Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ziggy's avatar

Speaking of the Rasmussen graf: My problem with crypto isn't the bros. Fools gonna be fooled; jerks gonna jerk. Instead, I'm angry with the press, that keeps treating the topic as novel and legit despite 15 years of solid evidence to the contrary.

Expand full comment
Graydon's avatar

That Finnish teacher study -- there's an immense structural difference between trying to produce optimality and trying to produce sufficiency.

If you go "best on the test", you're trying to produce optimality. Never mind if you have, or could have, written a test able to identify optimal capability. Structurally, systemically, you're trying to produce an optimal outcome.

If you filter the applicant pool by checking for sufficiency -- does the applicant have scores above the minimum for each of the following areas of concern? -- and then, if necessary, filling spaces by lot from a potentially too-large pool of applicants, you get (as the study found!) better results.

That happens whenever we can't know the optimal outcome; providing a more diverse pool of good-enough gives better odds of effective responses to both unknown and novel requirements. Since teaching careers are meant to be long, some requirements are unknown (or the test-for-the-optimum approach would work better!) and the future always contains novelty, sufficiency is obviously a better approach to selecting teachers than optimality.

It's important to watch out for someone trying to do optimality via notional sufficiency and adjusting the definition of sufficiency to that end; it's important to be sure the things you're checking as part of sufficiency are important to the job you want done. But in general, for long careers, sufficiency approaches will work better.

It's a pity people hate them so much.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts