3 ms·

I never claimed merit = math ability, except of course perhaps for the job of math professor. The fact that our predictor is imperfect doesn't mean that it mag

• anigbrowl 11y ago
  Perhaps you didn't intend this, but using nuclear physics as your threshold example certainly prioritizes a particular kind of academic merit over other kinds. Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious? Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no? After I tell you that merit isn't a scalar and invite you to consider measures of merit that are somewhat orthogonal to each other, the best you can come back with is to say it depends which (orthogonal) field of endeavor they're seeking to enter? Pretend the answer is neither, they're competing for the last available place in a medical school. My whole point here is that facility with calculus or chess both demonstrate cognitive ability, but there's no universal standard for asserting that one is better than the other - we can only talk in terms of what sort of utility it is that we wish to maximize. Likewise, absent universally agreeable standards of merit, we can't easily say one group of people is better than another while neglecting structural biases. It might be that people who are good at calculus would in fact make superior chess players if we were to invest in some remedial chess lessons to rectify the shortcomings of their strategic education, so to speak.
  • yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If your only claim is that different fields require a different sort of merit, I agree. Obviously merit for medical school differs from merit for chess camp. I fail to see how this supports the claim that an admission system is non-meritocratic simply because some people are unable to pass it due to bad life circumstances.
    • anigbrowl 11y ago
      Then I am sorry for the bad life circumstances that have given rise to your cognitive deficiency. I'd explain further but by your own logic, you won't understand it anyway so there's no point.
• anigbrowl 11y ago
  Perhaps you didn't intend this, but using nuclear physics as your threshold example certainly prioritizes a particular kind of academic merit over other kinds. Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious? Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no? After I tell you that merit isn't a scalar and invite you to consider measures of merit that are somewhat orthogonal to each other, the best you can come back with is to say it depends which (orthogonal) field of endeavor they're seeking to enter? Pretend the answer is neither, they're competing for the last available place in a medical school. My whole point here is that facility with calculus or chess both demonstrate cognitive ability, but there's no universal standard for asserting that one is better than the other - we can only talk in terms of what sort of utility it is that we wish to maximize. Likewise, absent universally agreeable standards of merit, we can't easily say one group of people is better than another while neglecting structural biases. It might be that people who are good at calculus would in fact make superior chess players if we were to invest in some remedial chess lessons to rectify the shortcomings of their strategic education, so to speak.