« Making Sense with Sam Harris

#221 — Success, Failure, & the Common Good

2020-10-22 | 🔗

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Michael Sandel about the problem with meritocracy . They discuss the dark side of the concept of merit, the pernicious myth of the self-made man, the moral significance of luck, the backlash against "elites" and expertise, how we value human excellence, the connection between wealth and value creation, the ethics of the tax code, higher education as a sorting mechanism for a caste system, alternatives to 4-year colleges, and other topics.

SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the Makin says podcast. This is SAM Harris just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber feed and will only be hearing partial episodes of the podcast. If you'd like access to full episodes, you'll need to subscribe as SAM Harris Org, there you'll find our private rss feed to add to your favorite podcatchers, along with other subscriber only content, and as always, I never want money to be the reason why someone counts into the podcast. So if you can't afford a subscription, there's an option at SAM Harris Org to request a free account and we grant one hundred percent of those requests. No question to ask today speaking with Michael Sandel, Michael teachers, political philosophy at Harvard University, where he teaches the quite famous course on justice
that has been televised and viewed by tens of millions of people and he's author of several books. The most to which is the tyranny of merit, what's become of it common good, and that is our focus in today's episode. We talk about the ethics of success and failure in our system already the enduring problems with capitalism, I just become a sorting mechanism for a new kind of caste system. We cut What I have come to think of his the pernicious myth of these self made man and wages as the paradoxes which come from valuing excellence, all the while recognising the role that luck plays in producing it. Very timely conversation as we struggle really throughout western society, to deal with the politics of him, filiation and injustice,
and the rising levels of wealth inequality to which their anchored clue they were. Gonna have to get a handle on this sooner rather than later. And now I bring you Michael Sandel. I here with Michael Sandel Michael. for joining me good to be with you, SAM, So I I will have properly introduced you here, but ten gimme, your shirt form, Bio you're, a man of many honours talents, but how do you describe yourself in an elevator with a stranger? I teach political philosophy, at Harvard, and you also, if I'm not mistaken, teach was often described as the most popular corps. At Harvard this course on justice. Do still teach that I'm teaching this semester adapt did to include new examples of justice and ethical D.
Lemmas arising from the pandemic and from this moment of racial reckoning nice Well, you have a new book. The tyranny of merit what's become of the common good, which I want to focus on, but not another colorful fact bout. You, which I only just learned, was that eighteen. Seventy one of the age of eighteen debated Ronald Reagan, one who is the governor of California, that to be amusing, but I so recall that you and I once David, I think I probably got them more seasoned Michael Sandel. Somewhere around. I think was two thousand and five Do you recall that we we met at tat, their Pomona, our main Harvey Mud College. Yes, I do, so I say we ve met once and- and I remember that being quite a m- collegial and amicable debate on now it surely must have been on religion. At that point, I think that's right. I think it is about
the role of religion in public life, if I remember correctly, yeah yeah, well, nice to meet you at, albeit at some distance here, on a new topic at the top that I think we substantially agree on, although I must say that something so counter two. It is about a criticism of meritocracy. It makes a topic itself I certainly elusive, and once you think you have the floor, this in hand, and you agree with it. It's almost like you, wake up and can no longer find we are purchased on the felt sense, the argument anymore, because this is something so in Greece. and about this notion that the only fly in meritocracy, which is to say, you know truly valuing differences in competence and excellence and rewarding people along along
A continuum is that the flaws generally thought and felt to be that we haven't achieved it. We don't have a fair our society with real anything like it I'll leave opportunity, but if only we could give if everyone the opportunity they deserve, Well, then, what could be wrong with just letting people rise or fall based on their own merits, right a start there. How do you think about this of meritocracy. At this point, will you write It is a counter intuitive idea, because merit on the face of it is a good thing. Even and I. Deal what could be wrong with trying to assign people? to social rules into jobs on their merits, rather than based on arbitrary factors or the accidents of their birth or whom they know, connections and so on, and if
I need a surgeon. If I need surgery, I certainly want a well qualified and to perform it, not someone who's poorly qualified, so on the face of it merit seems an unqualified good, and yet, when merit comes to be a governing philosophy, a way of determining access to opportunities, it has a dark side and the book tries to bring out this paradoxical feature of merit. I would put it this way if we had a perfect meritocracy. If we could one day overcome all of the obstacles that hold people back hull of the prejudices, wouldn't that be a good thing? Well, it would have this feat
that the winners of the race, this fair race, would believe, understandably, that they deserve their winnings, provided the races run fairly. And that the losers deserved whatever place they wound up here and here when we think about a society and an economy and a democracy use where the flaw in the ideal arises first, It's a good thing to bring everyone up to the same starting point in the race, but if we could, it would be predictable that the fastest most gifted runners
when and would believe they deserved all of the benefits and the material rewards in the honors that the society bestows upon them. But a question one question be asked is do we deserve in the first place the talents, the gifts that enable us to flourish in him in a market society like or is having those talents matter of good luck. Take, for example, make it concrete Lebron James he's, a great basketball player just help lead the Lakers to the NBA championship. He works hard to cultivate his great athletic talent But does he really deserve those talents and all the benefits that flows from them or is having no talent? Certainly it's not his doing that he's gifted in that way.
That is good luck, but more than that SAM, it's in the fact that he lives in a society that loves basketball. That, too, is hardly his doing. If you look back in the renaissance, they didn't care much for basketball, then, and it is a preferred fresco painters. So that, too, is a matter of contingency and good luck. So, for these two reasons it's a. take for the successful to assume that their success is the measure of their merit in that they therefore deserve all the benefits that flow from the exercise of their talents and here's where the dark side of it comes in, especially when we think about our current society in our politics. Is the successful come to believe that Their success is their own doing a measure of their merit. They tend to inhale too
deeply of their own success. They forget the luck and good fortune, help them on their way and they tend to look down and those less fortunate than themselves, believing that their failure is their fault, and I think this this hubris among the this. Zestful meritocratic hubris. I call it in the humiliation demoralization among those left behind accounts for some of the resentments that have gathered in recent decades against a resentments that we saw bubble up and find expression in the populist backlash of two thousand sixteen so there's a lot here so that their state of the ethical case, and then the political ram applications of right getting it right or wrong here. So you just sketch that in brief and your book really goes deep, we into it. We have this sense
among these successful, certainly that they desperately want to believe that Thursday. Sat, is morally justified right, this notion of justified advantage, which, just by deferring dino logical nature of the claim, the gets this notion of justified disadvantage right, the people who are not winners, the people who are losing to one or another degree also deserve their lot in life and write, this Lee to a kind of in a resentment and populist anger that we ve, seen and and the attendant politics, personality and Trump ISM, and also this now, pervasive and totally disable eyes in distrust of institutions and expertise, now we're living in a kind of shattering of our public conversation about basic facts, because so called elites are.
spies, to this degree that they are in the media and in academia and I am I'm quite sympathetic with much of this criticism, because the elites have played their side of this terribly, and maybe I will touch on some of the specifics. But where we get into the politics of all. This was. Linger on the ethical case because totally agree that we should view. differences in success in general, as a kind of, multivariate lottery being run. You know it is not just a matter of the normal forms of good luck every thing can be ascribed to look in the end immediately. You know you down to your genes and all that they do to determine who you are and down to the environment and all that it does in concert your genes determine who you are and no one made themselves. No one created society into which they were born. Take the perfect example
someone like Lebron James, he not created his physical. attributes that allow him to succeed as a basketball player, nor did he create they world, in which basketball would be valued, even deemed interesting, and so he has won a kind of lottery and yet there still seem to be this problem, how we deal with differences an ability that value and willing terribly value, because you take something like basketball. Maybe if you value basketball, if you enjoy watching the sport, almost by definition, you will value the far end of the continuum The bell curve, a basketball talent, more then You'Ll- you'll value the mean right, and so no one want an NBA where everyone, and get the chance to play and everyone two trophy at the end of the season that annihilates the prince
polls, by which one that it would even capture your attention. You know as a sport if you could wave a magic wand and reset all of our are ethical and attention all dials here, just What would be our experience? Take the limited case a bath Thinking about basketball, value in basketball, buying tickets and rewarding the obvious merits of a player like James. If I were recruiting a basket belt and NBA came, I would still go SAM for the best play, I would I would want the Bron James. I would want to best players so That's not really the the question. The question is: what moral desert we a tribute to those who enjoy cereal rewards, as well as on a rhetoric, rewards for excelling in this or that way. So in
in the narrowly contained realm of basketball, the the hiring practice wouldn't wouldn't be different? The recruiting practice wouldn't be different, but when we look at society it is a whole, and when we look at social roles and when we look at who gets to govern and who gets to have the greatest voice and who makes the most money, there is the tendency to assume. Let's take the economy, there is a tendency to assume that the money people make is the measure of their contribution to the common good, but this is a mistake because there are all sorts of contingencies that determine who makes a lot of money and who
less contingencies. That are in no way related to differential contributions to the common good, and when we ask about who governs us, we want in broad terms here's the basketball analogy. We want to be governed by the people who are best at governing or in a representative. democracy we want to be represented by those who who are best at that role. But today, essentially we we are governed by only a segment of the population, Those who have managed to get for university degrees overwhelmingly in democracies, in the U S and end in Europe, parliaments and executive branches are dominated by over well mainly by those who have university degrees, even though those
of us who have such degrees represent a minority of our fellow citizens. Most most people don't have a four year university degree. Nearly two thirds do not in the United States and in Europe. So if we're talking about governing this touches to on your point about expertise, salmon in the backlash against elites and experts. I think that the the wheat confused talking about merit and governing. We have confused. The virtues necessary to govern well in a democratic society with technocratic expertise, and but that's distorting that's me to narrow. So in many of the demands once we get outside of basketball, the problem is that we have woefully me
construed. What counts is the relevant merits. Sir, that's why the basketball illustration is helpful up to a point. but when it comes to distributing economic rewards and when it comes to governing what we can to regard as merit actually mean since the mark by quite a long way? Ok, so I think it is helpful to grow the ethical side of this before we talk about just descriptive limits, but at the level of our politics and society at large sums, here in part of this criticism, a criticism of the no given that there is any direct com connection between wealth and value creation. the cartoon version of in a blame was wealth that one would get in a libertarian circles, perhaps above all
rise notion that the only way someone becomes spectacularly wealthy is to create a. answer it: man of value for the worse old and added. That is how a free market would reward human excellence and value creation, and the way that gets deranged and obviously there we don't we, in the cartoon their ways this. This is not reflect. Of reality, I think there is a core truth to it right now, you might say that we value the wrong things right, so someone can open an instant account and flaunt their body and if their young and beautiful the have millions people following them, or at least some of them and then able to leverage that into vast wealth, as have the Kardashians so
to their they're only assets, but there's no question: they are being rewarded by some notion of not value created for society, is the capturing of of attention is a machinery here, there's work, based on what people the choices people are making and the resulting effects in the market and money is flowing in what is deemed to be the right direction. That's a case where we, I think we might say, ok people are just valuing the wrong things and others for becoming a meal he's in the wealthy. Based on this distortion and priorities. But then, when you have something you have someone else whose come immensely wealthy by surely creative act that has just brought nothing but joy to the world. Someone like Jake, a rolling. She writes her books, people. Line up at me, a midnight to buy them in front of
stores all over the world that was fairly pure register of the value being created and he became no the wealthiest writers in history as a result, what are you suggesting could change about our current system? with reference to someone like J K all enemies shouldn't. We reward her in precisely the wayward the way we have steam her in the way that we do based on her creative output will two reasons that the answer I'd be yes, that we should really Lord her and the way we do, though, it's important that you drew this distinction just at the end of the question, SAM between rewarding her. monetarily and rewarding her with esteem and the answer may be different in the two cases but
the they if she is providing something that is valued and that is worthy of being valued, then she should be rewarded, certainly with esteem, for having done that. But there are two reasons we might want to reward her one is to encourage her and people with creative gifts like hers to continue to exercise them by writing books that we love to read or our children love to read. That's a reason that reason has to do with providing an incentive to her and others like to continue doing what they're doing, because we like the stories that that she writes, but it's important to notice that that reason, the incentive reason,
has nothing necessarily to do with whether or not she morally deserves all the money she makes writing Harry Potter stories. That's a further question, and so the second question is, should we reward her in the sense that not only does that should get a lot of money for selling a lot of Harry Potter books, but we also consider that She morally deserves the money that she makes thanks to the market, success at the box and that's a further question. That's that's a harder case, make now it. This is why your mention of esteem matters might decide. Did she deserves esteem for having written, beautiful and compelling Harry Potter
stories, and yet it could very well be a further question whether you should make ten times more than other writers or people in other professions or a hundred times more or a thousand times more or ten thousand times more, it's it's hard to claim that is a matter of moral dessert. She deserves to make Ex times more that, where x, is in proportion to her actual earnings relative to other people where, as it, I think it's here to say she certainly worthy of admiration for the creativity she brought to bear writing these stories if I could just add. I think you put it very well, when you said part of the objection is that
We value the wrong things. Part of the objection to assuming that the money people make is the measure of their contribution to the common good. It's important to keep hold of this question, because it's a question that that the free market libertarians you mentioned, beg that they ignore, but here's a simple concrete sample to test it. I don't know SAM if you were a fan of breaking bad or otherwise Walter wait started out as a high school chemistry teacher, and he didn't much money he had to work when he wasn't teaching at a second job at a car wash and then, as we know, he broke bad and became a mess dealer. He used his talents as a chemist to make perfect methods
better mean and made millions and millions selling this methamphetamine, because there was a great market demand for it. So here would be the test for the pure idealistic free market, libertarian swimming. There were a competitive market in high school chemistry, teachers and in math, cooks. And Walter White made thousands of times more cooking and selling mess. Then teaching highschool chemistry. Would we conclude from that that his contribution is a myth. Dealer was thousands of times greater more important than his contributions as a high school chemistry teacher, probably not be pretty hard to make that playing. Soap when I am suggesting. Is that really to understand that the question of merit when we're talking about
economy and economic rewards. We We have to address the question about whether we are valuing the right kind of things in in the design of markets and in the allocation of rewards. There's so many things that store this notion of value. A notion that this is a linear relationship between the vow. You being created by someone's efforts, end there monetary rewards or their roared in with respect to esteem. Immediate use take the case of you know someone who's, saving your life you're having heart attack? You know the paramedics shows up and saves your life in that moment, this is them being on the most valuable job on earth for you right, but that doesn't suggest that we could have a society that aid paramedics twenty million dollars a year for working, our trade right, because it is more of a tree.
Aid. Then Finding the the outlier and in the NBA can be thought of as a trade, or you know outlier with respect to writing novels, I d see how we get away from this site mainly crazy outsize reward structure for the people who are on that The far tale of the continuum, four things we We value waiting, rightly or wrongly. There is this law your criticism. We could explore around in a society that that is just cause, debated by the wrong things and that's a much longer conversation that will will outlive both of us. How do we want the things we should want and how do we live lives together that we won't regret that in hindsight will seem sane and had it avoid just colossal wastage of time and opportunity collectively
but in a world where people can freely spend their time. I'm attention and money on things they want and in a system that maximally incentivize is a creative and hopefully ethical response to those wants. Right and if we want to be able to give everyone at all times what they want, what they really want as quickly and as efficiently as possible, something like capitalism, seems likely best answer, we've ever arrived at and something like. global, technocratic capitalism, is where we've landed. Again again, we can point out flaws in this they're, obviously negative externalities to various business practices that in a free don't account for, and we want some kind of regulation and environmental and otherwise, but it's
hard to see that you, if you are going to be writing novels that are so creative that people want to open theme parks in order to explore the consequences of your ideas right and by the tens of thousands of show up at those theme parks every year to buy them merchandise. That is derivative of your of your ideas. Other and just deciding that somebody Take a rolling needs to pay more in taxes you have something like a wealth, tax or sense attacks. It's it so progressive that very, very wealthy people pay the pond of their wealth back into the system. If we just had our tax codes straightened out, wooden at the sufficient remedy for this particular lottery problem. That will certainly would be one way of responding to it by consent ring revamping of the tax system, a wealth tax would be one possible way,
of dealing with this. But I would also say if we're thinking now pay Tactically and moving into the world in which we live. I think we should have a public debate about whether it's fair or desirable, to tax earnings from labor the word people do in the real economy at a higher rate, then earnings from interest dividends and capital gains. Why should we tax workers at a higher rate than then investors from the standpoint of of merit or to assert and contribution to the common good? More dramatic example of this and would be a? I think we should have a debate about whether to trade off Thea, all or part of the payroll tax, which, after all, is a tax on labour paid, partly by the worker and partly by the company, and make up that lost revenue through a financial
transactions tax, or at least one on speculative financial activity unrelated to improving the real economy or high speed, creating the act. The way in which ignore miss income and wealth is generated. The that the characteristic way is not the J K, rolling way or even the Lebron James Way it's to do with four eggs. Looking at broader trends over recent decades, the financial assessment of the economy, We see this in the? U S in Britain, which is the tendency of a greater share of economic activity of GDP and and especially of corporate profits, accounted for financial activity rather than providing goods and services that people use
there'd be nothing wrong with this or with the outsize rewards that people in the financial industry reap if that increase financial activity corresponded to the productive contribution to the real economy. But increasingly, the financial activity that has exploded in recent decades, especially with financial deregulation in recent decades, contributes little if anything, to the real economy, the social purpose of finances to allocate capital to
that directive it is new businesses and our prices, factories, home schools, hospitals for roads and so on in the real economy, but most financial activity in advanced financial system such as the? U S and the UK is not of that productive kind. It's been estimated by note those who know more about it than I do that only about fifteen percent of financial activity consists in investment in new productive assets for the economy. Eighty five percent consists of simply bidding up the price or or betting on the future prices of already existing assets or increasingly synthetically created derivatives in other. The fancy financial instruments that have precious little to do with making the economy more
productive, so in some ways the standard defense of a lose fair free market, distribution of income and wealth, drawing on Jk Rowling or on Lebron James. Mrs. What actually going on for the most part, with the with the growing inequality in in our economy and so in debating the tax system. I think we should. We should confront that directly Hansen. I would suggest, in addition to a wealth tax at a financial transactions tax, to offset the to enable us to read taxes on work in the ordinary sense. I could just add one more thing about this. This is
only for the sake of redistributing income from the wealthy to those who need it more thought. That would be one advantage. It's also to prompt a broader public debate about the earlier topic we were discussing, which is whether the per of an economy is to help shape the way we value different contributions. To the economy and society or whether the point of the economy is simply to accept whatever evaluation seem to be implicit in the existing system. And I'm I'm hoping by these and other proposals to prompt a broader public debate onto the terrain that you said rightly, is contestable in and we could be debating
not for a very long time. What is it mean to value? The right kind of thing is: what does it mean to to encourage certain contributions to the common good and to discourage others? I think that that should be a part of our public debate and one way of making it a part of our public debate is to raise questions, for example, about the role of speculative finance by comparison with the productive contribution of people who produce valuable goods and serve truly valuable goods and services yeah. Well, that's obviously a very important distinction, there's so many areas of the economy where, if we could be fully transparent as to the contributions being made by that economic activity we would want to rethink what were incentivizing and how how're rewarding people, because there's so much Rent seeking behavior and there's you so much
ministries of blood in the horse, of our economy are suffocating under this apparatus. We put in place can we take them the medical system and just what you know just how much time doctors have to spend dealing with insurance companies, we spend more medicine in any society on earth and we Do not get the return on our investment so yeah. I piss a lot to straighten out there, but even the even the pure case is hard to think about, and it puts us up against certain moral access? So, for instance, just imagine a society where we had decided. Okay, we we ve gotten pass. This This notion of of mere equal opportunity because we know that even if we could open the doors- perfectly and give every child starting right now, an equal opportunity to get into Harvard say well, though, still be mass
massive differences in their ability to bail them out of those opportunities because of all of these other disadvantages, but that the paradox here is that thing: that's under our control, the environment, if we perfect equally tuned that if we gave everyone from utero onward, all the same environmental benefits right. This is magic right. We can't. We obviously can't do this, but even we could wear that would land us is in. This disturbing counterfactual world, where now. What will have to date on are the the massive differences in genetic endowment right. If you use legally secure the environment against disadvantage well, then, all you will see is a kind tyranny of genetic differences we'll be in some kind of garriga like to stop here, and that would be if we
The best of intentions we could create perfectly equitable. and enriched environments where everybody do you can take that case in do with what it, what you will with it, it almost like a kind of mirage here to figure out how to actually solve this problem, given a perfect ability to do so, will I think I think what the Mirage of like field of this thought experiment brings out is that even a perfect meritocracy would not be a just society, because the winners would say will be determined by factors that we're not their own doing and yet to make matters worse. The closer we came, to providing truly equal opportunity.
the greater the tendency for the successful to believe that their success was their own, doing the greater the tendency to forget or to overlook or deny the luck and good fortune that help them on their way and the greater the tendency to look down on those who are flourishing. Lass and to say their failure must be their fault. So It goes along with the meritocratic picture, is a sense of human agency so thoroughgoing that we tend to a tribute moral responsibility for one's fade, for where one lands in life, notwithstanding the persistent contingencies that you've just described in that we've been discussing the attitudes towards
success and failure toward winning and losing as we became as we approach more closely perfect equality of opportunity. Those attitudes towards success and failure would become all the sharper all the more pronounced in what I'm sayin is from an ethical point of view, and you rightly invited us to distinguish the ethical from the political dimensions of this ethically. The hubris leads those on top to forget not only the luck and good fortune, but also their sense of indebtedness and as well as looking down on those less fortunate than themselves. So that's the ethical problem. That's the dark side of meritocracy. Morally speaking, it's the hubris rather than the more we appreciate the more. We would be alive to the role of accident and lock and fortune
the more open we would be towards a certain humility toward success toward winning, and this openness humility to humility can open us also to a greater sense of responsibility for those less fortunate than us. Those who struggle those who may be left behind through no fault of their own, so that's the ethical side of it. literally, even though we haven't realized the perfect meritocracy that you've just described and that we've been imagining it has so this ideal. This picture has so dominated public discourse that it has shaped the response to the deepening and equality of the last for decades. and I think it's no accident that merit Craddock modes of public discourse,
and moral argument have strengthened their hold the very same time that inequality have been Commonwealth, have deepened with that kind of market driven globalization we ve had in recent decades, and this has fuelled the the anger, the resentment of those who have lost out. It's one thing to to feel that you have lost out, because the system is unfair The system is rigged. That's it worry about fairness, but humiliation is a deeper kind of demoralization, because it's a system where the the attitude towards six and failure lead those who struggle to believe. Well, maybe I don't work hard enough. Maybe I'm not talented enough to land where they landed? That's deeply demur
realizing- and maybe that's why they're looking down on me, one of the most potent sources SAM, I think, of the populist backlash that we've seen a most dramatically in two thousand and sixteen is the sense among many working people that elites look down on them, and this has a specific meaning in the context of american politics, because for for decades the meritocratic problem was yes, there may be deepening inequality, but you can rise. Everyone can rise through individual effort,
in training. Provided you go to college, then you too can compete and win in the global economy. What you earn will depend on what you learn, so the response- and this includes Democrats and Republicans the response to the deepening inequality- was to offer individual upward mobility through higher education, which, on the face of it, seems inspiring. I am all for giving access to widening access to higher education, but as a remedy for the inequality that we ve seen. It's a pale, inadequate solution and it contains and what seems an inspiring message. You two can rise. If only you go to college in installed. An implicit insult in the insult is this: if you don't have a university degree,
And your struggling in the new economy, your failure must be your fault, and this politically is folly when we recall that most most people don't have a four year college degree. So instead of focusing on arming people from meritocratic competition, I think we should be focusing more on affirming the dignity of work and having public debate about what it would mean truly to enable everyone to flourish, whether there blue collar jobs or whether there in and well whether there well credential people in professional jobs. Yes, it must focus on the problem of college- is it this is some measure, the whole problem in microcosm, but it is also the the law this lever that his separated, the fates of, winners and losers, and in our society Erica
You know on your account. Other people have hit this topic Daniel Mark of this was on the podcast couple months ago. College it has become a kind of sorting mechanism for a new caste system in our society and. Again it as you point out. This is not just a problem with it one party or the other, and this comes from from everywhere they did is the way you will successfully compete in increasingly global state of economic nature and it's not only Then that is offered more or less to everyone and any everyone who will claim the opportunity cancer. I'll get it in hand, but there somethin dinner, generally fair about how all of this shit down, because, of course, the elites right. The best of the best in any field will wind up
should wind up at the best universities, because the how else with the best universities select their student body and if they, you noticed, game, occasionally and occasionally, perversely, with p Buying their way in theirs opprobrium attached to that, but the general case it behind to even optimize that, because this causer, fantastically expensive to run? And if you know, if you're not going to give alumni any any advantage Well, then, why would they be donating year after year to into Harvard Endowment right. So it's something it while it's not ideal, many people look at this and think. Well. How else could it be So I ask you in on in our closing chapter here what the problem with college and and how should we fix it. The main problem with colored
is that we, and by we I mean the society as a whole? Not just have the higher education come if you'd like to continue was made to the spot, cast you'll need to subscribe at San Aristotle, work you'll get access to all full length. episodes of the making sense podcast and to other subscriber only content, including bonus episode, and, as in the conversation I've been having on the waking up app the making sense, podcast ad free and relies Thailand Listener support and you can subscribe now at SAM Harris Org,
Transcript generated on 2020-10-23.