August 15, 2009

Objectivity Isn't Always the Best Approach

Justin Katz

Like fairness, objectivity is a generally positive principle that needn't be — shouldn't be — the guiding principle in every circumstance. One circumstance in which a degree of subjectivity is appropriate, applied to a collection of objective criteria is the hiring of teachers, whatever their argument might currently be in Providence:

The union claims that Brady's hiring practice "eliminates in its entirety impartial and objective decision-making" because it requires the district to offer only an "adequate explanation" for teacher assignments.

So, as we've heard before, standardized testing is inappropriate because of all of the intangibles of teaching (i.e., it must be measured subjectively), and the hiring methodology of most of the rest of the economic world is inappropriate because it isn't sufficiently objective. Is Rhode Island done falling for this stuff, yet?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Justin talking about objectivity is equivalent to Attila the Hun talking about fine art.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 15, 2009 2:39 PM


Well said. In this case, the teachers want standardized treatment when it comes to their compensation but when it comes to judging theirs or a students performance, it needs to be objective. The difference between choosing objectivity vs. subjectivity might have something to with who benefits more.

I don't happen to like the standardized tests for judging teachers but still, it's all about THEM. (and I don't mean the students)

Let us thank OTL for another reasoned thoughtful and relevant contribution to this debate.

Posted by: msteven at August 15, 2009 6:28 PM

Justin talking about objectivity is equivalent to ........

Republicans talking about personal responsibility

Archie Bunker talking about multiculturalism

Rick Pitino talking about table manners

John Depetro talking about Arbitron ratings

Dick Cheney talking about loyalty

The Luddites talking about blogging

Skunks talking about perfume

Gen. Custer talking about Native American rights. (He had deep reservations on the subject) I'm sorry.

Rush Limbaugh talking about drug abuse

Hannibal Lector talking about vegan cooking

Ted Kennedy talking about water safety

Pavorotti talking about hip hop

Pigs talking about self control (this one is for the pig obsessed Mike Cappelli)

Posted by: Phil at August 15, 2009 7:12 PM

Should have been Dick Cheney talking about GUN SAFETY
Sarah Palin talking about birth control?
Gingrich talking about adultery

Posted by: Manny at August 15, 2009 8:39 PM

I have noticed that you often function as Justin's attack dog. You declare a few of your prejudices, in agreement with whatever Attila The Objective Hun says and pass it off as level and reasoned comments, then you snip and snap at a disagreeing post and pat yourself on the back for a "reasoned debate". It is all very transparent, but opaque to you, poor fellow.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 15, 2009 8:46 PM

OldTimeLefty referring to others prejudices and snip and snap ant disagreeing posts is like … Attila the Hun talking about fine art. Poor fellow, pity to live with no intellectual integrity.

– Fairness police

Posted by: msteven at August 16, 2009 4:20 PM

See my previous comment.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 16, 2009 9:33 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.