3 ms·

>But if you’re a human on the job, society expects you to use the reasoning skills of a human. Except it doesn't. Then society labels the process as biased, un

>But if you’re a human on the job, society expects you to use the reasoning skills of a human. Except it doesn't. Then society labels the process as biased, unfair, subject to the whims of the reviewer, open to corruption, and so on. One of the down voted comments jumped right to bribery for example. Bureaucracy is this way not because it has to be but because society actually wants it to be.

xvector 7y ago
I really think that no one would judge a reviewer for adding a heading where it needed to be. This is trivial, there isn’t really a political connotation here. If a reviewer cannot do something trivial like this, then we don’t need them anyways. If the content doesn’t matter, as this bureaucracy has demonstrated, just run the application through a software that checks for word count and header presence and call it a day, and use those tax dollars towards a cause that would actually benefit society.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  I would not be surprised if they had a safety specialist assigned to evaluate paragraph A3 of each proposal, in isolation from everything else. For fairness, that specialist may not have even been given access to the other parts of the applications. In this case, the employee tasked with separating out the application pieces and sending them to the relevant specialists is likely not highly-trained, and there may be no-one in the organization competent to do this: the people that process the application as a whole aren’t qualified, and the people that are qualified can’t look at the whole application for fear of introducing bias. > If the content doesn’t matter, as this bureaucracy has demonstrated... I saw no indication that the contents of properly-formatted applications were being ignored. I believe it’s more likely that they set up a complicated review process that relied on applications being formatted as requested, so Skip’s application couldn’t be put through the pre-planned approval process.

xvector 7y ago

I really think that no one would judge a reviewer for adding a heading where it needed to be. This is trivial, there isn’t really a political connotation here. If a reviewer cannot do something trivial like this, then we don’t need them anyways. If the content doesn’t matter, as this bureaucracy has demonstrated, just run the application through a software that checks for word count and header presence and call it a day, and use those tax dollars towards a cause that would actually benefit society.

kd5bjo 7y ago
I would not be surprised if they had a safety specialist assigned to evaluate paragraph A3 of each proposal, in isolation from everything else. For fairness, that specialist may not have even been given access to the other parts of the applications. In this case, the employee tasked with separating out the application pieces and sending them to the relevant specialists is likely not highly-trained, and there may be no-one in the organization competent to do this: the people that process the application as a whole aren’t qualified, and the people that are qualified can’t look at the whole application for fear of introducing bias. > If the content doesn’t matter, as this bureaucracy has demonstrated... I saw no indication that the contents of properly-formatted applications were being ignored. I believe it’s more likely that they set up a complicated review process that relied on applications being formatted as requested, so Skip’s application couldn’t be put through the pre-planned approval process.