Re:Tech journalism is less diverse than tech (2020)
by sokoloff on Friday November 19, 2021 @06:41PM
(#29284053)
If we’re trying to measure something (say strength), should we measure that thing as directly as we can, or should we add a bunch of adjustments to make things more “fair”? Do we want to know how strong someone is, or how surprising it is that they’re as strong as they are given their starting point?
If someone has a home gym, a personal trainer, and time to workout 2x/day, 6 days a week, how much should we penalize their results? Zero? 25%? 50%?
I think that being strong as demonstrated on tests of strength is a valid (and the most valid I’m aware of) measure of “merit” in the context of strength. I think the same is true in other fields as well, including scholastics.
Re:Tech journalism is less diverse than tech (2020)
by harryh on Saturday November 20, 2021 @01:07PM
(#29290348)
"less than 14% of the variance in SAT scores can be explained by SES in two massive and representative samples"
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-think-critically...
Re:Tech journalism is less diverse than tech (2020)
by commandlinefan on Saturday November 20, 2021 @06:07PM
(#29292619)
What does SES stand for? Your link doesn’t appear to define it and I can’t find it defined anywhere else.
Re:Tech journalism is less diverse than tech (2020)
by harryh on Saturday November 20, 2021 @08:26PM
(#29293361)
socioeconomic status
Re:Tech journalism is less diverse than tech (2020)
by paisawalla on Friday November 19, 2021 @06:54PM
(#29284176)
> if you want something meritocratic, what we find is that testing ends up reinforcing existing social strata more often than not
Compared to what? It's not a criticism to simply state that standardized testing fails to be perfectly meritocratic.
So there's the challenge that the anti-testing/testing reform crowd wants to solve: how do you call testing meritocratic when the equality of opportunity isn't there? And are we ok with that?