Volume 14 Number 2
AD REM . . .
Who's Number 1?
Linc. Fisch,
Lexington, Kentucky
A recent Ad Rem (V13N5) dealt with the fictitious Law of Averages as one of the rampant fallacies and fetishes about numbers. The pervasive concern with "Who's Number 1?" is another. Our society seems to cherish identifying the top rank in almost any endeavor.
Media gleefully report rankings—and sometimes concoct them where none exist. Rankings are assigned to athletic teams even before any games are played. It's almost obligatory for TV camera operators to goad school and stadium crowds into unseemly waving of fingers and mugging to the camera. It all may appeal to the public, as well as reflect life and values in our times. But negative factors also attend such preoccupations with rank.
Ranking can easily distort reality. For example, consider this set of data: (98.6, 98.5, 98.2, 98.1, 83.7, 71.6, 60.1). Ranking masks the small differences separating items 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as the major differences among items 4 through 7. Further, if only the first three ranks were granted rewards of some sort (as in Olympic events), rank 4 would receive nothing, despite scoring almost as well as rank 3. In horse race photo finishes, the difference between #1 and #2 may be as non-consequential as one horse's head bobbing up and the other's bobbing down. And most teachers have had ample experience with how converting numerical scores to A-through-E ranks masks true assessment and generates problems.
Some rankings are arbitrary composites of other "soft" indices and rankings, compounding the distortions into relatively useless information. Nevertheless, people commonly but inappropriately make decisions on the basis of ranks—for example, applying to colleges according to prestige or selecting movies to view according to last week's box office receipts.
Ranking operates hand in hand with overemphasis on competition. We are constantly told that thrills accompany victory and defeat brings agony. The positive values of cooperation and of playing a game well are falling into disregard. Winning by whatever means or costs often elevates strategies of winning above striving for excellence. Such emphases discourage participation more than they motivate high performance.
Ranking also invites deception. I can rank among the world's top ten experts in trigger films and also among the bottom ten, since there are only about a half-dozen of us. A state might choose to rejoice publicly in having jumped several ranks among the 50 states in expenditure per student even though its actual expenditure had fallen significantly. A television station could boast that it ranked third in its market, but if there were only three stations, it in fact would rank last. Other "spins" can juggle actual shares and market decline. It's such "cooking" of data that can generate poor reputations for advertising, accounting, politics, and public service.
Perhaps the most common use of rankings is for idle conversation and "bragging rights," verifying that hubris is still alive and well among the so-called seven deadly sins.
The lessons for conscientious teachers are several. Don't buy into the "Who's number 1?" obsession. Always ask, "Does it really matter?" Don't use numbers indiscriminately to make decisions. Use caution in citing references that incorporate ranks. Steer clear of ranking unless it's the only information available. And teach students to be similarly responsible and critical in their use of numbers.
Linc. Fisch, though retired and a "recovering academic," continues to share his experience in college teaching through this column. He can be contacted via lincfisch@insightbb.com.
Table of Contents | Issues | Credits |
NTLF.com Home
(ISSN 1057-2880) All rights reserved worldwide.
Web Weaving™ By InfoStreet, Inc.