Over the past two generations, the share of Americans with four-year college degrees has more than doubled, and a new class of well-educated upper-middle-income professionals has emerged as a potent social and political force.

By and large, members of this new class have risen higher through education and mastered its rules. They do well on standardized tests, they get good grades, and they forge relationships with professors and other mentors that serve them well throughout their careers. Although some have taken advantage...

Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Over the past two generations, the share of Americans with four-year college degrees has more than doubled, and a new class of well-educated upper-middle-income professionals has emerged as a potent social and political force.

By and large, members of this new class have risen higher through education and mastered its rules. They do well on standardized tests, they get good grades, and they forge relationships with professors and other mentors that serve them well throughout their careers. Although some have taken advantage of family connections (through “legacy admissions” to universities, for example), many owe their advancement to their talents and skills. They insist they have achieved their position through their own efforts.

The rise of this new “meritocracy” is not uncontested, and criticism now crosses the political spectrum from the social-democratic left to the populist right. Writing in the Claremont Review of Books, conservative scholar Charles Murray marvels at the extent of his agreement with Harvard professor Michael Sandel, the favorite philosopher of Olaf Scholz, a socialist and Germany’s new chancellor.

There are shades of disagreement. Mr. Sandel deplores how the focus on individual striving detaches the winners from concern for the common good. For Mr. Murray, the concern is the way in which the winners, who cluster in urban areas, are detached from the experiences of Americans in small towns and rural areas. Both worry that the sense of personal achievement leads members of the new class away from the belief in the moral equality of human beings and the political equality of citizens.

There is much to criticize about the current version of meritocracy. Winners often believe that they are wholly responsible for their success, forgetting that they did nothing to earn the capacities with which they were endowed at birth—or the family advantages that helped them develop these capacities. And yes, it can lead to contempt for those who have achieved less, a much-resented attitude that has contributed to political polarization.

But rather than reject meritocracy wholesale, we should work harder to distinguish its virtues from its vices. On the simplest level, meritocracy stands for the proposition that jobs should go to the people who can do them best. If I need surgery, I want a surgeon with the skills to perform it. Because I don’t have the ability to judge this for myself, I must rely on the quality of the surgeon’s education and training, along with the judgment of peers and patients.

From a societal standpoint, it makes a difference whether the opportunity to develop surgical skills is available to all. And from a meritocratic standpoint, a society that excludes some from opportunities available to others is flawed. But as a potential patient, I must focus on finding a doctor with the right skills.

A second tier of meritocracy is the material reward attached to acquiring valued skills. On average, professionals with college degrees and advanced training earn substantially more than others. Part of this differential reflects the costs of education and training, in both money and time. Many doctors don’t complete their preparation until their mid-30s, and they often end this process with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Few would choose this demanding path without the prospect of earning enough to compensate for it. In addition, many skills are relatively rare and command higher prices than those that are widely distributed.

Mr. Sandel worries that social status flows unequally to individuals with economic and educational advantages. But every society has a hierarchy of status, and ours also values soldiers, first responders and nurses. Winners of the Medal of Honor are saluted for their courage, not their degrees.

It is at the third tier of meritocracy that problems arise. Being better educated doesn’t make you a better person, nor does it qualify you to rule over those with less education. America’s founding creed teaches that all are created equal, not in talent, but in dignity and worth.

Besides, the writ of expertise is limited. Medical researchers know more about disease than the rest of us, but the maxim “follow the science” doesn’t tell us what to do. Experts can clarify the risks of catching Covid in public schools, but they can’t tell us whether to keep the schools open or shut them down. This practical judgment requires policy makers to balance competing values, a process that requires good judgment, an understanding of human nature, and a keen awareness of public opinion.

It may well be that some people are better suited than others for positions of public trust in democratic societies. That’s what the Founders thought elections were about. But the art of democratic government isn’t the sort of thing you learn in college classes or in law and medical schools, no matter how prestigious the institution.

Journal Editorial Report: The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, William McGurn and Kyle Peterson. Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition