Bizarre Choices, and the Justification of Them

This post is part 2 of my “poor decision making” series. It's based on my experiences the weekend of the 12th March, when I was on a trip with my school for its prefects.

I talked in part 1 about why I was unfairly the subject of negative bias because my parents were teachers. In this post, I will talk about why the decisions that were made were not the best ones. Had my reasoning in this post been listened to, I would not necessarily have gotten the position; however, a number of those that were chosen would most likely have not gotten the position either.

It's worth noting that the information I am basing this post off of is not directly from the teachers. It is second hand, from other students who say they have talked to teachers. So please, take this with a grain of salt.

I've heard two things about why the people were chosen. The first, is that they were people who don't do too many activities. This supposedly means that they will have more time to devote to their duties as head students. Now, it's interesting to point out that the student who found this out from the teacher actually mentioned to the teacher that they were not a good pick because they didn't do many activities (meaning that—for some of the students—they were not particularly active and well-known in the school community). To me, it sounds like this reasoning is the teachers' way of justifying what they already know to be a poor decision. Otherwise, did they ever think that maybe students who already do a lot of activities are very good at managing their time, and thus they are able to take on more duties? And perhaps students who don't already do a lot of activities aren't as good at managing time, so more duties may put too much pressure on them?

The other thing that I've heard was that they were chosen because on the trip, they played cards with others a lot. This supposedly means that they are already good at getting along with others. Now, on the one hand, I can see that there may be some logic in that. However; I know that myself, and others, didn't play cards because it is antisocial. To us, playing cards did not seem like a good way of demonstrating leadership qualities such as good team skills and communication with the whole group. Again, it seems like some very crafty justification for the decision the teachers made.

I do have one more complaint about the decision-making process. This time, it's not based on what I've heard second-hand from the teachers, but from what I've heard first-hand from one of the students who was picked. Specifically, the student who was picked as head boy. Now, on the one hand, he is actually an incredibly good pick for the job. He's very well known, quite outgoing, he speaks well in public—even if he doesn't enjoy it—but I actually disagree very strongly with him being picked. Why? Because he didn't really want the job. He had to be talked into accepting the position by the three head teachers.

What's the problem with that, you may ask? There are two problems: one which is simply about fairness and equal opportunity—something the head teachers had discussed with us earlier when telling us why they were choosing two boys and two girls, even though the ratio in our school is boys:girls 2:3 at best—and the other is to do with specifically choosing a person who is best for the job. As I said before, the person who was picked as head boy would have been the best person if he had wanted it. However, because he didn't really want it, and was instead talked in to taking the position, he won't be likely to do it as well as someone who really wanted the position and was working as hard as they could to show that they are good for the position (and to overcome negative bias that was already there against them).

The other reason, fairness, is very much related to the more logical decision of someone who wants the position being someone who will work harder at it. It simply doesn't seem fair to give the position to someone who doesn't want it—or who may only have agreed to accept the position for their CV—versus someone who really does want the position. It isn't fair that other people who wanted the position missed out to someone who just isn't that interested.

Part three in this series will talk about why I respect the teachers' decisions, and will therefore give the head students the respect that the position should warrant.

I do have one more complaint I could make about another person that was chosen, but because there's a chance that he will read this, I won't. Instead, why don't you leave me your thoughts on the matter? Do you think it's fair that a person who is better suited for the job, but doesn't really want it got the position? I would be very interested to see a counter-argument to this. Please feel free to leave a comment about anything you like, and remember, you can comment anonymously if you feel the need.

Negative Bias? The overcompensation for the appearance of bias

This post is part 1 of my “poor decision making” series. It's based on my experiences last weekend (12th–13th March) when I was on a trip with my school for its prefects.

My school recently introduced a system of prefects, and I was lucky enough to be chosen as one of them. The prefects who were chosen went on a training trip with the head teachers. One of the purposes of the trip was to pick from the team, four “senior” prefects: a head boy, deputy head boy, head girl, and a deputy head girl. It is the decision of who was picked for these four top positions that I am writing about.

This post is about the problem of what I am calling “negative bias”. Basically, negative bias is when someone overcompensates for something that may be construed as being bias towards someone, and it in fact becomes so that they are bias against them.

One real-world example where this could be easily seen is in sports. Let us take a hypothetical match between the Broncos and the Rabbitohs. Let's say the referee in this match supports the Rabbitohs. Because he wants to do his best to be neutral, he deliberately becomes stricter against the Rabbitohs then he normally would be. While this should dispel any of the complaints of bias, it is then very unfair for the team being discriminated against. It would most likely actually have been fairer if the referee had acted as he normally would, although in this situation people would perceive the ref as being bias towards his preferred team.

While this particular example is unlikely to come up—sports tend not to allow referees to work when a team they support is playing—I experienced a very similar situation this past weekend on my prefect trip. I was one of the students interested in being head boy or deputy head boy, and I think I would have been a very good candidate for either of these positions. However, my parents are teachers at the school, and so had I been picked (even if it was based purely on merit), it would have seemed to the parents of others (who, at international school, are often very quick to complain) that I had been picked because of my parents being teachers. This is the perceived bias talked about earlier. Instead, the teachers responsible for selecting head students will have ruled me out as a candidate for the job. Ruling me out is overcompensation for the appearance of bias.


Now, obviously, I can't say for certain that if I weren't a teacher's kid, I would have been selected. But I do strongly believe that had the situation been different, I would have been selected. I can say this based on who was actually picked, and other circumstances around their selection, which I will go into in the second post of this series.


So, what do you think? Have you been in any situations where you, or someone you know, have been the subject of negative bias? Do you think that there are any situations (perhaps even the ones I mentioned), where negative bias can be justified? Let me know in a comment below. If you're a student at the school, I encourage you to consider posting anonymously if you're talking specifically about the people who were chosen.