Fascinating seeing the parallels between history and today.<p>> vanishingly few U.S. policymakers have degrees in science or foreign languages, and yet they nevertheless make decisions regarding nuclear weapons, biotechnology, and international trade.<p>Has any society ever had educated politicians as the norm? It seems like politicking is a skill in itself that leaves no time for other education (with few exceptions such as Jimmy Carter).<p>> the competitive testing regime systematically favored the wealthy and the connected—who thus had more reason to continue to support it.<p>Nothing new here, but<p>> A need for government revenue led to the development of the “irregular” route for advancement, in which offices and degrees could be purchased rather than earned. Between 1830 and 1912, only 32 percent of Qing officials had actually passed the examinations<p>That's a bit shortsighted of a policy no? Codifying the outright buying of political office is a bit different and more extreme than buying influence we see today (and throughout history). Maybe a real historian could speak to this bizarre policy.