[freyr]

The current system favors easily quantifiable performance metrics (GPA, SAT, ranking of degree-granting academic institution) and social networking. We end up with socially-adept individuals who look good on paper running the show. As we have seen in some stunning recent displays, individuals can rise within this system and succeed despite an off-kilter moral compass or a sense of purpose beyond their own personal gain. Hayes claims that elites are corrupted by meritocracy when they attempt to preserve their power. Brooks argues that the rise of morally bankrupt elites are a cultural byproduct, rather than a inherent issue with meritocracy itself.

It's a potentially interesting distinction, but Brooks doesn't justify it coherently or delve into the implications at all. He compares and contrasts yesterday's elites to today's, but these comparisons hold under either hypothesis. It would have been more interesting if he provided a coherent argument for his claim, or offered any prescriptions to treat the underlying problem (or even to quell the symptoms).

[bediger4000]

I like your answer, and maybe, just maybe, that's what Brooks wanted to say. I also agree that "Brooks doesn't justify it coherently". But that's because you're making the distinction that Brooks did not.

Please take over Brooks position as editorial writer.