????讀到海耶斯批判所謂“狂熱的聰明崇拜”時(shí),，我禁不住笑了起來(lái),。這本書(shū)竟然不是由自認(rèn)更聰明的人所寫，這是否有點(diǎn)可笑,？公平地說(shuō),，海耶斯提出的論據(jù)是，金錢與權(quán)力的交織比我所知的任何方式都更加巧妙地加劇了機(jī)會(huì)的不平等,。除了一絲偏執(zhí)的意味外,，這本書(shū)自始至終存在的，就是假設(shè)自我批判的答案必然是正確的答案

????這種邏輯在常春藤聯(lián)盟（Ivy League）也非常盛行,，根據(jù)我的經(jīng)驗(yàn),，它有兩個(gè)不同的目的。首先，當(dāng)一個(gè)人一方面秉持公平,，另一方面卻取得令人不安的個(gè)人成功時(shí),，這種邏輯可以減輕由此產(chǎn)生的罪惡感。同時(shí),，它也可以滿足人們的普遍需求,，塑造一種兼具開(kāi)放思想與前瞻思維的形象。就像海耶斯這樣,，對(duì)于當(dāng)初賦予他精英地位的制度大加批判,，還有什么能比這更好證明自己思想的開(kāi)放呢？當(dāng)然,，對(duì)于自身享有權(quán)力的指責(zé)，海耶斯輕易就找到了為自己開(kāi)脫的理由——因?yàn)樗F(xiàn)在是在為蕓蕓眾生指點(diǎn)迷津,。

????海耶斯針對(duì)的目標(biāo)之一是我和他的母校亨特學(xué)院附屬中學(xué)（Hunter College High School）,。這所“英才遍地”的紐約市公立中學(xué)因?yàn)閷W(xué)生大部分是白人和亞裔而經(jīng)常受到批評(píng)。海耶斯認(rèn)為,，只有一場(chǎng)考試的招生流程不是真正的英才教育理念,，因?yàn)橛绣X的家庭可以聘請(qǐng)最優(yōu)秀的家庭教師。

????直觀地看,，這種說(shuō)法確實(shí)能令人信服,，但卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)談不上全面。根據(jù)我的經(jīng)驗(yàn),，準(zhǔn)備最充分的學(xué)生,，通常是那些最普通的學(xué)生。亨特學(xué)院附屬中學(xué)的一位校友說(shuō)：“法拉盛預(yù)科學(xué)校的學(xué)生不全都來(lái)自富裕家庭,?！?/p>

????亨特的學(xué)生越多元化，自然越好,。但這所學(xué)校為許多人向上走創(chuàng)造了便利,，哈佛也是如此。雖然這些學(xué)校遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)談不上完美,，但我們不應(yīng)該因噎廢食,。不論在哪里，都會(huì)有優(yōu)秀的1%,。這是數(shù)學(xué)問(wèn)題,，與政治無(wú)關(guān)?！毒⒌臎](méi)落》一書(shū)確實(shí)非常有趣,，而且也能給人啟發(fā)，但我仍堅(jiān)信,，只有精英體制才是我們最好的,、也是唯一的選擇,。

????讀者要艱難讀完200頁(yè)旁征博引的牢騷之后，才會(huì)看到海耶斯承認(rèn),，如果考取外科醫(yī)生執(zhí)照像買彩票一樣靠運(yùn)氣,，將是非常荒謬的一件事,。之后他寫道：“我們所面臨的一個(gè)不小的挑戰(zhàn),，是引導(dǎo)我們心中共同的沮喪、憤怒和冷漠等情緒,，最終建立一個(gè)跨越意識(shí)形態(tài)的聯(lián)盟,，真正剝奪后精英體制精英們的權(quán)力。這個(gè)聯(lián)盟可以調(diào)動(dòng)起義者的情緒,，卻不會(huì)陷入無(wú)政府主義和狂熱,、偏執(zhí)的猜忌；可以抵御虛無(wú)主義的誘惑,，可以把對(duì)精英深刻的懷疑轉(zhuǎn)變成對(duì)道德,、平等和互相關(guān)聯(lián)的社會(huì)秩序的積極、富有建設(shè)性的愿景,?！?/p>

????簡(jiǎn)而言之，海耶斯提出了一個(gè)毫無(wú)意義的,、烏托邦式的替代品來(lái)取代經(jīng)營(yíng)體制,，但它其實(shí)根部算不上什么替代品。我無(wú)法完全抽離自我,，因此,，如果有人認(rèn)為我是在為自己辯護(hù)，那也情有可原,。但很抱歉海耶斯先生,，我依然信奉精英主義。

????本文作者麗莎?莫甘蘭斯基為《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）的實(shí)習(xí)生,，今年秋天將開(kāi)始在哈佛大學(xué)的第二學(xué)年,。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????I had to laugh when Hayes criticized what he calls the "Cult of Smartness." The idea that this is not a book written by a man who thinks he's smarter than most people seems a bit silly. In fairness, Hayes makes the argument that money and power interact to facilitate inequality of opportunity more skillfully than I've seen it made elsewhere. But lingering in the background of his book, along with a hint of paranoia, is the assumption that the self-critical answer must be the right one.

????This logic permeates the Ivy League, serving two distinct purposes in my experience. First, it alleviates the guilt that develops when one has both a strong belief in equality and an uncomfortable amount of personal success. It also fulfills the common need to be perceived as open-minded and forward thinking. And what could be more open-minded than vilifying, as Hayes does, the very system that conferred elite status on you in the first place? Of course, Hayes neatly exculpates himself from the charge of entitlement on the grounds that he's now showing us the light.

????One of Hayes's targets is Hunter College High School, the alma mater we share. This "talented and gifted" New York City public school is frequently criticized for its mostly white and Asian demographics. The admissions process -- a single exam -- is not really meritocratic, Hayes argues, because wealthy applicants can afford the best tutoring.

????Though intuitively compelling, this narrative is far from complete. In my experience, the students who'd done the most prepping were those of the most modest means. "The Flushing prep schools aren't filled with rich kids," said a Hunter alumnus from the neighborhood.

????More diversity at Hunter would absolutely be better. But Hunter facilitates upward mobility for many -- so does Harvard. These institutions are far from perfect, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There will always be a 1%. That's a mathematical statement, not a political one. Though Twilight of the Elites makes for an interesting and informative read, I'm still convinced that meritocracy is our best and only option.

????The reader must wade through 200 pages of erudite complaining before Hayes concedes that it would be ridiculous to lottery off surgeons' licenses. He then argues: "The challenge, and it is not a small one, is directing the frustration, anger, and alienation we all feel into building a trans-ideological coalition that can actually dislodge the power of the post-meritocratic elite. One that marshals insurrectionist sentiment without succumbing to nihilism and manic, paranoid distrust. One that avoids the dark seduction of everything-is-broken-ism. One that leverages the deep skepticism of elites into a proactive, constructive vision of a moral, equitable, and connected social order."

????In short, Hayes offers us a meaningless, utopian alternative to meritocracy, which is no alternative at all. I can't step outside of my head, and so I can't insulate myself from the criticism that my faith in meritocracy is self-justifying. But -- sorry Hayes -- I'm still a believer.

????Fortune intern Lisa Mogilanski begins her sophomore year at Harvard in the fall. Our Weekly Read column features Fortune staffers' and contributors' takes on recently published books about the business world and beyond. We've invited the entire Fortune family -- from our writers and editors to our photo editors and designers -- to weigh in on books of their choosing based on their individual tastes or curiosities.