
A former World Bank top executive told me last week: "Forty years ago, the smartest 5% went into politics. Today, the dumbest 5% do."
The data is devastating:
→ Elite graduates entering government: 12% (1978) → 1.8% (2023)
→ Median GMAT score: Public admin 540 | Goldman/McKinsey 720+
→ Top talent in finance earns 340% more than in the public sector
This isn’t just mission drift—it’s the system working exactly as designed.
For eighty years, the Mont Pelerin Society preached that government is useless. Now extraction pays three times more than building—and the 99% pick up the bill. Mission accomplished!
Sadly, as seen in the US, a society that devalues public service eventually gets exactly the government it deserves.
#PublicService #TalentAllocation #Institutions #Meritocracy #Neoliberalism
PS: A necessary note on GMAT scores
As John Knight pointed out in the conversation about the post, we should not accept GMAT scores as a measure of intelligence. In fact, while GMAT scores might reflect more than just “rational intelligence” (they’re also meant to assess “integrated reasoning”), there’s no robust evidence that they predict long-term leadership effectiveness, entrepreneurial success, or career satisfaction. In reality, non-cognitive factors—like social capital, personality, motivation, and opportunity—quickly outweigh any test-based advantage.
So, lower GMAT scores among public sector applicants may simply point to different motivations, opportunity costs, or systemic barriers—not “lesser” talent. These might be highly capable people who choose public service for intrinsic or civic reasons, or who opt out of high-paying sectors for ethical or personal commitments. But that said, there’s also no evidence to suggest that those with lower scores are, by default, more “holistically” talented or better suited.
I guess the key point is that we’ve created a system that not only measures the wrong things, but also steers many talented people into roles that ultimately undermine the common good, rather than build it.