3 ms·

They’re definitely sequiturs, maybe not to the issues you want to discuss. You seem focused on how much academia is a meritocracy. There is an important and dif

by bo1024 4y ago

They’re definitely sequiturs, maybe not to the issues you want to discuss. You seem focused on how much academia is a meritocracy. There is an important and different question of how diverse and accessible academia is. For example certain Olympic sports like dressage (horse jumping) are meritocracies, but very exclusionary (or at least non diverse, non accessible).

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
It is certainly a non-sequitur: can we simultaneously accept, or reject, the idea that prestige is a good measure of excellence while looking at (or not looking at) the history of how things become prestigious? Yes, we can. The one has nothing to do with the other.
- bo1024 4y ago
  Again, you're focusing on the question of meritocracy which is not the only interesting question here.
setgree 4y ago
The subtitle of this article is "‘Jarring’ study reveals hiring bias at US institutions." Trying to ascertain whether prestige leads to "hiring bias" is asking whether it has an independent effect on hiring. If prestige had zero effect -- if the observed correlation was actually measuring markers of researcher quality with which prestige is likely to be correlated -- then there would be zero bias. The fact that those institutions did many horrible things historically does not provide evidence on that question. That's why I called it a non-sequitur.
- bo1024 4y ago
  The word "bias" doesn't appear in the actual research study, nor "discrimination". I don't see that it addresses anything of the sort.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> There is an important and different question of how diverse and accessible academia is. What I find troubling is the baggage of background assumptions that makes this sort of value judgement possible. You have three professors, two white, one black. The two white professors, A and B, have diverging yet compelling views. The black professor C agrees with A. Which is better? Hiring A and B, or A and C? According to prevailing views of the value of diversity, the latter is preferable because of the racial diversity rule.
- bo1024 4y ago
  One interesting aspect of this article is a framing of diversity of people by where they were educated.
motohagiography 4y ago
Imo, this comment is treating these sports as straw man symbols to assert an ideological point. Good horsemanship takes decades and isn't really comparable to intellectualism. We aren't your gods, and using riders as examples for iconoclasm is tedious.
- bo1024 4y ago
  I'm sorry if I gave offense, but I'm not sure what about my analogy you're objecting to and I would be glad if you could help me understand. I just meant to illustrate that an endeavor can be a fair and just meritocracy, but also non diverse and non representative -- these are two separate issues.

by bo1024 4y ago

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

It is certainly a non-sequitur: can we simultaneously accept, or reject, the idea that prestige is a good measure of excellence while looking at (or not looking at) the history of how things become prestigious? Yes, we can. The one has nothing to do with the other.

bo1024 4y ago
Again, you're focusing on the question of meritocracy which is not the only interesting question here.

setgree 4y ago

The subtitle of this article is "‘Jarring’ study reveals hiring bias at US institutions." Trying to ascertain whether prestige leads to "hiring bias" is asking whether it has an independent effect on hiring. If prestige had zero effect -- if the observed correlation was actually measuring markers of researcher quality with which prestige is likely to be correlated -- then there would be zero bias. The fact that those institutions did many horrible things historically does not provide evidence on that question. That's why I called it a non-sequitur.

bo1024 4y ago
The word "bias" doesn't appear in the actual research study, nor "discrimination". I don't see that it addresses anything of the sort.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

> There is an important and different question of how diverse and accessible academia is. What I find troubling is the baggage of background assumptions that makes this sort of value judgement possible. You have three professors, two white, one black. The two white professors, A and B, have diverging yet compelling views. The black professor C agrees with A. Which is better? Hiring A and B, or A and C? According to prevailing views of the value of diversity, the latter is preferable because of the racial diversity rule.

bo1024 4y ago
One interesting aspect of this article is a framing of diversity of people by where they were educated.

motohagiography 4y ago

Imo, this comment is treating these sports as straw man symbols to assert an ideological point. Good horsemanship takes decades and isn't really comparable to intellectualism. We aren't your gods, and using riders as examples for iconoclasm is tedious.

bo1024 4y ago
I'm sorry if I gave offense, but I'm not sure what about my analogy you're objecting to and I would be glad if you could help me understand. I just meant to illustrate that an endeavor can be a fair and just meritocracy, but also non diverse and non representative -- these are two separate issues.