The Matthew Effect: Michael Sandel on merit

Most institutions are based on meritocracy, a system that supposedly adjudicates rewards based on talent, effort and achievement. Typically, admission to universities, access to grants or scholarships, selection for jobs, assessment of work, professional promotion and most public distinctions, among many other practices, are meritocratic.

One of the earliest explanations of the concept of merit can be found in the parable of the talents (a unit used in ancient Mesopotamia equivalent to 16 years’ wages), as told in Matthew 24: 14-30. In it, a farmer divides his wealth among three workers. He gives the first five talents, the second two and the third one. After a few years, he returns and asks the three to account for their money. The first two have doubled their investment, while the third has buried his talent for fear of losing it. The owner criticizes the latter for his laziness and praises the first two for their diligence. 

The parable, a historical anticipation of the importance of good management of one's own or others' resources, concludes with the redistributive maxim that "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

Calling this “the Matthew Effect”, US sociologist Robert Merton explained how success typically leads to further success, the generation of wealth leads to the concentration of goods, in the same way that the exercise of power to the accumulation of greater power, as well as something similar with prestige or fame. In short, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 

In his latest book, The Tyranny of Merit, philosopher Michael Sandel offers a timely critique of meritocracy, arguing forcefully that it generates inequality and social unrest. A Harvard professor, Sandel is often associated with the philosophy of Communitarianism, the belief that our identity comes from belonging to the whole, as opposed to Liberalism, which emphasizes individualism. 

Sandel analyses US society over recent decades and the underlying technocratic philosophy that, in his opinion, has characterized politics and economics regardless of which party has been in power.   

In his view, the rise of populism is fundamentally due to two factors. Firstly, the adoption of the technocratic model, and secondly, the enshrinement of the meritocratic system that defines who we call winners and losers.

Sandel focuses on two spheres of social activity to illustrate his argument: higher education and the work environment. In both, the concept of merit plays a decisive role. For example, admission and evaluation systems in universities, or selection for jobs, as well as professional promotion and recognition in the business world.  Sandel also highlights how, in his opinion, access to the most prestigious American universities has reinforced elitism and inequality over time. For example, a high percentage of those admitted to Ivy League universities are the children of alumni or donors to the university, or are given sports scholarships. This has reinforced elitism and hindered access to education.

To counter this, Sandel formulates the following proposal. Let us assume that Harvard University receives approximately 40,000 admission applications, but can only admit 2,000 students, of whom more than half come from families associated with the university. At the same time, studies show that some 20,000 applicants have the right profile. To avoid elitism and the Matthew Effect, the ideal would be to draw lots to determine which of those 20,000 would be admitted. Luck, limited by some coefficients that would guarantee, for example, gender diversity and other categories, would guarantee a fairer result.

I won’t go into whether Sandel’s suggestion would be a better  approach than letting the admissions department decide. I suspect that many people would dismiss the proposal by saying that there are enough inequalities due to luck in our lives.  

My main criticism of Sandel is that he is merely proposing another exclusive model of university access, albeit using different selection mechanisms. Instead, why not widen the windows of opportunity for education, instead of reducing it to a single, once-in-a-lifetime card?

-This is where continuing education and lifelong learning throughout our careers, makes sense, and where universities can play a role. The populism Sandel discusses has in large part been driven by an electorate of older people who lack the skills needed in today’s labor market. The best solution would be to offer more educational options for these professionals to regain employability or explore entrepreneurship, not to fight globalization to regain blue-collar jobs that have been offshored to emerging countries, as Sandel proposes, incidentally, in line with Donald Trump.

-At the same time, the pandemic has shown the potential of online education thanks to platforms such as edx, Coursera and openclassrooms, among others. Contrary to what was thought only two years ago, quality online training can significantly expand universal access to education. For example, the Justice course taught by Michael Sandel himself at Harvard University, one of the most demanded by students, is available on edx for everyone. A very effective way to combat elitism.

Given that the concept of meritocracy is intrinsic to the functioning of many institutions, educators would be better focused on instilling self-confidence in their students, underlined by a sense of commitment to society and the virtue of modesty. That could be achieved by universities emphasizing the responsibilities that come with attending school and entering a profession.

Universities try to instill the confidence in their students that will allow them to analyze, establish goals and assume risks. The challenge for educators and for students is how to balance the self-assurance needed to lead people and to take decisions with the modesty required to avoid over-confidence and losing touch with reality. Openness and modesty are two recommendable attitudes to start any learning experience with. In fact, they are key for those entering an MBA program, since much of learning comes from fellow participants. I tend to kick off the inaugural speech I give to MBA students at my school with the same words Socrates used when addressing new students: "The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." This sometimes ruffles a few feathers, since MBA students normally have a pretty high opinion of themselves, believing that they are where they are on merit. 

Similarly, business schools with students from a wide range of cultures, with different world views encourages tolerance and openness to new ideas and confronts students with a reality of multiple references, thus making it harder to see themselves as belonging to a single, elite group.

Finally, I think it pays to revisit the concept of merit, something Sandel hints at in his work. One promising avenue is to understand that success in life does not depend on what was traditionally considered talent, but to extend it to many other forms of intelligence that, according to evidence and experience, provide more opportunities to succeed.  

Note

Link to photograph above