Him so i wont attempt to summarize his argument. I do want to briefly however extend a special thank you to share and will is one of our trustees for originally suggesting that danielle come to the Brooklyn Historical society to speak. If you like a year to make it happen. Here we are. So finally, just permit me the final word, a more formal introduction of danielle in his work. And then we will welcome him to the stage. Danielle markowitz is professor of law a yale School Yellow school. Adding director of center of study of private law. Organize works in the Philosophical Foundation is the private law and more on political philosophy and behavioral economics. He publishes in a range of disciplines including in science, the market economic review and law of the l internal. And after earning a ba in mathematics; lonnie from Yale University and markowitz received the marshall loss to semi lincoln where he was awarded a masters of science and a comment metrics and mathematical economics from the London School of economics and philosophy and doctor of philosophy. From the university of oxford. Markowitz then returned to yelp to study law and after for the honorable, he joined the faculty at yale. Please help me welcome danielle markowitz. [applause] student thank you sharon for making it possible for me to be here. Thank you to all of you for coming out on a really beautiful autumn night learned monday lovely things to do in this neighborhood are doubly grateful you are spinning the router here. I will spend the next half hour or so speaking and i hope well have a conversation. What i will see will to be be demoted to denouncing american hypocrisy. Im going to use it of constructing a trap that is there is the rich and excludes the rest. And contributes substantially to the inequality discord and dysfunction that increasingly played in our society. And this might seem an eccentric and even a begotten mentor. The hypocrisy itself seems to us today a common sense. It is hard to object to the idea that people should get ahead. Based on their own accomplishments rather than their parents cast or class surely that is the right way to get everybody a fair shot at success. But matt copper sees nothing great leveler that we hold up to be. In fact it has become merely what it was initially invented to defeat. It is a new type only now based on schooling rather than reading. It creates a competition that even when everybody plays by the rules, only the rich can win while everyone else falls further and further behind. People commonly see that we suffer so much inequality because we have is it too little merit talk is he. Rich find ways to cheat or check the system in order to get and stay ahead. In fact, the greater reason why we have so much inequality that we have is it too much of it. But the rules themselves favor the rich. So that is the thesis of the book the system is right and that it is the culprit. And then everybody loses. To set that out in a little more detail, and helps as it often does to begin with a little bit of history. The old american elite, the mid century and eight that reigned up until around 1970. That was decidedly not meritocratic. It was not especially skilled in and things like College Missions show this. If you want to a posh prep school in the northeast in the 1950s, you are effectively guaranteed a spot at the college that your father had gone to. Then even infected the language of the university of admissions. Boys do not apply at college who put themselves down for the college of their choice. We got college, if you are a member of the elite, you didnt have a distinguished kid year Career Colleges spoke of the happy bottom quarter wishes rich prep school kids who are just pleased to party and didnt want to work. And if i say yellow in, the graduates of the most elite schools in the United States were underrepresented. An academic honors subsided by a factor of three to one. Elite was also not especially hardworking. When people graduated college and entered the firms that american elite men worked at, he its been most of their time doing something brother than working and they remained what they called lisle leisure class and probably so. This is where here, mission see during one of the monday depressionera hearings, and of various financial conduct and crises. One said to the committee, if you destroy the leisure class, to destroy civilization. The leisure class endured into the Second World War and passed it in bakers kept bankers hours well into the 50s and 60s and this was the bakers work dave from ten until three. Generally used to name broadly. And men and her name in the 1950s, the hardest working people on wall street for the cleaners. Everybody else had gone home. By the late afternoon. The American Bar Association said the 1960s, with my confidence the American Lawyer has available to him 1300 billable hours. A year. No more. American businessmen dressed in a suit that was cut for the club rather than for the office and they had a drink cabinet in their office just like the one they had a home. Says the english sociologist who first taught about it. They drank three martini lunches and they went home in the middle of the afternoon. In the elite was also not especially competitive. Rivaled as one commentator said it did not impinge. Nam mary merit to cost or see was adopted in the United States especially as a way of breaking up the chronic elite. Came to harvard first, came to gail loss but when it came to yellow came with a vengeance in the person the president Kingman Brewster who declared that he did not intend to preside over a finishing school in the long island sound. And saw it on to remake the university as an engine of merit and he called himself an indian investment maker. He was looking for that raw talent in a students who revealed the highest returns for their education. Do this he hired a new director of ms. Clark. Along working class from long island. He fired the entire staff and hire new people in his first year reduce the number of legacies and a off. And so the story goes denied admission to the sun of the biggest donor. By 1970 the median young student and sat that wouldve put them in the top 10 percent of the class of 1960. And that happened broadly throughout the american elite. And in some ways is extraordinary how competitive the elite has gotten. In the 1990s, the year in which the university of chicago submitted 71 percent of its applicants and this year it admitted 6 percent. So the american elite has become incredibly competitive and the jobs that indentures are becoming incredibly competitive. Brewster his vision one in the old sclerotic and it was broken and the new dynamic and vicious hardworking meritocratic elite was built in its place. Now that sounds like a story of triumph. It was unfair system and it discriminated against people based on their birth and nothing about them, based on accidents. And that advantage people who were actually in good in anything. So is both unfair and unjust and inefficient. And it was replaced with a system that was fairer than just her and promoted people based on their efforts and their talent. And also more effective and efficient because it created a much more capable and much better trained and harder working elite. Who could possibly wrong with that. Well, heres whats gone wrong with that. The first thing, is that that magic apostasy managed to break the old elite. Because hereditary aristocrats lacked both the incline inclination capacity to train their children. The most academically high school in the United States in 1960 was either bronx by far. Exeter and st. Pauls, were completely unambitious and that went out teaching and learning. The elite was made by the first round the kids who got in got into harvard and princeton in the 60s and early 70s, by being really good at school, well done like their forebears, this new elite knows how to train better than the knows anything. And has an appetite and ambition for training. The numeric chronic elite has rebuilt its family life as domestic life. In a way that emphasizes the training of his children. Collegeeducated people now marry each brother. Much more than they did 50 years ago and monday times more often. They stay married in the ways that non it collegeeducated people generally dont. They bear children within marriage. And if you dont have a College Education is the woman in this country, have a greater than 50 percent chance of bringing children outside wedlock. In the 5 percent of richest and best educated women in the country dont despair but fully raise into adulthood, 90 percent of the children in intact marriages. The rush then segregate themselves geographically they live and search certain neighborhoods which are characterized by certain schools that they know what Public Schools never originate because they pay to send the children to brother Public Schools to private schools with her even more elaborately based on education. If you look at the difference between the enrichment expenditures, standby top fifth and the income dissipation families in the bottom fifth and the income dissipation families from the 1970 his to the present, that difference has tripled. If you look at who spends her name on Public Schools, the typical rich district, like in this area, since twice the National Average per pupil per year on educating children who go through it. And a really elite private school, like some in this part of the country or like the school in new haven, Hopkins School or exeter or in number or see paul today, i its been as much as 75000 per pupil per year. By the time tuition plus annual giving class endowment income are put together. Which is perhaps five times the National Average. This produces an incredibly skewed elite. All this training marks. The school does but the her name haphazardly. They spend it rigorously trying to figure out using the best education science that they have. How to make that investment to convert into academic achievement and their children. And today, a child whose parents make over 200,000 a year, as average, sat score that is 250 points higher than the average sat score of the child whose parents make 40 to 60000 year which is roughly the middle class. A note that the middleclass child has this tasty score this only on average hundred 25 points higher. In the sat score of a child below the poverty line. So the rich middleclass gap in the sat is now twice as big as a middleclass or cow calf. The rich poor gap is even more extreme. He looked at the college for today, he released for example, the year 2016, and that year there were roughly speaking 15000 kids who had a parent with a graduate degree is scored 750 or higher on the verbal component of the sat affect 750 because that is roughly the elite median. How monday kids you say there were his parents had not graduated high school is scored 750 on the sat verbal. Well detail at that. Is self and the statistical techniques to give reliable answers but it is fewer than 100. Son is 15000 kids with parents went to graduate school versus fewer than a hundred parents who did not graduate high school. That means that meritocratic missions produce a massive gap in wealth. A lot of said about College Admissions candles. Like the varsity blues scandal that took over the news last year. Last spring. Another scandalous and disgraceful. Then real. But there are also predominantly rare. If you look at the elaborate of those schemes, they show how rare they are. Legacy admissions are also scandalous and real. They also operate on the margins of emissions and when what way which we know this, is the most elite colleges, have the highest test scores and grades and student bodies. In law schools, Something Like three quarters of students who score in the 99th percentile on the la st, its in the top five law schools. Son is the most elite universities have the highest grades and test scores and their students and that most of the students get really good grades, go to the most elite universities and the mechanism has brought cheating, and is meritocratic and the reason why that is impossible to compete if your middleclass or workingclass, and go to school this been so much less was so much worse studentteacher ratios and so much less staple neighborhoods and so much more difficult it stressed families. With students whose parents have devoted all of the skills and resources from birth or even before birth, to making sure that you can win in a meritocratic competition. If you want to fence out how powerful this is. Say of the following thought experience. Ask yourself, imagine than ever year of a typical 1 percent childs life, the parents did not spend what they spend on education but instead, just that the middle class education expenditure and took the difference between with a blood its been in the middle class families and put into a trust fund. To be invested in index stock and given to the child on the death of the parents as a traditional request or inheritance. And you pick this thought experiment because thats the way the old artistic craddick released past its down through the generations. Lander factories or stocks and bonds in the parents guide the children inherited. Listen today for typical meritocratic family would be over 10 million per child. That is the extent of the dynastic transmission of privilege and not in the forum of land or stocks or factories but in the forum of skills. The training Human Capital. The marriage across meritocracy has produced. It raises up against everybody else outside of the elite. The people get these elaborate educations that go to work. And when they go to work, they are an enormous incomes. Another thing that is happening, is that the existence of the super training on super hard working class, has been the ark innovations and induced new technologies to the invented in manufacturing and retail and law and finance and in medicine. The favored precisely the skills that the elites have. And destroy middleclass jobs. And this has transform the labor market. In the 19 sixties a partner in a law firm made five times of the secretary today the partner makes 40 times the legal secretaries income. In the 19 sixties the ceo made maybe 20 times the median Line Production worker today is between 20300 times. And rockefeller took over chase manhattan he was paid a salary that amounted to roughly 50 times the bank teller. Jamie dimon last year made over 1000 times. So all of this trading congealed and has transformed in a way that explodes the labor income of the elite and the top 1 percent has increased by about 10 percent of National Income over the last 30 or 40 years. May be 50 years. But what is less familiar if you jump three quarters of the increase does not come from the fact that owners are exploiting workers. That is one quarter of the increase the m remaining three quarters that elite workers are exploiting the subordinate workingclass that captures opportunity and income and status and then has all the money to invest in his children. Finally what meritocracy does is it frames the exclusion which is structural and i mean based on social forces much bigger and more powerful than any individual as an individual failure to measure up. It creates a system where the middle class cant compete you to get into harder one harvard because you didnt work hard enough. So that produces a dark psychology of justifiable advantage with the elite and shows itself in different ways and the wave of addiction, suicide, drug abuse over the american middle class which is turning in the anger that one feels that they cant rationalize. The demographic consequences is rotting mortality without economic capacity it is unheard of. That is what causes people to start dying but what causes them today is meritocratic exclusion and the burdens of it. In addition to the elite because they honestly believe in diversity and inclusion and equality that meritocracy is to people of all backgrounds and races and ethnicities. Those excluded from the elite see this morally correct insistence as a way to launder economic privilege because they say we will let anybody in they can cut it we dont discriminate. So then you cant cut it again. And then the nativism that comes within the anger of american politics today. And the story being told to justify. This is the way that meritocracy excludes most americans from opportunity. But finally the rich are wealthy that they are not well. Bankers hours have been replaced from the bank or 95 starts at 9 00 a. M. And begins at 5 00 a. M. The next lawyers are told you must build 2400 hours per year they were twice as many hours than they did in the sixties. The lead executives work 80 hours a week and constantly surveilled and measured. And the competition to get into elite colleges has become so intense that while the same privilege is necessary is not a sufficient condition a lot of people of the elite dont get in so the kids are pushed and prodded and measured and tutored and coached and twisted so they might reproduce status for the next generation to preserve their familys social cast. That goes right into the inside of education for quite know a school where a teacher told tenth graders every morning a problem of the day. You have to solve it before you hand in a solution but i will not give you any time to solve the problem. You have to learn how to finish it early skip recess or take time off of lunch. This is training fifthgraders, ten and 11 yearolds on how to function in a hyper competitive world. This produces young adults and older adults who are alienated from their own interest and who are taught to want and subordinate their native talents and those who work at tasks and work all the time in a very marxist sense it is alienated labor and exploited labor only now the elites now exploit themselves so she becomes wealthy but that doesnt mean she is flourishing as a person. Know that kind of elite suffering is not politically that people of the excluded middle class have any reason to care about. And the rich cant say this is so bad for me. But it is a reason to believe the Current System does not serve anybodys human interest. So for a reason to think if it can be made to understand this and which they give up one third of their income in exchange for giving back 25 hours a week of what they do they would be made much better off. So there is a trade to be had to reorient education and work effort and status and income so the working class get more and the rich get a little less and everyone is made better off than that this one possibility is a source of hope for us at this moment look at all of human history. There are only one and a half cases of society that has succumbed to extreme wealth and privilege in a narrow elite. And has unwound itself rather than losing a foreign war or succumbing. The happy point is one of those is the United States in 1929 the second is that kind of inequality that we suffer from now because it benefits nobody because everybody is caught in the meritocracy trap opens the possibility of politics that makes everybody better off than the task, most of our generation but for the Younger Generation who is sitting there to figure out how to build that politics and find the means of escaping. Thank you very much. [applause]. Do we have microphones cracks we may be on tv. Speak into the microphone so people can hear your question. I would like to challenge you want to point to focus almost exclusively on meritocracy. What you havent addressed one could argue that is one line of success but there is an equal sign of failure at the lower end and im thinking of the canadians. I went to school in toronto. I also have a wrath of degrees that came from that if you go to a school anywhere in canad canada, they are almost indistinguishable. That is a simple example that i can give you repeatedly and second you havent put this in the context of overall Global Trends or globalization and then to drive that further but there are other factors going on right now that are causing this. The second first. On this question are there other trends cracks yes. Technological, politics of neoliberal. Now some of those operate partly independently of the concentration of the elite that i have been describing. But much of those trends including what we just named our artifacts or expressions of the concentration of trading and the elite. It is impossible to run modern globalized economy with the supply chain you need to manage to sell on a globalized basis without the elite it has a very particular set of skills and a willingness to deploy those skills over very long hours. So in a sense it is an expression of what im describing rather than the independent driver in our society. And with the technological change it is a little more technical and academic but it is a deep question why they evolve in the way that they do. And Technology Gets invented because of the ideas and the facts of the science as it were. And instead my view takes the shape that it does in response to other resources and assets with which technology is mixed in a production economy. If you are in an Agrarian Society and lived in the desert you invent irrigation if you live on the flood plane you invent rice paddy farming. So that depends on the natural resources. And the most valuable Economic ResourcesHuman Capital the skill and training and effort of free workers. And then the skill profile of the workplace. And now there is a surplus of unSkilled Labor. And that Industrial Revolution based on technologies favoring unskilled workers over skilled workers. The massive surplus of the elite superordinate super skilled workers to draw technologies to them. And if we had more time we could give you International Comparisons to suggest that. And i can tell you case studies of specific industries and those that have always been possible but not invented until super Skilled Labor came on the scene. It is the fundamental driver of this change although it would be hubris, maybe i am guilty, to claim it is the only driver. But now the other question about the bottom of the distribution. So you have to be more careful in the us. And that is pretty near historic lows. That is half of the poverty rate of 1960. And then even on the official statistics so the poverty rate is one quarter of one sixth of what it was so poverty in doers. Enters one of the most pressing moral economic questions of the age but it is not the distinctive question of the age that is wealth and a particular extreme wealth. There is no more economic inequality within the richest 5 percent that in the entire distribution. Inequality is concentrated at the top but thats also true for education. In fact the educational performance of the bottom quarter of the population has been going up since 1970. Literacy rates have been going up. The attendance of lack of education and teenage pregnancy is going down. United nations Human Development is going up. The gap between the test scores of children at the tenth percentile and at the 50th percentile has been going down. But the gap between the 90th or 99 percent have been going u up. So what we are seeing is the rich leaves everybody else behind to either slowly converge in this means so that by 2000 the academic achievement gap has grown so large in this country that it was bigger than the white and black gap in 1954 which was the year brown v board of education. So economic inequality is producing educational differences. And the bulk of those are rich middleclass differences. Thats why its so important to focus on the elite not because they are more pressing that they are not the driver of the quality dysfunction. I dont know if that is an answer but it is a start. That was a fluid diagnosis. And i share a very much what you are saying with the impact to hold kids particularly. So in new york city right now youre grappling with these issues with south asia. This brings us back to the original in terms of raising up kids and parents over 24 hours a day. And i dont know if you saw it but there is an article by george patent on in the atlantic for individual plight how to be a good person and how you deal with it with your own childs education. And now we have a situation where it is very segregated. There are charter schools. And im just wondering how you think empathy for parents and how to help to ameliorate this because their kid is uppermost in their mind. Thank you for that. It is ground zero for some of these issues. And it may pay to spend a minute or two to talk about gifted and talented Public Schools in new york city over the past 30 years. Test and high schools are often in control of the state not the city. But the Bloomberg Administration has a typical meritocratic idea how to manage gifted and talented which is a test and have it be objective and objective equals fair and whoever can pass the test gets into the schools and has advantage. What the experience of that was a microcosm of the National Experience i just described. With a twist because of the incredible diversity and energy of new york city immigrant community. But those whose parents had for whatever reason the ability to teach them how to take the test got ahead. Those whose parents did not, did not get ahead. And the quality of opportunity remains as elusive as ever. This meritocratic supposedly fair system produced a massive misallocation of the most well resourced gifted and talented schools which became richer and whiter and so on. Last week, ten days ago a report came out which suggested the response to this should be to abolish gifted and talented schools. There are 1000 complexities inside Public Education inside new york city with the politics, sociology, i am not the master of those. But i dont even know if those course recommendations are the right ones but here is what the reporter understood. When outcomes become unequal enough then the quality of opportunity becomes enough because when so much turns on who passes the test, those that can give their kids to pass the test. And if that lesson is applied to the country as a whole, the idea it is an illusion to have our elite universities or private schools for workingclass americans because a meritocracy is the disease but not the cure. The cure is to make the elite less elite and to reduce the gap between the intensity of education at the top and everywhere else. To require elite schools and kindergartens and universities to enroll many more students. Many more students may be twice as many to drop the rich middle gap in expenditures question and make it the case that it does not matter so much where you go to high school or college. If it doesnt matter so much then even the rich wont distort themselves to get into this college or that college because the difference is very small i will give you a concrete example. A young german woman decided to apply to middle school who is the polar opposite of the United States. There are no private universities effectively there are very few elite schools and universities there are research buffer students universities are not she thought about it she decided i dont want to leave my parents or my village and my friends so she abandoned the idea to become the doctor and enrolled in Pharmacy School instead at the local university. In the United States that choice is very hard to rationalize because the income and status difference between a doctor in a pharmacist is enormous doctors are elevated with enormous skills and paid huge amounts of high social status and a pharmacist mostly are replaced with computer algorithms and in germany pharmacist prescribed medication have medical training and like the first line of medical treatment so the gap is much smaller so thats perfectly rational to say i want to help people get well im in the medical field and the difference is so small i would much rather stay home. So that she could pursue what she cared about without all the weight of wealth and income and status on her shoulders so society can have the doctors and pharmacists that it needs to treat the population its a much better system. In terms of solution why not moderate the incentives to bring back progressive taxation addressing the failure of Corporate Governance with that representation . I have a three part answer. The first part, he is a former student and he knows that response is slightly ridiculous. The first part is the purpose of this book is clinical. Its meant to diagnose the social and economic causal level one the covers lovers driving us to where we are so this ideology then whatever the politics so what i describe should be correct or indic correct independent of where we are in second my personal politics aligns with your question im very much in favor of the traditional progressive ways with runaway incumbent and wealth and at the same time meritocracy has a political psychology so when obama after the financial crisis deploys the millionaires tax and the email said we are wall street. We get to work early in the morning we stay until after midnight. We dont take a lunch break. We dont go to the bathroom on a Training Session brick we dont have a Retirement Plan we dont form a union but elite labor income under conditions of meritocracy is very powerful political psychology is difficult to tell somebody who has spent her whole life trading and now works 100 hours a week that she should be taxed away so somebody who is not as good should get a cut when poverty is not as high as it was people on the right say progressives think the middle class or the 99 percent are Interest Group do they really want to keep taxing until they are satisfied . I dont endorse that view but i see the political reality because the logic of it of a meritocracy in a way it is the pride of the elite that is the mere image to the selfhatred to the forms of self harm but it is real. But that stable form needs to at least pair redistribution with education on the labor market and that the Market Distribution of wages is not as extreme and those two actors of the Traditional Program of transfer that i think it is a good idea now they dont think the rest is a scam to justify what i really want to do so the diagnosis analytically is independent of my values but also politically effective in ways that Traditional Program may not be. Can you just add something about the racial history or the structure of society to use racism of those foundations of segregated communities and education and so forth. Not the black communities dont make it into the meritocracy but that could be part of the conversation. The meritocratic inequality interacts with other kinds of subordination it is a very difficult question actually it is morally difficult and i give the analysis of a marxist view. Coverture is the old regime of marriage that used to be called the law of sin of married women were subjected to coverture the husband and wife were one person and that was the husband so the women lost their legal personality they cannot go into a contract and there is an old joke about marxism that it is light card one coverture that class and gender are one. You could say the same thing about race but its not class because in the United States it is a powerful axis of subordination which runs through society from its origins right up to the present day to the ways that are independent of the logic i have described and it is deep i read a fantastic book about this call to phases of American Freedom which shows the way the freedom and equality of the white class were morally inseparable from the subordination of african slaves so its not just that we happened to enslave people or american wealth but the very conception of liberty that is built into the country could not exist otherwise and then was denied. And notice i said nothing about meritocracy. If you want to talk about all of justice but there are also interactions and they are complicated because on the one hand for previously excluded groups because although the odds are stacked against you as a class an individual you can always break free but not in the aristocracy because that is everything where a meritocracy can in groups can get ahead and escape certain parts of subordination they are subjected to which is liberating and at the same time with massive racebased differences of income and wealth today it contributes to the continued subordination of those who are not wealthy without high incomes and dominantly people of color. So it is liberating for the individual and oppressive for the groups the individual belongs to that is a complicated phenomenon. Can you believe speak to the meritocracy of American Culture of pull yourself up by your bootstraps and how that forms within the population with the belief that i deserve what i work hard for and if you dont have a chance or an opportunity then thats their problem. First it will surprise you to hear that nobody pulls themselves up by their bootstraps. May be there are people who do much better in the actuarial account than their conditions can explain that there are not very many. They often have an advantage but statistically they are rare. That is what a mean structural inequality. It is much lower like a country like germany. There is less of that. Also in every successful persons life huge sorry of those instances are clearly unjustified. Parents were academics. But i also remember an instance my freshman or sophomore year of college i took an advanced economics class i didnt have enough product requisites and i failed the final the professor called me into her office and said what happened . I said i didnt understand the material and i cannot answer the questions correctly. She said you usually do pretty well. She says you get an a. My guess is if im not a white son of academics, i dont know but i probably dont get the a. And that matters a lot to what happens subsequently and that adds up so it is an allusion even if you work hard. I worked hard almost everybody who succeeds works hard. But that doesnt mean you owe it to your own work it just means you have to work hard. The second point which is deeper and more complicated that what accounts for skill is itself dependent on social structure. I have a friend america rat if there ever was one extremely high status and high paid she was in the words of the sociobiologists the biologist said in a society of hunter gatherers you would be a gatherer. [laughter] but the point is this is a super skilled person in our society in hunter gatherer its unskilled its the same person is just our society values things the others doesnt in order for ours society to value there has to be inequality because it makes her super skilled in our society as a professor at harvard and teaching rich kids what they need to know to work in banks a law firms where you are highly paid because you serve clients who are very rich if there wasnt all this wealth than the skills would be valuable so its not just that you have worked hard but also what you are aiming at it itself is inequality and therefore cannot justify it to say im so productive i should be so highly paid when the only reason im so productive is because there is inequality. Both of those arguments seem to be important to hold on to just how little there really is in our society. I would like to answer only one. [laughter] there is a great deal being written of officers to meet the focus on tuition income with a great deal being written on the National Stage of tuition for colleges and im wondering to what extent meritocracy could be assuaged if meritocracy costs nothing and they are free to do so. Second if i heard correctly your solutions included spending a great deal less per student and somehow absolving the focus of their achievement. And then to dumb america down there with those consequences as a result. Thank you. So i will Say Something brief and unsatisfactory. Today there are already Massive Public subsidies for people who go to private universities they are organized as notforprofi notforprofit, the alumni give their money donations in a way that are taxdeductible and then they grow from taxation. Somebody calculated in a recent year that princetons public subsidy im doing this from memory i think i have it right is about 100,000 per student. Meanwhile rutgers and New Brunswick openly public gets 12000 per student and as a Community College is 2500 per person so princeton enrolls more students from the top Income Distribution is funded and those students are very rich are funded maybe ten times as much as those who go to less elite universities thats already generally true but generally rich students that attend the most exclusive and wealthy universities pay only about 20 cents on the dollar of their education where the generally poor students who go to less exclusive pays 78 cents on the dollar. So we have a backwards form. How does that connect to what you are asking . The system is awash in public money that schools that educate extremely intensive student faculty ratio and as a whole the expenditure per student in real dollars has grown significantly by 50 percent so there is a lot of room to add many more students particularly at the top because those are so intense of the ivy league spends more per student per year than it did in 2000 subpart of that recommendation is to force the most elite schools not only at the University Level also kindergarten and preschool to expand enrollment because theyre all not for profit to say if they dont they lose their Tax Deduction thats a good way to do that and that can be done by focusing on those that are not so depressing if they just double the student body they have to teach a little more but they have the funds now a broader account of this is hard but its important to understand those are the most unequal is awash in money and the reason they are under such pressure is because we have a meritocratic sense of which colleges on the metrics that are not related to education but they admit how much money they spend. That leads an answer to the question of dumbing down america. And then to distinguish between excellent education. That teaches knowledge and skill that make people good at things that are worth doing. If im a plumber i want an excellent plumber if i hire a surgeon i want an excellent surgeon. What matters is not how they are relative to each other but they are good at the task. Superior education is different that aims to make People Better at tasks that may or may not be worth doing so my view is the market for corporate control is unconnected to increasing productivity a Legal Education system aims at giving people superior education to dominate others of us superior corporate control and then to be better than the next guy and in the meritocracy is connected to superior education and to the disregard of real Educational Excellence with more meritocracy we could have more excellence in a way be better off. Thank you for coming and thank you for staying and thank you for your questions. [applause] thank you so much. We do have the book thank you for giving us food for thought and thank you for coming. Jennifer grossman who was ayn rand . And immigrant born elizabeth rosenbaum. She and her two Little Sisters went through the Russian Revolution when she was 12 watching from her parents apartment window and then the money in the home for many years from her parents