3 ms·
The issue is that outcomes are easier to measure, and so are. Consequently, the policy eventually targets the measured metric, and we get policies intended to
by ethbr0 5y ago
The issue is that outcomes are easier to measure, and so are.
Consequently, the policy eventually targets the measured metric, and we get policies intended to increase opportunity that instead directly target outcomes.
At which point, policy wonks pat themselves on the back for hitting their metrics.
- eastbound 5y agoCan it happen that the two groups reach the same outcome, but one group able to achieve the same place without much work? Isn’t that what happens with women and causes misogyny?
- thfuran 5y ago>Isn’t that what happens with women and causes misogyny? I'm not sure what you mean.
- themacguffinman 5y agoWell yes, it can happen. I don't know if that "causes" misogyny, but is rather the result of it. It's paradoxically the case that societies with less gender equality tend to have greater STEM equality [1], and vice versa. Because women in these unequal societies have very little broad opportunity, they rush to one of the few opportunities that's even possible for them: STEM. They'll push themselves to do it even if they don't want to, because it's their only meal ticket out of their situation. Women in more equal societies presumably have more of a voluntary choice and tend to choose STEM less as a result. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761774171...
- troupe 5y agoAre they easier to measure or are they measured by people who are more concerned about equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity? Is it really significantly easier to measure the "diversity" of the incoming class of an Ivy League school than it is to determine whether the selection process between a set of individuals with the same qualifications will produce selections that are distributed in the same way as the applicants are distributed in that set?