LogFAQs > #889014154

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	What's the difference between equal opportunities and equal outcomes?
legendary_zell 10/23/17 9:50:08 PM #8:	Nomadic View posted... Its still equal opportunity. It doesnt mean that everyone has the same skill set. Some people will always have advantageous skill sets for a task, but the person that doesnt have those skills still has the opportunity to enter a program through the same process and same standards that everyone is held to. The individual with advanced skills going in prior certainly has an advantage, but the opportunity is the same. Talking about these things in terms of skill sets makes it sound more equal, more voluntary, and more controllable than it actually is. I also want to make sure I understand the implications of what you're saying. An opportunity from what I understand you to be saying is different from a chance as in the likelihood that x outcome will actually happen. And that is different from equal outcomes. Maybe the real disconnect here is what we think happens after the race begins and whether its a true meritocracy. It just seems like equal opportunity is little more than a declaration that we have it and does little to advance toward a more just or equal society, to combat past oppression etc. The Admiral posted... It's the difference between interviewing a diverse range of candidates and implementing strict racial quotas. Maybe this is closer to the difference. Equal outcomes would certainly be closest to the latter. But whether simply interviewing everyone is sufficient to equalize opportunity isn't as clear. For example, in the legal profession, there were tons of kids with thoroughly mediocre or even below average grades who just so happened to be related to or know partners and hiring managers at big law firms. They are now working at these extremely competitive, prestigious, and high paying places when other's were interviewed, but these positions ended up being filled through the old boy's system anyway. That doesn't seem like any form of equal anything to me. Again for there to be any type of equality, there would need to be some consistent connection between the interviews, the diversity of the applicant pool, and the actual hiring. Which gets into equal outcomes range in my mind. Where am I wrong here? --- http://i.imgur.com/0Bi86cp.gif <cite>legendary_zell posted [p:889014154] in What's the... [t:75901750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Its still equal opportunity. It doesnt mean that everyone has the same skill set. Some people will always have advantageous skill sets for a task, but the person that doesnt have those skills still has the opportunity to enter a program through the same process and same standards that everyone is held to. The individual with advanced skills going in prior certainly has an advantage, but the opportunity is the same.</quote> Talking about these things in terms of skill sets makes it sound more equal, more voluntary, and more controllable than it actually is. I also want to make sure I understand the implications of what you're saying. An opportunity from what I understand you to be saying is different from a chance as in the likelihood that x outcome will actually happen. And that is different from equal outcomes. Maybe the real disconnect here is what we think happens after the race begins and whether its a true meritocracy. It just seems like equal opportunity is little more than a declaration that we have it and does little to advance toward a more just or equal society, to combat past oppression etc. <cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>It's the difference between interviewing a diverse range of candidates and implementing strict racial quotas.</quote> Maybe this is closer to the difference. Equal outcomes would certainly be closest to the latter. But whether simply interviewing everyone is sufficient to equalize opportunity isn't as clear. For example, in the legal profession, there were tons of kids with thoroughly mediocre or even below average grades who just so happened to be related to or know partners and hiring managers at big law firms. They are now working at these extremely competitive, prestigious, and high paying places when other's were interviewed, but these positions ended up being filled through the old boy's system anyway. That doesn't seem like any form of equal anything to me. Again for there to be any type of equality, there would need to be some consistent connection between the interviews, the diversity of the applicant pool, and the actual hiring. Which gets into equal outcomes range in my mind. Where am I wrong here? --- http://i.imgur.com/0Bi86cp.gif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1