Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor known for his insights on political philosophy, squares off against Adrian Wooldridge, a political editor at The Economist and meritocracy expert. They delve into the complexities of meritocracy, questioning if true success is attainable in an unequal society. Discussing the ethics of standardized testing and its historical ties to eugenics, they uncover how inherited advantages skew results. The debate culminates in a call for alternative models of opportunity, emphasizing fairness and the reimagining of social justice post-pandemic.
01:04:05
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Meritocracy as an Ethic
Meritocracy is not simply about competence or skills.
It's an ethic of earning and deserving, allocating rewards based on perceived merit.
insights INSIGHT
The Moral Argument for Meritocracy
The moral argument for meritocracy arises from the unfairness of hereditary systems where birth determines life prospects.
Meritocracy claims to solve this by opening careers to talents, assuming equal chances.
insights INSIGHT
The Role of Family Background
Family background significantly impacts meritocratic competition, even with equal schooling.
Students from affluent families are vastly overrepresented in elite universities.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
In 'The Aristocracy of Talent', Adrian Wooldridge delves into the history of meritocracy, tracing its evolution from ancient ideas to its current state. He argues that meritocracy has been a driving force behind modern prosperity but is now facing challenges from both the left and the right. Wooldridge advocates for the renewal of meritocracy rather than its abandonment.
The Tyranny of Merit
What's Become of the Common Good?
Michael Sandel
In 'The Tyranny of Merit', Michael J. Sandel argues that the current system of meritocracy has led to significant social and political issues. He contends that meritocracy stratifies society into winners and losers, based largely on economic status and educational credentials, resulting in hubris among the successful and resentment and humiliation among those who are not. Sandel suggests that this system ignores the role of luck and external factors in success and instead attributes success solely to individual talent and hard work. He advocates for a new way of thinking about success, one that is more attentive to the role of luck, more conducive to an ethic of humility and solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of all work. The book also explores the impact of credentialism and the need to restore dignity to work that does not require a college degree, promoting a politics of the common good[1][3][5].
Meritocracy has long been an article of faith in the modern Western world. Get an education, work hard and the rewards of success will be yours, regardless of class, privilege or wealth. But recently meritocracy has come under attack, with the charge led by Michael Sandel, the Harvard philosopher whose public debates on how we define the common good have won him a global following. But not everyone agrees. Taking issue with much of Sandel’s arguments is Adrian Wooldridge, the political editor at The Economist. In this week's debate they argue whether we need more or less meritocracy in society. The host is BBC broadcaster Ritula Shah. For Michael Sandel's new bool click here: https://www.primrosehillbooks.com/product/the-tyranny-of-merit-whats-become-of-the-common-good-michael-j-sandel-pb/ For Adrian Wooldridge's new book click here: https://www.primrosehillbooks.com/product/the-aristocracy-of-talent-how-meritocracy-made-the-modern-world-adrian-wooldridge/
Intelligence Squared 
