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
Additionally, Someone was making the point of extra curricular activities that many of these schools like to see. Middle class children work.
Much of what I see argued here is an isolated view that Murray himself suffers from. I don’t know if anybody else has, but about four years ago I went to mass in Fishtown and the place seem to have a pretty vibrant community.
I’ll admit elite institution give you a leg up, but if your a white person from fly over country the sign outside the door should say “need not apply”.
That being said. I know a few people who have gone to Brown and appear to have the same employment trouble others do.
When I went to school I took the SAT’s, as many of my friends did, on the day that it was offered. End of story.
Working in the city, I see all the prep time people devote to these tests to which I was not made aware of in high school.
I even began teaching the test on Saturdays. I did ok on the test but not 1600. However, once I cracked open the Barron’s review book.
Yes but would you like to see a play preformed by a great plumber or have a great violinist put out your fire. Each of these might have excellent abilities in their chosen field but that does not necessarily translate to excellent abilities in other fields or in Government. What constitutes “merit” in government service and what basis is used to determine that only the “elites” have the ability/intelligence to succeed in Government? If others could succeed (ie Scott Walker) then an Ivy league education is not necessary for merit.
I found how easy the test is when receiving the proper preparation. Few students where I grew up were afford such an opportunity. I couldn’t name one from my graduating class.
When I was young I felt dismay when I heard of people receiving a perfect. How could they do that?
Um… easy, they prepared.
I’m sorry, but non-affluent people do manage to attend Ivy League schools. I’m not saying it’s easy, but they somehow make ends meet. Not going to Yale for free because of the high cost of living in New Haven is kind of like turning down a winning lottery ticket because it would put you in a higher tax bracket.
Yes, but the moral force it has is mostly due to humans’ innate – but misguided – desire to contrast “merit” with “luck”.
You’re right that the desire for meritocracy in the face of so much blind chance will lead to the desire for redistribution. That’s why I don’t believe in meritocracy.
We know redistribution doesn’t work. We also know that many elements of success (such as intelligence or your parents’ wealth) aren’t up to you, and so can’t really be said to be “deserved” by you. Solution: stop believing in meritocracy.
Stop believing it’s society’s job to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”. Believe instead that an open, opportunity-oriented society helps people to specialize in something they happen to be good at, whether or not they’ve “earned” that talent and whether or not that talent is “outstanding” in the larger scheme of things.
Stop believing in meritocracy: start believing in opportunity.
Well, it’s something I’ll have to think about for my kids. My parents didn’t let me qualify for that, but without a lottery win, my kids will.
True, but it is also true that a lot of poorer people simply will not even consider it a possibility to attend these schools – or to even apply. So it isn’t that they have a full-ride and turn it down, it is that they are pre-sorted out of the application process altogether.
In my case, Sal, I had an LSAT score that was within the range of virtually all top-tier schools… I applied for one school that I knew I’d get in to (perhaps that was naïve). I know people who applied for dozens of schools. The cost of those application fees alone would have been about as much as I made all summer. Part of that was ignorance on my part, in not knowing that ranking mattered so much. I thought the degree was important, and your work would get you the rest of the way. Oh, to go back and have a conversation with that fool.
I also know that people pay professionals to help with the whole application process… drafting resumes, letters, etc… Whether there is an intelligence gap or no, there is certainly an information gap, and that really is something that you can buy.
Most of the people in Ivy league schools are very intelligent. This doesn’t necessarily mean that most of the very intelligent people in the country go to Ivy League Schools.
Very good point.
I have a friend who’s struggling to make a career out of illustration. It’s a tough gig. Not many jobs.
He was lamenting to me how he wished someone had told him an A in school doesn’t mean an A in life.
He was top of our class in college, but has found little to no success in life. I on the other hand saw the receipt I received at Syracuse University was of little to no value in the real world. I pursued a degree in teaching, which took me additional year, and I have found a decent amount of success in it.
Choices, I would say, would have much to do with post graduate success. My teaching degree > illustration degree. Not do to the quality of the education, but the doors that were open to me because if it.
Very similar story here. I applied to two, and got in both. I turned down the higher ranking one on the theory that I would be able to get a higher GPA at a less prestigious school.
Little did I know that the more prestigious the school, the more they inflate grades, so that was a lose-lose decision.
Class rank is much more important than grades as far as hiring is concerned.
Amy/Ryan,
A couple years ago I was thinking of going to law school. Bought the LSAT book, studying, saw the top tier schools are the only way to go, I decided to look for a different path.
I don’t need to get in 150K of debt, plus for go three years of salary, to find success.
The other mistake I made was choosing a socialist professor to write my rec letter… thinking that he liked me even if we disagreed (and I had a lot of classes with him). I was turned down from one school because they never received a letter from him (ok, I had said that I applied for 1 school… it was actually 2). Point being, there are many ridiculous reasons why people don’t go to certain schools. Reasons that go beyond intelligence (even if, in my case, they say a great deal about judgment).
I have to say that I’m gratified by the discussion thus far, but I’m a little surprised that the focus has been pretty much solely on universities and not the larger point about economically valuable traits such as intelligence becoming increasingly unevenly distributed throughout the populace due to the consequences of collegiate sorting for intelligence. I probably overemphasized education in my post.
MFR:
I agree that meritocracy should be rejected. Realistically, no one specifically deserves to be an aristocrat (merit wise or other). But they are entitled to what they have honestly achieved–honesty being the key. Still, it can be tiresome to listen to people extol their virtues, e.g., I worked hard and if all those schlubs worked as hard as me they would be among us elites. That’s nonsense really. While it is doubtless true that, unless you win the lottery, hard work is a key to success, so is good fortune, good health, and the people you know. But that’s not unjust, it’s just the way things are and to seek to equalize results is a mad social policy. They say that 85% of new businesses fail within 18 months. Assuming that’s true, it’s difficult to believe that none of those 85 percenters worked hard.
Vision is also important. Bill Gates was able to see the future. Most computer scientists were not. But Bill Gates changed the world and led to a revolution that has benefited just about everyone. His insight may have been the result of blind forces, but w/o him…
Yep. Knowledge costs!
And you saved your soul:-)!!!
Sal,
I could place the blame somewhere else.
Online dating. Prior to the advent of the internet you met people where ever you happened to be. The mall, the bar, school, whatever.
Result: Smart people go with dumb people.
Now with online dating you can weed out people you don’t find to be suitable matches.
I met my future wife online. Before I ever met her I knew she was a successful, conservative, catholic.
I’d imagine this trend will continue as people find the traditional method creates more misses than hits.
As far as I’m concerned, you over-emphasized the word “meritocracy”. Aside from that, I probably agree with you.
This is very true, but the fact is that the single biggest factor in law school admissions is the LSAT. LSAT scores are closely correlated with general intelligence as measured by IQ. (LSAT scores are also a significantly better predictor of law school grades than are undergraduate grades.)
Well, there is something to the fact that increasingly, college educated men marry college educated women, resulting in this generation being more genetically stratified (to the extent that college works as a proxy for intelligence). However, I don’t see this being a permanent trend, given women’s preferences for a mate as well educated as they are and given the large gap in favor of women among degree recipients.
Therefore, many educated women will have to choose between changing their preferences to be more accepting of less intelligent men (unlikely), become more accepting of the idea that education doesn’t equal intelligence, or not reproduce at all. In all cases, the current meritocracy stranglehold on college success is a temporary thing.
Interesting theory and I agree that it’s probably a contributing factor, but it’s a trend which predates the internet.
If only that had worked for me. I can’t imagine there are a bunch of 164 LSATs who were in the bottom 10th of their class. Of course, there aren’t a lot of 164s who go to third tier trash schools, either.
Being an Ivy League lawyer is also not a sign of broad intelligence. I was involved in a case years ago with an IL lawyer on one side, my client and another lawyer’s client. I got out on summary judgment, but was actually disappointed because I REALLY wanted to try the case against the ILer because he was such an arrogant jerk. He showed up wearing $2000 suits with french cuff shirts. I figured a Montana jury would just crush him. The other layer took the case to trial–he was a very good trial lawyer–and the jury returned a verdict in his favor: $13 millinon. I wasn’t there so can’t say for sure, but the suits and the dizzying calogne likely has something to do with the verdict. Juries, they say, don’t compensate, they punish. The IL guy was, for all his intellectual skills (which were considerable) proved himself an IDIOT. His client fired him, hired Montana counsel, and got the verdict reduced at the subsequent re-trial. This, to me, is an example of the winds of fortune. Evolution seems to extend its benefits in unpredictable ways: tools lose.
Do you ever feel like you’re betraying some conservative orthodoxy when you insist it’s hard work and luck that accounts for outstanding success. I do. But why should I?
Saying that luck plays a substantial role isn’t saying that hard work plays a negligible role. Indeed, since hard work is under our control and luck isn’t, it’s only prudent to bank on hard work in hopes that when good luck comes our way, we’ll be ready for it.
People who work hard and get lucky, we should be happy for them. We should hope to be like them. Whether they “deserve” success or not in the abstract is irrelevant.
What amazes me about this discussion is the implicit acceptance of (a) a highly one-dimensional, and materialistic, definition of success; (b) the notion that these Darwinian processes are observable over a matter of a few decades; and (c) the elision of the difference between merited success, and meritOCRACY: why should those who rule be chosen on the basis of traits that lead to success at entering prestigious universities? Wouldn’t rule by first-round draft picks to large sporting leagues also be a meritocracy? How about rule by winners of piano competitions?
So after saying modern elitism is increasingly meritocratic due to good breeding, you lament that it adopts aristocratic insularity and disdain for the common man. It sounds like you are actually endorsing aristocratic superiority but wish it were less transparently condescending. And you wonder why the conservative base is skeptical of elitism.
It’s time to finally throw down the flag.
This website is rigged in favor of a privileged elite – those living in earlier time zones. Someone on the East Coast or Midwest posts a great essay, and members in those areas get to pick the juiciest comments from the tree, making insightful and witty comments based only on the luck of their home state.
Meanwhile, those of us toiling out west log on to such a great conversation only to find that most of our ideas have already been expressed (probably much more eloquently) by others. The system is clearly rigged against us.