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

????這種邏輯在常春藤聯盟（Ivy League）也非常盛行，根據我的經驗，它有兩個不同的目的。首先，當一個人一方面秉持公平，另一方面卻取得令人不安的個人成功時，這種邏輯可以減輕由此產生的罪惡感。同時，它也可以滿足人們的普遍需求，塑造一種兼具開放思想與前瞻思維的形象。就像海耶斯這樣，對于當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放呢？當然，對于自身享有權力的指責，海耶斯輕易就找到了為自己開脫的理由——因為他現在是在為蕓蕓眾生指點迷津。

????海耶斯針對的目標之一是我和他的母校亨特學院附屬中學（Hunter College High School）。這所“英才遍地”的紐約市公立中學因為學生大部分是白人和亞裔而經常受到批評。海耶斯認為，只有一場考試的招生流程不是真正的英才教育理念，因為有錢的家庭可以聘請最優秀的家庭教師。

????直觀地看，這種說法確實能令人信服，但卻遠遠談不上全面。根據我的經驗，準備最充分的學生，通常是那些最普通的學生。亨特學院附屬中學的一位校友說：“法拉盛預科學校的學生不全都來自富裕家庭?！?/p>

????亨特的學生越多元化，自然越好。但這所學校為許多人向上走創造了便利，哈佛也是如此。雖然這些學校遠遠談不上完美，但我們不應該因噎廢食。不論在哪里，都會有優秀的1%。這是數學問題，與政治無關?！毒⒌臎]落》一書確實非常有趣，而且也能給人啟發，但我仍堅信，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頁旁征博引的牢騷之后，才會看到海耶斯承認，如果考取外科醫生執照像買彩票一樣靠運氣，將是非?；闹嚨囊患?。之后他寫道：“我們所面臨的一個不小的挑戰，是引導我們心中共同的沮喪、憤怒和冷漠等情緒，最終建立一個跨越意識形態的聯盟，真正剝奪后精英體制精英們的權力。這個聯盟可以調動起義者的情緒，卻不會陷入無政府主義和狂熱、偏執的猜忌；可以抵御虛無主義的誘惑，可以把對精英深刻的懷疑轉變成對道德、平等和互相關聯的社會秩序的積極、富有建設性的愿景。”

????簡而言之，海耶斯提出了一個毫無意義的、烏托邦式的替代品來取代經營體制，但它其實根部算不上什么替代品。我無法完全抽離自我，因此，如果有人認為我是在為自己辯護，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《財富》雜志（Fortune）的實習生，今年秋天將開始在哈佛大學的第二學年。

????譯者：劉進龍/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.