Equity, as it applies here, is where everyone gets what they need to succeed, even though what one person gets will be different than what another receives. Equality, therefore, is everyone having the same amount of whatever it is that will help them make it.
EQUITY
In the case of education, say, students that come from poverty or some other disadvantage might need and get more financial backing in order to be educated properly because they need to catch up. Students from a more middle to upper class background would not need as much, presumably, because they've been able to tap into more resources due to their wealthier status.
EQUALITY
In the same scenario, all students would have the same amount of funding, regardless of their economic status or whatever other factors that might be involved. So, whatever disadvantages that a student had going in would not necessarily be addressed or remedied, because the funds available would only address the needs going forward.
WHAT'S BEST?
I believe that this isn't a question that is so easily answered. If we look solely at someone's need, and assign whatever level of care, funding, opportunities, etc., that might entail to accomplish this, we either take away from those who have more to give to those who have less, or we distribute the existing resources based on whatever parameters are in place to determine need.
The question then begets more questions. If we go with equity over equality, who determines what the parameters are? What set of requirements will be allowed and then followed? How will they be policed and enforced? What happens if different people are in charge of it? Is it possible that the requirements will change with them, if not abolished all together?
I think the easy answer for many would be to say those who have less deserve more in order to have a decent chance of getting somewhere. In a voluntary system where everyone involved is more than willing to have that happen and do without as much if they have more to begin with, great. That in and of itself will be hard to maintain, but at least people are willing to try it for the sake of bettering others.
Unfortunately, what normally happens is, some form of government, or governing body with regulatory authority is created, the rules are drafted, and then whoever is in the position to make decisions uses their own belief system and abilities to justify allocations. In some cases, because of this, it would be possible to reverse the outcomes—those with more to start end up with less instead of equal or more.
It's also possible, that for all the resources that are given to an individual, they are unable to make the most of it. They end up no better off in the end than they were at the beginning, and it's possible that they actually are worse off afterward.
That's because there really aren't any guarantees to equal outcomes, no matter how much we would like that to be. Some will rise to the top regardless of their starting circumstances, and others will not, even with all the help in the world.
EQUITY AND EQUALITY
Equity, as it applies here, is where everyone gets what they need to succeed, even though what one person gets will be different than what another receives. Equality, therefore, is everyone having the same amount of whatever it is that will help them make it.
EQUITY
In the case of education, say, students that come from poverty or some other disadvantage might need and get more financial backing in order to be educated properly because they need to catch up. Students from a more middle to upper class background would not need as much, presumably, because they've been able to tap into more resources due to their wealthier status.
EQUALITY
In the same scenario, all students would have the same amount of funding, regardless of their economic status or whatever other factors that might be involved. So, whatever disadvantages that a student had going in would not necessarily be addressed or remedied, because the funds available would only address the needs going forward.
WHAT'S BEST?
I believe that this isn't a question that is so easily answered. If we look solely at someone's need, and assign whatever level of care, funding, opportunities, etc., that might entail to accomplish this, we either take away from those who have more to give to those who have less, or we distribute the existing resources based on whatever parameters are in place to determine need.
The question then begets more questions. If we go with equity over equality, who determines what the parameters are? What set of requirements will be allowed and then followed? How will they be policed and enforced? What happens if different people are in charge of it? Is it possible that the requirements will change with them, if not abolished all together?
I think the easy answer for many would be to say those who have less deserve more in order to have a decent chance of getting somewhere. In a voluntary system where everyone involved is more than willing to have that happen and do without as much if they have more to begin with, great. That in and of itself will be hard to maintain, but at least people are willing to try it for the sake of bettering others.
Unfortunately, what normally happens is, some form of government, or governing body with regulatory authority is created, the rules are drafted, and then whoever is in the position to make decisions uses their own belief system and abilities to justify allocations. In some cases, because of this, it would be possible to reverse the outcomes—those with more to start end up with less instead of equal or more.
It's also possible, that for all the resources that are given to an individual, they are unable to make the most of it. They end up no better off in the end than they were at the beginning, and it's possible that they actually are worse off afterward.
That's because there really aren't any guarantees to equal outcomes, no matter how much we would like that to be. Some will rise to the top regardless of their starting circumstances, and others will not, even with all the help in the world.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit