Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 19 2017 02:55pm)
well, ok, gpas and gre and stuff like that is maybe a bad surrogate for the much wider concept of "performance". it is of course difficult to operationalize "performance", and I have no issue with weighing in both absolute and relative performance. but I still stand by my point that performance, however we operationalize it, should be the only criterion for the hiring for merit-based positions. phd programs, positions in a law firm, hedge fund managers, and so on. soft skills ("does he fit into our team") will of course play a larger role the further one goes down the job pyramid.
also note that your example with the "3 SD above their country average nigerians" being better than the "1.5 SD above their country average chinese students", despite the chinese scoring higher absolute GREs, might not translate to other fields as easily. the more a position is about hard work and experience and the less about raw talent and top-end intelligence, the more shaky this concept becomes. when hiring for an academic position in a STEM field, you really want people with top-end intelligence, and it sounds very plausible to me that the relative performance of applicants compared to the rest of their country might be a better indicator of this trait than the absolute value of a certain test score.
The thing is we can't use "performance" as a hiring criterion because their "performance" hasn't happened yet.
The criterion is "potential", and this is more difficult to operationalize.
Areas where hard work and experience are important are less difficult for the lower classes to attain. The parts of society that actually cause problems are the ones which depend on standardized test scores and metrics like GPA which disproportionately favor privileged groups.
The reason these metrics are used isn't a coincidence either, privileged groups know what favors them and they have the resources to implement and gain representation.