As I wrote recently, I applied for admission to a professional honor society. My application was not accepted. Why? I needed "better metrics" to support my achievements.
No doubt, I could have been more precise in determining my impact. Affirming you have a "significant" impact does quite ring as loudly as a numerical increase. I wouldn't quarrel with this feedback.
Yet I have a solid repository of metrics related to many parts of my professional life. I can present with precision my effectiveness as an instructor. I can show the significant impact I had on my clients' condition. And in their own words no less!
This data proved insufficient in this instance. The experience leaves me wondering about many things. The most significant is which metrics matter the most.
I've observed that there's no consistent correlation between my results and employment status. That is, I've done well and lost clients regardless.
Consider one example. At one full-time job I could do no wrong. I was deemed indispensable and given a large raise. Several months later, I was "too expensive." My position was eliminated.
So I'm skeptical about metrics in a practical sense. All that matters seems to be continued, gainful employment. Sure, I'll do my best and strive to produce the best results I can. But if I don't work, I don't earn money. And that's a problem.
In short, employability or hireability seems to me to be the only metric that really matters. So much for others' admission requirements for selective (or even semi-selective) groups. They can have them. I'll be busy working.