3 ms·

I found the link on archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20191023044540/https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/department/studentaffairs/document/markovi

I found the link on archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20191023044540/https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/department/studentaffairs/document/markovitscommencementrev.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20191023044540/https://law.yale.... If one is to feel good about meritocracy, it is that the ambitious, talented and hardworking have the greatest chance of changing the system for everyone's shared benefit.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jdkee 7y ago
If only there was evidence to support that assertion.
- vixen99 7y ago
  As against the the unambitious, talentless and lazy having the greatest chance of changing the system for everyone's shared benefit.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The opposite of that is the stereotypical Soviet style, shoemaker working as a mason, carpenter working as the prime minister. There's a room in between for something sane, but anything sane will also be discriminatory with respect to skills. It seems to me that this pileup against meritocracy is primarily about personal rewards, and not about utility to society.
plandis 7y ago
Maybe in an ideal world. In reality however the world is hardly meritocratic.