Quote Meritocracy Unquote

But we don’t ask why they know their stuff. How did they get into a good university?

Depending on exactly how you define "good university", I contend that the importance of this may be overstated. For the sake of argument, let's go with the idea that to many people "a good university" means "Ivy League". IF you take that premise, it makes sense to look at where a number of high-level leaders, like, say, the CEOs of the S&P 500 companies, went to college. Luckily, that's been analyzed:

http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_...

Now, as you might expect, a number of Ivy League schools are very well represented. But, equally important is this:

The University of Wisconsin is tied with Harvard for the largest percentage of S&P 500 CEOs, at 3%. This is above Princeton, Stanford and Yale. And the University of Texas is right in there at 2% as well. Now this is not to say that UW or UT are "bad" schools, but are they what most people are talking about when they talk about the whole elite / non-elite dichotomy?

Another tidbit: If you look at only the CEOs of the top 100 out of the S&P 500, four schools are tied for "most well represented". Those four are Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and, wait for it... The University of North Carolina, all with 3% each.

For what it's worth, it appears that it can at least be said that going to a reasonably well regarded State school is borderline just as helpful as going to an Ivy League school, if you plan to be the CEO of an S&P 500 firm.

Of course, this all totally overlooking the fact that "CEOs of S&P 500 firms" is a ridiculously small and overly restrictive set to represent "being successful and a respected business leader" in any sense. If you're the guy who owns 6 McDonalds locations in your local small town area, or runs the most successful car dealership in a given area, you're pretty damn successful and - at least in a local sense - well regarded. And I expect you'll find plenty of those folks who went to schools most of us have never heard of, or didn't go to school at all.

Anyway, just something to throw out there. I certainly wouldn't mean to discourage anyone from going to Stanford, Yale, Harvard or Princeton if they want to and have the opportunity. But the poor sap left to attend UNC, UT, UVA, UW, UM, etc., certainly should not feel like they've been consigned to the dustbin just because they did not go to an Ivy.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_ph...

When I hear this, I can't help but wonder if the poster is taking an overly narrow view of the "world of companies out there that one could work for". I mean, yeah, if your view of the world is just the big, famous, hugely important companies that everyone has heard of, then maybe that's true. maybe. But... if you consider that outside of the Fortune 500 there are thousands, tens of thousands, hell, maybe millions, of other, smaller companies, I'm not convinced that the statement above holds water.

OK, I mean, I'll admit I could be wrong, and I haven't done a scientific study on this or anything. But I strongly suspect that if you went out and, say, studied all the textile manufacturers with 200-1000 employees, in NC, VA, GA and SC, you'd find a LOT of CEOs, VPs, managers, etc., that did not work for McKinsey, did not go to Harvard, and generally don't fit this picture that is being painted. You also largely won't read about these companies in the WSJ, see them advertise on TV, or really even know about them unless you go looking. But they're out there, doing business and making money, and they're just as real as the "big boys".

However I got the impression from several things in your post that you don't like the commonly held ideal of choosing leaders based on merit (i.e. meritocracy):

(1) Donald Trump is somehow an example of it at work (see my comments about him above).

(2) It discriminates against those from disadvantaged backgrounds who likely will accumulate less "merit". BTW - I agree this is a problem with both "meritocracy" and the world generally and should be adressed in various ways.

(3) It somehow implies to "some people" that "none of the people in positions of authority are bozos".

(4) Meritocracy does not "minimizing false negatives".

You seem to be against the ideal not just that particular definition. The only positive thing you say is that it is better than "picking leaders at random or having some dictator appoint his drinking buddies".

Do you like the idea of making choices based on merit? You seem to be both criticizing it as a goal and saying that it is not practical.

I get the sense you would prefer making decisions based on some sense of "justice" rather than "merit".

BTW - Love your many great posts on development. Thanks you very much. I feel awkward debating a hero.

I'm just pointing out that things aren't quite so skewed. You can go to school at a reasonably reputable State school and still have a pretty good career... Ivy League not required.