Lani Guinier (1950–2022)

Lani Guinier's new book The Tyranny of the Meritocracy will be of interest to many in the connectivist circles where I run. We believe that individual knowledge is created in social contexts and through social interaction. We prize collaboration skills. We've heard it all, and buy it - that this is an increasingly connected age, that good jobs will involve work in teams, that globalization and demographic change will require the abilities to negotiate diversity, that the "problems of the show more twenty-first century" are only solvable by multidisciplinary teams, that in fact many of those social and political problems have roots in people who can't communicate outside themselves or their home group. We want to work for an America (for a world) where all people have equal prospects regardless of the color of their skin and circumstances of their birth.

Then we exist in an educational system which mostly rewards people for individual accomplishment, and trains them accordingly in individualistic methods which are remarkably vulnerable to the privileges of class and race.

Guinier points out that this is out of step. She uses Amartya Sen's definition that merit is the "incentive system which rewards the actions a society values" and points out the stunning disconnect between the skills we claim to value for democracy, and the "testocratic" skills of the K-Ph.D system. This focus on individualized tests and grades actually serves to reinforce power relationships in society - first, because those with the means to impact curricula or hire tutors have a massive incentive to do so, and perhaps more ominously, because students who succeed in the testocracy are allowed to believe that they have achieved success alone, without noting the assistance of their teachers, parents, and classmates. More democratic education would do a better job of reinforcing the importance of working together across difference - and provide that benefit more equitably to those locked out of our current system.

The argument against the SAT is iron-clad. It predicts family income and race much better than grades in the first year of college, and was never designed to assess anything further out than the first year. Yet I found Guinier's hope for a system like the Posse Foundation's Dynamic Assessment Process a bit optimistic. Surely, if elite colleges shifted admissions to some form of behavioral interview, it would create a market for coaching. Such tutoring might be more socially valuable than classes on "SAT words" and how to answer a multiple choice question, but it would still be unevenly distributed. We can already see this in admissions processes which do value extracurricular and community involvement. Anyone can take such opportunities, and it makes the admissions process better to consider them. Kids whose families don't need them to work, or whose parents can shuttle them from school to club to volunteer site, can take advantage of more of them. It might still be better than the system we've got, but not quite as diverse as Guinier argues.

Guinier goes on to suggest alternatives in college preparation, recruitment, and pedagogy. As someone who works with college professors on teaching issues, it's easy for me to hear the argument that we need to make changes in K-12 schools and the college admissions office. (It's always easier when someone else has to change.) Then she points out that it wouldn't be fair to bring students into college for their collaborative skills, and demand of them the same individualized pedagogy we tend to use now. Students selected for democratic skills will prosper most in a democratic classroom. Oh. That's a challenge.

It struck me as interesting that the models here weren't particularly new to me. It seems impossible to read 5 articles on improving college teaching without someone bringing up the peer instruction work of Eric Mazur, as Guinier does. Yet most of the work in the "blended learning" sphere focuses simply on how group work and class discussion is better for retention and transfer of domain knowledge. That's an easy sell; it's harder to talk about the idea that you might actually shift your learning goals in a collaborative classroom. Guinier's frames these potentially fractious issues within the purpose of higher education in a democracy, and if you've accepted the assertion through the first half of the book,

Of course, the assertion that college exists to develop good citizens is not universally accepted. Even among those who accept the general idea, we debate exactly what the proper components of a liberal education are. Guinier asserts that colleges exist to fill a democratic need, without much considering the counter-arguments, and other than skills related to diversity and teamwork, she doesn't have specific recommendations for a curriculum. Given how much we hear about colleges as paths to "good jobs", though, or how much "student development" can be taken for granted within the academy, Guinier provides a clear argument, crisply stated and well worth the read. show less

This book has changed my life. Guinier offers a brilliant, detailed criticism of our test-reliant education system. As she shows, the word "meritocracy" is a bit dishonest. Our system doesn't actually reward "merit"; it rewards test-taking success. None of our education "reforms" try to measure how students use and retain information, how they figure things out, how much they've actually learned. The result is short-term, rote memorization but very little actual education.

I'm a teacher and show more so these problems with testing are familiar to me. But after two chapters Guinier goes on to look at how some teachers have adapted their teaching in response to cognitive research. The result is a more student-centered classroom in which students are a vital part of the experience, rather than passive watchers/listeners. I've never been a lecturer and have always tried to make my classes as interactive as possible, but Guinier's book has inspired me to completely change how I teach. Next semester my students will be leading a lot more discussions, making more presentations, doing more group projects, getting their voices heard more frequently. As Guinier shows, this sort of activity and authority makes students remember concepts more clearly than if they were only reading/listening/test-taking.

I'm so grateful to Guinier for writing this, to Beacon Press for publishing it, and for LibraryThing for allowing me to read it through Early Reviewers. I'm excited for next semester! show less

In "The Tyranny of the Meritocracy," Lani Guinier argues that America’s system of higher education has devolved into a testocracy that defines merit by one’s score on the SAT. According to Guinier, American colleges and universities have lost sight of their mission to prepare individuals to be contributing citizens in a democratic society. Individualism, epitomized by the cult of the test, is worshipped over the democratic value of collaboration. Test scores are given priority show more consideration in college admissions decisions over the character of applicants. The result is a system that favors the elite and their sense of entitlement.

Guinier does not prescribe a solution to this problem. Instead, she points to possible alternatives by highlighting successful efforts in and out of the classroom to develop in students the collaborative skills needed to contribute in a democratic society. She also refers to research in the cognitive sciences, problem solving, and group dynamics. Even though Guinier does not provide a specific approach to democratizing American higher education, her book will likely spark debate about the ultimate purpose of a college education. This is reason enough to read the book. show less

While Lani Guinier's book offers the reform of college admissions as a hook to readers, the broader target of her critique is the definition of "merit" itself. Does quantifying "merit" via grades and test scores really serve the educational needs of future leaders? Or, as she suggests, does this merely confer upon those already quite privileged the belief that the rewards they reap are the result of innate qualities they possess, rather than benefits accruing like compound interest on family show more wealth and other unearned advantages? Asserting that the latter is true, Guinier goes on to propose a "democratic" definition of merit based primarily on collaborative problem-solving skills, leadership potential, and drive for success. This definition, combined with educational processes that inculcate it and social structures that clearly value it, could be the gateway, she argues, to a more equitable society and a more participatory democracy. Along the way, she offers examples based on the research of social scientists and the initiatives of educational reformers. It is indeed, as one reviewer has already noted, a short book, but it is clear, provocative, and suggestive of real possibilities for change. To point out that Guinier hardly has all the answers about how to implement such educational reforms or what other kinds of privilege-reinforcing systems besides college admissions might need changing is not to downplay the significance of the book. She brings together between two covers information from disparate fields, gives it the Harvard imprimatur, and offers it to a public that has, for at least the last six years, been gorging on a steady diet of "higher ed reform" books that propose little in the way of sweeping change, offering merely buzzwords like "accountability" and "assessment." One can only hope that creative, collaborative problem solvers of the type she advocates take her suggestions and run with them. show less