3 ms·
> How is that a meritocracy? Because the person with the better score was chosen. > The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other
by brigandish 2y ago
> How is that a meritocracy?
Because the person with the better score was chosen.
> The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other groups, it’s to even the playing field and combat the systemic bias.
If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc. Forcing employers through the law to hire people they wouldn’t if given a free choice is not meritocratic nor helpful more generally.
- latexr 2y ago> Because the person with the better score was chosen. Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward. Having a high score isn’t on its own meritorious. If two people achieve the same thing but one of them was being propped up while the other was being pushed down, the latter showed more skill. > If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc. Yes, all of those things should be done too. But when not being handwavey and dismiss, one realises change takes time, must be done in steps, and approached from several angles.
- brigandish 2y agoThe only objective metric given was a score, that is literally merit. In the simplistic example (necessarily so, that’s not a criticism of it) there is not much more to go on. You can assign merit to doing homework on the bus etc, but the fact is that both those boys went into an exam at the end and one scored more than the other. I love an underdog but that doesn’t wipe away objectivity either.