4 ms·

I don't understand why lottery are used so much in official context. Instead of the best, you select randomly and hoping RNGesus is on your side. I agree about

I don't understand why lottery are used so much in official context. Instead of the best, you select randomly and hoping RNGesus is on your side. I agree about the threshold, but how about using other criterias instead of RNG.

renewiltord 5y ago
The idea of the randomness is to calibrate your criteria against general population. I wonder if it works.
tornato7 5y ago
You mean like, read the student's application and use critical thinking to evaluate whether they're a good fit for the school based on their essays and individual accomplishments? Say it ain't so!
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  In other words, use subjective criteria that allow them to slip discrimination in under the radar.
  - corlinp 5y ago
    When you admit as many students as a UC, you can easily run regressions to determine whether a particular admissions officer is being discriminatory. They should also be able to anonymize applicants pretty well.
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      They should be able to--that doesn't mean they want to know the answer. It's very obvious they want to discriminate but not be detected doing so. They're not going to run those regressions and they aren't going to anonymize.
chriswarbo 5y ago
One advantage of lotteries is that they remove competition and 'arms races', since there's no way to affect the outcome (ideally; modulo hacking, etc.). Once you're over the threshold, you might as well focus your remaining time and effort on other things; rather than spending more money on 'interview technique coaching', or hiring more proof-readers, or rephrasing the same sentence over and over for months in an attempt to get it 'perfect'. Not only do lotteries mitigate Goodhart's Law (which rewards 'bad' candidates who appear good, whilst punishing 'good' candidates who don't appear that way); but even a perfect, un-gameable measure can waste resources chasing diminishing returns. Even something as trivial as spelling mistakes can be decisive; and whilst those judging might only care a little about spelling, candidates care a lot about winning, so it's in their interest to obsess over even such minor things. This imposes a massive opportunity cost, whether it's spending whole childhoods in 'cram schools'; or university salaries going to 'grant proposal writing services' rather than educators and researchers; etc.

renewiltord 5y ago

The idea of the randomness is to calibrate your criteria against general population. I wonder if it works.

tornato7 5y ago

You mean like, read the student's application and use critical thinking to evaluate whether they're a good fit for the school based on their essays and individual accomplishments? Say it ain't so!

LorenPechtel 5y ago
In other words, use subjective criteria that allow them to slip discrimination in under the radar.
- corlinp 5y ago
  When you admit as many students as a UC, you can easily run regressions to determine whether a particular admissions officer is being discriminatory. They should also be able to anonymize applicants pretty well.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    They should be able to--that doesn't mean they want to know the answer. It's very obvious they want to discriminate but not be detected doing so. They're not going to run those regressions and they aren't going to anonymize.

chriswarbo 5y ago

One advantage of lotteries is that they remove competition and 'arms races', since there's no way to affect the outcome (ideally; modulo hacking, etc.). Once you're over the threshold, you might as well focus your remaining time and effort on other things; rather than spending more money on 'interview technique coaching', or hiring more proof-readers, or rephrasing the same sentence over and over for months in an attempt to get it 'perfect'. Not only do lotteries mitigate Goodhart's Law (which rewards 'bad' candidates who appear good, whilst punishing 'good' candidates who don't appear that way); but even a perfect, un-gameable measure can waste resources chasing diminishing returns. Even something as trivial as spelling mistakes can be decisive; and whilst those judging might only care a little about spelling, candidates care a lot about winning, so it's in their interest to obsess over even such minor things. This imposes a massive opportunity cost, whether it's spending whole childhoods in 'cram schools'; or university salaries going to 'grant proposal writing services' rather than educators and researchers; etc.