Escandaloso o que o autor começa por explicar, no acesso às prestigiadas universidades dos Estados Unidos. Quem tem muito dinheiro, simplesmente paga! Há 3 formas de o fazer, pela porta da frente (donativos) pela porta do lado (pagando a clubes, treinadores, referências que vão ajudar na avaliação do aluno) ou pela porta de trás, completamente criminoso, pagando muito a intermediários que corrompem funcionários, professores, treinadores, o que for.

Os pobres, se forem mesmo brilhantes e conseguirem resultados fabulosos nos exames, podem entrar, os outros ficam de fora. A estatística é arrasadora: Os filhos dos ricos entram todos em Stanford, Harvard, California, etc etc...



( )

Marvellous book about the effects of meritocracy - hubris and humiliation. Over the past 40 years the US has gone for a meritocracy. WASPS used to drift into the Ivy league but it was decided there had to be true competition for this privilege. Now there is an industry to get in, and even so its still the rich that make it, its making adolescent lives miserable, why not assign randomly?. But what about the losers? And especially the ones who don't have a degree, 3/4 of Americans. Have not gained in earning power over past 40y, under left and right. Deaths of despair are rising especially among the undereducated, they feel abandoned. Globalisation and finance has undermined them. No one rates them, but they have had their revenge in Trump and Brexit, voting in bitterness, for policies that harm them. Note the resentment toward the 'smart', which was something so pushed by Obama, and Hillary. The losers are detached from community, their contribution not rated, and what of the contribution of the successful? Financialization of society has contributed nothing to community. Its not all about consumption but about production, who contributes?
Chapter 5, Success Ethics I found a bit technical and prolonged. Very good notes and index. ( )

"Economic concerns are not only about money in one's pocket; they are also about how one's role in the economy affects one's standing in society. Those left behind by four decades of globalization and rising inequality were suffering from more than wage stagnations; they were experiencing what they feared was growing obsolescence. The society in which they lived no longer seemed to need the skills they had to offer."

Michael Sandel's Tyranny of Merit offers a profound exploration of meritocracy's failure to build social solidarity. He explores the consequences for both the system's "winners"—the anxiety-inducing competition for prestige, illustrated by the US college admissions scandal—and the "losers"—a loss of identity and economic obsolescence by the working class, illustrated by Donald Trump's election and 'deaths of despair' in formerly stable communities. Sandel describes how a cultural belief in the rhetoric of rising and that we "get what we deserve" places the burden of failure on those who do not rise, and embolden's the elite with the notion that they have earned their success by their God given talents.

If there is anything to critique about this book, it is that it offers very limited suggestions when it comes to alternatives to a meritocratic system, besides to point out that 1) it's much less meritocratic than winners would like to believe it is, and 2) we need to have more space for dialogue to decide what we value as a society. In one thought experiment, he discusses the idea of making college admissions into a lottery system, which could result in there being more humility and recognition of the role of luck. Besides it being unlikely that American educational institutions will relinquish the exclusivity and selectivity in which they pride themselves, I couldn't help but wonder how the very same problems he described could be perpetuated with a lottery system. For instance, making the threshold for qualification so high that the 'random draw' will still be limited to very few and very competitive applicants. Or the idea of having 'multiple tickets' being exploited in ways that we would give unfair advantage to group with more power and influence in the system. ( )

Liked very much, this book made great points in criticizing both the left and right in their support for meritocracy. Pretending that success in life in basically due to smarts and hard work is an insult to the “bottom” 50%, many of whom work plenty hard and are perfectly smart. The truth is there’s a ton of luck involved, whether one has “succeeded” or “failed.” Of course, an overwhelmingly large part of this luck involves who your parents are. Didn’t agree with every single thing in the book, but it was all thought-provoking and a great mix of philosophy, history, and social science. ( )

This was a difficult book to read but I am glad I persevered. Still roiling around the ways of working with others for the common good. I think it requires an understanding of Buddhism that I have not attained. Confronting / debating others who disagree is an achievement I have not mastered. Michael Sandel is definitely "on to something."