A ranking is only as useful as the context around it. Without that context, it can mislead as easily as it can inform. In a ranking, there is someone at the head and someone at the tail. But we need more information — because it is not the same to be second in a group of two as in a group of a thousand. Nor is it so bad to be in tenth position if the other nine have the same score and the only differentiating criterion is alphabetical order. And being at the tail can actually be better in a ranking about something negative — such as the most dangerous places to live by killings per capita, where the head is where the most killings occur.
That last example also raises the concept of per capita — which matters enormously. It is not the same to have a few universities in the top ten as to have all your universities in the top hundred. Similarly, having the wealthiest individuals in the world whilst also being the country with the most people living in poverty is not something to celebrate. It would be far better to have all citizens living well than to have a few living extraordinarily well.
Being at the head or the tail can be good or bad — it is relative, and depends on multiple variables. This is exactly the kind of analytical thinking we must include in mandatory education.

No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario