Evaluate the book’s claim that apparent failures of meritocracy often reflect closed access rather than excessive attention to competence. Audit credentials, networks, regulation, market power, and housing while preserving dignity and testing alternative explanations.
Allow about 100 minutes for reading, learning and immediate practice. Multi-day exercises run alongside later lessons.
Learning objectives
Evaluate the chapter’s dignity and legitimacy claims without equating rank with worth.
Design open-merit reforms across training, selection, enterprise, and housing.
Distinguish mobility evidence from a complete causal account of access.
Read before practising
Assigned source readings
The book text is the source. The lesson, invented cases and practice tasks are accompanying teaching material. Page numbers below refer to the downloadable full-book PDF, whose pagination can differ from the manuscript’s printed contents.
Source: The Lost Lesson: Economics After the Slogans. The supplied source text has not been rewritten.
Develop the argument
The lesson
Dignity is not a prize for winning
The dignity section argues that a rigged contest humiliates people by presenting exclusion as personal inadequacy. Preserve that insight while questioning the stronger claim that meritocracy humiliates only when it lies. Even a fair contest can be experienced painfully, and a system can overvalue a narrow skill while neglecting care, solidarity, or unmeasured contributions. Human dignity does not depend on rank, income, employment, or success. A sound institution can use relevant standards while offering respectful feedback, adequate support, opportunities to improve, and recognition that luck and circumstances affect results. The chapter's claims about resentment, disengagement, and radicalization describe possible responses, not psychological diagnoses of unsuccessful applicants. Assess the fairness of processes and the availability of alternatives without assuming that everyone reacts the same way or that criticism of merit must be hostility to excellence.
Small institutions as places to learn
Burke's little-platoons section emphasizes families, workshops, associations, congregations, and neighborhoods as settings where abilities and habits develop through repeated practice. The useful distinction is between cultivating competence and merely filtering for people who already possess it. A workplace can create a paid training route rather than requiring a costly signal acquired elsewhere. A community group can offer mentorship and feedback, while a formal institution can provide accessible instruction and recognized assessment. Neither local reputation nor distant measurement is automatically fairer. Small groups can observe real performance and can also preserve favoritism; standardized processes can improve access and can also miss important context. Design complementary forms of evidence, with transparent criteria and appeal. The chapter's statement that merit is grown in practice should guide investment in learning opportunities rather than become a reason to reject all quantitative evaluation.
Scapegoating and the open-merit package
The scapegoat section argues that institutions launder capture, scarcity, and inheritance through meritocratic language, prompting people to attack standards rather than the mechanisms of closure. This is the author's interpretation, not the only possible critique of meritocracy. Reconstruct competing arguments fairly, including concerns about luck, measurement, unequal preparation, and the distribution of rewards. The proposed open-merit package includes lower artificial barriers, less credential inflation, restored competition, simpler legal entry, more housing near opportunity, demonstrated competence, and protected voluntary institutions. These are linked proposals requiring sequencing and evidence. A better selection test cannot compensate fully for inaccessible training; training cannot guarantee mobility if jobs or housing remain unavailable. Preserve necessary safety and anti-discrimination protections while lowering unrelated gates. Judge whether standards become more relevant and participation more feasible, rather than assuming access and rigor must be traded against each other.
Read mobility evidence at the right level
The notes cite declining absolute income mobility, degree requirements, elite hiring practices, and captured regulation. Absolute mobility compares a child's income with parents' income at a specified age; it is not the same as moving up the relative rank distribution. Its decline can reflect growth and distributional changes as well as access barriers, so it does not alone prove the chapter's full causal account. The degree report is dated differently elsewhere in the book; this bibliographic inconsistency needs verification rather than silent correction. The final Hazlitt summaries revisit credentials, capture, and housing, and the extracted group includes a Part IV transition and a Mises-attributed quotation about taxation and creation. Preserve that material as source rhetoric, not independent proof. A strong final assessment states the author's diagnosis, identifies what its evidence supports, engages a substantive alternative, and proposes a falsifiable reform. Neither agreement that merit legitimizes inequality nor rejection of redistribution is required for full credit.
Worked example · invented for this course
An open route into project coordination
An invented nonprofit wants project coordinators who can schedule work, manage a budget, and handle conflict. It currently requires a prestigious degree and unpaid experience. It considers a paid training route with a structured task and mentored trial period.
Define relevant performance before selecting signals: scheduling accuracy, budget reasoning, communication, and fair conflict handling.
Offer equivalent entry routes and accessible assessment, while preserving minimum competence and safeguarding participants during trial work.
Compare completion and performance across routes using consistent scoring, feedback, and appeal; do not treat background as a proxy for ability.
Track whether housing, transport, or care constraints still prevent participation and whether training leads to real opportunities.
What follows: Open merit means making relevant excellence attainable and assessable. It does not mean removing standards or treating unsuccessful applicants as less worthy.
Train the skill
Practice and evidence
1. Design an open-merit reform
Create a six-month redesign of the nonprofit’s recruitment and learning process.
Deliverable: A process specification with standards, access supports, and review criteria.
Define tasks and fair scoring.
Provide paid learning and alternative evidence routes.
Monitor hidden barriers and offer feedback or re-entry.
Reduces unrelated costs and closed-network dependence.
Dignity 3 points
Separates performance decisions from personal worth and provides fair remedies.
2. Audit a mobility claim
Analyze the claim that a fall in children out-earning parents proves all institutions are captured. Use the source’s mobility note without claiming external verification.
Deliverable: A 300-word evidence audit and a proposed research design.
Define absolute and relative mobility.
Identify alternative causes and missing comparisons.
Specify evidence connecting particular gates to outcomes.
Review criteria
Total available: 9 points
Concepts 3 points
Distinguishes levels, ranks, cohorts, and comparison ages.
Inference 3 points
Does not infer a complete causal story from one trend.
Research 3 points
Links proposed data to specific mechanisms and counterarguments.
Transfer the learning
What would make a standard both more demanding about relevant skill and less dependent on inherited access?
Notes remain only in this tab. They are not submitted or saved automatically. Download a copy before leaving. Use a fictional case if you prefer not to record personal information.
Formative self-check
Test your understanding
Choose an answer, then check your reasoning. These open practice questions show their explanations and do not count towards a secure examination or certificate. Nothing you enter is sent to a server.