The case against credentialism and for merit, not equity
- Peter Lorenzi
- Nov 2, 2023
- 4 min read
January 12, 2022. Let's start with a confused and confusing column from Clinton-era crank, William Galston, in today's Wall Street Journal. Immediately below find five 'key' paragraphs from the article; the entire, original article can be found at the end of this piece.
A Left-Right Revolt Against the New Elites
‘Meritocracy’ rewards achievement and talent. That isn’t an unalloyed good.
William A. Galston
There is much to criticize about the current version of meritocracy. Winners often believe that they are wholly responsible for their success, forgetting that they did nothing to earn the capacities with which they were endowed at birth—or the family advantages that helped them develop these capacities. And yes, it can lead to contempt for those who have achieved less, a much-resented attitude that has contributed to political polarization.
From a societal standpoint, it makes a difference whether the opportunity to develop surgical skills is available to all. And from a meritocratic standpoint, a society that excludes some from opportunities available to others is flawed. But as a potential patient, I must focus on finding a doctor with the right skills.
A second tier of meritocracy is the material reward attached to acquiring valued skills. On average, professionals with college degrees and advanced training earn substantially more than others. Part of this differential reflects the costs of education and training, in both money and time. Many doctors don’t complete their preparation until their mid-30s, and they often end this process with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Few would choose this demanding path without the prospect of earning enough to compensate for it. In addition, many skills are relatively rare and command higher prices than those that are widely distributed.
Mr. Sandel worries that social status flows unequally to individuals with economic and educational advantages. But every society has a hierarchy of status, and ours also values soldiers, first responders and nurses. Winners of the Medal of Honor are saluted for their courage, not their degrees.
It is at the third tier of meritocracy that problems arise. Being better educated doesn’t make you a better person, nor does it qualify you to rule over those with less education. America’s founding creed teaches that all are created equal, not in talent, but in dignity and worth.
Besides, the writ of expertise is limited. Medical researchers know more about disease than the rest of us, but the maxim “follow the science” doesn’t tell us what to do. Experts can clarify the risks of catching Covid in public schools, but they can’t tell us whether to keep the schools open or shut them down. This practical judgment requires policy makers to balance competing values, a process that requires good judgment, an understanding of human nature, and a keen awareness of public opinion.
* * * * *
This strange and incomplete analysis of 'merit' evokes memories of the place where this debate really started, almost fifty years ago with James Fallows' "The case against credentialism." Immediately below find an excerpt, three paragraphs. The entire, original article can be found at the end of this piece.
December 1985–when The Atlantic’s James Fallows wrote about the dangers of credentialism, long before anyone ever thought of such a thing as a higher-ed bubble.
Even as modern America honors the successful entrepreneur, it reflects the tremendous pull exerted by the security, dignity, and order of the professionalized world. The basic tenet of this culture of achievement is that he who goes further in school will go further in life. American society is often described as a meritocracy, in the sense that those who show the most pluck and academic merit will prevail. The Houston housewife who labored in obscure solitude on her first novel, picked an agent’s name out of a magazine, and then sold her book last summer for $350,000 is a figure from the first culture, that of self-help; if she uses the money to send her son to Andover, Yale, and Harvard Law, he will be citizen of the second, the meritocracy.
The rise to professional status is one of the most familiar and cherished parts of the American achievement ideal. What immigrant saga would be complete without the peddler’s grandson receiving his M.D.? But such an ideal is also at odds with most analyses of what the society as a whole needs if it is to continue to achieve. If everyone has the tenure and security that come with professional status, who will take the risks?
NOWHERE IS THE TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO CULTURES, the entrepreneurial and the professional, more evident at the moment than in American business. At just the time when American business is said to need the flexibility and the lack of hierarchy that an entrepreneurial climate can create, more and more businessmen seem to feel that their chances for personal success will be greatest if they become not entrepreneurs but professionals, with advanced educational degrees…
* * * * *
I posted this in the comments section:
Galston is an advocate of the progressive canard, "You didn't build this." Galston ignores effort, resilience, grit and all the other factors that really matter. Instead, he pretends that 'merit' -- and he has a sense of merit that smacks more of credentialism -- is primarily genetic and environmental. merit is the capacity or potential to perform, not a degree, not a credential, not a title, not a position.
Feel free to review the following files, the third of which is a more recent piece from the Journal, also questioning the American fascination with and over-reliance on credentials as a measure of one's knowledge, skills and value. To greatly paraphrase an old quip: "It's not what you know. It's what you can do." Or, "It's not your degree that matters, it's your potential to contribute something of value."
* * * * *
Comments