Too much merit or not enough?

Markovits fills his book with dismal descriptions of modern life. "Meritocracy traps entire generations inside demeaning fears and inauthentic ambitions." Also, like Young, Markovits believes members of the meritocracy use their influence to benefit their children at the expense of those whose parents have lower education or income levels. For him, admission scandals, in which parents connive with corrupt admissions officials to get their children into elite universities, are not aberrations; they are precisely how a meritocracy works.

Michael Sandel's book, Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? is less hyperbolic than Markovits's, but it makes the same point. Using merit to determine who advances in life is inherently unjust. Even if it were possible to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete for social goods (such as entry to an elite university), society would remain stratified because innate differences in talent and perseverance would produce unequal outcomes.

Like Young and Markovits, Sandel believes success in a merit-based system leads winners to consider themselves solely responsible for their own success. They fail to appreciate that luck and social circumstances play a crucial role. Moreover, the haughty self-regard of the winners leads them to demean those whose work doesn't require a university credential.

According to Sandel, "Learning to become a plumber or electrician or dental hygienist should be respected as a valuable contribution to the common good, not regarded as a consolation prize for those who lack the SAT [university admission test] scores or financial means to make it to the Ivy League." He provides no empirical data demonstrating that the wider society disrespects plumbers, electricians, and dental hygienists. Nor is it self-evident that these professionals would have chosen to study at Harvard even if they had aced the SAT. After all, plumbers and electricians make more money than many university graduates.

Of course, poorly paid workers perform essential services (aged care workers, food delivery drivers, hospital orderlies). The COVID-19 pandemic made it obvious how dependent we are on their work. However, it is unlikely that a Harvard degree would automatically increase their happiness and self-respect. Higher pay and greater job security would probably work much better.

Sandel's views about plumbers and electricians may reflect the prejudices of Harvard academics, but he is undoubtedly correct when he says universities can adversely affect social mobility. Applicants without higher education are barred from many well-paying jobs, even when they have the experience and skills to perform them successfully. Sandel deems such credentialism "the last [publicly] acceptable prejudice."

Critics of merit-based rewards have been influential in higher education. In addition to student selection, the hiring of academics, the award of scholarly prizes, and even which research articles scholarly journals publish are increasingly determined by group membership (sex, social class, race), with excellence treated as a second-order requirement. Academics may think this way, but the Pew poll mentioned earlier shows that the public does not. Most people believe that downgrading achievement in favour of group identity is unjust and leads to unfair outcomes. They want more emphasis on merit, not less.

Too much merit or not enough?

If meritocracy is cruel and unfair, and social rewards remain scarce (not everyone can go to Harvard), what selection process do critics propose to use instead of merit? Few bother to say. They point out that meritocratic selection creates winners and losers, an outcome they consider unfair. But is it? Great athletes differ from most people in physical strength, acuity, and dexterity. Choosing such people to compete in the Olympics often leads to fame and fortune. It's hard to see in what way this is unfair.

In the world outside the rarefied air of elite universities, the chief complaint is not that merit is rewarded but that it often isn't. The US Supreme Court recently upheld a case brought by Asian students who were refused entry to Harvard University in favour of students from other minority groups with less stellar academic backgrounds. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs and declared such biased decision-making illegal. The Court's ruling will reverberate beyond the ivy-covered walls of American universities. It will stimulate an international debate about how universities measure and apply merit when selecting students.

Sandel suggests a lottery for admissions, not for everyone, but only for those whose marks or examination scores are above a certain level. He argues that random selection reduces hubris by making it obvious to successful applicants that they are not the sole authors of their success. (It is unclear whether Sandel believes Harvard professors should also be chosen randomly … perhaps he feels they are already sufficiently modest.)

It is undeniable that luck plays a role in any human endeavour. But because a selection system is imperfect does not mean throwing in a random element will make it fairer. Sandel's suggestion would turn university admissions into an opaque game of chance in which admission decisions are impossible to predict or explain.