Though Cowards Flinch

The late Tony Judt, coming from a so-called “universalist social democrat” political mindset, supported selection in education and favoured university elitism. But how was this left wing?

In an article published in the The New York Review of Books he mentions having had his childhood Marxism knocked out of him by a confidant well versed in Locke. What I took this to means was that the type of schooling and society Judt appeals to is not the entire saturation and destruction of class society (a la Marx and his followers) but an educational elitism that selects on the basis of talent (in Judt’s case rebellion) free of unfair, class-based favouritism and concentrated elitism from the well-heeled.

His line might be akin to: there are institutions to which we owe respect such as universities, now why can’t us chaps from selective state schools without fees enjoy a slice.

In an age where university places are short, but where many jobs require 2:1’s, Judt’s reasoning could include a breakdown of a workplace culture which won’t recruit where there is no degree. Whereas, if degrees were elite again, this would mean recruiters would have less reason to demand so much of applicants (as this would significantly reduce the amount of people who would apply).

As a principle if something is elitist, it’s bound to grate my left wing bones, but this article made me consider the consequences of returning degrees to their former status. After all, they would be elite in the sense of achievement, not based on class, and it would stick it to employers who ask for 2:1 minimum on even the most trivial of jobs, thereby excluding huge swathes of the existing workforce.

What is your take?