For two decades during the World War II era, James Conant was president of Harvard, which is when he and other college administrators decided to eliminate "admissions criteria based on bloodlines and breeding and replace them with criteria centered on brainpower." The resulting "meritocracy" isn't without its own flaws, however, David Brooks writes for the Atlantic, in a piece that dives into "how the Ivy League broke America." "It's not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites," Brooks writes about the changes that have come about since Conant et al. pushed their tweaks, laying out the "six deadly sins" of this kind of system, including placing too much emphasis on smarts. But he doesn't want to end this system entirely. "The challenge is not to end the meritocracy; it's to humanize and improve it," he writes.
Brooks notes that "a number of recent developments"—including the Supreme Court's smackdown of affirmative action, the rise of artificial intelligence, and declining enrollments—make this improvement even more imperative. One way Brooks thinks we can achieve this: Focus more on kids' noncognitive "soft" skills, which may be better predictors of future success than IQ and test scores. "The gatekeepers of a more effective meritocracy would ask not just 'Should we accept or reject this applicant?' and 'Who are the stars?' but also 'What is each person great at, and how can we get them into the appropriate role?'" he writes. In short, "we want a meritocracy that will help each person identify, nurture, and pursue the ruling passion of their soul." More here on how Brooks thinks the meritocracy can be reimagined. (More Ivy League stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
