Questions for you:
- When allocating scarce resources or opportunities, do you assume merit-based selection is always fairer than random selection, even when merit differences are marginal or impossible to measure objectively?
- Looking at selection processes claiming to be merit-based, how many actually measure genuine merit versus measuring privilege, the ability to game the criteria, or the subjective preferences of those making the selection disguised as objective criteria?
- When people resist random selection as “unfair,” are they objecting to actual unfairness, or to the discomfort of admitting that individual merit cannot be measured in this context?
Organisational applications:
Use random selection when merit differences are marginal: When you have more qualified candidates than positions, admit you’re running a disguised lottery. Establish minimum qualifications, then randomly select from the qualified pool. This eliminates expensive preparation arms races, reduces candidates gaming the process, and creates more diverse outcomes. Apply this method to oversubscribed training programmes, promotion shortlists with multiple qualified candidates, and any scarce opportunity attracting excess applicants. Don’t pretend subjective tie-breakers measure merit when they actually measure privilege or interviewer preferences.
Replace biased “merit” systems with honest randomness: Interview performance correlates with confidence and cultural “fit”, not job capability. CV screening favours prestigious institutions, and so is more about pass background than future ability. Random selection among qualified candidates is honest about arbitrariness. Implement this method for graduate schemes with hundreds of meeting criteria, for internal secondments, and for conference speaker selection from qualified submissions. Set qualification thresholds rigorously and transparently, then use randomness beyond that point rather than disguising arbitrary choices as merit judgements. And that transparency will encourage applicants you wouldn’t get otherwise.
Eliminate favouritism through explicit randomness: When impartiality is impossible or suspect, introduce chance. Apply this to tournament draws, speakers’ time slots , committee formation from volunteers, and audit selection from compliant suppliers. Document the process: list qualified candidates, specify the randomisation method while ensuring that it can be verified. Random selection provides defensible impartiality and eliminates the appearance of bias even when actual bias is absent. It’s particularly valuable when transparency matters more than optimising individual selections.
Acknowledge luck in all selection systems: Success partly depends on luck – circumstances enabling achievement, timing of opportunities, evaluator preferences. This honesty reduces the pressure on applicants to try and game systems, creates space for admitting when merit measurement fails, and builds further support for random selection when appropriate. When defending merit-based selection, verify that it measures relevant capabilities rather than proxying for privilege. When merit differences are marginal or measurement is impossible, random selection is more honest and equitable.
Further reading
Random selection, fairness, and democracy
Against Elections by David Van Reybrouck – argues sortition (random selection of citizens) offers fairer representation than elections, showing historical precedents and modern experiments like Irish Citizens’ Assembly on abortion demonstrating effectiveness.
The Tyranny of Merit by Michael J. Sandel – examines how meritocracy rhetoric harms society, showing “merit-based” selection often rewards privilege whilst maintaining fiction of pure ability-based outcomes.
Lottocracy by Alexander Guerrero – proposes lottery-selected citizen panels for governance, arguing random selection eliminates electoral incentives for polarisation whilst improving representation and deliberation.
Admissions, selection, and gaming
The Merit Myth by Anthony P. Carnevale, Peter Schmidt, and Jeff Strohl – demonstrates elite university admissions favour privilege over merit, showing how “holistic” selection enables gaming by wealthy families through expensive preparation.
Excellent Sheep by William Deresiewicz – critiques elite education showing admissions reward manufactured achievement and gaming rather than genuine ability, arguing current system produces conformity not excellence.
The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits – shows meritocratic selection systems entrench inequality by rewarding intensive investment in children, creating hereditary meritocracy where privilege determines who qualifies as “meritorious.”
Bias, fairness, and allocation mechanisms
Justice by Lottery by Barbara Goodwin – philosophical examination of random selection for resource allocation, showing when lottery-based distribution offers fairer outcomes than merit or need-based approaches.
Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O’Neil – examines how algorithmic selection systems claiming objectivity encode bias, showing random selection sometimes fairer than biased “merit-based” algorithms.
Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell – examines how statistical disparities arise from multiple causes, relevant to understanding when merit-based versus random selection produces fairer outcomes.
About the image
This image I find truly chilling. It’s a draft for the Vietnam service; the balls being selected will choose men to serve in the American military.
Photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_draft#/media/File:1969_draft_lottery_photo.jpg
Photo montage Matt Ballantine, 2026
Random the Book 
