Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 1 April 2023
This is an important book, in that it draws attention to some serious issues, and provides references and documentation relating to them. Issues concerning the neglect of people from working class backgrounds, and the lack of diversity of opinion in universities, seem to me among the more serious.
However, the book seems to me naive in many respects, of which two are particularly pressing:
(i) All kinds of things are treated in terms of preferences, but in ways that ignore the degree to which structural changes have affected the economy and the fabric of society, in ways which constrain what policies can sensibly be adopted, and where these, in turn, may mean that certain preferences can't be satisfied. Obvious constraints, here, include such things as shifting patterns of employment (with the loss of manufacturing industry also leading to the dramatic decline of associated unions); demographic changes; and Robert Putnam's concerns about the falling-off in participation in voluntary associations.
(ii) The author, it seems to me, is not taking seriously the consequences of the massive growth of tertiary education. It is fine to remind us that, in the past, Trades Union leaders became key political actors without having had much formal education. But, these days, kids of high ability typically have the chance to attend university, while entry into Oxbridge and Russell Group universities is in principle much more open. If this is the case, then to complain that there is domination of positions by people with a university education is an odd claim to make - not least because areas in which there are good employment possibilities typically demand advanced education.
One can certainly argue that it is important that issues of concern to the bulk of the population should be addressed by policy-makers. But to expect this to be being done by people who don't have a university background, just looks naive.
However, the book seems to me naive in many respects, of which two are particularly pressing:
(i) All kinds of things are treated in terms of preferences, but in ways that ignore the degree to which structural changes have affected the economy and the fabric of society, in ways which constrain what policies can sensibly be adopted, and where these, in turn, may mean that certain preferences can't be satisfied. Obvious constraints, here, include such things as shifting patterns of employment (with the loss of manufacturing industry also leading to the dramatic decline of associated unions); demographic changes; and Robert Putnam's concerns about the falling-off in participation in voluntary associations.
(ii) The author, it seems to me, is not taking seriously the consequences of the massive growth of tertiary education. It is fine to remind us that, in the past, Trades Union leaders became key political actors without having had much formal education. But, these days, kids of high ability typically have the chance to attend university, while entry into Oxbridge and Russell Group universities is in principle much more open. If this is the case, then to complain that there is domination of positions by people with a university education is an odd claim to make - not least because areas in which there are good employment possibilities typically demand advanced education.
One can certainly argue that it is important that issues of concern to the bulk of the population should be addressed by policy-makers. But to expect this to be being done by people who don't have a university background, just looks naive.
