5 ms·

> Of course, being good at passing tests doesn't mean one will be good at other things, in much the same way that one can be good at Leetcode problems but not g

by Timon3 1y ago

> Of course, being good at passing tests doesn't mean one will be good at other things, in much the same way that one can be good at Leetcode problems but not good at building and maintaining large scale software systems in a large corporate environment. Still, it remains a 'credible' example of 'how to do meritocracy right', [...] It's important not to forget Goodhart's law in this context: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Unless the tested skill is wholly and directly applicable to the position you're testing for, the results will still be unfairly skewed towards those with more resources - they can afford more time to study for this specific test, and more importantly they have the resources to buy specialized learning material as well as tutoring. Of course that's not to say that merit doesn't factor into the results at all, but it does mean that even examples of 'how to do meritocracy right' show that merit is never the only thing that matters.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
This is presented as an argument against objective metrics, but a) the alternative is subjective metrics, which is even worse, b) "disparate impact" is just another metric subject to Goodhart's law, and c) resources aren't the only thing that determines test scores. If you're poor but determined, you can't afford a high cost test prep course, but you can go to the library. The rich kid has their private tutor come to their house and then saves time that allowed them to be chauffeured to tennis lessons. The poor kid has to take the bus to the library and spend twice as long with the study books and then doesn't get any tennis lessons, but it's possible for someone to do that if they actually care about it. Whereas, how is a low-income white kid supposed to overcome a race quota where every slot for their race was already filled by nepotism?
- Timon3 1y ago
  > This is presented as an argument against objective metrics No, it's not. It's presented as an argument that measuring objective metrics doesn't mean you're measuring merit. > If you're poor but determined, you can't afford a high cost test prep course, but you can go to the library. The library most likely doesn't have the same specialized learning materials that rich kids can afford, so this doesn't mean the poor kid has equal opportunity. > The rich kid has their private tutor come to their house and then saves time that allowed them to be chauffeured to tennis lessons. The poor kid has to take the bus to the library and spend twice as long with the study books and then doesn't get any tennis lessons, but it's possible for someone to do that if they actually care about it. You're presenting this like it's purely an issue of free time, which is obviously not the case. The poor kid possibly can't reach the library without their guardian, who may or may not have time to drive them there. The poor kid possibly doesn't have anyone to teach them using the learning material there, while the rich kid likely has either their guardians or even specialized tutors for this purpose. Your comment is a wonderful example of how people arguing for meritocracy can ignore reality - the bare minimum is supposed to be enough for the disadvantaged, even though there's a massive difference in effectiveness.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > No, it's not. It's presented as an argument that measuring objective metrics doesn't mean you're measuring merit. The goal is to measure merit. Objective metrics are the nearest thing we have to achieving that goal. If there is a better metric, you use that instead. But if the best metric we have isn't perfect, that's no argument for doing something even worse. > The library most likely doesn't have the same specialized learning materials that rich kids can afford, so this doesn't mean the poor kid has equal opportunity. And yet this is still more of an opportunity than being locked out by race quotas. > The poor kid possibly can't reach the library without their guardian, who may or may not have time to drive them there. Libraries are generally in higher density areas with mass transit, and in the worst case you can walk there. Moreover, primary schools generally have libraries and then the kid is already there for school. > The poor kid possibly doesn't have anyone to teach them using the learning material there, while the rich kid likely has either their guardians or even specialized tutors for this purpose. Which is why it takes longer. But the point is that determination has an effect. It's something you can choose rather than something you can't control. Whereas telling people that it's not a level playing field so therefore they shouldn't even try is how you perpetuate the problem forever, if not actively make it worse.
    - Timon3 1y ago
      > The goal is to measure merit. Objective metrics are the nearest thing we have to achieving that goal. If there is a better metric, you use that instead. But if the best metric we have isn't perfect, that's no argument for doing something even worse. You may notice that I didn't argue against objective metrics at all? All I've said is that objective metrics don't mean you're directly measuring merit. It's important to keep this in mind, for example by ensuring equal access to specialized training materials. > And yet this is still more of an opportunity than being locked out by race quotas. DEI doesn't necessarily mean race quotas - it's telling that you think it does. > Libraries are generally in higher density areas with mass transit, and in the worst case you can walk there. Moreover, primary schools generally have libraries and then the kid is already there for school. But the kids don't necessarily live in higher density areas! So not only do the kids get worse material and less help, they also have a much harder time accessing those worse materials. And again, a library usually doesn't have the same specialized materials that rich kids can afford. I've been trying to show that this should be kept in mind and remedied, but you're arguing against me by arguing against things I haven't said. This is usually what happens. > Which is why it takes longer. But the point is that determination has an effect. But kids don't have infinite time! So the rich kids still have unfair advantages, so the tests aren't directly measuring merit. And again, you're arguing that the bare minimum should be enough for the disadvantaged. You seem to effectively be arguing that meritocracy is either impossible, or should not be the goal.
- croes 1y ago
  That would need some inclusion laws that enforce preferred hires from lower financial backgrounds instead of better prepared candidates with more resources.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    So why is that not the proposal instead of DEI?
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      Because it's incredibly complicated and proxying it via race is easier and humans like easy?
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        Using race as a proxy for other things is what racism is all about. We're trying to get rid of that rather than perpetuate it.
    - croes 1y ago
      That’s still DEI. Poor have less chances? Enforce hiring of the poor. Non-white habe less chances? Enforce hiring of non-whites. Non-male have less chances? Enforce hiring of non-males. Disabled have less chances? Enforce hiring of disabled. If you have less chances because of a attribute you aren’t responsible for, enforce hiring of people with such an attribute to normalize the attribute in the workspace is DEI.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        The premise of that proposal is that the test scores are inaccurate as a result of the economic disparity, because people with less income have less resources to prepare for the test. That would apply in the case of an economic disparity because having more resources allows you to artificially receive a higher score. It's not about accepting someone with less merit out of charity but rather about adjusting for a measurement error. But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both. Which is the reason doing the latter is controversial.

by Timon3 1y ago

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

This is presented as an argument against objective metrics, but a) the alternative is subjective metrics, which is even worse, b) "disparate impact" is just another metric subject to Goodhart's law, and c) resources aren't the only thing that determines test scores. If you're poor but determined, you can't afford a high cost test prep course, but you can go to the library. The rich kid has their private tutor come to their house and then saves time that allowed them to be chauffeured to tennis lessons. The poor kid has to take the bus to the library and spend twice as long with the study books and then doesn't get any tennis lessons, but it's possible for someone to do that if they actually care about it. Whereas, how is a low-income white kid supposed to overcome a race quota where every slot for their race was already filled by nepotism?

Timon3 1y ago
> This is presented as an argument against objective metrics No, it's not. It's presented as an argument that measuring objective metrics doesn't mean you're measuring merit. > If you're poor but determined, you can't afford a high cost test prep course, but you can go to the library. The library most likely doesn't have the same specialized learning materials that rich kids can afford, so this doesn't mean the poor kid has equal opportunity. > The rich kid has their private tutor come to their house and then saves time that allowed them to be chauffeured to tennis lessons. The poor kid has to take the bus to the library and spend twice as long with the study books and then doesn't get any tennis lessons, but it's possible for someone to do that if they actually care about it. You're presenting this like it's purely an issue of free time, which is obviously not the case. The poor kid possibly can't reach the library without their guardian, who may or may not have time to drive them there. The poor kid possibly doesn't have anyone to teach them using the learning material there, while the rich kid likely has either their guardians or even specialized tutors for this purpose. Your comment is a wonderful example of how people arguing for meritocracy can ignore reality - the bare minimum is supposed to be enough for the disadvantaged, even though there's a massive difference in effectiveness.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > No, it's not. It's presented as an argument that measuring objective metrics doesn't mean you're measuring merit. The goal is to measure merit. Objective metrics are the nearest thing we have to achieving that goal. If there is a better metric, you use that instead. But if the best metric we have isn't perfect, that's no argument for doing something even worse. > The library most likely doesn't have the same specialized learning materials that rich kids can afford, so this doesn't mean the poor kid has equal opportunity. And yet this is still more of an opportunity than being locked out by race quotas. > The poor kid possibly can't reach the library without their guardian, who may or may not have time to drive them there. Libraries are generally in higher density areas with mass transit, and in the worst case you can walk there. Moreover, primary schools generally have libraries and then the kid is already there for school. > The poor kid possibly doesn't have anyone to teach them using the learning material there, while the rich kid likely has either their guardians or even specialized tutors for this purpose. Which is why it takes longer. But the point is that determination has an effect. It's something you can choose rather than something you can't control. Whereas telling people that it's not a level playing field so therefore they shouldn't even try is how you perpetuate the problem forever, if not actively make it worse.
  - Timon3 1y ago
    > The goal is to measure merit. Objective metrics are the nearest thing we have to achieving that goal. If there is a better metric, you use that instead. But if the best metric we have isn't perfect, that's no argument for doing something even worse. You may notice that I didn't argue against objective metrics at all? All I've said is that objective metrics don't mean you're directly measuring merit. It's important to keep this in mind, for example by ensuring equal access to specialized training materials. > And yet this is still more of an opportunity than being locked out by race quotas. DEI doesn't necessarily mean race quotas - it's telling that you think it does. > Libraries are generally in higher density areas with mass transit, and in the worst case you can walk there. Moreover, primary schools generally have libraries and then the kid is already there for school. But the kids don't necessarily live in higher density areas! So not only do the kids get worse material and less help, they also have a much harder time accessing those worse materials. And again, a library usually doesn't have the same specialized materials that rich kids can afford. I've been trying to show that this should be kept in mind and remedied, but you're arguing against me by arguing against things I haven't said. This is usually what happens. > Which is why it takes longer. But the point is that determination has an effect. But kids don't have infinite time! So the rich kids still have unfair advantages, so the tests aren't directly measuring merit. And again, you're arguing that the bare minimum should be enough for the disadvantaged. You seem to effectively be arguing that meritocracy is either impossible, or should not be the goal.
croes 1y ago
That would need some inclusion laws that enforce preferred hires from lower financial backgrounds instead of better prepared candidates with more resources.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  So why is that not the proposal instead of DEI?
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    Because it's incredibly complicated and proxying it via race is easier and humans like easy?
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Using race as a proxy for other things is what racism is all about. We're trying to get rid of that rather than perpetuate it.
  - croes 1y ago
    That’s still DEI. Poor have less chances? Enforce hiring of the poor. Non-white habe less chances? Enforce hiring of non-whites. Non-male have less chances? Enforce hiring of non-males. Disabled have less chances? Enforce hiring of disabled. If you have less chances because of a attribute you aren’t responsible for, enforce hiring of people with such an attribute to normalize the attribute in the workspace is DEI.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      The premise of that proposal is that the test scores are inaccurate as a result of the economic disparity, because people with less income have less resources to prepare for the test. That would apply in the case of an economic disparity because having more resources allows you to artificially receive a higher score. It's not about accepting someone with less merit out of charity but rather about adjusting for a measurement error. But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both. Which is the reason doing the latter is controversial.