The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?

How does the system of higher education in America function as a “sorting machine,” and what solutions does the author offer to fix what he sees as a broken system? What solutions, if any, would you suggest?

How does the author define the common good, and how does meritocracy serve to undermine a community’s pursuit of it? Do you believe meritocracy and the common good could ever be reconciled? If so, how?

How does Sandel conceive of the dignity of work and the economic problems currently faced by the working class? What obstacles and/or factors does a meritocracy create in the world of work? Has he overlooked any other economic factors? If so, which ones?

Is Sandel justified in claiming that meritocracy has created a new kind of aristocracy? Why or why not?

Compare Sandel’s vision of a good society with the assumptions present in the United States constitution—is there a harmony between the two, or is Sandel proposing something novel? How would you define a good society, and in what ways does your conception agree with, or differ from, Sandel’s?

Examine Sandel’s genealogy of merit in Chapter 2, featuring his investigation of the various Christian doctrines that provide a background for a contemporary concept of merit. Is his exegesis of the concept valid, and is his argument convincing? Why or why not? Do you see similar ideas in other religious traditions, and if so, have they also had an effect on ideas of meritocracy?

Sandel offers two different views of what has gone wrong in contemporary meritocratic culture: the view that the problem is that meritocracy has not been properly implemented and practiced, and the view that meritocracy is fundamentally flawed in itself. Compare and contrast these two views. Which argument do you find the most convincing, and why?

How would you define the “common good”? How does it compare to the post-Enlightenment idea of individual rights? Do you agree with Sandel’s assertion that the common good should be central to political and public discourse? Why or why not?