In essence, I think that act of adding quantitative measures may lend a veil of “objectivity” to assessments of peoples work, which is intrinsically vulnerable to the success to the successful feedback loop.
Based on your comment, I had another look at the specific criteria of the rubric and agree that it seems possible that it could help to counteract something like the dynamic I outlined above, however, it would still have to be applied with care and recognizing the possibility of such dynamics.
The main problem I wanted to highlight is that something like this might obscure those dynamics and might be employed for political purposes such as justifying existing status hierarchies which might be simply circumstantial and not based on merit.
In essence, I think that act of adding quantitative measures may lend a veil of “objectivity” to assessments of peoples work, which is intrinsically vulnerable to the success to the successful feedback loop.
Based on your comment, I had another look at the specific criteria of the rubric and agree that it seems possible that it could help to counteract something like the dynamic I outlined above, however, it would still have to be applied with care and recognizing the possibility of such dynamics.
The main problem I wanted to highlight is that something like this might obscure those dynamics and might be employed for political purposes such as justifying existing status hierarchies which might be simply circumstantial and not based on merit.