Look, it's possible that the anti-meritocratic and anti-competitive posture of so much of the enlightened academy is really grounded in academics' own experience of the rottenness of their paths to success, their skepticism that the system that produced them is producing good leaders for our regime, and their conviction that therefore, they are necessarily part of the problem. But given these kinds of arguments, it's not a very plausible conclusion. When you read stuff like this, the conclusion that the elites now turning against meritocracy are just people who've gotten theirs and now want to pull up the ladder behind them so that they don't have to face any further competition is much more plausible.
I don't actually think that they're intentionally trying to pull up the ladder. Rather, I think that they don't actually think. When you spend your days around the products of selective educational programs, you see them with all of their warts. They are fully human (except when they seem more sub-human...) and have human flaws. Meanwhile, that nice assistant at the dentist's office seems at least as decent as any of the professors on your hallway, let alone that one jerk who acts so selfish in department politics. And you read all about kids who did poorly in school until someone sat down and really helped them and now they're flourishing. So clearly this whole selective education system is far from perfect.
Of course, if they thought carefully they'd realize that:
1) Well, nothing is perfect, including whatever system you'd like to replace the current one with. Have you actually made the case that the alternative is really better?
2) The dental assistant is a great person who deserves respect, a chance to advance in their endeavors, and the same safety net as anyone else, but that in and of itself doesn't mean they should (or would even want to) work as a college professor.
3) Yes, there are always some kids who do great when given an extra chance. There are plenty of kids who flounder when pushed into a more advanced path. By all means, make room for the diamonds in the rough, but not everyone is a diamond in the rough. There's a perfectly fine left-wing argument to be made that what most people need is a safety net and some respect for their middle class jobs rather than a shot at an elite educational path.
So this is less about shielding themselves from competition and more about remaking John Lennon's "Imagine" in op-ed format. To the extent that it might be about competition, it's about winning a virtue competition against other elites.
Of course, if they thought carefully they'd realize that:
1) Well, nothing is perfect, including whatever system you'd like to replace the current one with. Have you actually made the case that the alternative is really better?
2) The dental assistant is a great person who deserves respect, a chance to advance in their endeavors, and the same safety net as anyone else, but that in and of itself doesn't mean they should (or would even want to) work as a college professor.
3) Yes, there are always some kids who do great when given an extra chance. There are plenty of kids who flounder when pushed into a more advanced path. By all means, make room for the diamonds in the rough, but not everyone is a diamond in the rough. There's a perfectly fine left-wing argument to be made that what most people need is a safety net and some respect for their middle class jobs rather than a shot at an elite educational path.
So this is less about shielding themselves from competition and more about remaking John Lennon's "Imagine" in op-ed format. To the extent that it might be about competition, it's about winning a virtue competition against other elites.
