Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

What explains Brexit?

The Oxbridge grading system.

I’ve long harbored a somewhat trollish theory of Politics and the Life of Letters in the UK. The impending coronation of Boris Johnson is as good a time as any to share it.

[Thread]

A few years ago, an article argued that Oxford’s course in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics is “the degree that ruined Britain.”

I think that goes in the right direction but misses the point.

(Boris, after all, read Classics, not PPE.)

The real cause of Britain’s ruin, you see, is the grading system, especially as practiced in Oxbridge.

Why is Brexit happening, for example? Because Boris and Gove and so many others were trained in the art of making counterintuitive arguments that earn a First.

Let me explain.

At Harvard, a competent, well-written essay arguing a common-sense position will earn you an A. (Congrats!)

This means that students at American colleges have an incentive to do careful if, at times, somewhat boring work.

At Oxbridge, a competent, well-written essay arguing a common-sense position will earn you an Upper Second, or 2:1. (You did... alright.)

This means that ambitious students in the UK have an incentive *not* to do careful, boring work.

Instead, ambitious students at Oxbridge are taught to go for a First by doing something extraordinary.

And by far the easiest way of doing something “extraordinary” is to make a spirited case for a counterintuitive (and probably wrong) conclusion.

This pedagogical tradition is responsible for (or perhaps stems from) a lot of the best things about Britain:

• It’s why British commentators are rarely boring.
• It’s why they see the world in surprising ways.
• It’s why they’re not as self-serious as many American ones.

But this pedagogical tradition can also make influential people – including writers and politicians – and especially writers turned politicians – deeply irresponsible.

Why worry whether a point is right if it’s fun to make?

Boris Johnson is Exhibit A of this ethos.

Being entertaining is a huge part of his personal appeal.

And making up fun stories about Brussels was how he went from obscure foreign correspondent to famous editor.

As the Brexit referendum was heating up, Boris Johnson drafted two columns: one supporting Remain, one supporting Leave.

Why did he choose Leave? Because it’s the more fun, brilliant (and irresponsible) argument to make.

In other words, he was trying desperately to get a First.

The ethos I describe can serve a country’s life of letters very well.

But when a bunch of journalists who have spent their whole life making fun cases for irresponsible positions come to run a country, they can do vast damage.

This is related to the reason why I now put the likelihood of a No Deal Brexit at ~50%.

Lots of people say:

Boris has no principles. He won’t be committed to No Deal.

Yes, but...

...where does the incentive lie for Boris when he is, as @NickCohen4 has argued, only interested in Boris?

• Making sure that the Brexit Party doesn't eclipse the Tories.
• Doing the "extraordinary* rather than the safe thing.

Both incentives point towards a hard Brexit.

Before I close:

Yup, I’m perfectly aware of the irony here. The theory I laid out is fun and entertaining. It’s also probably wrong.

What can I say? I went to university in Britain. I can’t help trying to get a First.

Don’t blame me. Blame the grading system.

[End.]