross-cultural perspective that shows how crucial the judgment of people by their talents rather than their bloodlines or connections has been to creating the modern world. Highly recommended' Francis Fukuyama
the idea that people should be advanced according to their talents rather than their status at birth. For much of history this was a revolutionary thought, but by the end of the twentieth century it had become the world's ruling ideology. How did this happen, and why is meritocracy now under attack from both right and left?
Adrian Wooldridge traces the history of meritocracy forged by the politicians and officials who introduced the revolutionary principle of open competition, the psychologists who devised methods for measuring natural mental abilities and the educationalists who built ladders of educational opportunity. He looks outside western cultures and shows what transformative effects it has had everywhere it has been adopted, especially once women were brought into the meritocractic system.
Wooldridge also shows how meritocracy has now become corrupted and argues that the recent stalling of social mobility is the result of failure to complete the meritocratic revolution. Rather than abandoning meritocracy, he says, we should call for its renewal.
481 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2021
About the author
Adrian Wooldridge
24 books68 followersAdrian Wooldridge (born November 11, 1959) is the Management Editor and, since 1 April 2017, the 'Bagehot' columnist for The Economist newspaper. He was formerly the 'Schumpeter' columnist. Until July 2009 he was The Economist's Washington Bureau Chief and the 'Lexington' columnist.
Wooldridge was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history, and was awarded a fellowship at All Souls College, also at Oxford University, where he received a doctorate in philosophy in 1985. From 1984 to 1985 he was also a Harkness Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley.
Wooldridge was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history, and was awarded a fellowship at All Souls College, also at Oxford University, where he received a doctorate in philosophy in 1985. From 1984 to 1985 he was also a Harkness Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
December 10, 2021
The concept of meritocracy has attracted a lot of attention, and a lot of opprobrium recently, ranging from the revolt of the elites that drove Brexit/Trump/etc to books such as Michael Sandel's The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?.
Indeed the very term was coined in a book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, that was intended as a dystopian satire to rival 1984 and Brave New World, one that did foreshadow much of what came to pass. As the author pointed out in 2001, when the term had been taken up by, at that time, the centre left:
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/...)
Adrian Woolridge's book is, in response, a spirited defence of the idea, largely based on a history of the key role meritocracy has played in driving our modern world. He argues that the issues, such as falling social mobility, that have arisen in recently times, in many senses as Young predicted, are actually a failure in seeing things through, and allowing meritocracy to be rolled back in favour of dynasties of the elect. E.g. he points out that, ironically given his railing against the elite, Trump is actually a classic example of a family rising through meritocracy, but then staying at the top by buying their position there for future generations, including the Donald himself)
The historic elements of the book, that comprise 11/12ths of its pages, are very well balanced. Although Woolridge's own biases are clear, he presents both sides of the historic arguments and evidence, and gives the reader sufficient information to form their own view.
And, while he doesn't make the analogy, I would say Woolridge's key conclusion is analogous to Churchill's view of democracy, i.e. that meritocracy is the worst way of organising society, apart from all the other ones that have been tried.
However, the most disappointing part of the book for me was the 'so what' i.e. Woolridge's conclusions and policy prescriptions.
Firstly, after 366 at times rather laboured pages on history, his own conclusions are covered in just 33 pages. He rather assumes the reader has read books like Sandel's so while implicitly rebutting their arguments doesn't actually explain what they advocate in the first place nor present such a balanced account.
Secondly, because his historical analysis was relatively balanced, it isn't particularly clear that his conclusions follow from his analysis.
Ultimately his big idea seems to amount to the reintroduction of standardised testing at an early an age as possible to sift the wheat from the chaff (the abolition of the 11+ and of Grammar School's in the UK he regards as a significant historic blunder).
He counterargues against those that point out that one may simply be rewarding those who won the genetic (as opposed to the parental) lottery by arguing, correctly, that effort as well as natural talent is needed to succeed - but then ones family and environmental situation can't help but play a role.
He also counterargues against the question about the impact of those left behind by arguing for a much greater role for vocational qualifications, more emphasis on the value of manual work etc (very much as Michael Young argued), but then that rather weakens the case for the turbo-charged meritocracy of the cognitive elite that he has advocated.
Dominic Cummings gets only two mentions, but the two sides of his personality and influence seem key to Woolridge's ideas. His advocacy of a technocratic meritocracy, particularly in the civil service, rather echoes Cummings ideas, but Woolridge's solution to the other-side of Cummings, the populist campaigner for Brexit and against the elites, is to actually roll back on democracy, particularly of the direct kind. It isn't clear Woolridge agrees with Churchill on democracy, as he rather suggests there are other better systems which have been tried from time-to-time, most notably in modern China and, Woolridge's ultimate poster child, Singapore.
On the latter, Woolridge's enthusiastic endorsement of the country's leading education establishment glowingly tells us that “Almost all of Raffles’ students take advanced maths as one of their four A-level subjects; just 8% focus on the humanities”. Even as a mathematician, that grates to me as something to which to aspire as a society. Similarly praising South Korea's system and saying students there seem happier seems to rather go against the 헬조선 views of the young.
That's not to say that Woolridge's approach may not have merits, but his 33 brief and one-sided pages failed to convince me of them and left me rather disappointed.
2.5 stars
Indeed the very term was coined in a book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, that was intended as a dystopian satire to rival 1984 and Brave New World, one that did foreshadow much of what came to pass. As the author pointed out in 2001, when the term had been taken up by, at that time, the centre left:
I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair.
The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033.
Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/...)
Adrian Woolridge's book is, in response, a spirited defence of the idea, largely based on a history of the key role meritocracy has played in driving our modern world. He argues that the issues, such as falling social mobility, that have arisen in recently times, in many senses as Young predicted, are actually a failure in seeing things through, and allowing meritocracy to be rolled back in favour of dynasties of the elect. E.g. he points out that, ironically given his railing against the elite, Trump is actually a classic example of a family rising through meritocracy, but then staying at the top by buying their position there for future generations, including the Donald himself)
The historic elements of the book, that comprise 11/12ths of its pages, are very well balanced. Although Woolridge's own biases are clear, he presents both sides of the historic arguments and evidence, and gives the reader sufficient information to form their own view.
And, while he doesn't make the analogy, I would say Woolridge's key conclusion is analogous to Churchill's view of democracy, i.e. that meritocracy is the worst way of organising society, apart from all the other ones that have been tried.
However, the most disappointing part of the book for me was the 'so what' i.e. Woolridge's conclusions and policy prescriptions.
Firstly, after 366 at times rather laboured pages on history, his own conclusions are covered in just 33 pages. He rather assumes the reader has read books like Sandel's so while implicitly rebutting their arguments doesn't actually explain what they advocate in the first place nor present such a balanced account.
Secondly, because his historical analysis was relatively balanced, it isn't particularly clear that his conclusions follow from his analysis.
Ultimately his big idea seems to amount to the reintroduction of standardised testing at an early an age as possible to sift the wheat from the chaff (the abolition of the 11+ and of Grammar School's in the UK he regards as a significant historic blunder).
He counterargues against those that point out that one may simply be rewarding those who won the genetic (as opposed to the parental) lottery by arguing, correctly, that effort as well as natural talent is needed to succeed - but then ones family and environmental situation can't help but play a role.
He also counterargues against the question about the impact of those left behind by arguing for a much greater role for vocational qualifications, more emphasis on the value of manual work etc (very much as Michael Young argued), but then that rather weakens the case for the turbo-charged meritocracy of the cognitive elite that he has advocated.
Dominic Cummings gets only two mentions, but the two sides of his personality and influence seem key to Woolridge's ideas. His advocacy of a technocratic meritocracy, particularly in the civil service, rather echoes Cummings ideas, but Woolridge's solution to the other-side of Cummings, the populist campaigner for Brexit and against the elites, is to actually roll back on democracy, particularly of the direct kind. It isn't clear Woolridge agrees with Churchill on democracy, as he rather suggests there are other better systems which have been tried from time-to-time, most notably in modern China and, Woolridge's ultimate poster child, Singapore.
On the latter, Woolridge's enthusiastic endorsement of the country's leading education establishment glowingly tells us that “Almost all of Raffles’ students take advanced maths as one of their four A-level subjects; just 8% focus on the humanities”. Even as a mathematician, that grates to me as something to which to aspire as a society. Similarly praising South Korea's system and saying students there seem happier seems to rather go against the 헬조선 views of the young.
That's not to say that Woolridge's approach may not have merits, but his 33 brief and one-sided pages failed to convince me of them and left me rather disappointed.
2.5 stars
December 21, 2021
The first three sections outline how meritocracy was originally a revolutionary idea, that replaced pre-modern systems of nepotism and patronage. The fourth describes how meritocracy gained momentum given WW2 and IQ tests. The fifth analyses threats to meritocracy from elitism (assortative mating, legacy admissions), the left (affirmative action, critical race theory) and the right (populism, rural/urban inequality), and how they can be managed.
The level of depth is good, similar to what you would expect from a longer Economist piece, which is where the author usually writes. To advance his arguments, he sometimes cites research papers, and key figures from them, though does not analyse them in detail. I've read articles and books on related topics, but I still learned some things, and it consolidated some of my thoughts.
The level of depth is good, similar to what you would expect from a longer Economist piece, which is where the author usually writes. To advance his arguments, he sometimes cites research papers, and key figures from them, though does not analyse them in detail. I've read articles and books on related topics, but I still learned some things, and it consolidated some of my thoughts.
July 11, 2021
It is my opinion that the author may have written this book whilst at his day job of political editor at the Economist.
This has been mentioned because whilst the topic on the subject of Meritocracy has merit, the author gets distracted and shares his adverse opinion of the former United States President Donald Trump out of context with the subject matter.
The author clearly demonstrates a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and to circle back to a quote the author has used by Daniel Patrick Moynihan “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”. In particular two incorrect statements “ Trump ignored the advice ….. and eventually sacked his chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci” and “Trump even suggested that people inject themselves with bleach” (Pge. 345).
Clearly blinded by the author’s antagonism towards Donald Trump included interpretation of the Greek Philosopher Plato’s ‘The Republic’ to warn the world of Donald Trump’s politics and there are additional silly and childish comments too numerous to highlight.
The current United President Joe Biden receives favourable treatment and the author is silent on what appears even to the eye of an untrained medical observer the compromised gait and speech pattern of Joe Biden’s dementia.
The subject matter of Meritocracy is covered historically but the emphasis is on the education processes including prerequisites and intelligence testing. The book comments on research of IQ by Professor Lewis Terman but is covered far more comprehensively in Thomas Sowell's ‘Disparities and Prerequisites’. I would have preferred the author ‘flesh’ out the political dimension including the role of the middle class.
The author has conflated the election results of Brexit, Donald Trump and other right wing parties to conclude that there is a movement against Meritocracy as the voting public are turning away from experts.
This is a simplistic and lazy intellectual analysis and a convenient way to align Meritocracy with the authors political opinions. A more considered analysis on experts is available in Thomas Sowell's ‘Intellectuals and Society’.
I am a little more optimistic that the voting public are more discerning when it comes to being told how to vote by Celebrity Entertainers and Sportspeople, former Politicians and a coterie of other experts.
Finally I hope that Anthony Fauci and the CDC are able to produce a vaccine for the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome by 2024 for the sake of the author’s health and well being and also my fellow readers of the Economist that we don’t have to suffer through a repeat should Donald Trump decide to seek the Presidency.
This has been mentioned because whilst the topic on the subject of Meritocracy has merit, the author gets distracted and shares his adverse opinion of the former United States President Donald Trump out of context with the subject matter.
The author clearly demonstrates a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and to circle back to a quote the author has used by Daniel Patrick Moynihan “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”. In particular two incorrect statements “ Trump ignored the advice ….. and eventually sacked his chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci” and “Trump even suggested that people inject themselves with bleach” (Pge. 345).
Clearly blinded by the author’s antagonism towards Donald Trump included interpretation of the Greek Philosopher Plato’s ‘The Republic’ to warn the world of Donald Trump’s politics and there are additional silly and childish comments too numerous to highlight.
The current United President Joe Biden receives favourable treatment and the author is silent on what appears even to the eye of an untrained medical observer the compromised gait and speech pattern of Joe Biden’s dementia.
The subject matter of Meritocracy is covered historically but the emphasis is on the education processes including prerequisites and intelligence testing. The book comments on research of IQ by Professor Lewis Terman but is covered far more comprehensively in Thomas Sowell's ‘Disparities and Prerequisites’. I would have preferred the author ‘flesh’ out the political dimension including the role of the middle class.
The author has conflated the election results of Brexit, Donald Trump and other right wing parties to conclude that there is a movement against Meritocracy as the voting public are turning away from experts.
This is a simplistic and lazy intellectual analysis and a convenient way to align Meritocracy with the authors political opinions. A more considered analysis on experts is available in Thomas Sowell's ‘Intellectuals and Society’.
I am a little more optimistic that the voting public are more discerning when it comes to being told how to vote by Celebrity Entertainers and Sportspeople, former Politicians and a coterie of other experts.
Finally I hope that Anthony Fauci and the CDC are able to produce a vaccine for the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome by 2024 for the sake of the author’s health and well being and also my fellow readers of the Economist that we don’t have to suffer through a repeat should Donald Trump decide to seek the Presidency.
January 23, 2022
Yup, open competition works better than nepotism, corruption, and patronage-based hierarchies, as the author shows (though I wasn't much in doubt about this before I read the book). Promoting people on ability rather than connections drives economic growth and technological progress. You can make a moral argument for it (as the author does) since even the most naturally talented must hone their skills through education and hard work.
So why aren't we all happy meritocrats? Probably because meritocracy hasn't produced paradise for all, this being the real world and not Marvel Universe. But also because meritocracy is in the business of helping the exceptional rise to the top, not worrying about those at the bottom, so it can't deliver even the most basic living standards for everyone unless it's backed by empathy and concern for other humans (which many of the successful conspicuously lack).
The author seems vaguely aware that these issues lie near the center of political turmoil in the western world, but can't come down from stratospheric policy wonkery long enough to engage with the grubby concerns of actual people. So he puts forth the usual proposals for Making It All Work: Fixing the schools (as if we haven't been trying that for decades -- remember No Child Left Behind?); ending legacy admissions at elite universities (because our biggest problem is who gets into Harvard); hectoring the successful to be less arrogant and more public spirited (good luck with that).
The author wants more standardized testing of raw ability (aka IQ testing). He also suggests more scholarships so that "a significant number of 'hidden Einsteins' from non-affluent homes [can be] selected for university-track education at an early age." And that would indeed suck more bright poor children up into the middle class, which would be a good thing.
But most kids aren't hidden Einsteins. Since we're not living in Lake Wobegon, all children can't be above average in ability. Intelligence is distributed unequally among the population, like so many other characteristics. It's also at least partially heritable (as the author acknowledges but skates over). Which means that smarter parents tend to have smarter kids, even with some inevitable regression to the mean. (And you might have noticed that people don't marry and procreate at random, but instead tend to match up with the best mates they can find within their social networks. So, yeah, the smart marry the smart.)
Meanwhile, meritocracy doesn't seem to be in much immediate peril, despite the author's fretting about it. No one is about to shut down the pipeline from elite colleges to high positions in business and government. Nor are employers likely to stop using college completion as a key screening tool, even (or especially) for jobs that don't really require it. The practice just works too well, as they've discovered. A college degree signals some level of intelligence (which means easier trainability). It also indicates that the degree holder is able to manage their time with minimal competence, deal with bureaucracy, sit through boring required classes (read: meetings), and engage with people outside their local comfort zone. All characteristics that employers value. Works great -- except that it leaves out the approximately 65 percent of American adults who do not hold college degrees.
Then there's globalization, meritocracy's resplendent offspring, which works so well for the educated and mobile, not so well for the rest.
So I finished this book by an Oxford-educated editor/columnist at _The Economist_ and wondered: Is this the best that high-flying defenders of meritocracy can offer? If so, we're in for a lot more pitchfork politics, I suspect.
So why aren't we all happy meritocrats? Probably because meritocracy hasn't produced paradise for all, this being the real world and not Marvel Universe. But also because meritocracy is in the business of helping the exceptional rise to the top, not worrying about those at the bottom, so it can't deliver even the most basic living standards for everyone unless it's backed by empathy and concern for other humans (which many of the successful conspicuously lack).
The author seems vaguely aware that these issues lie near the center of political turmoil in the western world, but can't come down from stratospheric policy wonkery long enough to engage with the grubby concerns of actual people. So he puts forth the usual proposals for Making It All Work: Fixing the schools (as if we haven't been trying that for decades -- remember No Child Left Behind?); ending legacy admissions at elite universities (because our biggest problem is who gets into Harvard); hectoring the successful to be less arrogant and more public spirited (good luck with that).
The author wants more standardized testing of raw ability (aka IQ testing). He also suggests more scholarships so that "a significant number of 'hidden Einsteins' from non-affluent homes [can be] selected for university-track education at an early age." And that would indeed suck more bright poor children up into the middle class, which would be a good thing.
But most kids aren't hidden Einsteins. Since we're not living in Lake Wobegon, all children can't be above average in ability. Intelligence is distributed unequally among the population, like so many other characteristics. It's also at least partially heritable (as the author acknowledges but skates over). Which means that smarter parents tend to have smarter kids, even with some inevitable regression to the mean. (And you might have noticed that people don't marry and procreate at random, but instead tend to match up with the best mates they can find within their social networks. So, yeah, the smart marry the smart.)
Meanwhile, meritocracy doesn't seem to be in much immediate peril, despite the author's fretting about it. No one is about to shut down the pipeline from elite colleges to high positions in business and government. Nor are employers likely to stop using college completion as a key screening tool, even (or especially) for jobs that don't really require it. The practice just works too well, as they've discovered. A college degree signals some level of intelligence (which means easier trainability). It also indicates that the degree holder is able to manage their time with minimal competence, deal with bureaucracy, sit through boring required classes (read: meetings), and engage with people outside their local comfort zone. All characteristics that employers value. Works great -- except that it leaves out the approximately 65 percent of American adults who do not hold college degrees.
Then there's globalization, meritocracy's resplendent offspring, which works so well for the educated and mobile, not so well for the rest.
So I finished this book by an Oxford-educated editor/columnist at _The Economist_ and wondered: Is this the best that high-flying defenders of meritocracy can offer? If so, we're in for a lot more pitchfork politics, I suspect.
May 7, 2023
Full review and commentary on The Aristocracy of Talent at Substack
Adrian Wooldridge (1959-) currently serves as the global business columnist at Bloomberg Opinion and previously wrote for The Economist. He has also written several books, including The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World (2021).
Wooldridge bills The Aristocracy of Talent as a comprehensive history of "meritocracy." The book doubles as a robust defense of meritocracy. However, Wooldridge pro-meritocracy case is mostly implicit as he let's the historical record speak for itself. Wooldridge reserves his few unvarnished salvos for the meritocracy for the concluding portion of the book.
This approach sits in stark contrast to the usual discourse on meritocracy, which is typically characterized by polemical denunciations of supposedly exacerbating inequality and trapping people in a soul-destroying rat race. Ironically (or not ironically depending on how cynically you view things), some of the most vicious attacks on the meritocracy come from those who have already made it to the top of the proverbial greasy poll themselves, e.g. Michael Sandel and Daniel Markovits. Neither political aisle is solely responsible for attacks on the meritocracy, though most of the attacks emerge from the elite and activist Left. The Right also participates in the perpetual flogging of the meritocracy, but it's usually the dissident, scientific, and materialist elements, which aren't the most representative of modal conservatives. Wooldridge's awareness of and sensitivity to the rhetorical critiques of meritocracy likely guide the presentation of his argument. There are some clear tells of his awareness.
Interestingly, Wooldridge generally engages directly with the critiques from the Left, counter arguing that the meritocracy is actually more amenable to their progressive goals. Contrastingly, he provides the perfunctory inaccurate disputation of Hernstein and Murry's The Bell Curve thesis, concerning the the rise and entrenchment of a cognitive elite stratum and increasing social stratification generally (this is part of the Right's scientific critique of meritocracy). Thus, The Aristocracy of Talent is the rare, anachronistic Right-leaning liberal defense of meritocracy as the best sorting mechanism for human capital in a market economy. It is also somewhat uncommon to find a consistently sober character taking this position instead of a bomb-throwing talking head or a wry provocateur. Even many of the accomplished politicians of the past, Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who shared Wooldridge's perspective, had a flair for the dramatic.
But we're getting ahead ourselves. What actually is the meritocracy?
Wooldridge defines meritocracy as a society that combines four qualities: 1) material incentives for in-demand natural talents and strategic efforts 2) institutional mechanisms that promote equal opportunity, specifically universal education 3) minimal discrimination on superficial traits, i.e. those without social or economic value 4) filtering mechanisms that maintain open competition (i.e. minimize patronage and nepotism. Wooldridge argues the meritocratic system forged the modern world by unleashing human potential and creating a more dynamic and fairer society.
The word meritocracy of course emerged as an epithet for the phenomenon it describes (just like capitalism). Michael Young's sociological satire The Rise of the Meritocracy sought to displace the idea that IQ + Effort = Merit. But despite Young's ire, meritocracy was adopted explicitly and championed cautiously by the mainstream for most the latter half of the 20th century. Post-2008, the winds changed. We've now reached a point, where many of the most elite universities in America no longer require standardized test scores to be submitted with an application, and it is considered exceedingly gauche among polite society to endorse the idea that talent and hard work should be significantly rewarded.
In an attempt to walk back this regression, Wooldridge offers a tripartitie history of meritocracy. The first part describes the origins and rise of meritocracy from ancient China to the Enlightenment. Wooldridge examines how different civilizations and cultures developed systems of selecting and rewarding talent based on merit; systems that departed from more primitive models of rewards based on birth or wealth. The second part covers the triumph and transformation of meritocracy in the modern world, focusing on how the Industrial Revolution, the expansion of education, the rise of democracy, and the emergence of psychology and testing shaped the meritocratic ideal and practice in different countries and regions. Wooldridge is a staunch proponent of scholastic achievement/intelligence and domain-specific knowledge testing. The third part address the contemporary crisis of meritocracy in the twenty-first century, analyzing the challenges and criticisms: populism, identity politics, inequality, and corruption. Wooldridge concludes with some proposed reforms, which mostly concern improved sorting mechanisms like testing, and a defense of meritocracy itself.
Wooldridge's does concede that our modern meritocracy can be characterized to some extent as a pluto-meritocracy, where elites have been able to hoard material and social cache for their offspring whether or not those offspring prove deserving of those spoils. He highlights how this is mostly mediated by access to education and how this can be resolved by simple reforms to our testing and admission standards. This echoes Richard Reeves' Dream Hoarders thesis. However, I think this thesis significantly underestimates the impact of assortative mating and overestimates the effects of regression to the mean for socially valuable traits. To address these concern Wooldridge would've needed to engage more directly with the work of Charles Murray, Gregory Clark, and behavioral genetics generally.
Regardless of its flaws, this is an important work. The meritocracy does deserve defense. It also simply isn't going to disappear as much of the sorting occurs because markets exist and those are deeply integrated. So I see it's footing as quite a bit more solid than Wooldridge. I also think Wooldridge is a bit too optimistic about how fairly the spoils of meritocracy will be distributed and the opportunities for social mobility. I think a close empirical look at this phenomenon across history and region should compel a more dour outlook. However, we shouldn't toss meritocracy out even if its consequences are inegalitarian. This externality can be mitigated in a number of ways, which are generally accessible to democratic societies. I just hope they use these tools judiciously, which unfortunately appears unlikely based on current performance.
Adrian Wooldridge (1959-) currently serves as the global business columnist at Bloomberg Opinion and previously wrote for The Economist. He has also written several books, including The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World (2021).
Wooldridge bills The Aristocracy of Talent as a comprehensive history of "meritocracy." The book doubles as a robust defense of meritocracy. However, Wooldridge pro-meritocracy case is mostly implicit as he let's the historical record speak for itself. Wooldridge reserves his few unvarnished salvos for the meritocracy for the concluding portion of the book.
This approach sits in stark contrast to the usual discourse on meritocracy, which is typically characterized by polemical denunciations of supposedly exacerbating inequality and trapping people in a soul-destroying rat race. Ironically (or not ironically depending on how cynically you view things), some of the most vicious attacks on the meritocracy come from those who have already made it to the top of the proverbial greasy poll themselves, e.g. Michael Sandel and Daniel Markovits. Neither political aisle is solely responsible for attacks on the meritocracy, though most of the attacks emerge from the elite and activist Left. The Right also participates in the perpetual flogging of the meritocracy, but it's usually the dissident, scientific, and materialist elements, which aren't the most representative of modal conservatives. Wooldridge's awareness of and sensitivity to the rhetorical critiques of meritocracy likely guide the presentation of his argument. There are some clear tells of his awareness.
Interestingly, Wooldridge generally engages directly with the critiques from the Left, counter arguing that the meritocracy is actually more amenable to their progressive goals. Contrastingly, he provides the perfunctory inaccurate disputation of Hernstein and Murry's The Bell Curve thesis, concerning the the rise and entrenchment of a cognitive elite stratum and increasing social stratification generally (this is part of the Right's scientific critique of meritocracy). Thus, The Aristocracy of Talent is the rare, anachronistic Right-leaning liberal defense of meritocracy as the best sorting mechanism for human capital in a market economy. It is also somewhat uncommon to find a consistently sober character taking this position instead of a bomb-throwing talking head or a wry provocateur. Even many of the accomplished politicians of the past, Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who shared Wooldridge's perspective, had a flair for the dramatic.
But we're getting ahead ourselves. What actually is the meritocracy?
Wooldridge defines meritocracy as a society that combines four qualities: 1) material incentives for in-demand natural talents and strategic efforts 2) institutional mechanisms that promote equal opportunity, specifically universal education 3) minimal discrimination on superficial traits, i.e. those without social or economic value 4) filtering mechanisms that maintain open competition (i.e. minimize patronage and nepotism. Wooldridge argues the meritocratic system forged the modern world by unleashing human potential and creating a more dynamic and fairer society.
The word meritocracy of course emerged as an epithet for the phenomenon it describes (just like capitalism). Michael Young's sociological satire The Rise of the Meritocracy sought to displace the idea that IQ + Effort = Merit. But despite Young's ire, meritocracy was adopted explicitly and championed cautiously by the mainstream for most the latter half of the 20th century. Post-2008, the winds changed. We've now reached a point, where many of the most elite universities in America no longer require standardized test scores to be submitted with an application, and it is considered exceedingly gauche among polite society to endorse the idea that talent and hard work should be significantly rewarded.
In an attempt to walk back this regression, Wooldridge offers a tripartitie history of meritocracy. The first part describes the origins and rise of meritocracy from ancient China to the Enlightenment. Wooldridge examines how different civilizations and cultures developed systems of selecting and rewarding talent based on merit; systems that departed from more primitive models of rewards based on birth or wealth. The second part covers the triumph and transformation of meritocracy in the modern world, focusing on how the Industrial Revolution, the expansion of education, the rise of democracy, and the emergence of psychology and testing shaped the meritocratic ideal and practice in different countries and regions. Wooldridge is a staunch proponent of scholastic achievement/intelligence and domain-specific knowledge testing. The third part address the contemporary crisis of meritocracy in the twenty-first century, analyzing the challenges and criticisms: populism, identity politics, inequality, and corruption. Wooldridge concludes with some proposed reforms, which mostly concern improved sorting mechanisms like testing, and a defense of meritocracy itself.
Wooldridge's does concede that our modern meritocracy can be characterized to some extent as a pluto-meritocracy, where elites have been able to hoard material and social cache for their offspring whether or not those offspring prove deserving of those spoils. He highlights how this is mostly mediated by access to education and how this can be resolved by simple reforms to our testing and admission standards. This echoes Richard Reeves' Dream Hoarders thesis. However, I think this thesis significantly underestimates the impact of assortative mating and overestimates the effects of regression to the mean for socially valuable traits. To address these concern Wooldridge would've needed to engage more directly with the work of Charles Murray, Gregory Clark, and behavioral genetics generally.
Regardless of its flaws, this is an important work. The meritocracy does deserve defense. It also simply isn't going to disappear as much of the sorting occurs because markets exist and those are deeply integrated. So I see it's footing as quite a bit more solid than Wooldridge. I also think Wooldridge is a bit too optimistic about how fairly the spoils of meritocracy will be distributed and the opportunities for social mobility. I think a close empirical look at this phenomenon across history and region should compel a more dour outlook. However, we shouldn't toss meritocracy out even if its consequences are inegalitarian. This externality can be mitigated in a number of ways, which are generally accessible to democratic societies. I just hope they use these tools judiciously, which unfortunately appears unlikely based on current performance.
Read
September 7, 2021Sorry, I'll stick with Markovits and Sandel on their evaluation of modern day meritocracy and its shortcomings. Wooldridge's version is a very long in the tooth historical slog with a lot of apparent cherry-picking to achieve his thesis. DNF
January 12, 2022
The Aristocracy of Talent : How Meritocracy Made the Modern World (2021) by Adrian Wooldridge is a great book that has a history of the ideas and execution of meritocracies and ideas for how they should now occur in the modern world. Wooldridge is an editor and writer for The Economist.
The book starts by looking at the alternatives to meritocracies, that is orders based on families and patronage. Then the ideas of meritocracy prior to the modern age. This examines Plato’s Republic, China and Confucian rule, how the Jews studied and how in Feudal Europe there was some social mobility through the church and for some people who gained the favor of a noble.
Wooldridge then looks at how in Europe from the 1700s onward meritocracy came through the English Revolution, the French Revolution and how the US became a Republic of Merit.
Next the really modern way the meritocracy has been worked on, with IQ tests and entrance exams for University is described. The impact that the modern meritocracy has had on women’s lives is also examined.
Once meritocracy became ascendant, in the second half of the twentieth century people on the left and right began to oppose it. First on the left because it disrupted alleged class loyalties and led to more inequality and on the right because many meritocrats appeared to be cosmopolitan and international. The way in which Asia has embraced meritocracy is also described. Singapore’s embrace and China’s re-embrace of meritocracy after the failure of Marxism is then described.
Finally Wooldridge gives a brief conclusion as to why he believes democracies need to embrace meritocracy or be overtaken by China and why meritocracies are a fundamentally good idea. Wooldridge points out that when it works it enables much of what is valued in the modern rich world.
The book’s history of the ideas and gradual introduction of meritocracy is really excellent. It’s a fascinating look at how people were chosen for roles in society in the past and how slowly but surely the number of people who could choose their path and be chosen for certain roles expanded. The weak point of the book is the shortness of Wooldridge’s recommendations and the backing for them.
The Aristocracy of Talent is a very well done thematic history. It’s very readable and is full of interesting history and facts. The books exploration of such an important idea is really thought provoking.
The book starts by looking at the alternatives to meritocracies, that is orders based on families and patronage. Then the ideas of meritocracy prior to the modern age. This examines Plato’s Republic, China and Confucian rule, how the Jews studied and how in Feudal Europe there was some social mobility through the church and for some people who gained the favor of a noble.
Wooldridge then looks at how in Europe from the 1700s onward meritocracy came through the English Revolution, the French Revolution and how the US became a Republic of Merit.
Next the really modern way the meritocracy has been worked on, with IQ tests and entrance exams for University is described. The impact that the modern meritocracy has had on women’s lives is also examined.
Once meritocracy became ascendant, in the second half of the twentieth century people on the left and right began to oppose it. First on the left because it disrupted alleged class loyalties and led to more inequality and on the right because many meritocrats appeared to be cosmopolitan and international. The way in which Asia has embraced meritocracy is also described. Singapore’s embrace and China’s re-embrace of meritocracy after the failure of Marxism is then described.
Finally Wooldridge gives a brief conclusion as to why he believes democracies need to embrace meritocracy or be overtaken by China and why meritocracies are a fundamentally good idea. Wooldridge points out that when it works it enables much of what is valued in the modern rich world.
The book’s history of the ideas and gradual introduction of meritocracy is really excellent. It’s a fascinating look at how people were chosen for roles in society in the past and how slowly but surely the number of people who could choose their path and be chosen for certain roles expanded. The weak point of the book is the shortness of Wooldridge’s recommendations and the backing for them.
The Aristocracy of Talent is a very well done thematic history. It’s very readable and is full of interesting history and facts. The books exploration of such an important idea is really thought provoking.
February 24, 2023
Goede en interessante geschiedenis van de meritocratie en haar variaties. Ik ben het absoluut niet eens met de conclusie van het boek (China is eng, dus laten we doorgaan met hoe het nog gaan en alles nog meer competitief maken), maar daar vergeef ik Wooldridge voor. Als je een citatie krijgt in mn scriptie ben je mijn maatje
June 24, 2022
A worthwhile read, even if for the fox-like collection of historical anecdotes he provides. I never realized the extent that nepotism and feudal privileges pervaded western legal systems and for how long. The most glaring flaw is that he more or less equates credentialism (degrees, success in standardized tests, etc) with meritocracy. He never acknowledges that standardized exams are criticized as being inaccurate gauges of potential, or that education itself is not human capital investment but pure signaling of pre-existing talent.
He makes some valid points about how the theoretically meritocratic institution of education ends up solidifying the position of the upper and upper-middle classes (making me want to read that other book Dream Hoarders). However, given his implied belief in the “human capital” model of education, his only solution is that more poor people need to go to elite colleges/ high schools. While this would be slightly more equitable, the vast waste of time and money that is higher education would remain. A Bryan Caplan style solution would be to somehow replace the signaling function of universities with another way for people of all classes to very easily and clearly reveal whatever innate talents universities signal.
I was also intrigued by the vague shape of his political beliefs from what I intuited. He believes strongly in meritocracy, and that the government should provide (a hyper-competitive form of) equality of opportunity (elite schools etc) while also being opposed to socialism, equality of outcomes and identity politics. He does not inherently oppose government intervention, or at least claim to, as I normally expect from the right. I assume this is British Conservativism, which is pro-market and pro-hierarchy, but lacks the fundamental libertarian character of American Conservatism.
He makes some valid points about how the theoretically meritocratic institution of education ends up solidifying the position of the upper and upper-middle classes (making me want to read that other book Dream Hoarders). However, given his implied belief in the “human capital” model of education, his only solution is that more poor people need to go to elite colleges/ high schools. While this would be slightly more equitable, the vast waste of time and money that is higher education would remain. A Bryan Caplan style solution would be to somehow replace the signaling function of universities with another way for people of all classes to very easily and clearly reveal whatever innate talents universities signal.
I was also intrigued by the vague shape of his political beliefs from what I intuited. He believes strongly in meritocracy, and that the government should provide (a hyper-competitive form of) equality of opportunity (elite schools etc) while also being opposed to socialism, equality of outcomes and identity politics. He does not inherently oppose government intervention, or at least claim to, as I normally expect from the right. I assume this is British Conservativism, which is pro-market and pro-hierarchy, but lacks the fundamental libertarian character of American Conservatism.
February 20, 2022
A succinct and intriguing deep dive into the history of meritocracy, how it developed and why it became imperative for countries continued development in a post world war, and why true meritocracy is the way forward.
Adrian Woolridge skillfully dissects the subject matter, showing the potential drawbacks for improper meritocracy as seen currently in society with those who succeed believing the earned their success and those who have failed believing it was no ones fault but their own, as a result of a pseudo meritocracy. In the world of expensive private tutors and extracurricular activities, standardised testing for higher learning at college and University can still be games by the wealthy, and barriers for the children of the working class persist.
Wooldridge calls for better meritocracy which identifies talent through mediums such as IQ tests which are harder to specialise in, and admires countries such as Singapore where the elite academics are offered high paying public sector jobs. Overall a great take on privilege and its continued role in society, but most importantly a way forward.
Adrian Woolridge skillfully dissects the subject matter, showing the potential drawbacks for improper meritocracy as seen currently in society with those who succeed believing the earned their success and those who have failed believing it was no ones fault but their own, as a result of a pseudo meritocracy. In the world of expensive private tutors and extracurricular activities, standardised testing for higher learning at college and University can still be games by the wealthy, and barriers for the children of the working class persist.
Wooldridge calls for better meritocracy which identifies talent through mediums such as IQ tests which are harder to specialise in, and admires countries such as Singapore where the elite academics are offered high paying public sector jobs. Overall a great take on privilege and its continued role in society, but most importantly a way forward.
May 15, 2022
Each section had so many tidbits that were SOO FASCINATING! I loved learning about how meritocracy has been defined throughout history in different parts of the world. This book could be a great read for anyone that puts a lot of emphasis on going to a top school/high SAT score. I’ve learned this before but these are more of a predictor of your parents income than innate intelligence. One thing that stood out to me was the intense examinations China would give, where test takers would get locked in a room and have to poop in a bucket because they weren’t allowed to leave! The visual on that one was hard to forget lol. The book also specifically mentioned Lowell high school in SF and its rigorous admission process. Lowell, in order to get more diversity within the school, tried to get a lottery system which seems to have been overturned by a lawsuit.This book really went in depth about how detrimental the modern view of “merit” is to diversity. Side note: I absolutely loved the whole chapter dedicated to Plato’s Republic and throughout the book the reference to philosopher kings!
June 18, 2021
Meritocracy to the Privileged Few in 40 YEARS.
With the Financial Markets having been rigged and Democracy
Hi-jacked and dark wealthy agency working to introduce Autocratic Political Control on the dumb down masses we have interesting times in the near future
With the Financial Markets having been rigged and Democracy
Hi-jacked and dark wealthy agency working to introduce Autocratic Political Control on the dumb down masses we have interesting times in the near future
August 16, 2022
This book is about the history of meritocracy - how it replaced older ways of organising society, and how more recent decades have seen ideological challenges to the concept from both the political left and right. As expected, the period covering the first half of the 20th century focuses on IQ and eugenics, and was quite an interesting read. I'm not sure if I fully buy that the conclusions are that realistic (that we should return to using standardised IQ tests to organise our education system, but without the racism or eugenics).
However, this is probably the best-organised book of this type that I've read. Every chapter was really well-signposted and it was a real joy to read. Quite long, but it was a detailed and wide-ranging book, so possibly to be expected.
However, this is probably the best-organised book of this type that I've read. Every chapter was really well-signposted and it was a real joy to read. Quite long, but it was a detailed and wide-ranging book, so possibly to be expected.
August 21, 2023
Where Woolridge shines is in his outlining of the history of meritocracy and his spirited defence of its principles against critics on both the left and the right. Yet, in presenting his conclusions and his vision for a hyper-meritocratic society, he seems to stumble away from the nuance of the topic he spent over 300 pages covering. A society centred squarely on IQ and work effort might miss out on the lived-in experiences of minority groups, an argument made particularly ironic by the fact that Woolridge acknowledges that most major consultancy firms target socialization skills alongside test performance in their recruitment processes. As for Woolridge's hyper-fixation with East Asian work culture and the success of states like Singapore, the recent corruption scandals that have plagued the city-state mean that Woolridge's analysis may not age as well as he would have hoped. Nonetheless, there are merits for Woolridges' proposal to re-orient the education systems of the West, and his writing style is unmatched thanks to over 20 years of writing with groups like The Economist and Bloomberg.
December 8, 2023
I give this 5 stars when evaluating it as purely a historical work, and 3 or even 2 stars when judging it as a philosophical defense of meritocracy.
July 31, 2023
Took me a while to get through this 500+ page book. While Woolridge presents this book as a defence of meritocracy against the criticisms that have been levelled against it in recent years, it reads more like an historical overview than an argument, albeit an interesting and comprehensive one. Woolridge's main 'argument' is that since "meritocracy was a key component of the making of modernity", it will/should also be a key component of the making of future (which is why he devotes the largest part of the book to revisiting the history of meritocracy and the system of feudalism/nepotism which existed before it).
Personally, I find that this is a rather fallacious argument - who is to say that what worked in the past will continue to work in future? Different eras and contexts might require different ways of organising society. Furthermore, the viewpoint that 'modernity' is so much better and more advanced than the past is an epochalist one. I'm sure from the vantage point of past thinkers, the period in which they lived must have seemed the most progressive, and whatever system they had in place then must also have seemed like the best possible one.
Other than the historical account, Woolridge does acknowledge and address the main criticisms which have been levelled against meritocracy. He attributes much of it to imperfect implementation or a fusion of meritocracy with older notions of feudalism/nepotism (like in China), and acknowledges the stress/competition that can result as well as the arrogance of the meritocrats.
For the former, I feel that if we can abandon communism as a possible way of organising society because it just can't be implemented perfectly due to the inherent selfishness of human nature, then we could also make a case for abandoning meritocracy as a way of organising society for the same reason due to the natural instinct to want to pass on their advantages to their offspring. For the latter, Woolridge's solution is to revive the Confucian idea of ensuring that the leaders have the right virtues and a sense of duty. Again, this is likely to fall victim to implementation. It also doesn't answer how then meritocracy is preferable to constrained monarchy or aristocracy (to add, although Wooldridge claims that meritocracy is better than other systems, he only really compares it to monarchy/aristocracy). I know that this is not Woolridge's point in the book, but to me it also betrays a lack of imagination that no other alternative/novel political systems are considered.
Personal pet peeve: greatly dislike that Woolridge holds up Asian countries (Singapore and China) as some model of meritocracy working at its best, since I can see so many of the flaws.
Ultimately, despite Woolridge's claim of defending meritocracy against the recent criticisms, he doesn't make any argument or propose any solutions which are new, although he does provide a very engaging and comprehensive history of the concept.
Key ideas
Merit refers both to moral and intellectual dimensions
Responding to criticisms of meritocracy which have been coming in recent years
- Inherent inequality of outcome in the idea
- Keeping everyone in a state of constant anxiety (briefly rebuts this but doesn't elaborate in the book: other reasons for the pressure, such as slow economic growth or increase in amount of knowledge to be)
- Imperfect implementation leading to continued nepotism and concentration/perpetuation of privileges
and whether there are other systems which might work better
- Other systems harbour potential for favouritism, bias
Society was previously organised based on social ties particularly family ties 'degree, priority, place', and this was seen as entirely justifiable 'proof of decency'
Other systems' flaws
- Oligarchy will turn politics into a money-making enterprise
- Democracy will fail because ordinary people don't have enough knowledge to make decisions, throws up bad leaders (demagogues), too much emphasis on freedom which will devolve into anarchy
Patronage as the pre-cursor of meritocracy, where the already-privileged identified the talent and elevated them, solved two classical economic problem
- Imperfect information about agents, patrons had an incentive to choose honest and loyal men to work for their clients
- Favourites had incentives to perform well as they got to keep spoils/rewards
- This eventually lost usefulness due to disadvantages and technological advancements which made infogathering possible
Gradual progression towards meritocracy
- Continued aristocracy but with aristocrats who had to be virtuous and competent i.e. the Confucian concept of "constrained rather than absolute authority", earning inherited positions through performance
- China as an early example of meritocracy, with sophisticated mechanism to sieve out the talented and with guidance on how the talented should conduct themselves if they are chosen to lead, with the flaws which are still present today in meritocracy i.e. pressure, merit more about conforming with existing knowledge rather than producing new ideas
- Jewish people developed meritocracy (in the sense of valuing intellectual achievement) because their religion requires "high degree of intellectual committment"; historically they had no land and thus have to invest in what they can carry with them and 'insecurity gives them an unusual degree of discipline and ambition'; otherwise excluded from the world of degree, priority and place
- Aristocracy reconceptualised as an aristocracy of talent, where naturally-talented but poor-born children can also be considered aristocrats and admission to the elite can be earned, and also where the old aristocrats had to tamp down their behaviour.
- Meritocracy slowly fused with monarchy/aristocracy, and institutions which were supposed to facilitate equality of opportunity reinforced rather than conferred status
- Even early on, there were concerns that meritocracy would replace one form of aristocracy with another, and that the new meritocrats would become autocrats
- American corporations promoted meritocracy by creating roles in the organisational hierarchy
- Meritocracy, intelligence tests, and eugenics
The most important test of meritocracy is not whether it promotes social mobility but whether it changed the nature of the state i.e. from individualistic rent-seeking to problem solving for the state's best interests
Revolt against meritocracy
- Meritocracy originally driven by left who wanted to open up opportunities to members of the working class and women
- Can merit be measured with precision? Intelligence also reflects environmental factors.
- Is meritocracy worth having at all? "allowed the ruling class to identify talented children and kidnap them from the working class" and turn them into comfortable and complacent citizens of the middle-class; promoted competition and and created sense of inferiority
- Merit versus equality and community?
- Crises brought about by mismanagement of meritocrats and their lack of repentance (e.g. 2008 financial crisis) and their loss of contact with the working class (decline in working class background of politicians)
- Ways of measuring merit are based on white systems of power
New vanguard of meritocracy: Asia
- Meritocracy fuelled fast development but also seen problems of disconnected elites
- Continuing nepotism and corruption e.g. Xi appointing himself president for life
Various examples of how meritocracy leads to success and development
- More equality today than in the past
- Countries that favour open competition have higher growth rates
- City College's academic excellence reduced when they instituted open admissions
Why meritocracy is still the best system
- Meritocrats don't just depend on talent, they work hard
- Turns raw abilities into social goods, direct people to areas where their talents can produce social benefits (this is the real justification for meritocracy, rather than rewarding people for their talents)
- By encouraging people to discover and develop their talents, it treats them with the respect they deserve, as self-governing individuals
Critiques of meritocracy
- Imperfect implementation
- Causes competition and arrogance
Solutions
- More meritocracy - intelligence tests as the most objective way to evaluate children (and differences within populations are much bigger than differences between populations); schools to allocate places to the poor but talented, funded by the state; scholarships in exchange for civil service work
- Less democracy, more expert-led decisions and more press to provide reliable information
- Affirmative action, but moving away from numbers to providing additional help
- Early childhood education and other policies to even the playing ground from young
- Winners should be forced to share their winnings with people who are less fortunate than themselves through progressive taxation; cultivating a sense of duty among the meritocrats
- Status not only based on academic qualifications, more recognition for vocations
Personally, I find that this is a rather fallacious argument - who is to say that what worked in the past will continue to work in future? Different eras and contexts might require different ways of organising society. Furthermore, the viewpoint that 'modernity' is so much better and more advanced than the past is an epochalist one. I'm sure from the vantage point of past thinkers, the period in which they lived must have seemed the most progressive, and whatever system they had in place then must also have seemed like the best possible one.
Other than the historical account, Woolridge does acknowledge and address the main criticisms which have been levelled against meritocracy. He attributes much of it to imperfect implementation or a fusion of meritocracy with older notions of feudalism/nepotism (like in China), and acknowledges the stress/competition that can result as well as the arrogance of the meritocrats.
For the former, I feel that if we can abandon communism as a possible way of organising society because it just can't be implemented perfectly due to the inherent selfishness of human nature, then we could also make a case for abandoning meritocracy as a way of organising society for the same reason due to the natural instinct to want to pass on their advantages to their offspring. For the latter, Woolridge's solution is to revive the Confucian idea of ensuring that the leaders have the right virtues and a sense of duty. Again, this is likely to fall victim to implementation. It also doesn't answer how then meritocracy is preferable to constrained monarchy or aristocracy (to add, although Wooldridge claims that meritocracy is better than other systems, he only really compares it to monarchy/aristocracy). I know that this is not Woolridge's point in the book, but to me it also betrays a lack of imagination that no other alternative/novel political systems are considered.
Personal pet peeve: greatly dislike that Woolridge holds up Asian countries (Singapore and China) as some model of meritocracy working at its best, since I can see so many of the flaws.
Ultimately, despite Woolridge's claim of defending meritocracy against the recent criticisms, he doesn't make any argument or propose any solutions which are new, although he does provide a very engaging and comprehensive history of the concept.
Key ideas
Merit refers both to moral and intellectual dimensions
Responding to criticisms of meritocracy which have been coming in recent years
- Inherent inequality of outcome in the idea
- Keeping everyone in a state of constant anxiety (briefly rebuts this but doesn't elaborate in the book: other reasons for the pressure, such as slow economic growth or increase in amount of knowledge to be)
- Imperfect implementation leading to continued nepotism and concentration/perpetuation of privileges
and whether there are other systems which might work better
- Other systems harbour potential for favouritism, bias
Society was previously organised based on social ties particularly family ties 'degree, priority, place', and this was seen as entirely justifiable 'proof of decency'
Other systems' flaws
- Oligarchy will turn politics into a money-making enterprise
- Democracy will fail because ordinary people don't have enough knowledge to make decisions, throws up bad leaders (demagogues), too much emphasis on freedom which will devolve into anarchy
Patronage as the pre-cursor of meritocracy, where the already-privileged identified the talent and elevated them, solved two classical economic problem
- Imperfect information about agents, patrons had an incentive to choose honest and loyal men to work for their clients
- Favourites had incentives to perform well as they got to keep spoils/rewards
- This eventually lost usefulness due to disadvantages and technological advancements which made infogathering possible
Gradual progression towards meritocracy
- Continued aristocracy but with aristocrats who had to be virtuous and competent i.e. the Confucian concept of "constrained rather than absolute authority", earning inherited positions through performance
- China as an early example of meritocracy, with sophisticated mechanism to sieve out the talented and with guidance on how the talented should conduct themselves if they are chosen to lead, with the flaws which are still present today in meritocracy i.e. pressure, merit more about conforming with existing knowledge rather than producing new ideas
- Jewish people developed meritocracy (in the sense of valuing intellectual achievement) because their religion requires "high degree of intellectual committment"; historically they had no land and thus have to invest in what they can carry with them and 'insecurity gives them an unusual degree of discipline and ambition'; otherwise excluded from the world of degree, priority and place
- Aristocracy reconceptualised as an aristocracy of talent, where naturally-talented but poor-born children can also be considered aristocrats and admission to the elite can be earned, and also where the old aristocrats had to tamp down their behaviour.
- Meritocracy slowly fused with monarchy/aristocracy, and institutions which were supposed to facilitate equality of opportunity reinforced rather than conferred status
- Even early on, there were concerns that meritocracy would replace one form of aristocracy with another, and that the new meritocrats would become autocrats
- American corporations promoted meritocracy by creating roles in the organisational hierarchy
- Meritocracy, intelligence tests, and eugenics
The most important test of meritocracy is not whether it promotes social mobility but whether it changed the nature of the state i.e. from individualistic rent-seeking to problem solving for the state's best interests
Revolt against meritocracy
- Meritocracy originally driven by left who wanted to open up opportunities to members of the working class and women
- Can merit be measured with precision? Intelligence also reflects environmental factors.
- Is meritocracy worth having at all? "allowed the ruling class to identify talented children and kidnap them from the working class" and turn them into comfortable and complacent citizens of the middle-class; promoted competition and and created sense of inferiority
- Merit versus equality and community?
- Crises brought about by mismanagement of meritocrats and their lack of repentance (e.g. 2008 financial crisis) and their loss of contact with the working class (decline in working class background of politicians)
- Ways of measuring merit are based on white systems of power
New vanguard of meritocracy: Asia
- Meritocracy fuelled fast development but also seen problems of disconnected elites
- Continuing nepotism and corruption e.g. Xi appointing himself president for life
Various examples of how meritocracy leads to success and development
- More equality today than in the past
- Countries that favour open competition have higher growth rates
- City College's academic excellence reduced when they instituted open admissions
Why meritocracy is still the best system
- Meritocrats don't just depend on talent, they work hard
- Turns raw abilities into social goods, direct people to areas where their talents can produce social benefits (this is the real justification for meritocracy, rather than rewarding people for their talents)
- By encouraging people to discover and develop their talents, it treats them with the respect they deserve, as self-governing individuals
Critiques of meritocracy
- Imperfect implementation
- Causes competition and arrogance
Solutions
- More meritocracy - intelligence tests as the most objective way to evaluate children (and differences within populations are much bigger than differences between populations); schools to allocate places to the poor but talented, funded by the state; scholarships in exchange for civil service work
- Less democracy, more expert-led decisions and more press to provide reliable information
- Affirmative action, but moving away from numbers to providing additional help
- Early childhood education and other policies to even the playing ground from young
- Winners should be forced to share their winnings with people who are less fortunate than themselves through progressive taxation; cultivating a sense of duty among the meritocrats
- Status not only based on academic qualifications, more recognition for vocations
February 5, 2022
This was disappointing. I feel that author didn’t properly grapple with with the tricky bits of meritocracy. It was all a bit too convenient and “distanced”. Some of the history got boring. Parts were fascinating and well written but I feel it lost its way many times.
August 20, 2021
The history is interesting but the book takes nearly 350 pages to make its point. Only after that do you get good arguments in favour of, and a good critique of the arguments against, meritocracy. More could be said about why doing away with meritocracy is causing social harms.
September 25, 2022
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
This book was one of the nominees for this year's Hayek Book Prize. My small project to read all the nominated books has been a mixed bag so far (see here, here, here, and here) but this is a pretty good contender. The good folks at the Interlibrary Loan department at the University Near Here wangled a copy from Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Connecticut.
The author, Adrian Wooldridge, is a Brit, and worked for The Economist for a long time. He writes very accessibly for the layman, with quite a bit of wit. One downside of that is the language. I'm pretty sure he expects the reader to know what a "swot" is. (American translation, I think, is "nerd".) And (apparently) in Britain there are "grammar schools" which differ from "public schools". (Grammar schools are what we'd consider to be "prep schools", I think.)
It's a very interesting history of how the concept of meritocracy rise and fell over the centuries, in a lot of different countries and cultures. It had its roots in Plato: that whole philosopher-king thing. But for millennia the default assumption was that your social position was determined by the simple fact of being born to your parents: nobles begat nobles, farmers begat farmers, and you were pretty much stuck in that role for life.
As society complexified, the flaws in that scheme began to show. (To everyone: "The Emperor's New Clothes" had centuries-old roots, after all.) Gradually the liberals and left-wingers of the day started pushing the idea that jobs with power should be held by people of better intellectual talents and abilities. (But not completely. You might have noticed whose funeral just happened.)
Meritocracy has had a rough time of it lately. And not without good reasons; the folks at the tippy-top of the pyramid can get out of touch with The Rest Of Us, start working for their own benefit instead of society at large. Nebraska's Senator Roman Hruska said it best: "[The mediocre] are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?" There are critics of even trying to measure intellectual talent, most notably via the IQ test. Wooldridge is dismissive: "This argument is an exercise in anachronistic sermonizing rather than serious historical understanding, which at its best is an exercise in grasping the intricacies of context rather than projecting our own prejudices backwards."
But anyway, in a neat flip-flop, although old leftists were enthusiastic about meritocracy, modern leftists bemoan it.
Nobody wants a mediocre brain surgeon, though.
The book is not without its flaws. A Herbert Spencer quote, "The superior shall have the good of his superiority; and the inferior the evil of his inferiority", is shorn of context to imply he's referring to those inherent qualities and talents. I think (after looking at the original text) that he's referring to superior/inferior conduct, and arguing against "communistic distribution" of wealth.
Near the end of the book, Woolridge cheers Kamala Harris's ascent to the Vice-Presidency, and says it wouldn't have been possible "without the meritocratic idea." Overlooking the facts that (a) Kamala's widely perceived as lacking in intellect, (b) was picked for veep primarily due to her race and sex, and (c) got her start not through merit, but by becoming the mistress of a married politician.
Charles Murray has had a lot of interesting stuff to say about this. Woolridge only mentions The Bell Curve, and (I think) misinterprets the thrust of that 1994 book. Nothing's said about the work Murray's done since then.
But, overall, a very worthwhile and interesting book.
December 29, 2021
Koska en ole vielä vaivaantunut hankkimaan Sandelin kehuttua teosta ja Yonginkin tiedän vain muista teoksista, meritokratiaan on hyvä tutustua siihen pääosin positiivisesti suhtautuvan Economistin toimittajan avulla. Woolridgellä meritokratia on ollut aina epätäydellistä, mutta silti se on ollut aiempaa tilaa parempi ja vienyt asioita parempaan suuntaan.
Woolrigen käy läpi historiaa ja nykyisyyttä. Nykyisen kritiikin hän jakaa kahtaalta tulevaksi, vasemmistosta ja oikeistosta.
Vasemmiston kritiikki, vaikka alun perin meritokratia onkin miellettävissä juuri heidän projektikseen, kohdistui kolmeen asiaan. Meritokratian pohjalla olevia ominaisuuksia ei oikeasti voi mitata eli se perustuu (vääriin) olettamiin. Meritokratiasta ei ole väitettyä hyötyä, koska sen perusteella valitut johtajat johtavat myös ongelmiin (tästä esim. best and the brightest ja Vietnamin sota). Kolmanneksi vasemmistossa korostetaan tasa-arvon ja yhteisöllisyyden olevan meritokratiaa tärkeämpiä arvoja. Esimerkiksi englantilaiset grammar schoolit kuopattiin näillä perusteilla. Meritokratia johtaa korruptioon ja systeemin vääristelyyn näistä kolmesta teemasta johtuen. Siinä rikkaat sulkeutuvat omaksi piirikseen ja nauttivat hyödyt. Vahvistavia kierteitä ovat esimerkiksi parinmuodostus pääosin saman sosioekonomisen taustan/aseman omaavan kanssa ja eri lähtöasemista alkava taistelu meritokratiassa.
Oikeistolainen kritiikki kohdistuu häviäjien ja voittajien, kaupungin ja maaseudun, natiivien ja maahanmuuttajien, massan ja eliitin vastakkainasetteluun. Meritokratian nimissä viety kaikki kärkipaikat, mutta tämä eliitti on varsin kapea ja yhä enemmän itse itseään täydentävä.
Woolridge puolustaa silti meritokratiaa ja tueksi esittää muutamia tukipuita. Meritokratiaan sisältyviä mahdollisuuksia tulee laajentaa ja sisäänottoa parantaa. Ei voi olla niin, että rahalla saa ostettua tukiopetusta ja asunnon oikealta asuinalueelta, jolloin saa varaslähdön ja kantoraketin. Tukea tulee tarjota kaikille. Toki lukijalla herää kysymys, että onko utopistista olettaa, ettei vanhempien kiinnostus ja tuki heijastuisi koulumenestykseen. Tällöin konkreettiset keinot tarjota joko kaikille sama tuki tai vähentää moisen ansaitsemattoman tuen vaikutusta vertailussa tukea saamattomiin olisi kiinnostavaa luettavaa. Toinen Woolridgen keino olisi lisätä ammatillisen koulutuksen arvostusta ja resursseja (tämä voi kyllä olla varsin brittiläinen näkökohta). Kolmas olisi moraalin vaatimuksen lisääminen eliitille. Suomessa esimerkkeinä tulisi mieleen, ettei pätevyyden nimiin vannovat muuttaisi eläkepäivillään muualle veroja minimoidakseen tai vähentäisi veromaksujaan minimiin. Nämä ovat toki laillista toimintaa, mutta yhteiskuntaa ei pidä pystyssä pelkästään legaalisuus vaan legitimiteettiä kaivataan myös.
Kirjoittajalla meritokratia vaatii siis niin vahvan valtion, että se ylittää luokkien, vanhempien, sukujen ja verkostojen epätasa-arvoistavat vaikutukset. Tämä voi olla vaikeaa nykyaikana, jossa valtiolle ei moista mahtia herkästi anneta, josko on koskaan annettukaan.
Tähdet annoin muistin varassa. Millään muista kuinka hyvä tämä oikeasti oli.
Woolrigen käy läpi historiaa ja nykyisyyttä. Nykyisen kritiikin hän jakaa kahtaalta tulevaksi, vasemmistosta ja oikeistosta.
Vasemmiston kritiikki, vaikka alun perin meritokratia onkin miellettävissä juuri heidän projektikseen, kohdistui kolmeen asiaan. Meritokratian pohjalla olevia ominaisuuksia ei oikeasti voi mitata eli se perustuu (vääriin) olettamiin. Meritokratiasta ei ole väitettyä hyötyä, koska sen perusteella valitut johtajat johtavat myös ongelmiin (tästä esim. best and the brightest ja Vietnamin sota). Kolmanneksi vasemmistossa korostetaan tasa-arvon ja yhteisöllisyyden olevan meritokratiaa tärkeämpiä arvoja. Esimerkiksi englantilaiset grammar schoolit kuopattiin näillä perusteilla. Meritokratia johtaa korruptioon ja systeemin vääristelyyn näistä kolmesta teemasta johtuen. Siinä rikkaat sulkeutuvat omaksi piirikseen ja nauttivat hyödyt. Vahvistavia kierteitä ovat esimerkiksi parinmuodostus pääosin saman sosioekonomisen taustan/aseman omaavan kanssa ja eri lähtöasemista alkava taistelu meritokratiassa.
Oikeistolainen kritiikki kohdistuu häviäjien ja voittajien, kaupungin ja maaseudun, natiivien ja maahanmuuttajien, massan ja eliitin vastakkainasetteluun. Meritokratian nimissä viety kaikki kärkipaikat, mutta tämä eliitti on varsin kapea ja yhä enemmän itse itseään täydentävä.
Woolridge puolustaa silti meritokratiaa ja tueksi esittää muutamia tukipuita. Meritokratiaan sisältyviä mahdollisuuksia tulee laajentaa ja sisäänottoa parantaa. Ei voi olla niin, että rahalla saa ostettua tukiopetusta ja asunnon oikealta asuinalueelta, jolloin saa varaslähdön ja kantoraketin. Tukea tulee tarjota kaikille. Toki lukijalla herää kysymys, että onko utopistista olettaa, ettei vanhempien kiinnostus ja tuki heijastuisi koulumenestykseen. Tällöin konkreettiset keinot tarjota joko kaikille sama tuki tai vähentää moisen ansaitsemattoman tuen vaikutusta vertailussa tukea saamattomiin olisi kiinnostavaa luettavaa. Toinen Woolridgen keino olisi lisätä ammatillisen koulutuksen arvostusta ja resursseja (tämä voi kyllä olla varsin brittiläinen näkökohta). Kolmas olisi moraalin vaatimuksen lisääminen eliitille. Suomessa esimerkkeinä tulisi mieleen, ettei pätevyyden nimiin vannovat muuttaisi eläkepäivillään muualle veroja minimoidakseen tai vähentäisi veromaksujaan minimiin. Nämä ovat toki laillista toimintaa, mutta yhteiskuntaa ei pidä pystyssä pelkästään legaalisuus vaan legitimiteettiä kaivataan myös.
Kirjoittajalla meritokratia vaatii siis niin vahvan valtion, että se ylittää luokkien, vanhempien, sukujen ja verkostojen epätasa-arvoistavat vaikutukset. Tämä voi olla vaikeaa nykyaikana, jossa valtiolle ei moista mahtia herkästi anneta, josko on koskaan annettukaan.
Tähdet annoin muistin varassa. Millään muista kuinka hyvä tämä oikeasti oli.
January 30, 2024
I'm somewhat torn about how to rate this book. On the one hand, much of the discussion of the history of meritocracy is rich and fascinating. For those interested in the development of meritocratic thought throughout the ages, this will prove an invaluable resource. On the other hand, some of the more substantive, philosophical discussion was lacking.
For instance, political meritocracy is looked upon quite favorably by Wooldridge, especially in the later chapters of the book. But the worry that meritocratic governments are susceptible to corruption and abuse gets short shrift (with only a brief mention of this possibility in the case of China). This is unfortunate, since many philosophers and political scientists would argue that this is the most serious problem facing political meritocracy. And, of course, the ability of democracy to resist harmful forms of state capture is viewed widely as one of its main strengths (whether rightly or wrongly). In a comparison of these two alternative political arrangements, then, a discussion of this matter would have been welcome. (Note that I say this as someone who otherwise finds proposals of the sort defended by Wooldridge congenial.)
Additionally, some of the arguments in favor of meritocracy were unconvincing. Here are just two examples. First, Wooldridge cites Gallup polls showing that the most popular destinations for would-be emigrants are broadly meritocratic as "vivid evidence" of meritocracy's moral virtues (p373). But the broadly meritocratic countries mentioned -- Canada, Germany, the UK, and others -- are also all broadly democratic. They're also broadly stable, wealthy, capitalist, etc. Why assume that it is their purportedly meritocratic attributes that make them attractive? Second, Wooldridge writes that "meritocracy...is the secret sauce of economic growth" (p369). In fact, though, establishing the most important factors in long-term economic growth is a bit tricky. A large number of economists would point to the importance of institutions, to be sure. But they typically mention institutions such as free markets, the rule of law, private property, and the like, rather than meritocratic institutions *per se*. Perhaps Wooldridge would say that market institutions are meritocratic institutions. But this view is controversial among scholars of meritocracy.
Overall, I still recommend this book, I'm glad I read it, and I learned a lot from it. However, much of its argumentation is somewhat shallow and unconvincing. If Goodreads allowed more fine-grained ratings, I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
For instance, political meritocracy is looked upon quite favorably by Wooldridge, especially in the later chapters of the book. But the worry that meritocratic governments are susceptible to corruption and abuse gets short shrift (with only a brief mention of this possibility in the case of China). This is unfortunate, since many philosophers and political scientists would argue that this is the most serious problem facing political meritocracy. And, of course, the ability of democracy to resist harmful forms of state capture is viewed widely as one of its main strengths (whether rightly or wrongly). In a comparison of these two alternative political arrangements, then, a discussion of this matter would have been welcome. (Note that I say this as someone who otherwise finds proposals of the sort defended by Wooldridge congenial.)
Additionally, some of the arguments in favor of meritocracy were unconvincing. Here are just two examples. First, Wooldridge cites Gallup polls showing that the most popular destinations for would-be emigrants are broadly meritocratic as "vivid evidence" of meritocracy's moral virtues (p373). But the broadly meritocratic countries mentioned -- Canada, Germany, the UK, and others -- are also all broadly democratic. They're also broadly stable, wealthy, capitalist, etc. Why assume that it is their purportedly meritocratic attributes that make them attractive? Second, Wooldridge writes that "meritocracy...is the secret sauce of economic growth" (p369). In fact, though, establishing the most important factors in long-term economic growth is a bit tricky. A large number of economists would point to the importance of institutions, to be sure. But they typically mention institutions such as free markets, the rule of law, private property, and the like, rather than meritocratic institutions *per se*. Perhaps Wooldridge would say that market institutions are meritocratic institutions. But this view is controversial among scholars of meritocracy.
Overall, I still recommend this book, I'm glad I read it, and I learned a lot from it. However, much of its argumentation is somewhat shallow and unconvincing. If Goodreads allowed more fine-grained ratings, I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
March 20, 2023
An incredibly well-written, well researched history of meritocracy, combined with an honest critique of the idea that has seriously engaged with the criticisms of other writers of meritocracy from across the political spectrum.
The book starts and spend most of its time running through the history of meritocracy. It does incredibly well, and I have never seen a book with that many references and so few "ibid". It also does well to put in interesting tidbits and anecdotes to keep the reader engaged.
My strong commendation is how seriously and openly he has been with those who disagree with meritocracy. The best of these as Plato feared, meritocracy is easily gamed for nepotism; the elite are able to use superior resources to pass their position onto their children as per the Meritocracy trap. He acknowledges this issue, though I feel his solution is half hearted (though we agree Plato's solution is a non-starter)
He also does well to grapple with where and why it has failed recenrtlt. The Tyranny of Meritocracy - a book I enjoyed and agreed with on points of dignity is a case in point. Numerous failures he doesn't shy away from and notes where these can be corrected, and I agree often it is due to meritocracy being misapplied than the principle itself.
I disagreed with Wooldridge sparingly; I've never been convinced by IQ tests, and I think he doesn't recognise democracy beauty is in its fickleness, not its intelligence, but he meaningfully combats the ideas, puts forward solutions, and makes a good case to continue meritocracy, making sure it is not continually gamed as it has been but leaves room for talent of not just the university graduates, and gives room for us to gain the talent of all in society. A good read on an often unnoticed foundation of modern life that needs to be realised before its gone.
The book starts and spend most of its time running through the history of meritocracy. It does incredibly well, and I have never seen a book with that many references and so few "ibid". It also does well to put in interesting tidbits and anecdotes to keep the reader engaged.
My strong commendation is how seriously and openly he has been with those who disagree with meritocracy. The best of these as Plato feared, meritocracy is easily gamed for nepotism; the elite are able to use superior resources to pass their position onto their children as per the Meritocracy trap. He acknowledges this issue, though I feel his solution is half hearted (though we agree Plato's solution is a non-starter)
He also does well to grapple with where and why it has failed recenrtlt. The Tyranny of Meritocracy - a book I enjoyed and agreed with on points of dignity is a case in point. Numerous failures he doesn't shy away from and notes where these can be corrected, and I agree often it is due to meritocracy being misapplied than the principle itself.
I disagreed with Wooldridge sparingly; I've never been convinced by IQ tests, and I think he doesn't recognise democracy beauty is in its fickleness, not its intelligence, but he meaningfully combats the ideas, puts forward solutions, and makes a good case to continue meritocracy, making sure it is not continually gamed as it has been but leaves room for talent of not just the university graduates, and gives room for us to gain the talent of all in society. A good read on an often unnoticed foundation of modern life that needs to be realised before its gone.
March 19, 2024
This is a meticulously researched & wonderfully articulate depiction of how meritocracy became one of the most important driving principles of modern society. Wooldridge's strongest portion of the book is definitely the first third where he traces the history of meritocracy across the globe, focusing predominantly on both the Eastern and the Western worlds (Africa and South America are largely left aside). The first third, particularly, should prove a very interesting read for most. I found the middle third a bit tired, and my eyes started to glaze over once we got to the second or third variation on how meritocracy played out in one historical European setting or another. The quality of the writing is definitely there, but I simply got a bit tired of the game at that point.
The last fifth of the book which covers meritocracy is modernity is a return to form and utterly engrossing. It accurately (in my opinion) describes many of the trials & tribulations of meritocracy in the modern era. However, I thought that the book was arguably weakest in its conclusion where Wooldridge gave his arguments for amending meritocracy. For a weaker writer, they wouldn't have been all that bad. That being said, for someone of Wooldridge's intellectual firepower I found most of his arguments somewhat superficial and spurious. He brushes off many of the objections with his proposed solutions with a brevity that I found a bit odd, especially given the depth of his research & thinking in the prior 350 pages.
All in all, a great book and one which will expand your worldview of meritocracy a great deal. It suffers from pacing issues in the middle third and sputters out towards the end. That said, it is a well-researched and altogether great dive into the topic.
4/5
The last fifth of the book which covers meritocracy is modernity is a return to form and utterly engrossing. It accurately (in my opinion) describes many of the trials & tribulations of meritocracy in the modern era. However, I thought that the book was arguably weakest in its conclusion where Wooldridge gave his arguments for amending meritocracy. For a weaker writer, they wouldn't have been all that bad. That being said, for someone of Wooldridge's intellectual firepower I found most of his arguments somewhat superficial and spurious. He brushes off many of the objections with his proposed solutions with a brevity that I found a bit odd, especially given the depth of his research & thinking in the prior 350 pages.
All in all, a great book and one which will expand your worldview of meritocracy a great deal. It suffers from pacing issues in the middle third and sputters out towards the end. That said, it is a well-researched and altogether great dive into the topic.
4/5
September 30, 2021
This book really resonated with me, speaking to current societal challenges in a refreshing way.
The first part of the book offers a long but rich, entertaining and multifaceted account of the history of meritocracy. Topics include Chinese civil service exams, French elite universities, IQ testing, how Jews became over-represented in certain professions, eugenic movement, debates among US founding fathers or within the British Labor party.
The book goes on to discuss the current crisis of meritocracy. How elites became more insular, alienated from the public and how many forms of societal mobility have slowed, parts of the system rigged (especially higher education). None of this is big news, but the account of how much elite is reproducing itself through assortative mating was quite eye opening to me.
Then, most interestingly, Wooldridge re-frames our current political debates. He suggests we can think of the agenda of the 'woke' left's (incl. affirmative action/reparations) or the populist right (get back control) not just through the lens of identity but as challenges to the 'centrist' ideal of meritocracy. As such he offers some pathways to respond to these challenges through boosting equality of opportunity and rebuilding societal trust.
I also appreciated that a liberal western author points us to learn from the successes of more autocratic countries in the East. A rare occurrence these days.
The first part of the book offers a long but rich, entertaining and multifaceted account of the history of meritocracy. Topics include Chinese civil service exams, French elite universities, IQ testing, how Jews became over-represented in certain professions, eugenic movement, debates among US founding fathers or within the British Labor party.
The book goes on to discuss the current crisis of meritocracy. How elites became more insular, alienated from the public and how many forms of societal mobility have slowed, parts of the system rigged (especially higher education). None of this is big news, but the account of how much elite is reproducing itself through assortative mating was quite eye opening to me.
Then, most interestingly, Wooldridge re-frames our current political debates. He suggests we can think of the agenda of the 'woke' left's (incl. affirmative action/reparations) or the populist right (get back control) not just through the lens of identity but as challenges to the 'centrist' ideal of meritocracy. As such he offers some pathways to respond to these challenges through boosting equality of opportunity and rebuilding societal trust.
I also appreciated that a liberal western author points us to learn from the successes of more autocratic countries in the East. A rare occurrence these days.
August 8, 2022
Comprehensive overview of how societies became organized along educational and talent lines as compared to notions of heredity and family background. It lead to an "examination society" creating inequalities by access, income, and connections. However, it does give societies the tools to identify talent and genius. We have societies based on equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. And while equality of outcome sounds ideal, how do you define it? Who sets the standards, the accountability, and measurements? Who enforces or encourages institutions and governments to make this happen? How do you incentivize people if outcomes are predetermined? And how does the hierarchy not become the new decision makers at the top and everyone else at the bottom? Such a massive bureaucratic undertaking seems prime to be corrupted and ruinous given how human nature is.
Overall, the author makes good points, though the book is a bit repetitive because he covers too many similar thinkers in the US and the UK.
Overall, the author makes good points, though the book is a bit repetitive because he covers too many similar thinkers in the US and the UK.
April 10, 2023
O carte absolut exceptionala, un adevarat tur de forta. Plina "chock-a-block" de informatii si analize super-interesante. As fi fost tentat sa-i dau 5 stele dar a pierdut o stea din cauza faptului ca autorul, mai ales spre final, nu a putut ramane obiectiv si a simtit nevoia sa preamareasca progresisti de stanga ultra-compromisi si sa-si manifeste pe fata dispretul fata de cei ce nu-i impartasesc ideologia progresista, leftarda. Autorul pacatuieste, de asemenea, prin faptul ca desi critica aspru elitismul scarbos al meritocratilor cade el insusi in mod repetat in aceasta capcana, tratand cu superioritate pe cei "mai din topor".
In rest, o carte pe care o recomand cu multa caldura, insa, inca o data, ultima parte trebuie citita cu multa prudenta!
In rest, o carte pe care o recomand cu multa caldura, insa, inca o data, ultima parte trebuie citita cu multa prudenta!
June 15, 2022
A well written history. It is compelling in many ways, but takes a number of argumentative short cuts- perhaps, given the nature of the title, that is not surprising. IQ and normal curves, as proxies, or predictors of merit, raise some interesting questions- what is merit? The definitions vary, from those of Daniel Bell in the "Cultural Contradictions", to deep questions about talent and fairness. The problem with looking at IQ, is that is is not "merit" per se. which is skill based; the modern understanding, is based on "growth", and Duckworth's "Grit".
February 7, 2022
Another book that should have been a "long-read" mag article. Very well written, and very intriguing ideas. But way too long, and encyclopaedic in its scope. It's a whole volume of Brittanica (for those of you old enough to know what that means), while it should have been 100 pages of small print at most.
But. Very intriguing, and some of the first 1,000 pages (I exaggerate for clarity) do inform the later arguments.
But. Very intriguing, and some of the first 1,000 pages (I exaggerate for clarity) do inform the later arguments.
September 13, 2022
Dense, intellectually challenging and rigorously researched history of the thinking behind meritocracy. Once it moved on the the 20th century, the pace picked up and the passion became more obvious. I would have liked a lot more of the prescription rather than just the diagnosis, but this was thought-provoking and enlightening.
August 1, 2021
A curates egg.
A curates egg, good in parts. He is a prisoner of his own outlook, when he opines on the motives of people of whom he disapproves he is no more than guessing.
Reform of our system is overdue but there are few insights here to help.
A curates egg, good in parts. He is a prisoner of his own outlook, when he opines on the motives of people of whom he disapproves he is no more than guessing.
Reform of our system is overdue but there are few insights here to help.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews