When Only First Place Matters
Philosopher Michael Sandel on how the age of constant striving is hurting students’ mental health and education
⚠️ You have free article remaining.
Log in or become a member for unlimited access.
Moral philosopher Michael Sandel has taught at Harvard University for almost half a century. During that time, he has observed a troubling shift in the mindset of his students and their attitude toward and approach to education. Rather than embarking on their college education with a spirit of curiosity and a desire for intellectual exploration, today’s Harvard students often spend their time trying to attain ever greater external successes with the longer-term goal of obtaining a high-status and highly paid job. Sandel believes that, in general, too many college and university students have come to measure their self-worth—and the worth of their peers—based on specific kinds of achievement. Furthermore, successful students view themselves as “winners” who deserve their good fortune because they worked hard during K–12.
Sandel calls this outlook “the tyranny of merit” (also the title of his most recent book)—a prevalent phenomenon in which a growing number of students—and their parents—only desire, accept, and respect the “best” college or university, the highest GPA, or the top leadership position. To always be number one, Sandel suggests, students sacrifice their mental health and well-being and lose sight of pursuing education for its own sake. In addition, society has progressively devaluated the work and lives of those without college degrees and elite credentials, Sandel postulates, leading to inequities and divisions that threaten the democracy of the United States.
In the following conversation with Liberal Education, Sandel argues that we need to reevaluate how we define and think about success and failure. He calls for a return to learning for the joy of learning and discusses the ways in which studying philosophy both helps students understand their interdependence with other people and strengthens their mental health and well-being.
What is “the tyranny of merit”?
On the face of it, the tyranny of merit is a paradox. We usually view merit as good. If I need surgery, I want a well-qualified surgeon—being well qualified for a role is a merit. So how could merit become a tyranny?
If we look back at the past three or four decades, we see that the divide between winners and losers has been poisoning our politics and setting us apart. This is partly due to widening inequalities but also relates to the accompanying change in attitudes toward success. Those on top believe that their success is their own doing and, therefore, a measure of their merit. By implication, those who struggle must also deserve their fate. This way of thinking arises from the ideal of meritocracy, the principle that insofar as chances are equal, winners deserve their winnings. In practice, though, chances are not truly equal. Children born to low-income families tend to stay poor as adults.
The ideal of meritocracy itself is flawed. It erodes the common good.It increases hubris among the winners and humiliation among those left behind.
In The Tyranny of Merit, you write, “Years of anxious striving leave young people with a fragile sense of self-worth, contingent on achievement and vulnerable to the exacting judgment of parents, teachers, admissions committees, and ultimately themselves.” How is the tyranny of merit and years of “fevered striving” affecting college students’ self-image and self-esteem?
Like all tyrannies, it’s oppressive. The anxious striving that drives the competition to get into selective colleges and universities damages students. The adolescent years have become a high-pressure meritocratic gauntlet of Advanced Placement courses, extracurricular activities, volunteering, and internships.
How significant a factor is the tyranny of merit in the current mental health crisis on campus?
It plays a substantial role. The mental health crisis on campuses today reflects an alarming epidemic of perfectionism among students. Students define their self-worth by external achievements as measured by grades, test scores, and success in admissions competitions. The desire for these achievements induces a strenuous, anxious striving to please parents, high school teachers, counselors, admissions committees, professors, and gatekeepers of all kinds. This is deeply destructive to the emotional and psychological well-being of young people. Even when it does not lead to anxiety and depression, it makes it difficult for them to forge a healthy sense of an independent self.
You’re a faculty member at Harvard University, an elite institution, and much of your work focuses on elite institutions. The mental health crisis is happening at higher education institutions of all kinds. Is meritocracy and the tyranny of merit a major factor on all campuses?
The most direct and visible effects of the tyranny of merit play out in the competition for admissions to selective colleges and universities. But the effect is more pervasive than that. Those who lack a four-year degree feel looked down upon by well-credentialed elites. This generates anger and resentment. They feel that elites do not respect the kind of work they do or value their contributions to the economy or the common good. This helps explain today’s political divide.
We need to shift the terms of public discourse. We must focus less on arming people for meritocratic achievement and more on the dignity of work. We need to create the conditions for everyone who contributes to the economy and the common good to live lives of dignity in which contributions are respected regardless of whether an individual has a college degree.
How is the tyranny of merit manifesting on campus and in college and university classrooms?
Young people arrive on campus believing their admission resulted from their effort and hard work. They have worked hard, but their admission also resulted from various social, cultural, and economic advantages and from their natural talents and gifts. This anxious striving also makes it more likely that students will view a college education as an instrumental means to an end rather than valuable for its own sake. That takes away from the ways in which a liberal education should be exploratory and reflective. Instead, young people are in the habit of asking, “Now what? What do I need to do to qualify for the next opportunity?”
How do you try to instill learning for the joy of learning in your classroom?
I invite students to reflect critically on their moral and political convictions. I want them to use their undergraduate years to figure out what they believe and why. This should be at the heart of our civic mission in higher education. We need to equip students to reason together, to disagree with one another, and to argue about the big questions that matter. This includes questions like, What’s a just society? What do we owe one another as fellow citizens? I find that students are hungry to engage with hard ethical questions.
In addition, I try to cultivate students’ ability to listen to one another. I don’t just mean hearing words but also listening for the principles and convictions that lie behind the views of those with whom we disagree. Only through this kind of active sympathetic listening and reasoning can we develop a culture of pluralism and respect.
Does this kind of deep intellectual engagement help students build self-esteem, self-worth, and resilience?
Yes. It builds self-confidence and poise as well as sympathetic understanding of others. It equips students to come into their own and to use their college education as an occasion for self-examination and self-discovery. This kind of educational journey helps develop well-rounded, reflective human beings and also leads to effective democratic citizens.
Are there ways in which studying philosophy and debating philosophical ideas help students examine the notion that they are self-made individuals?
Yes, in general the philosophical practices of reasoning and arguing together make students aware of the inescapable social aspects of learning, growing, and thinking. The structure of philosophic pursuit itself suggests mutual dependence. As students notice the inescapable dialectical character of philosophy, they become aware that we can’t think through the most fundamental human questions on our own. It requires dialogue with others. Even when we debate within ourselves, we are in a kind of dialogue with an imaginary interlocuter. As a dialogic, philosophy draws students away from the mistaken notion that we are self-made and self-sufficient.
Some philosophers also place greater emphasis on this notion than others do. Consider Plato’s dialogues of Socrates. Socrates’s emphasis on philosophy as dialogue teaches and presupposes that we can only reflect on the meaning of justice and the good life in the company of interlocutors.
Similarly, in Aristotle’s works on the meaning of political community and the good life, he argues that we can only realize our nature as human beings as members of associations and, ultimately, as good citizens. Studying his political philosophy helps students call into question the idea that we realize the highest human possibilities in a self-sufficient way.
How can students enhance their own well-being?
Students can approach their college education as an opportunity for growth, reflection, and figuring out what’s worth caring about instead of viewing it as basic training for applying for stuff—that’s the current tendency. Too many students devote a lot of time and energy to networking and pursuing instrumental goals. This causes them to lose sight of the intrinsic purpose of higher education. They need to play a part in changing that orientation. As parents, teachers, institutions, and gatekeepers, we need to help them do that.
What’s your response to the trend of eliminating philosophy classes, majors, and departments?
It’s a damaging trend because it deprives us of an essential aspect of what a liberal arts education should be. It’s also a symptom of other trends we’ve been discussing, such as the tendency to view higher education in wholly instrumental terms, as if it were only or mainly a preparation for careers or a way of winning credentials to gain the benefits of a high-paying job. A college education should equip students with the ability to build successful careers. That’s a legitimate aspect of the mission, but it’s not the only aim. The most important aim of a liberal arts education is to cultivate the moral and civic character and capacity of young people. The study of philosophy is an important aspect of this.
Philosophy is about learning how to ask big questions that matter and how to offer reasoned, considered answers to those questions even in the face of disagreement. This is essential to the lost art of democratic public discourse. At a time when public discourse is increasingly hollow and fractious, it’s all the more important that higher education reinvigorate its civic mission and its civic purpose.
Lead photo: Michael Sandel speaks to a crowd of fourteen thousand in Seoul, South Korea. (Courtesy Michael Sandel)
Exclusive Content
Subscribe to unlock all issues and articles
You have reached the maximum number of free views. Please login or become a member to continue reading.