I was intrigued by the title on David Brooks’ cover story in the December issue of The Atlantic: “How the Ivy League Broke America.”

In it, he traces the history of college admission standards and credits James Conant, Harvard University president from 1933 to 1953, for a system that moved from bloodlines to brain power. 

Brooks noted that Conant initially “couldn’t afford to offend the rich families who supplied Harvard with its endowment,” but over time his stricter admissions standards based on intelligence caught on.

“If you change the criteria for admission at (elite schools) … you change the nation’s social ideal,” Brooks wrote.

“Over the past 50 years, the American leadership class has grown smarter and more diverse,” he added, noting: “The share of well-educated Americans has risen and the amount of bigotry – against women, Black people, the LGBTQ community – has declined.”

“And yet,” Brooks wrote, “it is not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites. Generations of young geniuses were given the most lavish education in (history), … and then decided to take their talents to finance and consulting … or some other well-remunerated job.”

“Today, 59 percent of Americans believe that our country is in decline, … 66 percent believe that America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful,’” Brooks wrote.

The meritocracy created by Conant’s shift to selecting students more on intelligence and less on wealth and family connections is disappointing for several reasons, according to Brooks, who listed “The Six Sins of the Meritocracy” as follows:

Intelligence is overrated. “Whiz kids didn’t grow up to become whiz adults. … Whatever it was the IQ test was measuring, it was not creativity.”

Success in school is not success in life. “In school, a lot of success is individual: How do I stand out? In life, most success is team-based: How can we work together? . . . Academic excellence is not a strong predictor of career excellence.”

The game is rigged. Wealthy families still have a leg up because “affluent parents have invested massively in their children so they can win the college-admissions race.”

Meritocracy has created an American caste system. Virtually all demographics show wealthy households are better off academically, healthwise and socially, while growing class divisions are pulling the country apart with “terrible social and political consequences.”

The meritocracy has damaged the psyches of the American elite. “Students learn to ride an emotional rollercoaster. … If you don’t keep succeeding by somebody else’s metrics, your self-worth crumbles. … Some people get overwhelmed by the pressure and simply drop out. Others become risk-averse. … Deeper questions about meaning or purpose are off the table.”

Meanwhile, a populist backlash is tearing society apart. Outsiders develop “contempt for the entire system and the people it elevates. … Populist leaders worldwide traffic in crude exaggerations, gross generalizations, and bald-faced lies, all aimed at telling the educated class, in effect: Screw you and the epistemic regime you rode in on.”

“The challenge,” Brooks wrote, “is not to end the meritocracy; it’s to humanize and improve it.”

He offers President Franklin Roosevelt as an example, who “based on cognitive skills alone, … would never get into Harvard today.” Brooks quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as saying Roosevelt had “a second-class intellect” but a “first-class temperament,” which gave him the ability to rally the nation at a critical time.

Effective modern leaders need several abilities that are not measurable by intelligence testing, Brooks said.

They include curiosity – something all humans are born with but which is discouraged early in our educational system.

Another powerful trait that does not show up on tests is a sense of drive and mission that makes some people willing to “run through walls.”

Social intelligence and mental agility are also important. Instead of creating people who are self-centered and manipulative, what we need is teamwork, cooperation and people who easily adjust to new ideas.

Finally, we need to realize that brilliant leaders don’t just come from Ivy League schools. “IQ is not the most important thing about you,” Brooks concluded.