Richard Hanania and others speak of “elite human capital” being more prevalent among the Left. Critics claim that “elite human capital” is a corrupt credentialing regime for an oligarchy that represses talent in the hinterland. It struck me this can be objectively assessed.

Check out the most recent annual report (weirdly 2022) for the National Merit Corporation, notably the tables indicating where students matriculate: nationalmerit.org/s/175…

If there weren't repression of talent, the University of Alabama wouldn't be the #1 destination of National Merit Scholars, along with other flyover schools like TAMU. And since the National Merit Qualifying Test is basically a PSAT score with the verbal component doubled in weight (smartly, as verbal ability is more correlated with career outcomes), and taken on a single national testing week and test form early in the junior year before most students have prepped significantly, it's the most reliable index of talent among high school students.

Why does Alabama attract double the National Merit Scholars as Harvard? Simple, discrimination in selection and also scholarships when Harvard could clearly afford to give full rides to talented flyover kids.

In my businesses, I would rather hire an evangelical Christian, Aggie engineer with a Protestant work ethic to do anything than some functionally midwit Ivy League grad with a head full of mush and heart full of entitlement. Give me a redneck smart enough to do differential equations / linear algebra over a standard issue McKinsey tool any day. The lack of credentials plus high IQ means the person can be shaped and trained.

“Elite human capital” in the current semi-meritocratic system mostly means someone of middling ability (115-120, verbally tilted IQ) but with the proper manners and connections to find a sinecure in the existing power structure. Doesn’t reflect fundamental ability beyond what you’d already know from an SAT score.