Prof. Michael Sandel: Why the elites don’t deserve their status
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- Freddie Sayers meets Michael Sandel.
Read the supporting article: unherd.com/thepost/michael-sa...
Listen to the podcast version: shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi...
Do we deserve what we have? Are the elites any better than the rest of us? Do the right people get to run the world?
One political philosopher who attempts to tackle these big questions is Professor Michael Sandel. A Harvard professor since the 1980s and world famous author of many bestselling books, including 'What Money Can't Buy', and most recently, 'The Tyranny of Merit', Sandel has made the case for overhauling Western neoliberalism. The alternative society Sandel suggests is more forgiving of failure and confers cultural status onto building community rather than capital.
In a wide-ranging conversation with Freddie Sayers, Sandel explores how elite institutions from the Ivy League to Wall Street have given us the wrong idea about who deserves power.
Follow UnHerd on social media:
Twitter: / unherd
Facebook: / unherd
Instagram: / unherd
TikTok: / unherdtv
// TIMECODES //
00:00 - 00:43 - Introduction
00:43 - 02:53 - What constitutes a perfect society?
02:53 - 08:23 - Does meritocracy corrupt our sense of virtue?
08:23 - 11:19 - Does stripping away meritocracy become dehumanising?
11:19 - 14:30 - If meritocracy isn’t the way forward… what are the alternatives?
14:30 - 19:13 - How does Michael Sandel view the elites’ response to the pandemic?
19:13 - 26:37 - What is Michael Sandel’s view on universities becoming elitist?
26:37 - 30:48 - How would he change the university system?
30:48 - 39:43 - What Michael Sandel still be where he is now with a different upbringing?
39:43 - 44:34 - Should we accept our “gift” and pursue it as our only purpose?
44:34 - 45:02 - Concluding thoughts
#unherd #michaelsandel #meritocracy
I am an architect with a design build firm. I have to pay my carpenters more than I pay myself. There is an ample supply of people who want to work in an office and a dire shortage of other types of skills and labor. Our "meritocracy" is destroying our economy. There are lots of people to give orders and no one to follow them. I am amazed at how much my upper middle class educated friends absolutely detest working class people, and they really do believe that they are experts on everything. Higher education really pumps up the narcissism.
Today's intellectual education except in very technical matters, is indoctrination first and foremost. These faculties that merely indoctrinate without even telling the religion they want to convert to should be closed down. Contempt for working people by the self-styled thinking people is the sure indicator that the content of their thinking process is actually sectarian, not factual. Like the Indian brahmins, the Mandarins of old China, or the Islamic elites of so many backward countries. If the US accepts such a self-styled lay-people-hating mandarin class to prevail they will go very backward too. I for one would close nearly all universities, with the exception of military academies (but not without a huge reform of the latter, so as to teach them forcibly that they are there to serve the country, not to be served). I would close all the Ivy league institutions first. I would require all people exerting a STEM profession to pass a thorough anonymous examination (and another one every tenth year as sciences evolve). Human sciences such as sociology and psychology are not sciences at all, they are bodies of indoctrination knowledge, acquired gender theory being one last ridiculous example. I would also close Hollywood : the public no longer get their money's worth and they don't even have the excuse of promoting the US interests since they dislike the US people. Business schools such as Harvard are a plague : they have played a major role in destroying the US economy. Degrees issued by non-STEM faculties and not corroborated by an international examination should be abolished and demanding them as a prerequisite for any position should be liable to pursuit for discrimination. You don't ask for a manager's job of a food store or auto assembly factory to have a rank in the Moonie or Shi'a religion, that's discrimination. Harvard business school degrees don't teach business, they teach capitalism as an ideology.
Do you think such hubris is a conscious and deliberate stance, or do you see their attitudes as mostly intuitive or unconscious?
I find your last statement (pumped up narcissism) to describe Sandel perfectly, as much as the title of this vid. He is in and of the very elite undeserving of the status they have
I used to believe in meritocracy and think that if others could not attend a good university, they must be lazy. Until I learned about Social Capital, I realised I would be highly possible to achieve the same level of wealth and success, take the same kind of vocation (blue or white collar), have similar types of social networks and speak and think in simily ways as my parents do.
The problem isn't with the notion of meritocracy, the problem is how you define success. If success is going to a top university, most people will be failures. If training to be a master baker, raising a loving family and living a balanced life is considered to be a success, then everyone has a chance of being successful.
This professor seems to be assuming that everyone thinks the same simplistic way. It's almost funny that he is asserting his own superiority by assuming the rest of us are stupid.
Culture is becoming more female dominated and therefore more influenced by the feminine obsession with status, fame and consumerism, largely driven by hypergamous instincts.
100%.
This is what he was saying.
@@dperson5390 exactly. I understood and greatly appreciate what he has offered up...in fact it was taught in my Catholic college prep high school
As a second class citizen living unvaxxed in Canada, I can say a perfect society is one where you elect a moist speaking, fancy sock wearing narcissistic tyrant from people kind with a brand name. We Canadians have attained this great achievement and are reaping the the rewards of our lives being run by the most unqualified human being on earth. In short these elites are super duper special and should be followed blindly.
L'il Justin is indeed nauseating.
Wow you are so lucky to not live in a freedom loving country, where everyone minds their own business and no one can tell you what to do as long as you don't hurt anyone. Could you imagine that? That would be horrible!
There'd be no one to control every aspect of your life in the name of security and the environment or "solidarity". Worst of all, there is no one to check your thinking!! I couldn't live without that!
There's no such thing as a perfect society. But the closest thing to it would not have anyone be elected. It would have the people most capable and suitable of leading a large society at the top.
@@steve4562 He is nauseating ...and moist.
@Train 2noplace Nah, far from it. It also has nothing to do with humanity being ready for something. Anyhow it's impossible to get such a system running with every government being as corrupt as it is.
As Bret Weinstein said last year, society needs to find another measure of success or value other than money. But that cannot happen in an era of endless money printing that is purposefully designed to enrich the 'elites' even further.
Aren’t the Weinstein’s big promoters of meritocracy.
It’s also a function of how individuals define success for themselves. Not everyone defines having money as success.
Who is "Bret Weinstein"? The YT Covid grifter?
@@dancroitoru364 are your credentials better than his to make such a claim? Pathetic
Proper money would end the problem.
Deconstructionist thinking makes people overthink simple things into circular thinking until they find themselves dizzy in their own chaos and spew it confidently as brilliance.
Nice comment🙏👍
That's because Deconstructionist Thinking is really just Magical Thinking -- unmoored from reality.
So true.
Agreed. The problem with Deconstructionists is that they also make complex historical events into overly simplified Marxist Talking points that are filled with outright lies, half truths, outright omissions and modern political, ideological, religious and racial concepts that does not exist in the people and societies in that given time period.
I view Deconstructionist thinking as post modern academic BS pretending to be progressive brilliance that is praised by overly educated idiots.
Try this: I am where I do not think therefor I think where I am not.
People are generally even more snobbish than they were three decades ago. Judging people by what they own or earn reduces us all.
I live in Cambridge, a mile or so away from Harvard. There are no "working" people who can afford to live in Cambridge. That wasn't true a couple of decades ago. The only difference between Cambridge and the Hamptons or Cape Cod is the number of PhDs. As in the 1930s, WWIII will be out of control before Cambridge ever notices. Elitism in Cambridge is almost a phenomenon of a mass psychosis among its academic, financiers and tech class. When Trump was elected there was no shame, or mea culpa from the Kennedy School. Trumpers were ignored. Everyone thinks of their careers, the investments in real estate, etc., etc. There's no intellectual fix to this. Like the 1930s, only mass warfare will get people back to the fundamentals. Only when Harvard graduates experience electricity or gas shortages, or getting shot at, will things change.
Exactly, it's Cultural. Nationalism > Globalism
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I didn't believe it would happen. But here we are.
Like in the Netherlands the areas around Amsterdam, Den Haag, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Groningen > the workers go further and further away. Problem comes for ex at Schiphol where there are no people to carry the luggage out of planes anymore, or surveillance personnel, nurses, teachers etc. The wealthy have their own schools (with higher elderly contribution, and private better paid teachers), clubs, and social circles in what to do an dont. Smalltalk, network, and conservatism is their essence. Britain is worse, I know (France as well, even more so)
@@ooievaar6756 Thanks for the info! My wife works for one of the local schools. Lately, they're trying to cut their contribution to health care in a sneaky way. Like many, her loyalty is running dry. It keeps getting worse and worse.
Freddie is a brilliant interviewer - thoughtful , humble and open-minded; and respectful of the people he interviews.
He is almost always faultless in his interviews.
@@ohsweetmystery Almost...
Harvard? He is part of the elite exploitation of the people.
...except when he interviews Russian diplomats. He fucked up big time in that interview and has lost something of his reputation in the process.
@@GariSullivan well ... to each his allergies -)
Man, this is insufferable. Thomas Sowell calls it "the vision of the anointed". Sandel has a chronic case.
Are you certain of that? I think this is the antithesis of that. This guy completely recognizes that he is not better than anybody else just because he’s a Harvard professor. I think Thomas would applaud this guy’s talk, although the only person that can say for sure is TS himself.
If you've made a career from just calling things racist rather than understanding and caring about bettering anyone's lives then you certainly aren't anything elite whatsoever....
Here's the problem with his argument: "Okay Mr Sandel, what's the opposite of a meritocracy then?" The answer to this question, is where his suggested solution falls apart. He seems to have the wrong end of the stick on a number of issues. Meritocracy doesn't really exist in private organisations anyway, Anyone who's worked for private companies knows that "success" (defined as money and promotions), is achieved more through company politics, and personality factors, than talent or ability. For example Freddie Sayers would've been employed at the BBC several years ago, if meritocracy had anything to do with the way society operated,
"College Professor Believes Others Don't Deserve Status From Quantifiable Accomplishments" ...what a shock.
People are obsessed with equality or "fairness", this does not exist, never have, never will.
What they really mean is 'how I want things to be'.
They demand from society the same undivided, unconditional and sometimes pathological love they received from their parents.
Very true! No one is born equal (physical/mental abilities), has the same opportunities (resources/culture) or random luck. Still I'll choose merit with it's flaws over some arbituary "fairness". I want the best person for the job, not some arbitrary judgement on why we should pick some candidate with less merit over another based on some assessment of "fairness".
@Down with Corporate Amerika I would agree 100% that all schools should be funded equally. That doesn't mean we should remove merit as a mechanism to choose candidates.
The problem, as usual, is not with the critique, which has merit, but with the solution. Who gets to decide how we solve this "problem" if it even is a problem and that the "solution" undoubtedly involves some kind of coercion and that you will need an elite of some kind to impose these solutions and they will, as always inevitably happens, use their power and status to benefit themselves. Such a system might be run by angels but we humans are no angels.
You have come to a conclusion that many are realizing. Elites are inevitable, it's just a question of what kind of people they are, where they come from, and how they relate to their lessers. I recommend a recently released book called "The Populist Delusion" by Neema Parvini.
ruclips.net/video/Bk1QjSx53uw/видео.html
@@PuntedKitten I will check out that book. Thanks.
Agreed. Meritocracy is impossible while there is a state to interfere with it. Even then nepotism will always exist. The best solution is to decentralize power as much as possible. As an example, RUclips actively interferes in meritocracy by deciding what content to boost and what to suppress. If we had an alternative platform, where no one is in charge, but the users.
That's the nice thing about technology, you can completely remove corruptible humans from the equation. It's called a decentralized autonomous organisation. Basically, it's a program that has a fixed number of immutable rules that are transparent and verifiable to everone.
On a platform like this, the best creators would win.
You could even compensate for success causing even more success, therefore making it even more meritocratic. E.g. if two creators make a video of the same quality, one has 10x more subscribers, this one will do much better just by virtue of being more well known.
We should strive to remove effects such as the first mover advantage as much as possible, else undeserving content will dominate the platform eventually.
Creating systems like this probably isn't possible for every application, but we should use it as much as possible.
Who else enjoyed the laugh out loud moment when he claimed that Fawchi lost his legitimacy unfairly?
And then he brings up the huge public health policy mistake of closing the schools like no biggie
34:00 Freddie's point about the professor's idealised public gathering spaces such as parks being shut down during the pandemic is spot on
The emphasis on a university education has kept many talented, bright people from going into the trades and farming. We need quality trade schools which also teach leadership, public speaking and personal money management. We lack reliable tradesmen, while our infrastructure and older homes are decaying. Elite trade schools could take the best from regular trade schools and give them additional training, especially in setting up cooperatives as an alternative to impersonal corporations with a short term mindset. Hopefully some of these trade leaders could then run for public office in their latter years.
I wonder how it is that poor Nigerians and Asians can take advantage of the meritocracy according to the professor. Separately, there’s so much wish-thinking in the professor’s nostrums: “we should value [differently],” “we should change [our natures].” Seems like more utopian dreaming than practical advice. Maybe the practical parts are articulated in his book(s)
He is just another elitist who thinks his 'solution' is the best solution.
I wouldn't bet on it.
No. Sandel has nothing practical to offer anyone, neither elitist nor uneducated laborer, which is the privilege of his social status as a Harvard "philosopher".
I never thought meritocracy was supposed to lead to equality. I thought it meant the person (best) fitted for a task will be chosen to do it so the overall productivity would increase. And it has if health, longevity and overall standard of living are fair measures of societal success.
Excellent response.
Many people misunderstand his point, he's talking about creating equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
In the real world we don't exactly have meritocracy, because effects such as nepotism and cronyism interfere with it.
For example a poor person more qualified for the job would not get it, because someone else less qualified with connections gets the job instead.
It's basically about removing first-mover advantage. For example RUclips definitely isn't the best video sharing platform possible, but because it came first it dominates the market. And a small company with THE optimal video sharing platform could not get into the market because of it. In a perfect meritocracy you'd want the best platform to be the most popular.
There's many effects like these that prevent the optimal outcome to come to reality.
I don't think we need state interference for that, in fact I'd argue state interference makes it worse! IP rights in general, patents etc make meritocracy impossible. You'd want the best possible company to make every product, but that is impossible if you have state mandated monopolies.
Someone could make a clone of RUclips that is better in every way, but in real life RUclips could sue them to oblivion.
In our imperfect meritocracy, it's a fallacy to think the leaders are the most qualified for the job, exactly because of effects like these.
Exactly
@@Embassy_of_Jupiter The poor person will also get the job because they’re driven and because many businesses want the best person. We cannot stop cronyism.
@@MsChitterchat Doesn’t happen often in real life. Not at all.
This professor is exactly why universities are pointless. Nobody values a degree anymore. That ship has sailed.
@@SL-es5kb that is if you want power yes. The problem is that he thinks he has to explain or attack the process of gaining power. The actual problem is the end goal is power and not happiness.
Universities have become $$$$ making machines.
I was thinking something similar. Landscapers, plumbers, etc, are laughing their way to the bank
I plan to actively prioritize hiring people without college degrees for about 95% of my staff for all my future companies.
@@muninnsmith7958 smart
These guys are waaaaaaaay to confident in the value of a University Education. I have a degree. If I could chose between getting in Harvard or a Million Dollar trust fund, I would not even consider the former. The problem still lays with our insistence to tolerate insulating the rent seeking classes from any accountability and risk. How about we stop extending Disney's special copyrights then see how long the Disney Family keeps living off the rent cheques, Harvard degree or not.
I'm overwhelmingly concerned by the last two generations who 90% of didn't have Two solid parents or extended family. It's normal to have a father who's gone and an unstable mother, which is really freaky to think about
Not a very sharp "philosopher" there. I love it how he keeps going on about the notion of "success" upon which his whole edifice is founded, while never ever attempting to define it. To me it is quite obvious that therein lies the real crux of the dilemma - what is "success" and why is only a few certain types of success recognized as such? Why are those who are, by temperament perhaps or even ability, made to feel ashamed and inadequate for pursuing other goals? Not all women who become barren high-powered career spinsters are "failures". Maybe that trucker guy who feeds his loving family and spends days on the road listening to podcasts and meditating is much more "successful" than a lonely, paranoid, deranged billionaire who dreams of mass depopulation. (You know who I am talking about.) Respect for the "common" people, for the humanity - warts and all, has been lost, that is the most glaring problem as I see it. Meritocracy ultimately has nothing to do with it - because merit is another word for "success" and that is what we need to look into. Meh. His lamentation about no one listening to "our" dr. Fauci is just cherry on top of the cake. Talk about the definition of stupidity - the inability and/or refusal to come to obvious conclusions. If that is considered a maverick free thinker in academia I must say I feel very disappointed.
Just another academic following the current trend to be "relevant" and keep his job.
The real dilemma is not what success is but how is it defined and limited by a single meta narrative that by definition excludes any other definition but of course not its possibility. Concerning the truck man example that you gave I can form a simple critique with two main points or shifts 1) the narrative effect on desire .2) the narrative practical effect on one’s own life .so to begin with the truck man that is living a happy life example seems to be flawed in my opinion because one couldn’t really appreciate what he has when he is continually told that he hasn’t really lived a valuable life or in other words when an elite life is taken to be superior which means happier ,healthier then one will always aim to achieve that however,the truth of that life which is considered superior may be otherwise for example happiness may never be found .the other point is that the narrative itself legitimizes certain violations to the happy life of that man for example privatizing important public service institutions for the sake of profit rather than for the sake of better services or collecting taxes that will then go in the pockets of the military industrial elite in order to wage an unjust war that is made to be just by fooling the public that it is a war to spread democracy so not only is that man’s life worsens ,but he is made to believe that the cause of his sufferings is a remedy . What I do want to say is that if you are considered a winner according to the ideal ,then that gives you a free pass to do whatever you want.
The problem is that one of the requisites to make it to the top in big organizations (which run almost everything these days) is to be manipulative, lying, scheming, ruthless, sociopathic while going along with playing the dirty corrupt games. This why our institutions are broken; we have a terrible leadership class, which only cares about their own careers and no one else. As long as they can make out like bandits, then they are happy. It is very difficult for an honest person to make it, because institutions weed out such folks.
I was being groomed in my 30s to rise in a corporation.
When I personally met the leaders on business trips and expensive meals I decided I wanted no connection with that sort of person.
As a consequence I am financially poorer for it but I am also more human.
Good interview. The professor himself seems to me to be a typical exponent of the decadent elites on the university these days. The solutions he seems to offer are even more vague and abstract than the problems he points out.
He is just another product of the failed system described in the book "Experts Catastrophe".
He is from Harvard, his job is to tell half truths. He has no idea what he is talking about.
What you didn't find a "Broad democratic equality of condition" explanatory? No way
@@1234567Aesop You are confusing the superstructure as viewed from an ontological perspective with the same superstructure as viewed from a relative perspective. Unfortunately until you've reached postgrad level of philosophy training this is all beyond you. Please just leave it to the properly qualified experts and relax.
I think he is better seen as a philosopher rather than a problem solver
Meritocracy is not corrosive of the common good, but is beneficial to society! We should strive to create an environment of excellence in our "elites". Whether they feel grateful to others or superior is not of any significance to me. This professor is an exception to my thesis as he is an example of what can go wrong!
Indeed. "Genius = professor" and "professor = genius" long ago ceased to be true.
The failure of the expertise system is more fully detailed in book Experts Catastrophe. Can find some free chapters by searching for:
experts catastrophe pseudoexpertise
"The Accident of Birth"... Only "birth" is no accident. Funny, I just finished "Wealth, Poverty and Politics" by Thomas Sowell, today. In one of the chapters he addresses John Rawl's ideas on "fairnerss", "merit", and "justice" which are remarkably similar to this man's. In that light, listening to this Podcast, makes this schmuck's arguments rather embarrassing. Paradoxically, we are here listening to his weak arguments because he IS part of the intellectual elite. Freddie Sayers won't just randomly interview somebody from the comment's section.
It is of course true that Elites don't deserve their status... The fundamental error is to put the blame of such hubris to our societal attempt aim towards a meritocracy. Somebody's ability to make money and position themselves as "elite", means they're quite capable of making money -> not that they are morally superior, wiser or smarter necessarily. Somebody who makes a computer empire, should not necessarily be taken as being automatically smarter than anyone when it comes to weighing in on a Global Pandemic issue. The fact that many people do, could have MANY other explanations, other than "we aim to a meritocracy". Unbelievably idiotic
Striving towards a Meritocracy never implied that we would be governed by Technocracy. I'm all for meritocracy not because it is perfect, but because I haven't been persuaded by something else which could be better) , and I'm ALL against a Technocracy. Hell, we don't even have a Meritocracy to begin with, rather a Kakistocracy of people with elite degrees.
@@HugoJL they might not the the least capable, but I don’t think we would be any worse off if representatives were randomly chosen.
But don’t let my quibble be misunderstood-I agree with your comment in large part.
@@thelawfus Thank you for your comment, I agree with you actually
Especially when they do not have a degree in anything, much less in epidemiology.
Thank you.
This professor should study the failures of the kibbutz experiment tried in Israel. There is no replacement for that mysterious desire that makes people live in families and emboldens us in our endeavors. Any attempt to engineer that is bound to fail.
Professor Sandel has over the years taught tens of thousands of Harvard grads who have taken his course on justice. Many of these graduates have gone on to foster so much injustice. It seems it is primarily a rhetorical criticicism of meritocracy while enjoying it's previleges. The beginning of the end of meritocracy will have to first start with inbreeding among ivy leagues, especially in humanities and social sciences.
Like Coal Miners Boinking their Daughters the concept seems to involve some genetic risks?
They at one time enjoyed a lifestyle that enabled them to appreciate Black Lung and send their Children to school.....
Greed seems to be a Hollow victory over common sense, but that seems to be what the 10% offer.....
The remainder of the population simply struggles to cope with the system and exist on Credit, as debt becomes a more common feature of existence.
Estimates range around 70% of the planets population struggle to find financial resources that feed their families.
Capitalism, seems to face some challenges?
It's all bullshit. Harvard = propaganda
@@danielhutchinson6604 wtf are you talking about. The elite are all inbred pieces of shit
@@danielhutchinson6604 capital is a tool. Just like a hammer. You can hammer nails or hammer people.. it's how we choose it
We need to decentralise authority, go local, produce food locally, use cash as much as possible, leave phones at home
I'm very interested in knowing how often Sandel and his construction worker friends attend the opera.
The ideal picture of sharing the same public space and mixing together without class difference is beautiful!
Thank you professor Sandel. You brought again to our attention the importance of humility.
We don't want a just society. We want a good society that provides equal access to justice to improve its goodness.
"equal access to justice to improve its goodness" ... I got it, you want to be part of the woke brigade -)
@@dancroitoru364 No, I don't want some nutbar on a Human Rights Tribunal telling me what is just.
Nice episode. It was fun to watch Freddy struggle through this talk, as anyone would who has grown up in a society so pinned in the Meritocracy traditions. It is extremely difficult to see outside a world you have come to understand and one that has rewarded you. A healthy exercise is to write down all of the things, people, opportunities that have been afforded to you in reaching whatever station you find yourself at. From that will flow the humility that Sandel speaks of. Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘Outliers’ delves deeply into that process.
More like this please, and less from the warmongers. What a good man.
I’m a successful person who has worked his way into such a position, I don’t come from a background which guaranteed success. Far from it, I didn’t go to college never mind uni. I haven’t forgotten where I’ve come from or the moments of luck that have shaped my path for me. Instead, I’ve learned to recognise them when they come and take advantage of them. I’m grateful for it, every single day.
No doubt it wasn't just luck for you--I suspect you were born with certain proclivities which may have included a strong work ethic and imagination. I am also very successful (and did go to an elite university)--both my parents were poor, but they were excellent parents who gave me a dream. I was privileged in many ways, but not the wealth of my parents.
@@adstanrashaw9279 I’m fatalistic so in a sense I’d believe you can boil everything down to luck or a twist of fate, but that doesn’t necessarily abdicate personal responsibility either. I think Michael is wrong to suggest it does. Almost everybody is born with the capacity to break their chains, just as you and I have done. There are *rare* cases of those who aren’t born with the capability and they should be cared for by society as a whole, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
@@hotdiggityd I agree. there are people in this world who were born with limited capacity for this life. If society has margin, we should help these people--if fact, we do this better than any society in history spending billions of dollars to care for these people. The idea though of robbing ( through State power) people with capabilities to create artificial " equity" is a bad one. It can creat its own resentment where everyone is unhappy.
@@adstanrashaw9279 Without getting into the weeds of an unnecessary policy debate, I’ve never had any issues with a portion of the proceeds of my labour going towards creating equal opportunities for others to make something of themselves, and by extension society. But the idea of enforced equity is absurdist. I, like the vast majority of human beings, am inherently lazy. If there’s nothing to strive for materially my productivity would fall dramatically, so all of a sudden that “excess labour” going towards creating an equal society is no longer available.
The only solution to that which I can see is enforced labour. This is the question that every communist should know the answer to, how do you keep ordinarily ‘non-creative’ people motivated in an equitable society? We can’t eat Rembrandts.
Parents have always tried to equip their children as best they can, there's nothing new in that. Meritocracy is a necessity, would you accept a surgical operation by an intern or nurse?
Equality of outcome is unachievable, because we're all different with different needs and wants. Quite a lot of us don't want to do stem so that's not an adequate measure of anything.
Agreed and while there is an element to which a person's success is owed to many factors, it's still down to individual effort and will to make use of this. Sure, acknowledge gratitude to that, but pretending it's all just due to the collective is an error in the opposite direction and breeds nothing but indolence.
"would you accept a surgical operation by an intern or nurse?"
I wouldn't but apparently ohmysweetmystery would.
"Equality of outcome is unachievable, because we're all different"
That is the pipe dream of the left droning on about 'equity". Even Marx said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - which I don't agree with but it is preferable to equality of outcome.
Two things will help change for the better, one is the watchdogs who are educated, assertive and humble, and the other is the DIY movement that gives merit to those who want to do something with passion and are good natural instructors.
In the US, colleges across the country have used the same marketing ploy for ages in various phraseology: "we build the leaders of tomorrow." I always thought that was rather pompous. Why should holding a college degree give someone the presumption they should be a "leader"? And of course part of the chaos and recklessness of today's institutions, corporations and government is we have way too many captains of the ship.
This *Sandel guy* has the *corrosive attitude about success.*
Success is NOT being Jeff Bezos.
And an "Ivy League College" has very little to do with being successful.
@gnorweb So? What does that have to do with what I said? You still don't have to become as wealthy as Jeff Bezos to be successful.
Enlightened! We are to wake up!
Thank you ..
Prof Sandel is as elite as it gets, I don’t see him handing in his resignation. Lol.
And he is a beneficiary of the meritocratic system. It is better (better paid and more prestigious which helps you get articles and books published) to teach at Harvard than at your local community college. I hate this kind of bleeding heart whining.
this interview in one sentence: dignity to all who dedicate themselves to any and all activities necessary for life.
Lovely interesting interview. Aristotle's 'Ethics' explains in a wonderful way the dignity of work. I really liked listening to this interview with Prof. Sandel.
THANK You
Very Much👏/
PROFESSOR 🌞MICHAEL SANDEL AND FREDDY/
FOR THIS CAPTIVATING CONVER-🥰
SATION/
🌞ENLIGHTE-
NING EXCHANGE on Subject matter as SUCH👏.
Finally forced myself to finish this. If you don't believe in meritocracy, join a commune or something. Nobody's stopping you. Everything that this professor wants done CAN be done, voluntarily, in a free, LIBERTARIAN, society. I think universities are great, I like them, but you don't need to go to a university to learn liberal arts. Read books. Watch lectures, on-line, or the old fashioned ways---on VHS, DVD, or in lecture halls. Have discussions on Meetup where hoi polloi don't have to pay a thing. I see people of all classes, races and religions all the time, and talk to them, in real life, on-line and in old-fashioned letters. What's the problem? I also know many people who make big money with a GED or less doing "trades" that pay very, very well. If they want respect, that's there problem. People who need "respect, honor and validation" are needy, insecure, and have a sense of entitlement. Respect YOURSELF! Don't whine if others don't give you any respect....unless you're trying to be Rodney Dangerfield...and he's a joke....literally...Overall this whole talk was preachy, sanctimonious, muddled, meandering....with a collectivist-communalist-egalitarian mentality that I'm pretty sure obliquely aims at a scheme of government-coerced social engineering. Humility schmumility.
Thank you for summing up my thoughts by the 13th minute. It is painful to listen to this claptrap.
I fully support the view by Freddie at 15:45 of a technocratic elite with an often narrow focus to lead us astray and may I add, with too much power and too little trust in "the people". Trust is a two-way street.
There . are ..rules. and we keep changing the rules halfway through the game. Meritocracy is meaningless when you change the definition of merit. "My family is well connected so we have merit" new rule I guess
All I get is "we" are the bastion of intellect and only "we" can decide.
It feels always absurd when people are to be categorized and evaluated by scores and pure passion for learning seems to be brutally ignored. Interesting interview:)
The big problem is that well paid jobs are not 20% above average but 200 times average. If the difference was less. Not getting the highest paid job would be bearable.
Over the last few decades I have met professionals who were virtual Cretans as concerned the arts and who after college had ceased reading books other than those prescribed by that former newspaper the so called “grey lady” and it’s likes !!!
@30:31 Michael Sandel: ""Markets are very poor instruments for making moral judgments about what contributions (to society) are truly valuable"... Can't help but thing about the great Thomas Sowell again, which is a sort of rosetta stone to dismantle all sorts of modern intellectual nonsense, specially from progressives: "*Since capitalism was named by its enemies, it is perhaps not surprising that the name is completely misleading. Despite the name, capitalism is not an ‘ism’. It is not a philosophy but an economy. Ultimately it is nothing more and nothing less than an economy not run by political authorities.
Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain carbohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrelevant standards. Yet no one regards this as making calculus invalid or illegitimate. Once again, the selective application of arbitrary standards is invoked only when it promotes the vision of the anointed*.” ...Thomas Sowell. “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”
"
The reason people feel they deserve is never just personal. They know they owe to their family.
Also, going after the people who invest in their children's education is a bit one sided. Rappers and footballers are paid far more than most scientists and even politicians. But apparently, I'm the only one complaining about that!
The low hanging fruit of attacking those who invest selflessly in their children.
What he should be asking is why it costs so much to educate a person?
Excellent interview!
Really compliments and helps me to better understand Deneen's critique of liberalism. Especially for the chapter "The New Aristocracy". I see now how meritocracy may contribute to the furtherance of liberalism; deracinating individuals from their community, and exempting them from the duties, customs, and traditions to the community of their origin, such as family (thus the crisis of family values) and local culture (thus the crisis of traditional values and intergenerational wisdom). Once one thinks he owns nobody nothing, he's consequently freed from responsibilities to sustain his local community and origin. However, they'd still be dependent on the system and certain conditions that sustain their success, and thus they'd still be dependent on the status quo state's and market policies and regulations. While alienating, "freeing", and unchaining themselves from their local proximities, they turn to the state to fulfill their demands, particularly to ensure the delivery of resources they believe they're entitled to as being "deserving" for their status. The state, together with the market, has only limited resources to distribute for the rising numbers of elites, particularly intellectual elites - thus leading to the high number of youth unemployment
Thank you so much 🙏
Too bad Thomas Sowell couldn't have been part of this discussion. I'm sure he would point out that the idea of level playing field in life, where there are no inherent advantages given through luck of birth, is a myth. There never has been a level playing for humans in competition with one another throughout history, and there never will be. But the system we have now comes as close as any in the past, imperfect though it is. Like it or not professor, there will always be status conferred through success, and success is often measured by money. Provide equal opportunity as best you can, and stop trying to engineer society, but please stop saying merit is bad just because it is unfair.
You’re the second person do use Thomas Sowell as a rebuttalTo this guy but I think Thomas would think this guy is awesome. He is saying that people with a fancy Ivy League degree are no better than anyone else and they shouldn’t mistake their position for being a superior human. He’s also saying that there is more value and white people contribute to society than just academic or financial success.
I really don’t understand why so many people are pushing back against that. I think this guy is on your side
@@jasondashney I don't see that as his message Jason. He makes two points. A meritocracy in a University setting is imperfect, and his evidence for this is that most attendees are from wealthy families and have been coached on the entrance exam. His second point is that, even if it were possible to make an educational meritocracy perfectly fair, it would still lead to "hubris" among the winners, and that attitude is damaging to society. My response is this, stated a bit more plainly than the first time. Prof. Sandel is making a correlation and assigning a causation when he concludes that the high percentage of children from wealthy families are there mostly because they perform better in the entrance exam. If that were true, he defines this advantage as a form of cheating. Both Thomas Sowell and Glenn Laury, men of color who are now respected college professors, came from humble backgrounds, and they had to work their way into the upper echelons of education without the advantages of wealth. They both often make the case that it is self discipline, self confidence, and strong work habits that count for success in a University, and of course the intellect of the student. Getting in may no be fair based on testing bias, though I think this is not a given based on the evidence presented, but graduating and then putting what you've learned into practice must be a function of sustained effort, not cheating by studying the entrance test. Prof. Sandel avoids that point, of course. But what really gets to me is his conclusion that all people who succeed in this system, especially if they are from a wealthy background, have "hubris", or false pride, in their accomplishments, and spend the rest of their lives sneering at the rest of the common folks. If that isn't hubris on Sandel's part I don't know what is. I succeeded in university, and I cam from a very poor family. But my success never gave me the hubris he alludes to. Far from it.
I follow what you are saying, and appreciate your polite response, but I can't agree with you. The falsehood in Sandel's positions comes in the title. "Elites" don't deserve their status. Well, try taking the word "elite" out, and replace it with "you" don't deserve your status, especially if you come from an advantaged class. I've had about enough of that stuff, and the double speak used by people who propound it. My experience is life has been thus: you receive both advantages and disadvantages at birth and in your upbringing. Your job thereafter is to make the best of these things with an optimistic attitude and hard work. Whatever endeavor you choose will involve competition, and often enough, that competition will be unfair. Can't be avoided, in my view. But Prof. Sandel, an elite if ever there was one, wants to artificially make the competition easier, or eliminate much of it altogether, so more people can "win." He's obviously never been punched in the nose. If he had been, maybe he could better see that life is intrinsically unfair, and throwing out meritocracy will only result in getting punched in the nose more often.
@@tompeargin8319 "I follow what you are saying, and appreciate your polite response, but I can't agree with you."
No worries. Neither of us are inside Sowell's head so of course I can't say I'm right with 100% certainty
Two of my favourites (Freddie and Prof Sandel) doing sterling work !
The problem is that there is no perfect system. We are trying too hard to solve cultural problems. That's why nationalism will always be a better option over globalism.
His thoughts on this reinforce the Catholic attitude that everyone is equal in dignity, purely because they are alive, no matter their station in life. Lack of dignity for menial work is a plague on our society, we all have a purpose in life. Thank you for this interview!
Another terrific interview, Freddie!!
I am very familiar Prof. Sandel's sentiments and key points because I was raised by an academically uber-elite mother with a similarly egalitarian view of society. While certainly a product of a purer system of meritocracy than the West's modern admissions system, she generally never bought into the societal condescension of elitism because she saw academic excellence as but one facet or expression of a person's potential talents. If anything, people who get sucked into the hype of elitism often fail to explore the multitude of other potential abilities and talents.
Furthermore, she personally witnessed plenty of mediocrity among her peers while attending her country's top middle school, top high school, and #1 university/medical school as well as elite American grad school/post-doctorate post and professional research work.
So forget about your mom, what do You think?
@@dancroitoru364, while editing my original post, I accidentally deleted the part that I AGREE with Prof. Sandel's key points.
Learning to respect the humanity of people in different walks of life and appreciate non-elitist professions have helped me to think more broadly and learn from the vaster body of knowledge and wisdom as well as pursuit interests outside of the elitist bubble.
I'd like to hope we can still strive for meritocracy, but with a greater helping of humility & humanity.
The Professor's statistics are incorrect. 71% of the working age population in the US have completed some form of tertiary education. The "average working person" in the US is someone with tertiary education. It seems, therefore, the professor must be taking aim at a much narrower pool of universities, which he does not elaborate on. On the basis of actual outcomes, the evidence seems clear that these meritocratic and technocratic societies have delivered results (longevity, infant mortality, rates of malnutrition) and goods (advanced medicines, logistics, production of goods) that far exceed countries that lack meritocratic and technocratic orientation. The observable alternatives (evidently) appear to be totalitarian societies. Ultimately, the professor doesn't like where we (USA/Western?) are but has little to offer in terms of workable alternatives.
All the communist nations asserted THEIR values, the "correct" anti-capitalist values, by way of indoctrination, and look where that got them. They even killed many of their elites so that they couldn't infect the populous with their values. Were the communists poor but enlightened? No. They starved their populations because they put ideologues - people like Sandel - in charge of industries that required skill and meritocratic expertise. They were over-educated and poor and often wanting for basic goods plentiful in the West (at least in the Soviet Union) and couldn't maintain an economy that worked for the "people" because of over-centralization, party favoritism and the lack of ensuring market dynamics to help understand their own economies, and they FAILED by virtually any metric except that of maintaining party leadership privilege. And what is Sandel's preference to meritocracy? People like him telling everyone else what they should value above merit? Not like that's ever failed before.
Where the West is failing is not in pursuing merit, but rather the opposite, by indoctrinating our youth into the kind of socialist conditioning that leaves them with "the world owes me a living" attitude and so college grads work at Starbucks (not too different from the Soviet Union except they had PhDs working in supermarkets).
Isn't it just an occupational hazard that philosophers are the Cassandras of the world pointing out the moral failings of everyone else? We don't and never will live in Plato's Republic with a philosopher king. We shouldn't take the Sandels of the world too seriously.
He makes some good points regarding the problems, but his solutions are a sort of top down form of social engineering where a certain group of people decide what's best for society and what policies should be implemented. People don't have to be told what success should mean. It's up to the individual.
He also says things which are untrue or he makes up problems. For example, few people I know base a person's value to society on how much they earn. However, the reason why a shelf stacker in a supermarkert earns less than a pilot is market value. I'm sure the shelf stacker works just as hard as the pilot, but almost anyone can stack shelves. Few people have the skill to fly planes. That doesn't mean a pilot is a better person it just means that they get paid more. If you don't like this, then your're back to communism.
If you replace "shelf stacker" with "nurse" or "teacher" your argument falls apart.
The idea of the self-made person is a narrative of the US. This makes Sandel's critique of 'meritocracy' somewhat loaded and culturally specific. The answer is to improve the quality of education in state schools, where most children fail to get a decent education.
The problem with climbing the ladder is that the only way to get ahead of the person in front of you is to throw them off, or climb over them. This means only the most ruthless get to the top.
I think I'm outright in love with the position you're coming from Mr. Rufu hrhmm.... Freddie Sayers.
In the UK there are two main groups who are mainly single and childless- middle aged professional women and working class men. One of the main drivers of economic growth and development has always been the pressure on men to reach a certain status and income in order to be attractive to women. As women rise in our societies this deep biological drive does not change; we are not seeing professional women marrying postmen or refuse workers. In short, we cannot regain "the dignity of work" unless women (who are statistically doing extremely well as a group in the West) start to view ordinary working men as attractive mating prospects. I won't hold my breath...
"...now everyone will be able to succeed.. " under this new meritocracy.
No, not everyone. Accept that.
The notion of Distributive Justice hit me quite hard after a cancer scare a few years ago, particularly because I had studied Philosophy in University (just before the 2010 crash!). It prompted in me a quest to seek out the principles of health in a Modern World in general versus an Ancient World that we had evolved alongside, and in which we purportedly had far less cancer as a species. What I learned went back to the notion of sharing much of the information with others, whether they wanted to hear it or not, for the sake of distributive justice. Thins I discovered through talking to various Doctors and through having a keen interest in Biology in the age of the Internet...Eating meat isn't optimal for the body, eating only vegetables for a time helps restore equilibrium (or homeostasis, thanks for the phrasing Deepak Chopra!) but Doctors won't go on record and say that (you can guess why!), as does fasting (eg. see the BBC Horizons episode "Eat, Fast and Live Longer"), to a major extent. We are made of protein and fat and as such how that works (protein synthesis, namely) needs better understanding by the person seeking recovery or just generally good health. Avoiding radiation (thanks Dr. Devra Davis) from your phone, which needs to be held 6" away from your body at least, is good for you in not mutating cells into cancerous ones. It is normal to have 7 billion cancer cells, as far as I can remember, in a healthy body (thanks Mina Bissell, Ted Talk) Etc. Whoever invented the Internet, thanks for that- You deserve a pat on the back at least! Communicating through the Internet is quite phenomenal, in my opinion it is hinging on a sort of humility that has kept us better than we could have otherwise been. At least if you learn how to reverse cancer symptoms by doing the right things (eg. looking certain things up online) and avoiding doing other things, there is some hope for a person to not die in their poverty. That is something new on the Planet. Although avoiding stress is another big part of that equation, and it does involve money. Perhaps if Elites were generous to others who were disenfranchised by the same "game" that could gain another distributive traction, but of course believing you deserve what you were told you earned has it's moral logic too, everyone has a conservative side I would imagine. The rest is presumably self-awareness in our Psychology for creating better distributive justice, if we can. Thanks for all the Unherd interviews, Unherd, and to all the interviewees. Unherd is certainly veering towards human progress, albeit in whatever way that happens! Apologies that my comment is quite scattered here, hopefully I have included enough cancer prevention/ reversal information!
I find it strange the Professor Sandel blames parents. What about the Universities (Ivy League)? They are in a position to change the system but take no action as they profit from it.
I wrote model answers for my son and my ex-wife which I later discovered had been handed in as their own work. They both did very well for themselves. But did they deserve to? And I think it's important to recall that elites protect each other. Perhaps more than non-elitesbecause they have less to lose?
Finally someone who speaks some sense 👍
Dignity is the keyword
What is today’s problem with- and what is wrong with today’s system of meritocracy is not the fact of the reality of life on this planet being such that merit is an integral part of survival and evolution/advancement of ideas and philosophy and tools and creativity and productivity, but that we have government politicians who have usurped monopolistic authority over too many areas of our lives and of our economies - Yes, when the elites can tell us commoners to shut down our businesses and tell us to survive for a year or so on spending our life savings while they themselves end up making billions of profit from it and while they have gvmnts threatening us with jailtime if we don’t obey, then yes, their profit surely is not based on their merit, and our loss is not based on our lack of merit, but on crony-corrupt-state-monopolistic usurpation of power and disregard for the ‘we are all equal’ concept -
In a society in which people uphold the basic and fundamental principles of private ownership and freedom of voluntary exchanges between consenting adults to create their own win-win scenarios and interactions, meritocracy will provide the most people with the most benefit and opportunities possible - get state-meddling off our backs, and meritocracy becomes the engine of creativity, invention, productivity, efficiency, and of making potential success available to the largest number possible. -
“Broad democratic equality of condition along side equality of opportunity” is all we need? It’s got a ring to it ;)
Freddie on fire in this one!
I often thought that myself of why we referred to them as elites, it almost sounds like they have achieved something to gain such a title. The vast majority of them don't deserve to be called elites in the same way we refer to Ronaldo and Messi as elite footballers or to Usain Bolt as an elite sprinter.
And the fact that they call themselves elites too... like, what in the..
I lived in communist country. Question is should people who are deserving more of the money get more money. Even he agrees with that. Then if we don't let the market value that - how do we value it? Most of us think themselves more deserving - we can't really share wealth based on our wishes. So what we got in attempt to do that in my communist country (happened among all of them) is a bureaucracy deciding it on arbitrary points. And that is usually much more unfair and brings more conflict between people than they being payed what others are willing to pay. I own a small business now where I am payed on value I bring to customers..and I am payed 5 times more than in bureaucratic points system, much more than people not as hard working and not providing value, but skilled in climing the bureaucracy points system. So yea,people that enjoyed higher standard of living for their whole lives in the West..please do complain more on what u have 👏
Most of the really successful people I know never went to University
Thanks very good conversation.
Universities in Australia already punish those with innovative ideas, good work and moral ethics and rewards those who conform and sponge off the hard worker.
Thank you Mr Sayers , I praise your merits !
I like your questions , your attitude, your patience, your « neutrality « .
In the country where I live ( Belgium) there is a desperate effort to « social mix » in schools - you can’t put your child where you want , there should be no « elitist schools ».
The result of the law is a lot of private schools arriving , as more and more families bleed there budgets for a good education.
I am not saying it is good or bad , it is facts.
I am sick of hearing « feeling guilty for your privilege « .
Guilt is a poisonous word .
What about « learning and practice gratitude » , or « use your gifts for the common good » ? Sounds too biblical?
The professor implies quite strongly that people believe we live in a perfect meritocracy. I don't think there are many people who believe that, if any. Generally people know that our system is imperfect. However, if you are smart and you work hard, your circumstances 5 years from now will be better than they are now. Not only that, if you work hard and improve your circumstances, your children will have a better start in life than you did, that's an important factor motivating a lot of people. Then regardless of how hard you work or how smart you are, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow. A perfectly fair society is not a realisable outcome.
Possibly the problem is educational... I am just a single mum with a limited income, working part time but ever since I was pregnant i have made small investments for my son. I want to give him some sort of boost when he's grown. I think that's natural. Nothing wrong with it. But none of my friends have done this for their kids. It's not in their mindset to do it.
My man is excruciating to follow along to
Access to top Universities is no guarantee of a successful life or even career. The "real world" is much bigger and provides ample opportunity for anyone with the drive to make a good life for themselves and their family.
And what is the key to a successful life then? -) Meditation?
The monopoly board must always be wiped clean and the money shared out again and the pieces put back to go. Anything else would just entrench the board and leave most to fail on the first go when you land on the hotel on park lane and are wiped out. How you do this without revolution, carnage and the rise of monsters both empathic or malevolent is beyond me.
It seems the left - which Sandel represents - can't seem to come up with an idea that doesn't lead to socialism. But they don't need to, that is what liberalism is for. As long as everyone has an opportunity to improve their lot in life through education and hard work, that is all that matters. If you're not willing to do those things, then don't complain about "the system" because the system is there, you just didn't take advantage of it. Unfortunately for the last 40 or 50 years, liberalism has been blamed for things it was never designed to solve - such as it's "failure" to achieve egalitarianism or what people now call "equity".
Death comes to us all
Stop calling them ‘elite’ ! They are anything but ‘elite’!
Finally ....I found someone who has the same thoughts as me. There is a light in the tunnel after all
When a society moves away from the values that made it great then everything becomes an abomination like merit, capitalism, democracy are becoming in the West
What made democracy, merit, capitalism work in the West is best explained by the book "the Book that made your world" by Vishal Mangalwadi
Everyone has different needs and success perception, nobody can find the perfect solution.
But life is beautiful, with ups and downs... CARPE DIEM !
Unless you are applying for a job in registered profession university degrees are just something to pad out your CV when you apply for your first job. After that nobody wil ever ask you about it again or care. Another equally valid way to gain an interview is to have real world experience in a related or junior role.
Skills-based resumes are considered preferable to a narrative about your education and work history.
'Cultured people are merely the glittering scum which floats upon the deep river of production!'
- Winston Churchill
Once again, Freddie did a nice job with this interview.
Dr. Sandel's position on meritocracy is just silly. Meritocracy is the way to go. If I want a bridge, I want the best engineer I can find to design and construct it. If I have a medical problem, I go to an experienced doctor. If I have an environmental problem, I talk to an accomplished environmental scientist to understand the problem and identify a solution. These are all experts and they solve real problems, not esoteric philosophical constructs that in the end mean exactly nothing. I am not interested in the opinions of a blogger to design a bridge, a shaman for medical advice, or a Harvard philosophy professor to solve an environmental problem. And more importantly, if you abolish meritocracy what in the world do you replace it with? Who decides or makes the 'moral judgment' on the latest buzzwords equality or equity? Do we go with a hereditary engineer, who may have no idea about or aptitude for engineering? A Marxist board of 'social value' for an appointment of an ideologically pure bureaucrat for medical advice? Or a random person off the street to identify and solve the environmental problem? As to government, we have that ironed out and it is called democracy (or more accurately in America, a republic). Dr. Sandel has no solutions to his rhetorical musing.
There are really 2 meritocracies that of merit and that of class not acknowledging this confuses the issue.
I'm not sure that he didn't answer some of these things, but I'm pretty sure your going to stick to your own ideas about this anyway. I'm of course, in part, referring to the very questions and answers given to that very point, i.e. what to do instead. I'm not saying I'm perfectly happy with his thought, or that I share or subscribe to his philosophy, but he did give answers or propositions, so it seems strange, from my POV, to say he didn't, like them or not. IMHO some things should be stated more strongly, "meritocracy doesn't work because it's not actually applied", i.e. it's a total misnomer when everything is just based on wealth, power and currying for favor. Living in Italy I think I've learned a lot about when meritocracy is completely out the window, certainly in the governance sector it creates a system that is prone to being run by those who climb without the skills, and cause abuse, drag and all manner of inefficiency in the public sphere, corroding whatever real merit that may have existed, or that coexists.
Yes. Sandel is the epitome of the bleeding heart left who throw out socialist concepts at pragmatic problems and get paid to pontificate on why nothing changes.
" If I want a bridge, I want the best engineer I can find to design and construct " ... I'm pretty sure a mid level engineer can design a bridge. And how often you "wanted a bridge"? -)))
@@dancroitoru364 How would you know someone is a "mid level" engineer without credentials? So you want governments in charge of public infrastructure and public safety to hire your cousin Vinnie, the mid level bridge builder? Think again, genius.
When a professor starts talking about social value, I hear social credit score, and fear mine is too low by his standard. Thank God and our founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment.
Now get Daniel Markovits on. He's ever more in the rabbit hole of meritocracy.
I think the professor is exaggerating the importance of elite college admissions. There are so many ways to financial and personal success. Anyone who chooses not to be more productive is making a choice, not being harmed by society.
And what choices for financial success one has except for inheriting, elite college education or marrying into money ? Winning the lottery? Being a genius and inventing something (the rate of upstart success today is very low)
@@dancroitoru364 There are so many ways to make money that does not include any of those things. Most millionaires did not inherit money. Working in tech, finance outside of Wall Street, starting a service business, being a career civil servant. There are so many ways to build a good life in this country.
@@phipsdeus2 Most millionaires do inherit their money, working in tech rarely makes one a millionaire, starting a business does not guarantee millions in profit, most likely one will end up with less and being a career civil servant requires elite education. So, next subject maybe?
@@dancroitoru364 the cattiness is unnecessary. The fact is there are millions of people who make a good living and live good lives without needing an expensive degree or inheritance. The internet has created many avenues to learn skills that produce income and has lowered the costs tremendously. We have to let go of this victim mentality that has poisoned so many of us.
@@phipsdeus2 The only way I see it is getting well skilled in manual labor (plumbing, building, ...) but you omitted just that.
Very interesting discussion...