,
13 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Most Americans like to think of their country as a meritocracy, a system that rewards hard work and intelligence over privilege. But if you look at how things actually work, @sarahrlnrd argues, it's clear the U.S. is more of an aristocracy: (1/13) 
Today, the idea of a meritocracy is commonly accepted in America. Merit is typically judged by going to fancy schools. Going to Harvard, in other words, doesn't just mean that you're smart – it qualifies you to rule the world. (2/13)
Of course, neither of the above is necessarily true. The recent college admissions scandal, in which wealthy parents paid for their kids' admission to elite schools, shows that "merit" can be bought. But gaming the system is usually totally legal. (3/13) nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/…
Because the U.S. relies on standardized tests to measure worth, the rich have various edges. They can pay to prep their children, or just use their connections to secure advantages. Yale Law prof Amy Chua was recently under fire for doing just that. (4/13) nytimes.com/2019/06/12/opi…
All this underscores the fact that money still matters more in the U.S. than intellect or ambition. In the Washington Post, @valeriestrauss highlights a study showing that being born rich is a better predictor of success than being born "smart." (5/13) washingtonpost.com/education/2019…
So what -is- meritocracy? The term was invented in 1958 in a satirical book by British sociologist Michael Young. He imagined a world in which standardized testing segmented kids almost from birth, and those people formed a ruling class. (6/13) goodreads.com/book/show/7926…
In Young's satire, this ruling class had more legitimacy than the old aristocracy because they had "earned" the privilege of ruling through intelligence and hard work. Their special smarts were thought to make Britain more competitive in the global economy. (7/13)
This attitude has become reality. Its most notorious representation may be a Time magazine cover from 1999 that hyped the world-changing powers of three top economists. These men weren't just good at economics; they were qualified to save the world. (8/13) img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/…
The 2008 financial crisis dealt this theory of meritocracy a blow when it turned out that (a) financial innovators couldn't control their own products; and (b) maybe these masters of the universe didn't care about the suffering they caused. (9/13) bookforum.com/culture/-8593
Nonetheless, after detonating the financial industry, these people were designated the only ones "smart" enough to lead its reconstruction. (10/13) politico.com/story/2012/05/…
Hillary Clinton may be the best, last political representation of this theory. She was widely considered the most qualified candidate because she was a longstanding member of the ruling elite, yet many rejected her for that reason (among others). (11/13) vox.com/2016/8/1/12316…
This supposed rule by experts has gone hand in hand with a government that listens only to the rich. Seen in this light, merit seems less like a real measure of worth and more like a moral coverup for getting rich and staying that way. (12/13) bbc.com/news/blogs-ech…
So perhaps it's no surprise that it has taken a populist moment – a mass movement of people declaring that -no- ruling class is a good one – to shake the idea of meritocracy to its core. (13/13)
