Perfection is to life as comfort is to transatlantic economy class; literally impossible. Without perfection, there are always arguments to make, always fights to pick, and always complaints to be had. Though we consciously admit there is never a perfect solution, we still, time and time again, strive for the ridiculousness of perfection.
Let me elaborate with a discussion of the most polarizing topic today: politics. If you follow the news, then you most likely heard something to the effect of “Obamacare is going to be ‘repealed and replace’ because of the atrocities inherent in the law.” My personal opinion is that Obamacare is not perfect and the rollout of the program was pathetic at best; however, between 20-30 million people now have health insurance thanks to the flawed program (note: the 20 million estimate corresponds with conservative studies and 30 million corresponds with liberal studies). Thus, as I watch the media lambast the program with titles such as “abomination,” “disgrace,” or “debacle,” I see the faces of 20-30 million people who couldn’t pay for medical coverage 5 years ago.
Am I advocating for Obamacare? Not exactly; however, I am advocating against the drastic hyperbolic rhetoric that stems from both sides of the political aisle. Will repeal or replacement lead to a more perfect state? How much more perfect? What about the increase entropy associated with galvanizing forced change? It seems that Obamacare made a large step in the correct direction for the availability of healthcare to millions; therefore, rather than spend the resources to update the program and make it only a small percentage better (or worse), I feel that we should turn to other low hanging fruit. This opinion is predicated on the assumption that the change would not drastically improve the current state of healthcare, for if there are material differences that we deem significant enough to rationalize the level of uncertainty associated with change, then we should go ahead with the change. However, I cannot fathom such material differences are even remotely plausible.
Pivoting away from healthcare, I now wish to focus on education. Harvard Law School recently announced that it was going to accept applicants with the LSAT and GRE into its future law school classes. The rationale sighted by the Dean of Harvard Law school was twofold: first, to help limit the costs to students to sit for both the GRE and LSAT, and second, to ensure that law schools were receiving applicants that included backgrounds in STEM based subjects that are traditionally excluded from the law.
Since the announcement, I have seen and read countless articles dissecting the decision in the context of a standardized testing lens. The comments discussed the movement away from relying on standardized tests toward a more holistic view of education. Let me be clear, I am a proponent of standardized tests for the same reason I am a proponent of the Affordable Care Act: I believe that both are imperfect solutions to important problems inflicting our society. Focusing on standardized testing, we must have a way to compare people in regards to education. Such comparison is at the heart of our capitalistic world: through hard work, measured by standardized testing, people receive opportunity; however, without the tests, there would be no way of quantifying measures of success. Do the tests adequately cover all learning? No. Do the tests lead to faulty teaching standards via “teach to the test?” Probably. Thus, standardized testing is an imperfect solution, but solves some of the problems.
As an aspiring actuary and graduate of highly mathematical fields of study, I live in the belief of imperfection of processes. A statistics program with 70% accuracy is amazing! Thus, perfection has never been in my vocabulary. The problem of low amounts of healthcare and the need to differentiate between education forces tough and imperfect decisions to be made. Is the next generation of laws, legal reforms, and education admissions policies going to be drastically better than the current ones in place?
The question of deciding when to make a change should be very logical and mirror in economics the Pareto principle: if there is a better solution such that no one currently moves backward, but there is forward movement in other areas, then the solution should be accepted. However, we must also add a line to the Pareto Principle such that we account for the uncertainty and increased entropy associated with any form of change. Therefore, as we look at our current world chalk full of oversimplified and imperfect policies, we must decide if the change to those policies will benefit people without causing harm to others, all the while accounting for the increase in entropy from the inherent change.
thereisnopeak.com 