4 ms·

There are numerous options. First you could use more evaluative criteria. This is how most knowledge workers are evaluated in most modern startups. Unless you

by tcj 7y ago

There are numerous options. First you could use more evaluative criteria. This is how most knowledge workers are evaluated in most modern startups. Unless you work on sales, you are probably measured by the quality of your thinking, your attitudes, projects, and initiatives. You don't deliver a piece of code and get a grade. Things like PISA were invented so that the people managing could, well, manage. So they could compare and get "concrete" numbers to get elected. And in terms of your question, what is wrong with subjectivity? We are dealing with human beings here, not computers. There will always be subjectivity. Our desire to boil everything down to data is a clear reflection of the computer age where everything needs to be a 0 or a 1. The medium is indeed the message. I think a broader question is what is the purpose of school? Is it an institution where we help people learn, or where we teach people how to memorize things? We are what we measure. If we are measuring how well students can memorize things and give "right" answers, this is the kind of society we will create. This is the reason schooling continues to be more and more irrelevant today.

asdf21 7y ago
>Unless you work on sales, you are probably measured by the quality of your thinking, your attitudes, projects, and initiatives. You don't deliver a piece of code and get a grade. I'd be much happier if my code received a grade. My boss doesn't currently like me because I'm not a complete "yes man", while the other Project Managers here would 100% tell him the moon is made of cheese if that's what he wanted to hear. "Evaluative criteria" are ripe for abuse in a thousand different ways, including internalized bias and racism. There will always be subjectivity, but we can and should try to minimize it. I can't find the article now, but I remember reading a study where classical musicians were graded with the reviewers watching them, versus only hearing them play behind a curtain, and the scores were substantially different, exposing considerable bias. Here is something similar... https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/... Hence, standardized testing. It's practically a miracle, as far as I'm concerned -- a truly fair way to quantify many types of intellect / skills. >This is the reason schooling continues to be more and more irrelevant today. Schooling is more irrelevant today as people are realizing that putting a child into a school doesn't make them smarter, just like putting them onto a basketball court doesn't make them taller. It's just conditioning and babysitting (which most families need, to be fair.)
- tcj 7y ago
  I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I agree that standardized or even blind testing is probably a much fairer way to evaluate. There is a reason scientific research uses double-blind tests. It eliminates a lot of biases and racism. (Of course only to a degree, since there is always the bias of the question asking and test structure.) But in principle I agree. But here is where I think I differ. If you are grading a performance, or evaluating the effectiveness of a drug, or which peanut butter brand you like more, then sure, go ahead and do a "standard" test. But is that the point of school? Is the point of "learning" and "schooling" to test (in a standard way) how much students can do "math," or write "proper" english, or memorize "facts" about America? I would say "no." Does a score of 500 versus 400 mean that someone "learned more?" As soon as you have "tests" with "grades" you immediately optimize for providing the "correct answers" and to get "better grades". I think people jump to fast to correct answers = learning. An example, in a similar way that if your code got graded, every coder would immediately optimize what they do to get that A. I am not questioning the method of how that A is evaluated, but I am questioning what are we optimizing for. And optimizing for giving correct answers is not a good idea, in my opinion, since it bears little resemblance to any of the important open-ended questions we are faced with on our day-to-day lives. Schools should help people learn how to learn, cultivate their own interests, and develop skills and aptitudes for a changing world. Not "find" "correct answers" to problems that someone already knows the answer. In regards to your points: > I'd be much happier if my code received a grade That's interesting and I'm sorry about the boss... I'm interested: what would be the criteria to determine the grade of the code your boss would give you? I'm assuming a few of them would be: does it run, does it follows proper syntax, is it simple and the best way to do this, correct? But what if you think there is a better way that goes against the criteria? > School is more irrelevant... Agree 100%. Again, what is the point of putting people in school then. Isn't it to make them smarter? Is it to get them a job? Or is it to teach them how to conform? What do you think? Thank your for the link, by the way! Let me know if you find that study. Sounds super interesting.

by tcj 7y ago

asdf21 7y ago

>Unless you work on sales, you are probably measured by the quality of your thinking, your attitudes, projects, and initiatives. You don't deliver a piece of code and get a grade. I'd be much happier if my code received a grade. My boss doesn't currently like me because I'm not a complete "yes man", while the other Project Managers here would 100% tell him the moon is made of cheese if that's what he wanted to hear. "Evaluative criteria" are ripe for abuse in a thousand different ways, including internalized bias and racism. There will always be subjectivity, but we can and should try to minimize it. I can't find the article now, but I remember reading a study where classical musicians were graded with the reviewers watching them, versus only hearing them play behind a curtain, and the scores were substantially different, exposing considerable bias. Here is something similar... https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/... Hence, standardized testing. It's practically a miracle, as far as I'm concerned -- a truly fair way to quantify many types of intellect / skills. >This is the reason schooling continues to be more and more irrelevant today. Schooling is more irrelevant today as people are realizing that putting a child into a school doesn't make them smarter, just like putting them onto a basketball court doesn't make them taller. It's just conditioning and babysitting (which most families need, to be fair.)

tcj 7y ago
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I agree that standardized or even blind testing is probably a much fairer way to evaluate. There is a reason scientific research uses double-blind tests. It eliminates a lot of biases and racism. (Of course only to a degree, since there is always the bias of the question asking and test structure.) But in principle I agree. But here is where I think I differ. If you are grading a performance, or evaluating the effectiveness of a drug, or which peanut butter brand you like more, then sure, go ahead and do a "standard" test. But is that the point of school? Is the point of "learning" and "schooling" to test (in a standard way) how much students can do "math," or write "proper" english, or memorize "facts" about America? I would say "no." Does a score of 500 versus 400 mean that someone "learned more?" As soon as you have "tests" with "grades" you immediately optimize for providing the "correct answers" and to get "better grades". I think people jump to fast to correct answers = learning. An example, in a similar way that if your code got graded, every coder would immediately optimize what they do to get that A. I am not questioning the method of how that A is evaluated, but I am questioning what are we optimizing for. And optimizing for giving correct answers is not a good idea, in my opinion, since it bears little resemblance to any of the important open-ended questions we are faced with on our day-to-day lives. Schools should help people learn how to learn, cultivate their own interests, and develop skills and aptitudes for a changing world. Not "find" "correct answers" to problems that someone already knows the answer. In regards to your points: > I'd be much happier if my code received a grade That's interesting and I'm sorry about the boss... I'm interested: what would be the criteria to determine the grade of the code your boss would give you? I'm assuming a few of them would be: does it run, does it follows proper syntax, is it simple and the best way to do this, correct? But what if you think there is a better way that goes against the criteria? > School is more irrelevant... Agree 100%. Again, what is the point of putting people in school then. Isn't it to make them smarter? Is it to get them a job? Or is it to teach them how to conform? What do you think? Thank your for the link, by the way! Let me know if you find that study. Sounds super interesting.