It's interesting how often academics write almost simultaneously about the same subject. I'm thinking of books by Daniel Markovits and Peter Mandler published in 2202 and excellently reviewed (although I haven't yet read the books) in the London Review of Books by Stefan Collini. Collini, like Sandel, talks about a lottery towards the end of the review, but in a different way. He highlights the different perspectives of the well meaning reformer and popular attitudes, saying that while people may have an interest in changing an unfair system, with a combination of fatalism, distraction, selfishness they are likely to fancy their chances of 'making it', despite the odds against success. The lure of the casino (as in capitalism) may be irresistible. Collini also suggests that most people accept considerable inequality in incomes, that they are more bothered that some individuals may be getting 'something for nothing' (e.g. benefits) than the thought that some individuals are paid a thousand times as much as others.
The problem is when you have a collage degree and earn or are considerated the same as a person without degree or even less because of jelousy!! It happened to me 6 years ago!! This happens on Spain where people don't value the efforts or achievements a person has done so there isn't incentives to make big efforts On the other hand, I agree of what he says!!
I am not really following this. If I understand him he is saying that the problem with a meritocracy is that people become arrogant and forget about the people at the bottom but this is a feature of people’s hubris which Orwell successfully showed is a potential danger too any systems even those designed on all people are equal basis. It is not inherent to the system and it ignores the fact that the success of these meritorious societies has been the creation of wealth which has lifted vast sections of the world out of poverty. Meritorious does not mean we can not reduce wealth inequality as it is does not need to be an absolute belief structure. The problem with a lot of philosophy is this building of straw arguments based on absolute definitions. What is his better solution? Does that not have more problems than it solves?
I like Michael Sandel, but like a number of other recent writers he is using the word meritocracy in a very strange way. I find people respect those they consider of merit doing much better than themselves, but they also don't find much merit in most people who have a college degree. University education is pushed like it will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It won't. The people who really get value out of a university education are those most people would consider someone of merit before they go to university.
As I see it, Sandel is merely using meritocracy in the sense that it is both an ideology and a institutional promise. The ideology proceeds from the assumption that those who occupy positions of wealth and power deserve that status because they have earned it through hard work, discipline, etc. That, I contend, is the "standard" definition of meritocracy. But the institutional promise relates to education, which says that in order to raise one's station in life, one must first "earn" it, and a necessary precondition for that is to obtain a higher education which not everyone will have the resources (and/or the luck) to obtain. Both the ideology and the institutional promise are forms of establishment propaganda. If Sandel focuses on the educational side of the argument, that probably reflects his own status as a university professor, but it does not diverge from the standard understanding of meritocracy. However, one aspect of Sandel's presentation does bother me, and that is the fact that even those who do obtain their diplomas often find that the high-paying, high-status jobs they were promised do not materialize, and they end up taking mediocre jobs which are not lucrative enough to defray the huge tuition debts they run up during their four years in college/university. Ergo, there's a disjunct between the promise and the reality. As for your statement about the "people who really get value out of a university education" --- well, statistics prove that the wealthier you are before you ever consider higher education, the more likely you are to get it. And that may or may not have anything to do with qualification --- quite often, it's merely a reflection of the wealth of the students' parents.
@@paulkesler1744 We need to stop this inversion of the meaning of words. Ask the average person if some deadbeat with an MA is a person of merit, and they will say no. We see the most illiberal people being called liberals. We see racism being redefined as something more to do with power than the way people treat each other. Its becoming impossible to have a meaningful conversion, as people talk past each other by using fundamentally different dictionaries.
@@steveunderwood3683 Okay, fair enough. I agree that many people make the most egregious mischaracterizations. I personally get miffed at the way most people, even on the left, characterize politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi as "centrists" or "moderates," when (as Chomsky has pointed out), by European standards, they would be classified as far right on the political spectrum. However, I don't see Sandel as "inverting" the meaning of meritocracy itself. He may very well be exaggerating -- or at least, overgeneralizing --- the merit of people with advanced academic degrees. And that, of course, creates a distorted impression. Then again, I have not yet read his book, in which he may possibly fill in a few blanks. There's only so much one can say in a 49-minute interview.
The irony is people who rise high due to merit are respected and would never be torn down by the populous. What he is talking about is false meritocracy.
Great discussion but he lost me with the lottery proposal. This would work for elite universities like Harvard, Oxford etcetera. What about state universities, liberal arts colleges and the like? He likes to espouse about the qualified and the unqualified. The lottery proposal will only widen the gap of inequality. The degrees would be valued even more greatly under the proposed system. This would make them rare and scarce in the market. I like Scott Galloway's plan. Admit more students. Allow the unremarkable a chance to not only be admitted but to absorb the knowledge of great professors. State schools, and private schools should be admitting more and pushing back against universities that operate more like luxury brands than institutions of higher learning. I do agree that trade schools and community colleges need to restore prestige but it can't be forced by admitting fewer students to universities.
The root of the misunderstanding is probably that you're understanding the term in a purer, more abstract fashion, whereas they are discussing it from a real-world perspective. The difference has to do with the fact that the assumption of equal playing field does often not hold true in the most of the Anglo-Saxon West, broadly (who your parents are plays an ever more important role in your chances of success in life, outliers notwithstanding), whereas the elite prefers to think that it does, for understandable reasons. Hence accelerating stratification, social tensions, etc.
Meritocracy is the best way gotten us here and going forward despite its flaws and inadequacies. You should try communism which promotes equity, rewards laziness and punishes hard working to see where it leads.
Great interview Andrew. Sandel's new book is very persuasive. Synthesis of Thomas Frank politics with Yuval Harari philosophy.
Great insight! Im reading thomas frank,
It's interesting how often academics write almost simultaneously about the same subject. I'm thinking of books by Daniel Markovits and Peter Mandler published in 2202 and excellently reviewed (although I haven't yet read the books) in the London Review of Books by Stefan Collini. Collini, like Sandel, talks about a lottery towards the end of the review, but in a different way. He highlights the different perspectives of the well meaning reformer and popular attitudes, saying that while people may have an interest in changing an unfair system, with a combination of fatalism, distraction, selfishness they are likely to fancy their chances of 'making it', despite the odds against success. The lure of the casino (as in capitalism) may be irresistible. Collini also suggests that most people accept considerable inequality in incomes, that they are more bothered that some individuals may be getting 'something for nothing' (e.g. benefits) than the thought that some individuals are paid a thousand times as much as others.
The problem is when you have a collage degree and earn or are considerated the same as a person without degree or even less because of jelousy!! It happened to me 6 years ago!! This happens on Spain where people don't value the efforts or achievements a person has done so there isn't incentives to make big efforts On the other hand, I agree of what he says!!
I am not really following this. If I understand him he is saying that the problem with a meritocracy is that people become arrogant and forget about the people at the bottom but this is a feature of people’s hubris which Orwell successfully showed is a potential danger too any systems even those designed on all people are equal basis. It is not inherent to the system and it ignores the fact that the success of these meritorious societies has been the creation of wealth which has lifted vast sections of the world out of poverty. Meritorious does not mean we can not reduce wealth inequality as it is does not need to be an absolute belief structure. The problem with a lot of philosophy is this building of straw arguments based on absolute definitions. What is his better solution? Does that not have more problems than it solves?
I like Michael Sandel, but like a number of other recent writers he is using the word meritocracy in a very strange way. I find people respect those they consider of merit doing much better than themselves, but they also don't find much merit in most people who have a college degree. University education is pushed like it will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It won't. The people who really get value out of a university education are those most people would consider someone of merit before they go to university.
As I see it, Sandel is merely using meritocracy in the sense that it is both an ideology and a institutional promise. The ideology proceeds from the assumption that those who occupy positions of wealth and power deserve that status because they have earned it through hard work, discipline, etc. That, I contend, is the "standard" definition of meritocracy. But the institutional promise relates to education, which says that in order to raise one's station in life, one must first "earn" it, and a necessary precondition for that is to obtain a higher education which not everyone will have the resources (and/or the luck) to obtain. Both the ideology and the institutional promise are forms of establishment propaganda. If Sandel focuses on the educational side of the argument, that probably reflects his own status as a university professor, but it does not diverge from the standard understanding of meritocracy. However, one aspect of Sandel's presentation does bother me, and that is the fact that even those who do obtain their diplomas often find that the high-paying, high-status jobs they were promised do not materialize, and they end up taking mediocre jobs which are not lucrative enough to defray the huge tuition debts they run up during their four years in college/university. Ergo, there's a disjunct between the promise and the reality. As for your statement about the "people who really get value out of a university education" --- well, statistics prove that the wealthier you are before you ever consider higher education, the more likely you are to get it. And that may or may not have anything to do with qualification --- quite often, it's merely a reflection of the wealth of the students' parents.
@@paulkesler1744 We need to stop this inversion of the meaning of words. Ask the average person if some deadbeat with an MA is a person of merit, and they will say no. We see the most illiberal people being called liberals. We see racism being redefined as something more to do with power than the way people treat each other. Its becoming impossible to have a meaningful conversion, as people talk past each other by using fundamentally different dictionaries.
@@steveunderwood3683 Okay, fair enough. I agree that many people make the most egregious mischaracterizations. I personally get miffed at the way most people, even on the left, characterize politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi as "centrists" or "moderates," when (as Chomsky has pointed out), by European standards, they would be classified as far right on the political spectrum. However, I don't see Sandel as "inverting" the meaning of meritocracy itself. He may very well be exaggerating -- or at least, overgeneralizing --- the merit of people with advanced academic degrees. And that, of course, creates a distorted impression. Then again, I have not yet read his book, in which he may possibly fill in a few blanks. There's only so much one can say in a 49-minute interview.
The irony is people who rise high due to merit are respected and would never be torn down by the populous. What he is talking about is false meritocracy.
I meant 2020!!
Great discussion but he lost me with the lottery proposal. This would work for elite universities like Harvard, Oxford etcetera. What about state universities, liberal arts colleges and the like? He likes to espouse about the qualified and the unqualified. The lottery proposal will only widen the gap of inequality. The degrees would be valued even more greatly under the proposed system. This would make them rare and scarce in the market. I like Scott Galloway's plan. Admit more students. Allow the unremarkable a chance to not only be admitted but to absorb the knowledge of great professors. State schools, and private schools should be admitting more and pushing back against universities that operate more like luxury brands than institutions of higher learning. I do agree that trade schools and community colleges need to restore prestige but it can't be forced by admitting fewer students to universities.
Would you ride on an airplane with a bad pilot?
The root of the misunderstanding is probably that you're understanding the term in a purer, more abstract fashion, whereas they are discussing it from a real-world perspective. The difference has to do with the fact that the assumption of equal playing field does often not hold true in the most of the Anglo-Saxon West, broadly (who your parents are plays an ever more important role in your chances of success in life, outliers notwithstanding), whereas the elite prefers to think that it does, for understandable reasons. Hence accelerating stratification, social tensions, etc.
Meritocracy is the best way gotten us here and going forward despite its flaws and inadequacies. You should try communism which promotes equity, rewards laziness and punishes hard working to see where it leads.