The “Should we get rid of the GRE?” conversation and the “Should we pay undergrad RAs $15/hour?” conversation have three things in common that I think are really unfortunate — 🧵

(For the record, I personally think we should keep the GRE and that the minimum wage should be $15 but I know a lot more about psychometrics than labor economics so I’m more confident about the former opinion)
1- lack of clarity regarding whether a proposed change is seen as a morally good END in itself, versus a MEANS to another end, and if the latter what that end is
1b - for instance, I don’t care whether or not capital punishment deters crime; it’s instrumental purpose is irrelevant to the fact that I think it’s a moral wrong
1c -for the GRE, do you think testing is Bad, regardless of its utility? Or do you think that under representation of some racial groups is Bad? Or do you think the racial wealth gap is Bad? people rarely clarify what ultimate wrong they are trying to right
1d- for minimum wage, do you think a certain wage is a Good as a symbol of the dignity of labor? Do you care about income inequality itself? Do you care about the quality of life for the poorest?
1e- This muddiness about means and ends gets us in trouble because debating whether X is the best way to get to Y will be outraging to people who care about X in and of itself
2 - A widespread failure to take the possibility of unintended consequences seriously. I think this is because it’s easy to empathize with people in the here and now but hard to empathize with people in counterfactual worlds
2b - With the GRE, the number of people who are blank when I ask, “what are you going to use instead, and what evidence that you have that that is fairer?” is astonishing. But the counterfactual has to be considered, and it doesn’t make someone an evil monster to bring that up
2c — more on that here https://t.co/rzSRA8d7G6
3 - A failure to grapple with the dual roles that faculty play as employers of skilled labor in a highly competitive field vs mentors / advisors to students, and the fact that they have to succeed at the former in order to do the latter
3b - This duality reflects larger duality in “what is higher education for?” To bring about social equality? To advance human knowledge and technology? Yes and yes. And also, in practice, those lofty goals conflict and their locus of conflict is in the individual faculty member
4 - I said three things but I’m going to add a fourth, which is that some of the meanest and loudest voices in these conversations are men from the natural sciences who don’t study humans and quite honestly do not know what they are talking about
(The misogyny and mansplaining of woke white men will be a thread for another day)

More from Economy

Latest @SouledOutWorld articles:
(Article Thread)

All in one convenient location to access.


https://t.co/TuyltZTyW0


https://t.co/XJJRvpLRQE


https://t.co/NeeFCfMkP2


https://t.co/yFtbIgqzzm

You May Also Like

हिमालय पर्वत की एक बड़ी पवित्र गुफा थी।उस गुफा के निकट ही गंगा जी बहती थी।एक बार देवर्षि नारद विचरण करते हुए वहां आ पहुंचे।वह परम पवित्र गुफा नारद जी को अत्यंत सुहावनी लगी।वहां का मनोरम प्राकृतिक दृश्य,पर्वत,नदी और वन देख उनके हृदय में श्रीहरि विष्णु की भक्ति अत्यंत बलवती हो उठी।


और देवर्षि नारद वहीं बैठकर तपस्या में लीन हो गए।इन्द्र नारद की तपस्या से घबरा गए।उन्हें हमेशा की तरह अपना सिंहासन व स्वर्ग खोने का डर सताने लगा।इसलिए इन्द्र ने नारद की तपस्या भंग करने के लिए कामदेव को उनके पास भेज दिया।वहां पहुंच कामदेव ने अपनी माया से वसंतऋतु को उत्पन्न कर दिया।


पेड़ और पौधों पर रंग बिरंगे फूल खिल गए और कोयलें कूकने लगी,पक्षी चहकने लगे।शीतल,मंद,सुगंधित और सुहावनी हवा चलने लगी।रंभा आदि अप्सराएं नाचने लगीं ।किन्तु कामदेव की किसी भी माया का नारद पे कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा।तब कामदेव को डर सताने लगा कि कहीं नारद क्रोध में आकर मुझे श्राप न देदें।

जैसे ही नारद ने अपनी आंखें खोली, उसी क्षण कामदेव ने उनसे क्षमा मांगी।नारद मुनि को तनिक भी क्रोध नहीं आया और उन्होने शीघ्र ही कामदेव को क्षमा कर दिया।कामदेव प्रसन्न होकर वहां से चले गए।कामदेव के चले जाने पर देवर्षि के मन में अहंकार आ गया कि मैने कामदेव को हरा दिया।

नारद फिर कैलाश जा पहुंचे और शिवजी को अपनी विजयगाथा सुनाई।शिव समझ गए कि नारद अहंकारी हो गए हैं और अगर ये बात विष्णु जी जान गए तो नारद के लिए अच्छा नहीं होगा।ये सोचकर शिवजी ने नारद को भगवन विष्णु को ये बात बताने के लीए मना किया। परंतु नारद जी को ये बात उचित नहीं लगी।
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?