Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
In the years since 2016, this is the first thing I've read that restored some of my respect and understanding for those who voted for DJT. This was a thoughtful, convincing, and generous book.
I think it may have changed the way I think about talent and deservedness in the USA.
I think it may have changed the way I think about talent and deservedness in the USA.
Fascinating & inspiring when focussing on the problems of meritocracy.
Short, jumpy and superficial when thinking about solutions & alternatives ("the common good").
Alas, also: incredibly repetitive.
Short, jumpy and superficial when thinking about solutions & alternatives ("the common good").
Alas, also: incredibly repetitive.
Meritocracy is more an excuse these days to maintain obscene inequalities by the winners who have the largest most well-funded megaphones. The excuse to punish people for not going to the right school or studying the right subject or "learn to code" is wearing pretty thin. Well, off people seldom reflect on the pent-up frustration of the rest of us. Living in hipster places with uber deliveries all is right in the world for them. The pitchforks are coming you smug bastards.
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
there are books that have elements that you don’t want to hear but it’s important to get exposure to. Dr Sandel’s book raises so many reasons why a truly merit based society won’t be just and how merit can lead to not just have and have nots but to superiority and hatred.
Now I have issues, the fact the mid 20th century is looked upon so fondly dodges the question of race across all of his arguments. The constant harangue of the “liberal elites” got tiresome. Still the central tenant on merit and fairness as well as disdain and feelings of being left behind is one of the better “it’s not just racism and hatred that has spurred so many populist movements” across the globe.
I almost stopped after 40 pages, I’m glad I didn’t.
Now I have issues, the fact the mid 20th century is looked upon so fondly dodges the question of race across all of his arguments. The constant harangue of the “liberal elites” got tiresome. Still the central tenant on merit and fairness as well as disdain and feelings of being left behind is one of the better “it’s not just racism and hatred that has spurred so many populist movements” across the globe.
I almost stopped after 40 pages, I’m glad I didn’t.
Michael J. Sandel talks about the history and ideas behind meritocracy, including its negative sides. Even though the book didn’t change my views—since I already think we shouldn’t judge people by their job, money, or education—it helped me understand things better. It answered some political questions I had and explained complicated issues in a clear way. This book is great for anyone who wants to learn more about meritocracy and its effects on society. Highly recommended!
Sander develops an interesting an important thesis about the dangers meritocracy poses to all of us. Not just questioning whether we are failing to truly be meritocratic (we are), but also identifying the harms to society and individuals meritocratic thinking brings. This is a really important questioning of a predominant philosophy in our society with wide ranging policy consequences. His critique falls on liberals and conservatives alike. While I accept his premise and want to think further about its consequences, the book has some issues.
While he cites evidence for his claims, there is often only a loose connection between his evidence and his claim. There are consistently many alternative explanations or causal routes for the relationships he claims. He rarely acknowledges these. The book is also incredibly repetitive. I would love to read and assign the New Yorker length article version of this thesis that wasn’t so repetitive.
While he cites evidence for his claims, there is often only a loose connection between his evidence and his claim. There are consistently many alternative explanations or causal routes for the relationships he claims. He rarely acknowledges these. The book is also incredibly repetitive. I would love to read and assign the New Yorker length article version of this thesis that wasn’t so repetitive.
Another excellent evaluation of the moral state, or lack thereof, of American society. I ask, especially in light of his earlier work, why Professor Sandel doesn't go farther in offering a foundation for American thinking on Justice.