Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatism, Meritocracy, and the New Elite
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…
I would argue that this self-evident truth is actually only half true. Certainly, all men are entitled to equal human dignity and equal standing before the law, but it is also self-evidently untrue that all men are created equal in ability.
Two of the major features of modern American conservatism are an affinity for meritocracy and an antipathy toward the elite. Throughout most of human history these have been complementary attitudes, as elite status has been due more to hereditary privilege than to personal achievement or ability. American conservatism has a long history of positioning itself as the champion of the self-made man and of wealth based on industriousness and productivity. This ideal is often contrasted against the indolent manor-born elite whose social and economic status and right to rule are due not to ability or industry, but to the accident of birth. But what if this dichotomy ceased to hold true? How should conservatives feel about an entrenched elite which achieves its status based on merit?
Much is been made about Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart. Attention has tended to center on Murray’s identification of a new entrenched elite, increasingly hereditary, insular, and disconnected with the mainstream of American society. The fact of this increase in social stratification is important and certainly deserves the attention it has received. At the same time, an equally important issue raised by Murray’s work has been comparatively neglected: the fact that the rise of the new elite is the result of unprecedented levels of meritocracy in American society.
Very briefly, Murray’s explanation of the rise of the new elite is as follows:
In modern developed economies the economic value of human capital has risen to levels unprecedented in human civilization. Intelligence and education are the two greatest contributing factors to the development of human capital. Ever-increasing numbers of Americans are attending institutions of higher education and the American university system is highly effective in sorting for intelligence. Unlike a century ago, when social standing and/or affluence were the major predictive factors of admission to an elite university, admission to elite American educational institutions for the past two generations has been overwhelmingly a factor of intelligence and ability.
Intelligence is largely a factor of heredity. The child of two parents of above average intelligence is almost certain to be of above average intelligence himself, while the child of two imbeciles is overwhelmingly likely to continue the family tradition of imbecility. Throughout most of human history it was quite common for people of high intelligence to procreate with people of low intelligence, as people tend to pick their mate from among those with whom they interact and society was generally not segregated according to intelligence. The combined effect of mass participation in higher education and our system of higher education’s effectiveness at sorting for intelligence has profoundly altered the patterns of human interaction. Today, much more so than any time in the past, highly intelligent people of both sexes are attending elite universities and dominating the professions (finance, medicine, law, and academia) which both constitute the new elite and place a high value on intellectual ability. These people tend to find their mates among their highly intelligent new elite peers. Their offspring are overwhelmingly of high intelligence and, consequently, likely to join the ranks of the new elite themselves.
Thus, over the past several decades the American elite has become increasingly an elite not just in terms of social and economic standing but of intelligence and ability. This is not to say that there are no longer affluent dunces and impoverished geniuses (there certainly are), but it is an indisputable fact that economic status is unprecedentedly correlated with intellectual ability in postwar America. Nor is it to say that elite status is significantly less a factor of heredity than it has been in previous eras, but it is increasingly as much (if not more) a factor of inherited intellect as of inherited wealth.
So what is a conservative who has both an affinity for meritocracy and an antipathy toward elitism to make the new elite? It is common to hear conservatives extol the virtues of merit and ability and at the same time decry the fact that our society is governed by an Ivy League educated, insular elite. Rarely is it acknowledged that that elite obtained its status in large part due to its own merit.
It’s true that intelligence is not necessarily indicative of wisdom (Barack Obama is a good illustration of someone possessing the former trait, but not the latter), but increasingly it seems that a significant segment of the conservative base considers a degree from an elite university to be more a mark of Cain than a feather in one’s cap. I’m a huge fan of Scott Walker and I hope he runs for president, but that the fact that he’s a college dropout is considered by many conservatives to be one of his positive attributes seems to me to be a bit misguided.
I’d like to be clear that I’m not writing in defense of elitist snobbery. I’m not. I think the most pernicious aspect of the rise of the new meritocratic elite is that it has adopted the insularity and disdain for the common man which characterized aristocracies of the past. That said, I think the current strain of anti-elitism popular among the conservative base has gone a bit too far. Skepticism toward elite claims to a monopoly of knowledge or of entitlement to rule is a vital to the health of a republic, but that does not mean that we should make a virtue of mediocrity.
I recently had a conversation with a conservative activist who was highly critical of Ted Cruz (yes, Ted Cruz) on the grounds that he is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and was thus a member of the oppressive elite. In support of his claim that an Ivy League education should be a disqualification for a conservative leader he cited the famous line about preferring to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. He declined to attribute the quote to its origin: William F. Buckley, Jr. (St. John’s, Beaumont; the Millbrook School; Yale, Class of 1950, and a member of Skull and Bones).
Published in General
Great article. Nothing against Skull and Bones, but I’d rather be a member of Ricochet.
They’re both exclusive groups.
I have nothing against rarefied, elite skills, or the people who enjoy them – whether for the pure intellectual stimulation or because their skills earn them thundering avalanches of cash. I do, however, have a problem with meritocracy as a conservative ideal.
The very word “meritocracy” presupposes (in many people’s minds, at least) that there is some knowable, univocal scale of “merit” on which people can be ranked. There isn’t – or if there is one, it’s known only to God. To me, the belief that some humans can rank other humans according to “merit” (as opposed to other, more mundane measures like SAT score or economic productivity) smacks of fatal conceit.
Moreover, belief in meritocracy often results in believing that people should be rewarded for their merit, even though life is unfair. In other words, it’s some centralized agency’s job to correct for the unfairness of life so that people “really get what they deserve” instead of being subject to the vagaries of chance. This is, in fact, the belief of many of my Leftist friends – and they have a point.
I agree that criticizing Ted Cruz for coming from an elite university is counterproductive. We should want more conservatives at elite universities to help balance them out. The reason I like fact that Scott Walker is a college dropout is to counter this ridiculous idea in our society that EVERYONE has to go to college in order to succeed. This idea has helped create and perpetuate this elitist class. The best companies recruit out of the top universities, so they are able to insulate themselves from the rest of society, creating this little bubble around themselves.
Our education system doesn’t have an alternative non-college track anymore to the detriment of our society, and this is also why the universities have been able to raise their tuitions to ridiculous levels. Perhaps if we stop venerating the college degree as the end all and be all of success then perhaps we can go back to a more meritocratic society.
To note I am not knocking the entire notion of a college education it’s the fact that we have been led to believe that a person can’t make anything of their life without one these days to the point that young people are bankrupting themselves in order to go.
With great respect, I strongly disagree.
The crucial premise is that higher education “sorts out” the more-intelligent from the less-intelligent. But higher education is a binary certification; it only certifies that the graduate has met minimum standards.
Remember, education doesn’t bestow intelligence; it’s just training. When a school graduates someone, it only certifies that the graduate has been trained. It doesn’t certify that the person is intelligent. (Never mind the highly debatable premise that the graduate needed to be intelligent in order to be trained.)
Murray is trying to argue that education sorts society by intelligence. But if education and raw intelligence were the chief criteria, that would only explain why the lower class gets weeded out. It doesn’t explain the increasing gap between the middle and the “elite.”
Higher education is not a meritocracy of raw intelligence. The most “prestigious” higher education institutions select students based mostly on whether they attended “prestigious” lower institutions (academies, affluent high schools, and so on) – and attending those schools is based on whether the parents can afford it.
The social effects of prestigious education are not based on intelligence; they’re based overwhelmingly on affluence.
The distinction between receiving higher education and not is, indeed, binary. It is not, however, the major intelligence sorting factor Murray cites. Far more important than whether or not someone attends college (from the perspective of intelligence sorting) is which college they attend. While there are a number of other important factors contributing to college admissions, elite universities are very effective at selecting for intelligence. Murray’s point is that there is more of a distinction between someone who attends Harvard and someone who attends Chico State than there is between someone who attends Chico State and someone who never goes to college.
Even that’s debatable with most majors. What it really certifies is that you can learn some amount of material and pass a test and go through the motions enough to graduate, which is useful information to employers who want able-minded conformists. Think about what it signals when you don’t finish your degree, seeing how easy it has become. Either you are not up to snuff intellectually or you’re not the kind of person who can’t even complete simple, if boring and long term, task.
I’m not defending the education system, just that sorting needs to happen somehow, and it needs to work well enough to be useful even if it falls short of “correct.” The problem with college is the subsidies that have made it the only game in town for sorting.
This is partially true, but also somewhat misses the point. Obviously going to better primary and secondary schools increases the prospect of a college applicant, but the effect is mainly in marginal cases. Privilege and good education will help an student of average intellect gain admission to a better university than he would if he were poor and went to failing schools, but, unless his parents are willing to endow a chair or build a dorm, an affluent dunce is going to have a hard time getting into an elite institution.
Privilege and good education also present a bit of a chicken versus egg question. For a couple generations now, economic success has been increasingly tied to intelligence. The offspring of the affluent are likely to be more intelligent on average. Admission to elite primary and secondary schools is also highly competitive. Stupid children are unlikely to attend Andover or Hotchkiss.
… just saw this pop up on my alerts, and was only able to skim until I get a little more time. But I’ll add a comment in the meantime.
Unless I’m reading it out of context (I skimmed, so I likely am reading it out of context), I saw that you said “rarely is it acknowledged that our elite obtained its status in large part due to its own merit.” I have to both agree and disagree, there. I’ve seen it both ways. I’ve experienced it both ways in my own life. Your school is huge, and generally out of your control. Money is still big, and wealthy kids will make it further. There are exceptions, but rare. And with intellectuals, it’s hit and miss. Just look at some of our own favorite pundits – many have equally famous parents: Jonah Goldberg, John Podhoretz, (oh, damn… I forgot a few names). Now, they’re not everyone, and arguably there are tons more with no famous parents. You and me, and all ricochetti, for example, are at least partially “elite,” all things considered… but I would never say that many aren’t “born lucky.”
Employers need to be able to tell the difference between people for anything above rudimentary labor. And even then, a little more intelligence and sticking with something can go a long way. They’re going to use any piece of information they can get their hands on to see that one guy is a better deal over another guy because most people hate firing and so they’re probably going to be stuck with any dead weight for a while.
Thus we have college, and even that doesn’t sort people that much more now that everyone gets degrees, so you have employers eliminating resumes for almost indistinguishable and arbitrary reasons.
Yes… but I can speak from experience in saying that poor children are guaranteed to not attend. I agree with KC in part. My brother-in-law is a great example. We’re probably of equal intelligence (although I’d say I’m smarter, haha), and he ended up at Duke Law. Parents paid for everything from birth on. His parents didn’t spoil him, but he never wanted for anything. Both of our parents were good at teaching lessons, instilling values, etc… but mine were dirt poor. I know a lot of examples like that. As much as we talk about merit and scholarship and poor being able to work up, it’s really a multi- generational journey.
A link that may be of interest. I would encourage a full read through before drawing conclusions.
(BTW, it’s funny. I was thinking about writing a post about higher education when I saw yours come along. I confess to being really disgruntled with higher education right now, so take my antagonism with a grain of salt. I have four college-aged kids, and I can’t believe what they’re charging these days. Most of their classes are little more than assisted text-reading, with tangential teacher-commentary and extended classroom bull sessions. And they’re charging mortgage-level tuition for that! What an arrogant racket! Anyway …)
Again, I’d dispute that elite universities sort out levels of intelligence in general. They may weed out the unintelligent, but that’s different from saying that someone who can afford Harvard is logically more intelligent than someone who can only afford Butthead State. The difference is in the affording, not the intelligence. People who can’t afford Harvard, no matter how intelligent, won’t apply to Harvard in the first place. That alone narrows the field to the affluent. Harvard may be intelligence-selective among that narrower affluent pool, but that’s a different claim.
Who decide what “merit” is?
Not the market – the market doesn’t care how much “merit” you have, only whether you produce what others want. And that’s how it should be. Savvy economists know not to conflate prices with “intrinsic worth”. The ones who aren’t savvy about this simply embarrass themselves, like the Econ prof who complained about the “injustice” of intelligent, highly-trained Econ professors making less than garbage collectors.
Believing you have “merit” can lead to an unfortunate sense of entitlement: So you have an IQ above 150, a perfect SAT score, and an honors degree in a STEM major. You think that means life owes you something? (Not every whiny millenial is actually a low achiever.) People who feel entitled in this way may lack the humility to make the most of the opportunities that come their way.
Conversely, people who believe they don’t “deserve” success because they perceive themselves as lacking merit may also hesitate to make the most of the opportunities that come their way.
Perhaps people are better off thinking opportunistically, not meritocratically.
Historically, “meritocracies” have been heavy on the civil-service examinations. Maybe there’s a reason for that.
That’s a very good point. Murray’s argument (with which I generally agree) is that we are in the process of a multi-generational restructuring of our economic and social structures. Wealth is more attributable to intelligence than at any other point in human history and every indication suggests that this trend will become even more pronounced in developed economies. That is not to say that being born into privilege does not increase one’s chance of success. It does. Its just that we are moving in a direction of having an established elite whose position is entrenched not just by its inherited wealth, but by its inherited intellect.
Besides, so many things with financial success have little to do with intelligence. Moreover, “intelligence” is a term that gets used equivocally. A brilliant historian may be absurdly intelligent, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be financially successful. A middle-tier, moderately-intelligent stockbroker could make five or six times the income of a genius historian. A lot of financial success comes from the choices you make … but many of those choices are only available to people who are already affluent.
Two theories fit the available facts. One is that elite universities select more by intelligence, and that intelligence is what predicts future success. The other is that universities select more by affluence, and that current affluence is a more important factor for predicting future success. I’m sympathetic to the idea that current affluence explains more.
But even so, I’d like to take it a step further. The standard American dream myth is that American success is based on guts and prudence. The merit is on combining the guts of a pioneer with the prudence of a pilgrim. If so, why would inherited intelligence be any more noble than inherited affluence?
This is the key and something I think a lot of people miss. Sometimes it can be done in one generation, but it can almost always be done in two or three generations if you are willing to work at it. What it takes though is people who are willing to work hard, sacrifice, and realize they may not see the benefits, but their heirs will. My grandfather was born dirt poor but worked hard all his life and live a comfortable, but by no means extravagant, life.
He was able to send my dad to college and my parents did even nicer for themselves, they are not Rockfellers, but the they have a nice life and they set us up to succeed.
It’s not.
I’m mincing their terminology here, but the College Board sees the student population in three categories: poor, poor but culturally rich, and rich. The middle category is interesting to them because these are students who usually do very well.
Only 30 percent of U.S. adults hold a four-year degree. What happens to everyone else? The old pathway to financial security was to start in the mailroom and work one’s way up to CEO’s office. We don’t have those types of companies anymore. Ask the boomers who worked for 30 years for their companies and got laid off during the M&A and downsizing sweeps. And those boomers understandably pushed their kids into the professions in hopes their kids would have financial security.
But the professions are closed off to 70 percent of the population. So those people can start a business? If they have some capital, perhaps. Or a piece of land. Farming maybe? Some can go into the trades, I guess.
But from where I’m sitting, those avenues are not opening up for way too many people. Colleges have a monopoly on life-startup loans for the 18- to 22-year-olds.
Yale does not charge tuition to students from households making less than 65K a year. Many other elite institutions have similar policies. Berkeley charges the same in-state tuition as UC Santa Cruz.
I think it’s interesting that you dispute that colleges sort for intelligence. I’ve heard from a number of CEO’s of fairly large companies and a few economists argue that (aside from STEM fields) the primary value created by our university system is its intelligence sorting function.
That’s basically John Rawls’ argument. A lot of people find it compelling, but if we follow its premise we end up in some pretty ugly places.
The key distinction is that intelligence is a quality intrinsic to the person in question. You cannot distinguish between a person and his intelligence. In contrast, wealth is extrinsic.
I disagree that it’s basically Rawls’ argument. It only becomes part of the argument if you also believe society’s job is to be as meritocratic as possible. Rawls believes that but I don’t.
I don’t believe in meritocracy.
What do you consider meritocracy to be? I’m not using merit in terms of moral virtue, but it terms of the attributes and actions which lead to success.
You didn’t build that. Your inherited intelligence did that for you.
Well, I agree that it’s interesting, because I think it moves us a little closer to where we diverge on this question.
When a corporation examines a candidate, what is it about the candidate’s school, or his experience at the school, that makes a difference?
In other words, how much of the prestige or reputation of the school is important? If the prestige of the school makes the difference, then the school is on trial instead of the candidate, and the potential employer is merely perpetuating the elitism that Murray talks about – but its not based on the meritocracy of raw intelligence.
And if it’s not based on the reputation of the school but on the candidate himself … why should his school matter at all, if he’s fully qualified?
Which means that universities don’t sell intelligence, they sell reputation.
I think its more accurate to say that they sell a certification. Vast resources are expended sorting college applicants for basically the same traits (intelligence, work ethic etc.) which employers are looking for. You’re right that universities are largely selling reputation, it’s their reputation for selectivity.
They sell a certification of intelligence based on a long reputation of doing so.
I’d rather watch a play performed by good actors, listen to a concert by good musicians, put my money in a bank with sound managers, and have my firefighters selected for being good at putting out fires. I select my electrician and plumber based on merit. I don’t want an obese personal trainer. I’d rather not have Dennis Rodman as my Secretary of State, and I would rather have a careful reader and thinker than a “wise Latina” as SCOTUS justice. I think part of the challenge is that we are moving away from a meritocracy, to a kind of aristocracy in which accidents of birth figure more prominently. It’s not meritocracy when Chelsea Clinton is paid $600k by NBC for her connections instead the quality of her work.