Current Events > What's the difference between equal opportunities and equal outcomes?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I often hear these presented as if they're completely different things. I hear people say we have equal opportunity and that's what people deserve, rather than equal outcomes. It seems like those are pretty closely related though. Living in a nice, safe neighborhood with good schools is certainly an outcome, but it's also the foundation of opportunity as well.

Can anyone explain how they differ then and how you have equality of opportunity without some rough equality of resources?
---

Equal opportunity means everyone has a chance to succeed, but they will only succeed if they use that opportunity wisely.
---

gguirao posted...

Equal opportunity means everyone has a chance to succeed, but they will only succeed if they use that opportunity wisely.

So it's pure chance in the abstract sense? As in it's not literally impossible for x result to occur? Or is it something more than that?
---

Equal opportunity:
Everyone is given the same test.

Equal outcome:
Everyone makes the same grade.
---

Nomadic View posted...

Equal opportunity:
Everyone is given the same test.

Equal outcome:
Everyone makes the same grade.

Okay, this is interesting. Is just the mere offering of the same test sufficient to offer equal opportunity? That seems like a version of equality that ignores almost every part of society other than a standardized test or approval from a gatekeeper. A little research reveals meanings that range from mere possibility to a set of circumstances or an favorable situation.

It's a set of circumstances that makes it possible for something to happen

a favorable combination of circumstances, time, and place

an occasion or situation that makes it possible to do something that you want to do or have to do, or the possibility of doing something

Regardless of having the same exam to complete, I wouldn't say my friend's student who just moved here from Venezuela has equal opportunity to a native english speaker with a private tutor.

If that's all it means, and I don't think that's what most people think it means, people sure as hell wouldn't be so proud about allegedly having it. By that metric, most things we do don't even matter, we just have to outwardly hold everyone to the same standard.
---

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.
---

It's the difference between interviewing a diverse range of candidates and implementing strict racial quotas.
---

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?
---