Actually a good case can be made for a strict merit based employment policy. But it can't be made by the this lot of conservative leaders. At least not without gaffaws of laughter.
Actually a good case can be made for a strict merit based employment policy. But it can't be made by the this lot of conservative leaders. At least not without gaffaws of laughter.
What would such a "strict merit-based employment policy" look like? Specifically, what would be considered "merit" and how would it be evaluated? Some obvious criteria are quantifiable (e.g., academic credentials, test scores), but others, perhaps less obvious, are not. And even the obvious criteria require an asterisk for "It depends."
As I said a 'good case' can be made for strict merit based policies, but like many good cases it may founder on the rocks of reality. A particular problem is that it leads to the likely dependence on the more objective criteria with some subjective criteria that matter getting down played. As I used to joke some medical schools produce doctors whose combination of intellectual expertise and personal skills make them best suited for a career in forensic pathology (ie working with dead patients).
Those "rocks of reality" do tend to get in the way. For some odd reason "merit-based policies" makes me think of Silicon Valley, where it seems expertise of a rather narrow kind is celebrated and handsomely rewarded. I also think of the simultaneous elevation of STEM and marginalization of the humanities in higher education.
Actually a good case can be made for a strict merit based employment policy. But it can't be made by the this lot of conservative leaders. At least not without gaffaws of laughter.
What would such a "strict merit-based employment policy" look like? Specifically, what would be considered "merit" and how would it be evaluated? Some obvious criteria are quantifiable (e.g., academic credentials, test scores), but others, perhaps less obvious, are not. And even the obvious criteria require an asterisk for "It depends."
As I said a 'good case' can be made for strict merit based policies, but like many good cases it may founder on the rocks of reality. A particular problem is that it leads to the likely dependence on the more objective criteria with some subjective criteria that matter getting down played. As I used to joke some medical schools produce doctors whose combination of intellectual expertise and personal skills make them best suited for a career in forensic pathology (ie working with dead patients).
Those "rocks of reality" do tend to get in the way. For some odd reason "merit-based policies" makes me think of Silicon Valley, where it seems expertise of a rather narrow kind is celebrated and handsomely rewarded. I also think of the simultaneous elevation of STEM and marginalization of the humanities in higher education.