------=_Part_5077_7494999.1142903314220
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Rob sent an email a while ago about this talk, I don't know if anyone went,
but it was very interesting.
Synopsis below, if you are interested:
Her talk was called "Who's Qualified?" and it addressed the American
Meritocracy.
She spoke of 3 angles of power.
1) Who's winning the game?
2) Who designed the game/made the rules?
3) How are the winners pushing the story that explains that both winners
and losers deserve what they have?
It's very interesting...Since she's a lawyer, she spoke quite a bit about
law school, and how merit in law school means talking a lot in class, and
being first first first on all sorts of things, but mostly in terms of short
timed tests. Who's winning that game? Mostly white men. Who designed the
game? Really old, dead white men (the law school pedagogy has been the same
for 150 years, she said). And the winners and losers all think that it's
the way of the world and don't critique this methodology.
At the same time, what is the goal of law school? Apparently the mission of
Michigan's law school is to produce lawyers who are fulfilled, able to be
succeed financially, and contribute back to their communities (through
service, public interest work, pro bono work, whatever). She talks of the
disconnect between the goals of the university, and the definition of merit
used to reward people. There are actually studies that show that the people
who most fulfill the mission of Michigan law school are generally blacks
and Latinos, and generally not the top x% of the class. (i don't know about
people who are both).
Her main point was that society has a responsibility, and schools in
particular, to mold good citizens of a sustainable democratic society, and
to do that you have to be diverse. A university that alienates some
students is failing. A university that produces students that don't know
how to work with anyone who's not very similar to them is failing. So, she
wants to work in a new definition of merit that actually reflects to goals
of society and university, where diversity is NOT a tradeoff to merit, that
produces a good society.
There are numerous studies that show that having standardized testing be the
end-all goal and standard of merit has very little bearing on the success of
students in even the most general terms of success (good job in a leadership
position making good money). So, she asks, WHY are standardized tests the
stick by which you measure people? Apparently there are studies that show
that GPA (regardless of school), are a better indicator of college success
and after college success - and she thinks it's great that colleges are
experimenting with other ways to judge students than SAT's. 800 schools
have made it optional.
So, the point is, meritocracy is meaningless unless the definition of merit
fits what your goals are overall...and it doesn't have to be some arbitrary
test. It can include all sorts of things, that actually do benefit
society/people, and diversity doesn't have to be at odds with it.
Very interesting talk. I enjoyed it highly.
------=_Part_5077_7494999.1142903314220
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Rob sent an email a while ago about this talk, I don't know if anyone went,
but it was very interesting.
Synopsis below, if you are interested:
Her talk was called "Who's Qualified?" and it addressed the American
Meritocracy.
She spoke of 3 angles of power.
1) Who's winning the game?
2) Who designed the game/made the rules?
3) How are the winners pushing the story that explains that both winners and
losers deserve what they have?
It's very interesting...Since she's a lawyer, she spoke quite a bit
about law school, and how merit in law school means talking a lot in
class, and being first first first on all sorts of things, but mostly
in terms of short timed tests. Who's winning that game? Mostly white
men. Who designed the game? Really old, dead white men (the law
school pedagogy has been the same for 150 years, she said). And the
winners and losers all think that it's the way of the world and don't
critique this methodology.
At the same time, what is the goal of law school? Apparently the
mission of Michigan's law school is to produce lawyers who are
fulfilled, able to be succeed financially, and contribute back to their
communities (through service, public interest work, pro bono work,
whatever). She talks of the disconnect between the goals of the
university, and the definition of merit used to reward people. There
are actually studies that show that the people who most fulfill the
mission of Michigan law school are generally blacks and Latinos, and
generally not the top x% of the class. (i don't know about people who
are both).
Her main point was that society has a responsibility, and schools in
particular, to mold good citizens of a sustainable democratic society,
and to do that you have to be diverse. A university that alienates
some students is failing. A university that produces students that
don't know how to work with anyone who's not very similar to them is
failing. So, she wants to work in a new definition of merit that
actually reflects to goals of society and university, where diversity
is NOT a tradeoff to merit, that produces a good society.
There are numerous studies that show that having standardized testing
be the end-all goal and standard of merit has very little bearing on
the success of students in even the most general terms of success (good
job in a leadership position making good money). So, she asks, WHY are
standardized tests the stick by which you measure people? Apparently
there are studies that show that GPA (regardless of school), are a
better indicator of college success and after college success - and she
thinks it's great that colleges are experimenting with other ways to
judge students than SAT's. 800 schools have made it optional.
So, the point is, meritocracy is meaningless unless the definition of
merit fits what your goals are overall...and it doesn't have to be some
arbitrary test. It can include all sorts of things, that actually do
benefit society/people, and diversity doesn't have to be at odds with
it.
Very interesting talk. I enjoyed it highly.
------=_Part_5077_7494999.1142903314220--
|
