![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quippeThe Blurb On The Back:
Even in the midst of runaway economic inequality and dangerous social division, it remains an axiom of modern life that meritocracy promises to open opportunity to all. The idea that reward should follow ability and effort is so entrenched in our psyche that, even as society divides itself at almost every turn, all sides can be heard repeating meritocratic nations.
But what if, both up and down the social ladder, meritocracy is a sham? Today, meritocracy has become exactly what it was conceived to resist: a mechanism for the concentration and dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations. Upward mobility has become a fantasy for the embattled middle classes, while at the same time, even those who manage to claw their way to the top are required to work with crushing intensity. All this sets directly from meritocracy’s successes.
This is the radical argument that The Meritocracy Trap prosecutes with rare force, comprehensive research, and devastating persuasion. Daniel Markovits knows from the inside the corrosive system we are trapped within, as well as how we can take the first steps towards a world that might afford us both prosperity and dignity.
David Markovits is Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale University and director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. This interesting but infuriating book convincingly argues that the USA’s middle classes are locked out of opportunities to advance to the professions and elite education and the elite are forming a self-perpetuating clique but relies on such a narrow view of meritocracy that I was unconvinced by the propose solutions.
Markovits has clearly done a lot of research for this book and he goes deep into the socio-economic arguments that led to the shift towards the rise of the financial professions and how the so-called ‘meritocratic’ elite took over from the aristocratic, land owning elite. He also uses the case study of the experiences of the town of St Clair Shores, Michigan - a solidly affluent, middle class area to support his arguments for how the middle classes have found themselves squeezed over recent years. I wished that Markovits had been clearer on what constitutes the middle classes - he seems to view it within certain income bands but he’s not clear on what sort of income he envisages to be middle class and nor does he discuss how location impacts on the real value of that income.
Markovits does do a good job of diagnosing how the middle classes have been squeezed over the years. He’s particularly good at describing how the elite professions have worked to secure the best education opportunities for themselves via Ivy League education (which requires them to attend the best primary and secondary schools), which in turn secures them access to the highest paying professions. He also makes a good job of identifying the stresses that come with working in the higher professions, although I do think he could have dug into some of the points he makes, e.g. he talks about how the legal profession’s highest paying law firms require you to work long hours. That’s true, but that’s in part because there are high billing targets and there’s a well known concept of hour padding as associates and partners try to reach them. As a result there is a strong sense of presenteeism within US firms, which doesn’t necessarily translate as doing work.
My biggest issue with the book, though, is how Markovits tries to tie the middle-class squeeze to the concept of meritocracy. He takes the view that meritocracy means getting the best grades, going to Ivy League colleges and entering high paid professions. One of the things I found infuriating is that he talks about the number of applications that Yale Law School (where he teaches) gets and the types of students they admit. I got that they get a lot of applications from people with high grades but Yale clearly uses something to differentiate between those applications to decide who to give offers to and the fact that it gives a large proportion of offers to people from a small group of schools immediately made me question whether that is decided on merit or decided on whether students will “fit in”. I also thought that Markovits downplays the role that donations and financial influence plays on the process - maybe not at Yale but certainly at other Ivy League schools - because that is a clear thumb on the scales.
This issue also tracks through into professions. I know that law firms will give weight to whether an applicant has gone to a certain university but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the applicant is the best suited to the role. Markovits just takes it as read that if someone went to Yale or Harvard or whatever then they are automatically the best for the job. Surely in a meritocracy, the institution is less important than capability to do the job? I couldn’t help but think that because he has a very narrow view on what meritocracy is, this restricts his arguments for how the situation can be improved (although I did find his argument that the tax benefits enjoyed by people who pay into education should be reviewed to be an interesting one).
Where I think the book does work is that it shows why the middle classes have (in my opinion, wrongly) blamed DEI for restricting their opportunities and for viewing the system as stacked against them. However I came away unconvinced that this was a failure of meritocracy and more a reinforcement that ultimately money talks and of course parents want the best for their children and will spend whatever it takes to get them there.
The Verdict:
David Markovits is Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale University and director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. This interesting but infuriating book convincingly argues that the USA’s middle classes are locked out of opportunities to advance to the professions and elite education and the elite are forming a self-perpetuating clique but relies on such a narrow view of meritocracy that I was unconvinced by the propose solutions.
Thanks to the Amazon Vine Programme for the review copy of this book.
Even in the midst of runaway economic inequality and dangerous social division, it remains an axiom of modern life that meritocracy promises to open opportunity to all. The idea that reward should follow ability and effort is so entrenched in our psyche that, even as society divides itself at almost every turn, all sides can be heard repeating meritocratic nations.
But what if, both up and down the social ladder, meritocracy is a sham? Today, meritocracy has become exactly what it was conceived to resist: a mechanism for the concentration and dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations. Upward mobility has become a fantasy for the embattled middle classes, while at the same time, even those who manage to claw their way to the top are required to work with crushing intensity. All this sets directly from meritocracy’s successes.
This is the radical argument that The Meritocracy Trap prosecutes with rare force, comprehensive research, and devastating persuasion. Daniel Markovits knows from the inside the corrosive system we are trapped within, as well as how we can take the first steps towards a world that might afford us both prosperity and dignity.
David Markovits is Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale University and director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. This interesting but infuriating book convincingly argues that the USA’s middle classes are locked out of opportunities to advance to the professions and elite education and the elite are forming a self-perpetuating clique but relies on such a narrow view of meritocracy that I was unconvinced by the propose solutions.
Markovits has clearly done a lot of research for this book and he goes deep into the socio-economic arguments that led to the shift towards the rise of the financial professions and how the so-called ‘meritocratic’ elite took over from the aristocratic, land owning elite. He also uses the case study of the experiences of the town of St Clair Shores, Michigan - a solidly affluent, middle class area to support his arguments for how the middle classes have found themselves squeezed over recent years. I wished that Markovits had been clearer on what constitutes the middle classes - he seems to view it within certain income bands but he’s not clear on what sort of income he envisages to be middle class and nor does he discuss how location impacts on the real value of that income.
Markovits does do a good job of diagnosing how the middle classes have been squeezed over the years. He’s particularly good at describing how the elite professions have worked to secure the best education opportunities for themselves via Ivy League education (which requires them to attend the best primary and secondary schools), which in turn secures them access to the highest paying professions. He also makes a good job of identifying the stresses that come with working in the higher professions, although I do think he could have dug into some of the points he makes, e.g. he talks about how the legal profession’s highest paying law firms require you to work long hours. That’s true, but that’s in part because there are high billing targets and there’s a well known concept of hour padding as associates and partners try to reach them. As a result there is a strong sense of presenteeism within US firms, which doesn’t necessarily translate as doing work.
My biggest issue with the book, though, is how Markovits tries to tie the middle-class squeeze to the concept of meritocracy. He takes the view that meritocracy means getting the best grades, going to Ivy League colleges and entering high paid professions. One of the things I found infuriating is that he talks about the number of applications that Yale Law School (where he teaches) gets and the types of students they admit. I got that they get a lot of applications from people with high grades but Yale clearly uses something to differentiate between those applications to decide who to give offers to and the fact that it gives a large proportion of offers to people from a small group of schools immediately made me question whether that is decided on merit or decided on whether students will “fit in”. I also thought that Markovits downplays the role that donations and financial influence plays on the process - maybe not at Yale but certainly at other Ivy League schools - because that is a clear thumb on the scales.
This issue also tracks through into professions. I know that law firms will give weight to whether an applicant has gone to a certain university but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the applicant is the best suited to the role. Markovits just takes it as read that if someone went to Yale or Harvard or whatever then they are automatically the best for the job. Surely in a meritocracy, the institution is less important than capability to do the job? I couldn’t help but think that because he has a very narrow view on what meritocracy is, this restricts his arguments for how the situation can be improved (although I did find his argument that the tax benefits enjoyed by people who pay into education should be reviewed to be an interesting one).
Where I think the book does work is that it shows why the middle classes have (in my opinion, wrongly) blamed DEI for restricting their opportunities and for viewing the system as stacked against them. However I came away unconvinced that this was a failure of meritocracy and more a reinforcement that ultimately money talks and of course parents want the best for their children and will spend whatever it takes to get them there.
The Verdict:
David Markovits is Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale University and director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. This interesting but infuriating book convincingly argues that the USA’s middle classes are locked out of opportunities to advance to the professions and elite education and the elite are forming a self-perpetuating clique but relies on such a narrow view of meritocracy that I was unconvinced by the propose solutions.
Thanks to the Amazon Vine Programme for the review copy of this book.
