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. ( )

Een fantatisch boek dat iedereen zou moeten lezen. Het geeft een goede verklaring voor de opkomst van het Populisme. Het laat zien waar het vnl. inde Amerikaanse maatschappij is fout gelopen. ( )

"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. ( )

Die Gefährdungen unserer Demokratie kommen nicht aus einer Tyrannei des Leistungsgedankens, wie in diesem Buch angenommen, sondern sie sitzen in der Mitte, im politisch-medialen Establishment selbst. Diese Leute haben sich schon längst von den normalen, leistungserbringenden Bürgern entkoppelt und führen ein abhängiges Eigen-Leben. Wenig gelernt und dauerhaft in der Politik geblieben, nistet sich darunter eine wachsende Schicht von Profiteuren ein, vor allem Juristen, aber auch Journalisten, Lehrer, Grüne und NGO-Karrieren, die oft in weitgehend nutzlosen Wissenschaften oder gar keinen Ausbildungen ihren verhängnisvollen Lauf nehmen.

Ihr Lieblingssport später besteht dann darin, immer neue Gesetze und Zwangsvorschriften zu erfinden, jetzt geht es sogar in enge persönliche Grenzen, die bislang durch Gesundheit gesetzt waren. Diese Leute und Organisationen, voran vor allem Parteien nehmen den Bürgern die Luft zum Atmen, sie verhöhnen den Leistungsgedanken, die angenehme Wolke ihrer Einkünfte durch fleißige Bürger umnebelt ihren Verstand und sorgt dafür, dass sie ihre Posten-Demokratie niemals freiwillig aufgeben werden.

Ihre vermeintliche Ruhe in politischen, medialen Diskussionen und die marginale Sicherheit, die sie noch ausstrahlen, wird bald zu Ende sein. Ihre Intelligenz ist auf einem Niveau weit unten angekommen und eine Hoffnung auf mehr dürfen wir nicht mehr haben - es sei denn, wir schicken sie dorthin, wo ihre größte Angst sitzt.

Die Ungleichheit in den demokratischen Gesellschaften nimmt zu, aber nicht wegen einem nicht funktionierenden Leistungsgedanken, sondern wegen den Leistungen der Regierenden, die lieber Geschäfte mit Aserbaidschan machen oder Masken verscherbeln. Wenn der Leistungsgedanken bei den Bürgern nicht so hoch wäre und auch ihre Geduld langmütig, wären diese Leute schon lange dort, wo man ehrlich und hart arbeitet. Jeder Abgeordnete in Berlin sollte m.E. mindestens 10 Jahre ehrlich gearbeitet haben, d.h. an der Produktion von etwas beteiligt gewesen sein, das andere Leute kaufen wollen. ( )