Affirmative Action (and Unions) --bitter

[Aquatic]

Ok. So I'm a flaming liberal. I am donating my entire professional life to saving as much of the environment as I can. And boy do I hate racists. I hate companies like Walmart that don't allow unions too.

But now I'm in the real world. And I need a job. Two problems:

1. It seems everyone in my field, and/or the northeast, hates white men. If a black guy, another minority, or woman applies to the same job I do, and is slightly less qualified or just as qualified...I have NO CHANCE IN HELL. Most companies and all agencies I've seen actively discriminate against me, proudly trumpeting they are affirmative action (yet "equal" opportunity, go figure that out.)

Fuck that. That's racist. And insulting to minorities. And me. What the fuck. Can someone give me one good reason for affirmative action to exist in the 21st century? I thought reconstruction ended over a century ago. Fuck that.

2. People at state agencies in RI that already work in the agency and are in The Union MUST be picked for a position if they want it, even IF an outsider is MORE qualified. What the fuck!


Yeah, I'm bitter. We need more of a meritocracy. Seriously...how could someone defend affirmative action and yet condemn racism? Those damn liberals.

[trailmaster308]

What type of job are you applying for? What are your qualifications? Where have you applied?

[rufusswan]

Aquatic,

You are simply tasting the fruits of Democratic legislaltion. The shoe looks good in the store window but hurts your feet, don't it? Enjoy the walk, a mile is really not that far to go.

As someone who (born in '50) and raised here on the 'Buckle of the Bible Belt' and attended college starting in 1969, I certainly had a front row seat at years worth of discussions on the 'race' topic, and had lots of real experience to draw from. Even in the 60's we had seperate doors for coloureds, Rosa Parks was as yet unknown, and white supremist politicos such as Wallace were physically attempting to keep blacks from entering institutes of 'higher education'. Actually had to call up the national guard to get'em in school! Man we had good TV in them days!

REconstuction may have ended, but the CONSTRUCTION of a society that was actually 'color blind' had yet to be finished. At that time, it hadn't really started. By the same token, if you think that blacks at that time had any where near an "equal opportunity" to get into already crowded schools, you would be very mistaken. You had to have very good grades, and if you were forced to attend a 'podunk' school you were lucky to attend higher education. I don't know what you would have needed if your were black, and attended a podunk school.

Now, to the credit of the American people, we had stopped lynching niggers in public by then, but if you think they had any where near the same chance as I to attend college, well....... Do you feel the shoe pinching the feet??

Yes, there is an anti-white, racist feel to affirmative action [and it's quotas], which was an attempt to legislate society's 'morals' and to force some equality for college admission, or at the least, let SOME BLACK PEOPLE ATTEND COLLEGE.

Actually, AA is a bad but 'better than nothing' attempt at raising our collective awareness. My personall objection with that attempt at 'reparation' was that it did not have in the legislation a stated end game. OK, I said, let's make sure we 'make room' for all minorities, but when can we finish? When can we say we have a truly free, meritocracy? .....

So, here we are, some decades later, and the flaming liberal says the shoe doesn't fit? that the feet hurt ??

Paz

[Northgate]

This is the perfect thread for Trumptman.

[hardeeharhar]

Affirmative action as it were should have changed focus as it became clear the major hurtles to mobility in the US are economic, that said Afirmative action is only really applicable to schools.

What you are complaining about is Equal opportunity, which is another subject altogether, and one that I feel can be easily fixed by distributing positions based upon applicant pool -- that is, if there are thirteen women out of 100 people applying for a position, then 13% of those hired should be women (all other things being equal).

But this is all cold comfort to someone who thinks they have been wronged by the system (perhaps the first time in their life?)...

[midwinter]

Damned black people and women takin' our jobs! ;)

You think EOE is bad? Wait until you have to deal with a powerful good ol' boy system.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter
You think EOE is bad? Wait until you have to deal with a powerful good ol' boy system.

Seriously, yo!

[spindler]

Here's something really, really dumb about using affirmative action to let underqualified people into colleges. You are simply hurting people by putting them with better students.

For example, I went to the U. of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school. There's only like a 50% retention rate there among blacks. Now, the average Penn student has 1360 SATs and comes in 4th or 5th in their high school class.

Now, what's going to happen, when you put black people, or any other people, who got 1150 on their SATs and came in 25th in their class among way better students? It is unlikely they will be able to compete, which will make them feel worse. They certainly won't be able to compete in the toughest things like engineering, which will force them into easier subjects, like psychology or history.

I personally got a 1460 on my SAT and came in 7th in an OK high school. What would have happened to me if I went to a better school than I deserved? If I went to Harvard or MIT with all the Valedictorians, I would have gotten mauled. I would have gotten Cs and had to purposely avoid taking the harder subjects.

It's like a swim meet,with the slow, medium, and fast heats. You want to be among people of about your own caliber, so you can push yourself ahead of the pack. If you put the slow guy in the fast heat, he's just going to get continually discouraged.

[midwinter]

Jesus fucking Christ

[hardeeharhar]

Sorry, but the University of Pennsylvania has problems of its own -- it is equally likely that students are leaving because they are getting a crappy education as the school is 'hard'.

Regardless, the SAT is a poor predictor of later college performance (sure, maybe in the first year it does ok, but it isn't useful for later years). That means that you can overcome poor high school education within a year or two of college. Affirmative action works best when comparisons are made on a local level (essentially breaking things down to economics anyway), that means that a student who gets an 1100 on the SAT where the average was an 800 may in fact be a better performer than a student who gets a 1450 where the average is 1320. Yet blind comparisons suggest that 1450 should be better than 1100.

College isn't a competition. I think that most students who have excelled above their local average in high school can easily learn the most advanced college level material being taught.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter
Jesus fucking Christ

(Indeed)

[spindler]

Could you elaborate?

[spindler]

"College isn't a competition. I think that most students who have excelled above their local average in high school can easily learn the most advanced college level material being taught."

College MOST CERTAINLY IS a competition. Better schools avoid teaching the more basic things. Better schools have much tougher tests because everyone is very smart and knows the material. The difference between A's and C's in a tough school is basically nitpicking.

I have no doubt that the B's I got at Penn, would definitely have been A's if I went to an average state school.

I've seen the curriculum for classes at average schools that my friends went to. In computer science at Penn, it's all theory and all concepts. You don't spend half your time learning Windows. You learn nothing but background, because that is what is hard to learn on your own. If we spent half our time in Operating Systems Concepts learning the details of how Windows works we would have learned only half as much really difficult stuff.

There were almost no bogus courses at Penn. There were no forestry or physical education or easy classes. It was all hard. They did have a slightly easier programming class for non-computer science engineers, but I bet it was still harder than what computer science majors took at easier colleges.

[spindler]

I might agree somewhat about what Hardeeharhar said about the SATs. If you are in school district that doesn't purposely prepare you for them, you obviously won't be able to compete with someone who has spent hundreds of hours doing the math problems and analogies (if they still have them now).

[spindler]

Oh, and by the way, 50% of blacks graduate form Penn, but it's like 90% of whites who graduate after starting. So, you certainly can't say it's "the crappy education", which is laughable anyway.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler


There were almost no bogus courses at Penn. There were no forestry or physical education or easy classes. It was all hard. They did have a slightly easier programming class for non-computer science engineers, but I bet it was still harder than what computer science majors took at easier colleges.

First. College is not a competition as you are capable of learning on your own.

Second, since you went to Penn, I am not surprised you failed to realize this.

Third, perhaps this should have been point two. *Bullshit*. I am a grad student at the Penn Medical School, and I have to say after hearing far far more discussions about whether courses are easy As than whether the course topics are interesting coming from the undergrads on Spruce street, I will never be convinced that penn's undergrad curriculum comes close to being rigorous.

Sure, I have met incredibly smart undergrads, but for the most part, they are vacuous, especially given the education credibility penn asserts...

I am not trying to insult you, I rarely interact with the CS side of the campus, but Penn is not that much better than state school (especially considering the cost difference)...

[spindler]

"College isn't a competition. I think that most students who have excelled above their local average in high school can easily learn the most advanced college level material being taught."

I'm going to have to disagree with that. There is a difference between people who are a bit above the local average, and people who came in the top 10 of their high school. There is a huge difference.

For example, most people at Penn, even if they were English majors, could make it through a couple of Calculus courses if required. Everyone is really bright at a top school. People who are "just" business major can compete with me in calculus or a programming course. Whereas at an average school, the people who get degrees in advertising or merchandising or stuff like that could simply not handle calculus or a serious economics course. There is no way on earth you can say for sure that a person who did OK in in OK high school is likely to graduate from a top school. Some people eek out their college degrees with help from sociology and linguistics courses.

And you used the words "most advanced college level material". Well I myself would not have been able to handle upper level physics or math classes or organic chemistry. Now that I have some real problem solving skills, I could, but not back then. There's no way in hell the average people in my mediocre high school would be able to handle organic chemistry at Penn.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
Oh, and by the way, 50% of blacks graduate form Penn, but it's like 90% of whites who graduate after starting. So, you certainly can't say it's "the crappy education", which is laughable anyway.

What percentage of the undergrads are black?

39.2% Minority in the most recently accepted class -- knowing the campus, that means mostly asian.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"College isn't a competition. I think that most students who have excelled above their local average in high school can easily learn the most advanced college level material being taught."

I'm going to have to disagree with that. There is a difference between people who are a bit above the local average, and people who came in the top 10 of their high school. There is a huge difference.

For example, most people at Penn, even if they were English majors, could make it through a couple of Calculus courses if required. Everyone is really bright at a top school. People who are "just" business major can compete with me in calculus or a programming course. Whereas at an average school, the people who get degrees in advertising or merchandising or stuff like that could simply not handle calculus or a serious economics course.

And you used the words "most advanced college level material". Well I myself would not have been able to handle upper level physics or math classes or organic chemistry. Now that I have some real problem solving skills, I could, but not back then.

I am truly sorry, then. You last line is critical -- a good education gives one the ability to solve problems, not think in limited fields. I will stand by my statement until someone shows me an above average adult who cannot learn calculus...

[spindler]

Show you a person who can't handle calculus? That's easy, I had a part time job at a retail store and there was a guy there who couldn't get his degree in either forestry or physical education or something, simply because he could not pass calculus. He took it a couple of times but just couldn't get it. He was a relatively bright guy. And also, at the same store, when I was a flaming liberal myself, I was arguing with a conservative kid who was finishing his computer science degree.

We were talking about why people were poor, and I asked him "Did you have to actually earn your logical skills? Did you have to work for ten years in a coal mine before you were able to be better at computers than the average person?". My point was that for a lot of people earning a college degree is much easier and more pleasant than working all day long at McDonald's. And he said that he had to take calculus three times to pass it.

Some people, even people who are very sharp in other ways, just are really bad at pure math or computer skills.

Actually I thought of another one. My sister, who now has a master's degree in Urban Planning, started out as a nurse, and she had to retake chemistry or biology or one of them. Obviously a lot of people want to be nurses since the pay is good and the two hardcore science classes are usually the difficult ones.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by spindler
College MOST CERTAINLY IS a competition.

It is, but most likely not in the ways people tend to think it is. You'd be amazed at how quickly a school can go from open-enrollment community-college-ish to fairly selective (http://www.ramapo.edu/).

Better schools avoid teaching the more basic things.

Not really, unless by "basic" you mean that Harvard doesn't have a cosmetology school. Colleges teach the basics, really. Sure, once you get into your major, you'll get into some depth, but not all that much. College students simply don't have time to do much in any real depth.

Better schools have much tougher tests because everyone is very smart and knows the material.

So an Algebra test at Harvard is harder than an Algebra test at Connecticut community college? Organic chemistry or a Victorian lit survey are harder at Harvard than they are at Kansas State? Do you have anything other than your gut instinct to support such a claim?

The difference between A's and C's in a tough school is basically nitpicking.

I'm not sure I understand, but I don't like grades, anyway, so OK. And considering how horribly inflated most university grades are these days, they don't really mean anything anymore.

I have no doubt that the B's I got at Penn, would definitely have been A's if I went to an average state school.

Whatever makes you feel better about those Bs.

I've seen the curriculum for classes at average schools that my friends went to. In computer science at Penn, it's all theory and all concepts. You don't spend half your time learning Windows. You learn nothing but background, because that is what is hard to learn on your own. If we spent half our time in Operating Systems Concepts learning the details of how Windows works we would have learned only half as much really difficult stuff.

Different schools have different curricula, different political, theoretical and pedagogical orientations and different goals for their students.

There were almost no bogus courses at Penn.

What's a "bogus" course? One you think is stupid?

There were no forestry or physical education or easy classes.

OK. Penn is a perfect university within a dome where all the classes are perfect and just challenging enough and all the kids are top of their classes and wouldn't dare take a slacker course like Landscaping (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/larp.html) or major in "Health and Society" (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/hsoc.html) or take an Intro to film (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/film.html) class or take a class that's pretty damned close to forestry (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/envs.html) but not called that.

It was all hard. They did have a slightly easier programming class for non-computer science engineers, but I bet it was still harder than what computer science majors took at easier colleges. [/B]

I'll bet you do bet it was harder, because "In computer science at Penn, it's all theory and all concepts. You don't spend half your time learning Windows." They don't offer any slacker classes that might be a little easy, like a CS 100 course (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/cse.html) that would spend time on "basic technical exposure to computers and the World Wide Web."

[spindler]

"What percentage of the undergrads are black?

39.2% Minority in the most recently accepted class -- knowing the campus, that means mostly asian."



I don't see why this is relevant. I think you are misunderstanding the statistic I quoted. Of all blacks who enter Penn in the first year, about 50% of them make it to graduatation. Of all whites, it's above 95%. I don't see how the breakdown among the population would have anything to do with what I am saying.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"What percentage of the undergrads are black?

39.2% Minority in the most recently accepted class -- knowing the campus, that means mostly asian."



I don't see why this is relevant. I think you are misunderstanding the statistic I quoted. Of all blacks who enter Penn in the first year, about 50% of them make it to graduatation. Of all whites, it's above 95%. I don't see how the breakdown among the population would have anything to do with what I am saying.

Because if there are two black students, and one of them leaves... you get the drift or maybe you don't...

Penn's campus is outwardly hostile to minorities -- an unfortunate truth owing to its existence in a slowly changing ghetto. All of the poor people around penn are black. That cannot possibly be easy for a black student, particularly since it is clear as day on campus that blacks are eyed especially with suspicion...

[spindler]

"So an Algebra test at Harvard is harder than an Algebra test at Connecticut community college? Organic chemistry or a Victorian lit survey are harder at Harvard than they are at Kansas State? Do you have anything other than your gut instinct to support such a claim?"

Are you kidding me? I don't have time to look it up now. But I have a friend who went to community college and he took what he called "College Algebra, 1 and 2". To me, the terms College and Algebra are a contradiction in terms. The most basic math class at Penn in the Math department is Calculus.

When he said Algebra, I asked him about it and he was talking about Algebra and Trigonometry, meaning high schools subjects. I know you might now be thinking of Linear Algebra, the study of multidimensional spaces or of Analytical Algebra, the hardcore stuff that Niels Abel invented, but this was not mathematician's algebra. This was the stuff I learned in the 8th and 10th grades.

[spindler]

"Penn's campus is outwardly hostile to minorities -- an unfortunate truth owing to its existence in a slowly changing ghetto. All of the poor people around penn are black. That cannot possibly be easy for a black student, particularly since it is clear as day on campus that blacks are eyed especially with suspicion..."

While it's true that Penn is probably a negative for blacks, is someone really going to leave a prestigious university and a prestigious degree for their resume just because Penn doesn't have good race relations?

And who does have great race relations? Cornell has the same thing I've heard. I don't think blacks are really going to leave a school so they can be in another to make friends with whites. There's not that many places in America that are all that integrated. So even if Penn isn't that great, what's the difference, since there isn't anything that's definitely and immediately better.

Wherever people go to college, it is unlikely that black men are going to date white women in high numbers. It's even more unlikely black women are going to date white men. Maybe at other campuses there would be more friendships between blacks and whites. Even here in Atlanta, with the best race relations in the entire country, blacks hang out together and whites hang out together.

But all in all, that certainly isn't a valid reason for people to leave an Ivy League school, since there isn't anything much better anyway.

[hardeeharhar]

You are assuming that the blacks who leave penn don't go to harvard.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"So an Algebra test at Harvard is harder than an Algebra test at Connecticut community college? Organic chemistry or a Victorian lit survey are harder at Harvard than they are at Kansas State? Do you have anything other than your gut instinct to support such a claim?"

Are you kidding me? I don't have time to look it up now. But I have a friend who went to community college and he took what he called "College Algebra, 1 and 2". To me, the terms College and Algebra are a contradiction in terms. The most basic math class at Penn in the Math department is Calculus.

When he said Algebra, I asked him about it and he was talking about Algebra and Trigonometry, meaning high schools subjects. I know you might now be thinking of Linear Algebra, the study of multidimensional spaces or of Analytical Algebra, the hardcore stuff that Niels Abel invented, but this was not mathematician's algebra. This was the stuff I learned in the 8th and 10th grades.

No but penn does offer:

L/R 170. Ideas in Mathematics. (C) Gen Req IV: May be counted towards the General Requirement in Formal Reasoning & Analysis. Staff. May also be counted toward the General Requirement in Natural Science & Mathematics.
Topics from among the following: logic, sets, calculus, probability, history and philosophy of mathematics, game theory, geometry, and their relevance to contemporary science and society.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"Penn's campus is outwardly hostile to minorities -- an unfortunate truth owing to its existence in a slowly changing ghetto. All of the poor people around penn are black. That cannot possibly be easy for a black student, particularly since it is clear as day on campus that blacks are eyed especially with suspicion..."

While it's true that Penn is probably a negative for blacks, is someone really going to leave a prestigious university and a prestigious degree for their resume just because Penn doesn't have good race relations?

And who does have great race relations? Cornell has the same thing I've heard. I don't think blacks are really going to leave a school so they can be in another to make friends with whites. There's not that many places in America that are all that integrated. So even if Penn isn't that great, what's the difference, since there isn't anything that's definitely and immediately better.

Wherever people go to college, it is unlikely that black men are going to date white women in high numbers. It's even more unlikely black women are going to date white men. Maybe at other campuses there would be more friendships between blacks and whites. Even here in Atlanta, with the best race relations in the entire country, blacks hang out together and whites hang out together.

But all in all, that certainly isn't a valid reason for people to leave an Ivy League school, since there isn't anything much better anyway.

This is complete bullshit.

It is an unfortunate truth that people self-segregate, but there is self-segregation and there is outward hostility. You see both at penn.

[spindler]

"You are assuming that the blacks who leave penn don't go to harvard."

OK, you do have solid point there. We would have to know if the 50% rate is specific to Penn, or applies to all top schools.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by spindler
Are you kidding me? I don't have time to look it up now. But I have a friend who went to community college and he took what he called "College Algebra, 1 and 2".

OK. Community colleges have a different mission and student body than Penn, and so they offer different courses. Does Penn have a lot of students who are coming back after 15 years on the job to get their associate's degree?

I have friends who went to Columbia, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Cal Berkeley, Penn, Pitt, Duquesne, NYU, Oxford, Cambridge and any of a broad range of schools you might drool over. I'm sure that if I asked them they could regale me with stories about classes they thought were a waste.

To me, the terms College and Algebra are a contradiction in terms. The most basic math class at Penn in the Math department is Calculus.

Actually, the most basic math class at Penn is Introduction to Calculus (http://www.upenn.edu/registrar/register/math.html), followed by Calculus in 3 parts. But Math 170 and 210 look fun.

When he said Algebra, I asked him about it and he was talking about Algebra and Trigonometry, meaning high schools subjects.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that a community college is not Penn. CCs do a lot of remediation.

I know you might now be thinking of Linear Algebra, the study of multidimensional spaces or of Analytical Algebra, the hardcore stuff that Niels Abel invented, but this was not mathematician's algebra. This was the stuff I learned in the 8th and 10th grades. [/B]

I'm not sure why you don't understand that a community college is not Penn. CCs do a lot of remediation.

To try and drag this back on topic, you seem to be upset that someone can go back to school and have a chance to learn things they didn't learn before.

I have to admit that this is an interesting discussion for me. I was just at a conference where I wound up on a team with faculty from Penn State and Vassar and we spent a good deal of time listening to students talk about us and then we spent a good deal of time talking about our students. The more faculty I encounter, the more I realize that we all have the same gripes as faculty about our students and their (lack of) abilities.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by spindler

While it's true that Penn is probably a negative for blacks, is someone really going to leave a prestigious university and a prestigious degree for their resume just because Penn doesn't have good race relations?

Yup.

[spindler]

"It is an unfortunate truth that people self-segregate, but there is self-segregation and there is outward hostility. You see both at penn."

Big whoop-dee-doo. Look, I know it's not that great when you are a black guy at Penn and people cross the street because they are playing statistics. I don't know what you mean exactly by "outright hostility". Honestly, blacks at Penn are pretty militant, so if things are somewhat uncomfortable, it is like a chicken and egg situation. I know it's not great, but you are going to leave a school for that?

Look, I didn't like the snotty Ivy league yuppies at Penn? I didn't feel very much at home. I would have rather been around down to earth people, but I didn't leave. Blacks can obviously make lots of friends among themselves. Leaving an Ivy league school because things aren't perfect is ridiculous.

Look, blacks have had real struggles before this. I've had real struggles in my life. I've suffered from schizophrenia, and I have basically no family. These are real problems. I sure as hell wouldn't leave a great education over some little thing like that. I sure as hell wouldn't leave Penn or Harvard for Okehonta State just because race relations weren't good. I'm not downplaying the problems there, but some problems are bearable and this obviously is one of them.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler

Some people, even people who are very sharp in other ways, just are really bad at pure math or computer skills.

Or they have ineffective professors and a lack of a support structure outside of the classroom for that material.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"It is an unfortunate truth that people self-segregate, but there is self-segregation and there is outward hostility. You see both at penn."

Big whoop-dee-doo. Look, I know it's not that great when you are a black guy at Penn and people cross the street because they are playing statistics. I don't know what you mean exactly by "outright hostility". Honestly, blacks at Penn are pretty militant, so if things are somewhat uncomfortable, it is like a chicken and egg situation. I know it's not great, but you are going to leave a school for that.

Look, I didn't like the snotty Ivy league yuppies at Penn. I would have rather been around down to earth people, but I didn't leave. Blacks can obviously make lots of friends among themselves. Leaving an Ivy league school because things aren't perfect is ridiculous.

Look, blacks have had real struggles before this. I've had real struggles in my life. I've suffered from schizophrenia, and I have basically no family. These are real problems. I sure as hell wouldn't leave a great education over some little thing like that. I sure as hell wouldn't leave Penn or Harvard for Okehonta State just because race relations weren't good. I'm not downplaying the problems there, but some problems are bearable and this obviously is one of them.

I have been attempting to argue that there isn't only one reason why blacks, in particular, would leave penn or any school for that matter.

Here is my theory: People leave schools because they sense a lack of a support network for them.

The 5% of white who leave penn are those 5% that couldn't find support amongst the penn community to stay.

The 50% of blacks (if that is the number) who leave are the 50% that couldn't find support amongst the penn community to stay.

[spindler]

"Or they have ineffective professors and a lack of a support structure outside of the classroom for that material."

What ineffective professors? At Penn, you can get free tutoring. There's some building on Locust Walk that's like an Office of something or other that you can get free tutoring. You can always find a study group at college. You can study with friends. Also, some people have more charisma than others. If you are a good looking girl you can basically get nerds to spend hours teaching you stuff. You can audit a class, meaning sit in on it for the lectures. So if calculus is hard for you, you can listen to the same course lecture by four different professors in four different semesters. You can also get recommendations from friends as to who the better teachers are.

[spindler]

"Here is my theory: People leave schools because they sense a lack of a support network for them.

The 5% of white who leave penn are those 5% that couldn't find support amongst the penn community to stay.

The 50% of blacks (if that is the number) who leave are the 50% that couldn't find support amongst the penn community to stay."

Is it simply impossible for you to believe that some people don't have the talent or the drive to just push through and get things done? I knew lots of lazy people that waited until the last minute to start studying, and I knew lots of ambitious immigrants who started doing the projects on the say they were assigned. Penn is hard. I remember thinking during my first semester that Penn was really, really hard. It was a real challenge, unlike high school.

There are plenty of nerds at Penn who have only one or two friends. I don't really see what "support network" you need to go to class, take notes, study the books, and pass the exams. I never studied with anyone else after leaving the dorms the first year.

I am going to have to start a thread on lack of ambition that I have been thinking about. It should be interesting to hear what everyone has to say.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
"Or they have ineffective professors and a lack of a support structure outside of the classroom for that material."

What ineffective professors? At Penn, you can get free tutoring. There's some building on Locust Walk that's like an Office of something or other that you can get free tutoring. You can always find a study group at college. You can study with friends. Also, some people have more charisma than others. If you are a good looking girl you can basically get nerds to spend hours teaching you stuff. You can audit a class, meaning sit in on it for the lectures. So if calculus is hard for you, you can listen to the same course lecture by four different professors in four different semesters. You can also get recommendations from friends as to who the better teachers are.

Not all tutors/professors are created equal.

Heh.

I am up waaay past my bed time... Good night.

[spindler]

Good night Hardeeharhar.

" I'm sure that if I asked them they could regale me with stories about classes they thought were a waste."

I really would doubt you could find too many easy courses at a top school The only class at Penn I took that was a waste of time was some linguistics course. History was a massive course that I had to drop. I took an English course that was good.

There was a Communications course that people called Monday Night At The Movies. Other than that, and maybe some sociology course, there were no easy ones. Believe me, coming from a mediocre high school, I was looking for them for my non-tech requirements.

[midwinter]

Sure. I'm just glad that you're the universally accepted arbiter of what is easy and what is hard; otherwise, this entire discussion might be anecdotal.

[spindler]

"Sure. I'm just glad that you're the universally accepted arbiter of what is easy and what is hard; otherwise, this entire discussion might be anecdotal."

Easy is when you can go to class, take some notes, just memorize the notes, and easily do well on test as long as you can repeat the notes you took. Hard is a class like Organic Chemistry where there are very difficult problems to solve and the person writing the test could arbitrarily make it as difficult as they wanted to.

If I gave a course in how to compute postage rates from any state to any state, that would be straightforward. That's what the linguistics courses I took were like. There were no concepts that were particularly interesting or difficult. It was basically like Basket Weaving, except somehow respected as an academic field.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Ok. So I'm a flaming liberal. I am donating my entire professional life to saving as much of the environment as I can. And boy do I hate racists. I hate companies like Walmart that don't allow unions too.

But now I'm in the real world. And I need a job. Two problems:

1. It seems everyone in my field, and/or the northeast, hates white men. If a black guy, another minority, or woman applies to the same job I do, and is slightly less qualified or just as qualified...I have NO CHANCE IN HELL.

How do you know this? This is a pretty serious charge.

Most companies and all agencies I've seen actively discriminate against me, proudly trumpeting they are affirmative action (yet "equal" opportunity, go figure that out.)

Again, how do you know this. I can understand your frustration, but it would be nice to hear your evidence, even if only anecdotal.

2. People at state agencies in RI that already work in the agency and are in The Union MUST be picked for a position if they want it, even IF an outsider is MORE qualified. What the fuck!

Dude, that is straight up the way most state systems work. It is very hard for me to wrap my mind around but if you can do it, it pays very well. One of my friends found a job that is, get this, waste water treatment (his certification) however it is the waste water of prisoners. The prisoners run the waste water plant and he supervises them. In addition this prison/work camp is near some forest so it is actually run in conjunction with the California Forestry Service and California Firefighters. The result, a waste water tech can be called out to back up fire fighters and gets paid at their rate and overtime. How does this make any sense? I have no idea.

All government jobs at this point are union. It is an intentionally created barrier to entry to raise wages. You take whatever tests are required and provide whatever certifications they want, and as you've noticed it shrinks the pool of who can even attempt to apply for the job. Sucks on the outside, but is good for those on the inside. It is up to you if you want to play that game or not.

Nick

[spindler]

ShawnJ wrote:

"Go away, snob."

Do you take any pride in the things that you write? Do you take any pride in the idea of being a thinking person rather than someone who just pulls his opinions out of his butt?

If so, then when confronted with conclusions you don't like, why would you simply throw some vague insult at me?

This puts you at the level of conservatives who just call other people commies or anti-American when they don't like the other person's conclusion.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Aquatic
1. It seems everyone in my field, and/or the northeast, hates white men. If a black guy, another minority, or woman applies to the same job I do, and is slightly less qualified or just as qualified...I have NO CHANCE IN HELL. Most companies and all agencies I've seen actively discriminate against me, proudly trumpeting they are affirmative action (yet "equal" opportunity, go figure that out.) That sucks, I feel for you. I've got a story too:

I applied for a job, and after many dozens of applicants were screened, me and three other candidates were interviewed. The selection committee, made up of other professionals in the same area as me, unanimously voted for me. Their boss, an administrator who was not a professional in my field, sent them an email that said "no you can't offer him the job, because he's male and we want you to hire a female."

Of course I never would have known any of that, and I would have just thought I didn't get the job because I wasn't as good a candidate as someone else, but someone on the search committee told me what happened. It turns out I got a better job anyway, and, despite recommendations that I should sue, I didn't. But I thought and I still think that was illegal. Affirmative action is not supposed to involve such blatant quotas.

And the white woman who got the job was in no way disadvantaged compared to me. Most of the evidence I've seen suggests that women have an advantage over men in school. And the search committee was half female and the chair was female. :grumble:

[spindler]

"You assume your snobbery is worth addressing with that level of patience..."

When you hear something you don't like, you just classify me as a snob, just like when certain people hear something they don't like they just classify me as anti-American.

Seriously, intelligent people don't need to just drop insults. I think many people who are against gay marriage are simply bigots, but I don't just drop "bigot" into a one line post.

People like Rush Limbaugh can get away with what they say because they say it loud and fast enough to twist anything around. Liberals, who's beliefs aren't simply based on selfishness, should be able to calmly argue without WANTING to drop insult like that. Insults favor the guy who really has nothing to say.

[Splinemodel]

Spindler: kudos to sticking up for yourself. I know how you must feel.

EOE and Affirmative Action are difficult subjects, because there's empirical evidence that certain ethnic groups (strictly speaking, I don't think whites are a majority anymore) tend to cluster onto different points on the socio-economic ladder. I'm not so much against Affirmative Action in education, and its possible that it has had something to do with the rise of the black middle class. But it's absolutely asinine when a privleged black youth is prefered over a privileged white or asian youth during the college admissions process.

As for the job market, for higher profile jobs there's usually some expectation of the applicant's education and experience, and active enforcement of EOE is just stupid. The point of EOE was to prevent the kinds of travesties that it has been bastardized to support.

I blame our corrupt and unbalanced legal system. The worst realization of all of it is that since all the lawmakers are rotten lawyers and judges, it won't ever fix itself.

[BRussell]

Anyone who can make the following statement deserves to be ridiculed:Originally posted by spindler
If I gave a course in how to compute postage rates from any state to any state, that would be straightforward. That's what the linguistics courses I took were like. There were no concepts that were particularly interesting or difficult. It was basically like Basket Weaving, except somehow respected as an academic field. Fields don't exist to impress college students. They exist to study important topics, and the courses exist to convey that field to others. If you can claim that the study of Human Language is so inferior to the study of Chemistry that it's like basket weaving or postal rates, and still take yourself seriously, then I truly admire your self-deception abilities.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
Anyone who can make the following statement deserves to be ridiculed: Fields don't exist to impress college students. They exist to study important topics, and the courses exist to convey that field to others. If you can claim that the study of Human Language is so inferior to the study of Chemistry that it's like basket weaving or postal rates, and still take yourself seriously, then I truly admire your self-deception abilities.

Or psychology! What a crock! ;)

[spindler]

"Stop filibustering with that nonsense."

What you refer to as "nonsense" is a core value I've held since I was young enough to remember. Insulting someone is a last recourse in an argument. If you don't agree with that , then it's your loss of intellectual development. Anyone can just proclaim the other guy a bigot, a snob, a hippie, anti-American, etc. and walk away from the argument.

So feel free to insult anyone you don't agree with. Just pigeonhole them into some label like "snob" if you don't agree with them. People can only think to the level of depth they allow themselves to. If you are satisfied with insults, its your loss. It's just another one of those principles that I have, that most Rush Limbaugh conservatives, and even lot of liberals don't seem to believe in anymore.

By the way, how come a guy like BRussell disagrees with me here and there, but feels no need to throw in insults? I think it's time to raise your personal standards. The problem is not with me, it's with you.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
Or psychology! What a crock! ;) :mad: :D

[spindler]

"Fields don't exist to impress college students. They exist to study important topics, and the courses exist to convey that field to others."

Well, I agree with you mostly, but while Linguistics may be important and difficult at the higher level courses, the entry level course I took was simply so easy that it was almost common sense. College courses have to be at least a bit of a struggle to expand your range of thinking. I just didn't feel one ounce smarter after I took that course, which I did with almost every other course.

I think a course on traveling to other countries and exploring other cultures might be a nice thing to learn, but if the material is so easy and there are no difficult concepts to learn, it's not a very good use of resources. Bringing out someone else's cultures food and furniture might make you a little more aware, but I just don't think it's going to increase your problem solving skills at all.

It's kinda like majoring in Advertising. If it's mostly common sense, I don't see it as the best way to use your college experience. The things I learned in Introduction To Linguistics had some meaning when you put them together all in aggregate, but each individual thing I could have almost figured out myself, given multiple choices to choose from.

[spindler]

ShawnJ wrote:

"Midwinter has several reasoned responses in this thread which you have conveniently ignored."

See, all that insulting has numbed you to common sense. I've posted about 7 different responses in a couple of hours. I don't have time to answer every frickin' response, and I did argue against one of Midwinter's responses.

I will say that I did notice a couple of easier courses Midwinter pointed out. But they still involved game theory, probabilities, etc., so I'd have to see how easy they were myself from the test materials.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Anyone who can make the following statement deserves to be ridiculed: Fields don't exist to impress college students. They exist to study important topics, and the courses exist to convey that field to others. If you can claim that the study of Human Language is so inferior to the study of Chemistry that it's like basket weaving or postal rates, and still take yourself seriously, then I truly admire your self-deception abilities.

Come now BRussell, I don't desire to debase myself or others with regard to their fields of study but the concept of hard and soft sciences is pretty well known and understood, ridiculing aside. Additionally most people will admit that liberal studies does not require as rigorous a study schedule as say, engineering.

Nick

[Sondjata]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Ok. So I'm a flaming liberal. I am donating my entire professional life to saving as much of the environment as I can. And boy do I hate racists. I hate companies like Walmart that don't allow unions too.

But now I'm in the real world. And I need a job. Two problems:

1. It seems everyone in my field, and/or the northeast, hates white men. If a black guy, another minority, or woman applies to the same job I do, and is slightly less qualified or just as qualified...I have NO CHANCE IN HELL. Most companies and all agencies I've seen actively discriminate against me, proudly trumpeting they are affirmative action (yet "equal" opportunity, go figure that out.)

Fuck that. That's racist. And insulting to minorities. And me. What the fuck. Can someone give me one good reason for affirmative action to exist in the 21st century? I thought reconstruction ended over a century ago. Fuck that.

2. People at state agencies in RI that already work in the agency and are in The Union MUST be picked for a position if they want it, even IF an outsider is MORE qualified. What the fuck!


Yeah, I'm bitter. We need more of a meritocracy. Seriously...how could someone defend affirmative action and yet condemn racism? Those damn liberals.

1) Just so I can understand this: As a 'flaming liberal" you somehow missed all the reports out there on how equally qualified black job applicants are generally 2 times less likely to recieve a call for an interview based on name alone?

You somehow missed the report on how white's with criminal records are more likely to be called back for an interview than a black male with no criminal record?

Somehow you missed all that during your "flaming liberal" days.

Yah. OK.

And you base your accessment of "qualified" based on what exactly? You saw the resume? You worked with the "competition" before? Or is the "flaming liberal" assuming that black "affirmative Action" cases are all "less qualified" than the white males applying?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
But it's absolutely asinine when a privleged black youth is prefered over a privileged white or asian youth during the college admissions process.

I tend to agree, and I think lots of folks these days do agree that AA should be based on economics, not race.

But the objections to Spindler's comments, as you no doubt know if you read the thread, are with the paternalism inherent in his initial posts. I don't particularly mind elitism, but the paternalism of a statement like this


Now, what's going to happen, when you put black people, or any other people, who got 1150 on their SATs and came in 25th in their class among way better students? It is unlikely they will be able to compete, which will make them feel worse. They certainly won't be able to compete in the toughest things like engineering, which will force them into easier subjects, like psychology or history.


is galling. It's this kind of thinking that defends caste systems. It's this kind of thinking that sustains good ol' boy networks. It's this kind of thinking that pats people on the head and then shuts the door.

I'm not suggesting that any Ivy should dumb itself down or drop its admissions standaards. They have those high standards for a reason (mostly that cycle of reputation and recruitment and alumni donations because they got jobs because of the school's reputation or through the good ol' boy network). But to suggest that such a school shouldn't, on occasion, experiment with a few promising students who might not otherwise have gotten in, is not an argument about standards and elitism; it's an argument in favor of an increasingly closed network.

Don't believe me? Look at the faculty lists at any of the big academic schools (the Ivy Leagues, certainly) and see where the faculty get their degrees; it's really quite instructive. Over and over again, it's the same schools. Harvard's English department? Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Harvard, Princeton...and on and on. The only exceptions tend to be the creative writers who came out of Iowa's program, which was, for many years, the finest in the nation. The other Ivy league schools tend to be the same way, although you'll occasionally see other big schools represented (Brown, Wisc-Madison, Cal Berkeley, UT Austin). It's really pretty remarkable: they educate their own and hire their own to educate their own to later hire and then educate and hire.

You'd think the great redistribution of PhDs in the 80s hadn't happened.... FWIW, I was educated at plain old state schools, and was taught by PhDs from Harvard, Yale, UT Austin, Princeton, Chicago, Northwestern, Oxford, Cambridge, Vandy, Penn, Pitt, Rochester, and on and on. I work at a State Uni, and just our Political Science department has PhDs from Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse and Albany (all top ten schools in the field).

My point? To argue that an education is "better" because it takes place at a specific school ignores the simple fact that for the last 25 years, PhDs from the "best" schools in the country been flung far and wide, and they were largely taught by the same people who taught the faculty at these elite schools.


PS

You left "English" out of that list of easier majors that kids go to when they can't hack the hard stuff like engineering.

[Splinemodel]

Hey sondjata: Flaming liberals hate generalizing (although they do it as much as anyone . .. another story). Aquatic is relating his personal experience. You took it out of context.

You may note that he even goes so far as to isolate his experiences as Northeastern ones.

As for your claim that black ex-con applicants are 50% likely to get callbacks, is that because they are black or because they happen to be less qualified? There's a lot of missing data from your report. With "equally qualified" [non-con] applicants, there's still a lot of variability. For example, it's possible that the black applicants used in that survey didn't generally interview as well, or that the survey was not from the targeted, Northeastern area.

For these reasons it's difficult to even validate Aquatic's claims, but it's pretty obvious to most white males today that in order to be socially couth, we have to spend a lot of time walking over broken glass. I can easily imagine this disadvantage extending itself to other aspects of daily life, although I make no personal claims to have experienced it myself.

Midwinter: I've been reading the thread, but I didn't really want to get involved in the melee. Plus, I agreed with your core argument. I do like the fact, though, that spindler took the time to go through his whole argument despite being thrown to the wolves.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Come now BRussell, I don't desire to debase myself or others with regard to their fields of study but the concept of hard and soft sciences is pretty well known and understood, ridiculing aside. Additionally most people will admit that liberal studies does not require as rigorous a study schedule as say, engineering.

Nick I just don't think the distinction is usually reduced to "soft sciences are basket weaving that somehow became respectable."

BTW, for a brief, video-based introduction to linguistics, see here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro).

[Sondjata]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
Hey sondjata: Flaming liberals hate generalizing (although they do it as much as anyone . .. another story). Aquatic is relating his personal experience. You took it out of context.

You may note that he even goes so far as to isolate his experiences as Northeastern ones.

As for your claim that black ex-con applicants are 50% likely to get callbacks, is that because they are black or because they happen to be less qualified? There's a lot of missing data from your report. With "equally qualified" [non-con] applicants, there's still a lot of variability. For example, it's possible that the black applicants used in that survey didn't generally interview as well, or that the survey was not from the targeted, Northeastern area.




Ummmmmmm No.

The first study had blindly sent out resumes with only the name changed to "suggest" a particular racial and/or ethnic group. There was no face to face. the "black" sounding names were regularly "shafted".

The second study was similar to the first but this time the applicant was given a criminal record. Same shit different study.

Here's one of the studie:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ZFDCORHIrJYJ:www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf+criminal+records+and+employment+and+ra ce&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

here's the relevant results:
The second question involved the significance of race, by
itself, in shaping black men’s employment prospects, and
here too the audit offered an unequivocal answer (Figure
2). The effect of race was very large, equal to or greater
than the effect of a criminal record. Only 14 percent of
black men without criminal records were called back, a
proportion equal to or less than even than the number of
whites with a criminal background. The magnitude of the
race effect found here corresponds very closely to effects
found in previous audit studies directly measuring racial
discrimination.
7
Since 1994, when the last major audit
was reported, very little has changed in the reaction of
employers to minority applicants, at least in Milwaukee.

In addition to the strong independent effects of race and
criminal record, evidence suggests that the combination
of the two may intensify the negative effects: black ex-
offenders are one-third as likely to be called as black
applicants without a criminal record. It seems that em-
ployers, already reluctant to hire blacks, are even more
wary of those with proven criminal involvement. None of
our white testers was asked about a criminal record be-
fore submitting his application, yet on three occasions
black testers were questioned. Our testers were bright,
articulate young men, yet the cursory review that entry-
level applicants receive leaves little room for these quali-
ties to be noticed

So no, this was not about the quality of the interview.

[Sondjata]

And in reference to names:

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/names2.htm

No single employer was sent two identical resumes, and the names on the resumes were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of resumes.



Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.



The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

[spindler]

"is galling. It's this kind of thinking that defends caste systems. It's this kind of thinking that sustains good ol' boy networks."

Caste systems and good ol' boy networks are something you are BORN INTO. Where you come in in your high school is largely based on earning your grades. I am saying that merely good students most likely WILL NOT be able to compete with great students in a really, really intense, rigorous environment. Is there something prejudiced about that?

In my high school, the top seven students were really good. The next ten were just OK. When I was getting a 95 on an easy test, barely studying, they were getting an 85. You can tell how competitive a person is. Mildly smart people are just not competitive with the best and the brightest.

And I don't have a problem putting an OK student in a great school, IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC REASON TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE LOTS MORE POTENTIAL.
But the people that were getting 82 on their physics regents are just not competitive with the top students who you KNOW will be getting 95 or higher.

This is NOT something you are born into. This is how you place in the competition among your high school. I already accepted Hardeeharhar's point that you should look at SATs and grades relative to the high school and maybe give people a break from a less ambitious high school. But the point remains. You harm people by putting them in a competitive environment where they are over their heads. That's an observation. There's nothing mean spirited about it.

If one guy from a poor neighborhood sets up a lemonade stand, I'll give him as much credit as the guy from a good neighborhood who started a more ambitious business, based on the opportunities available. But the end decision has to be based on overall competitiveness.

[Sondjata]

So the next white male who posts about some sort of "hiring" discrimination he faced can kiss my black, non-criminal record having, highly qualified, ass.

[Splinemodel]

The study did not represent the target geography or type of occupation, though.

Even so, in my opinion it's only an problem if there's no demographic data that would lead the employer to be financially motivated to act as indicated. Not being a flaming liberal myself, I think demographic data is a good thing, even when used to provide baseline evaluation of cultural matters.

Besides, the study came from Princeton: bunch'a idiots there. ;)

[spindler]

Whoops

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spindler
[BYou harm people by putting them in a competitive environment where they are over their heads. That's an observation. There's nothing mean spirited about it. [/B] I don't think there's any doubt, and I think it is one of the drawback of race-norming for college admissions.

Take race out of it: Let's say you took a few hundred white students with lower scores and put them in with a few thousand other white students with higher scores. Those few hundred whites with lower scores are, on average, not going to do as well as the others.

Throw race into the mix, and if some of the black students, due to race-norming, are admitted with lower scores than the whites, you're setting up those black students for failure.

[progmac]

Reading these lofty ramblings about Penn make me glad I chose a state school.

[giant]

I think what makes a good school better isn't necessarily that it's "harder." No doubt that is certainly true, and my understanding is that MIT is the big example of this, but with a good school I think it's more that you have a better chance of having a more fulfilling curriculum, less half-assed profs and more motivated classmates. Northwestern, for instance, is made up of much bigger nerds than U of Illinois (and, arguably, most of its peer schools), but the tradeoff is that there are also far fewer hotties and fewer hipsters.

I can certainly see how kids can run into trouble at a big university, particularly if they have a hard time relating to their classmates. And that's, IMHO, probably the most difficult thing for kids to deal with.
Originally posted by spindler
In my high school, the top seven students were really good. The next ten were just OK. When I was getting a 95 on an easy test, barely studying, they were getting an 85. You can tell how competitive a person is. Mildly smart people are just not competitive with the best and the brightest.

And I don't have a problem putting an OK student in a great school, IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC REASON TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE LOTS MORE POTENTIAL.
But the people that were getting 82 on their physics regents are just not competitive with the top students who you KNOW will be getting 95 or higher.

Well, I know more than a few people who did relatively terrible in high school, even drop outs, who within a few years either worked themselves into top-10 universities (and, for a couple, are now in leading graduate programs) or found lucrative careers. On the flip side, I know people who excelled in high school and turned out to be simply mediocre. Of the highly successful people I know (incomes of $400K+), only a handful actually have degrees from top universities.

So what if someone gets 95s on his or her HS tests. BFD. In the end, it just means that your life was such at that time that you did well in school. I personally don't buy into the idea that academic performance or even work experience can be considered solid indicators of a person's "potential."

[Aquatic]

Sondjata how old are you?

Don't be so naive. You have to freakin' fill out affirmative action cards at agencies in RI. What do you think those are used for? Picking less or equally qualified minorities over whites. That's racist. It must stop. Two rights don't make a wrong. This is a really simple issue.

Just go to the RI Dept. of Environmental Management site. Or any companies in New England or other agencies. They proudly state they are affirmative action. It's a real problem. I want to get job. Now. I want to work for an environmental agency, state or federal, long-term. Perhaps private sector short term. At least in my field there is a lot of this "affirmative" oh woops I'm sorry I mean "diversity' business going on. Just go to www.eco.org. I mean seriously...wtf people.

And sondjata, are you really black? I mean seriously shouldn't you of all people understand where I'm coming from? Have you ever been discriminated against? Didn't it suck? It sucks for me too. I am not saying a more qualified black person shouldn't be selected. Not even close.

As for "stupid courses"...spindler I agree with you 100%. I'm sorry, but some courses are just easier than others. Why is this being debated!? Some courses are just more abstract, require more work, are much more different than the traditional k-12 knowledgbase prepares you for, etc. And some majors are just harder. I spent hundreds of hours wading through wetlands this year. Then learning GIS, learning how to analyze regulation, write technically and on a graduate level (without any courses or training, just on my own, reading Google Scholar articles and soaking it up.) That course is probably harder than Music 101. It's just more cerebral. Even at the 100 level some things are just harder. A Religion 101 courses is probably going to require less time investment and intense analytical thinking and reflection than Chem 101. Chemistry just has multiple ways of thinking attached to it...I would think. But you know what, I'm less sure on this whole diatribe. I'm not an Education major. I'm not really qualified to analyze this side-argument.

Getting back to the topic: Affirmative Action. It's racist, and that's wrong. Discuss, if you disagree.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by giant
I think what makes a good school better isn't necessarily that it's "harder." No doubt that is certainly true, and my understanding is that MIT is the big example of this, but with a good school I think it's more that you have a better chance of having a more fulfilling curriculum, less half-assed profs and more motivated classmates. Northwestern, for instance, is made up of much bigger nerds than U of Illinois (and, arguably, most of its peer schools), but the tradeoff is that there are also far fewer hotties and fewer hipsters.

I can certainly see how kids can run into trouble at a big university, particularly if they have a hard time relating to their classmates. And that's, IMHO, probably the most difficult thing for kids to deal with.

Well, I know more than a few people who did relatively terrible in high school, even drop outs, who within a few years either worked themselves into top-10 universities (and, for a couple, are now in leading graduate programs) or found lucrative careers. On the flip side, I know people who excelled in high school and turned out to be simply mediocre. Of the highly successful people I know (incomes of $400K+), only a handful actually have degrees from top universities.

So what if someone gets 95s on his or her HS tests. BFD. In the end, it just means that your life was such at that time that you did well in school. I personally don't buy into the idea that academic performance or even work experience can be considered solid indicators of a person's "potential."

Well said. Excelling in highschool has very little bearing on intelligence or ability to succeed in university or especially in real life. In my mind, success in either of these areas has far more to do with motivation, ability to focus on and yet be flexible with tasks and a real willingness to learn.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Two rights don't make a wrong.

Professor BRussell! Professor BRussell! We have a Freudian slip on aisle 12! Come STAT!

[giant]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Some courses are just more abstract, require more work, are much more different than the traditional k-12 knowledgbase prepares you for, etc. And some majors are just harder.
Of course, that's totally subjective. The things that are hard for me could very well be easy for you. These days, for instance, math and logic are much easier for me than writing even a 3-page paper. :\

I think people are far too quick to assume that sciences are "harder," but that's simply not true. It's just easier to make a quantitative measure of your academic progress in an analytical subject.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by spindler

In my high school, the top seven students were really good. The next ten were just OK. When I was getting a 95 on an easy test, barely studying, they were getting an 85. You can tell how competitive a person is. Mildly smart people are just not competitive with the best and the brightest.

Mildly smart people with real determination and drive will far exceed the acomplishments of the brightest in the more rigourous academic programs. If the smartest person in the world cannot apply themselves, they will fail.

[Aquatic]

Well said tulkas. Someone once said to me doing well in high school means doing your homework. Someone also once said to me anyone can earn a PhD, all you need is persistence. Sounds about right. I have a friend who may not be the most intelligent, but DAMN does he work hard. Blows by everyone else in my major because as he says, he's the weekend warrior. He's absolutely right. Studies twice as hard as me, and beats me by just a few points. But hey, look what it got him. Hard work always pays off. Unless of course you're discriminate against...

Midwinter, I'm just really ranting, not proof reading like I would in say a global warming thread. You know what I mean... Doesn't ending racism...with racism...sound kind of silly?

[giant]

FWIW, I've never been able to come to a conclusion about affirmative action. For the most part I really don't agree with affirmative action for all of the reasons most people don't. However, there undeniably are aspects of the world that prevent people from excelling. If you don't think women and minorities have a hard time in the top tiers of business, you must not have any contact with it. There is relatively open racism at the top levels of the business world and it goes hand in hand with the completely overt elitism. For women, it's a combination of "why invest in someone who might just get pregnant" and "let's go play a round of golf and go to the bar, guys." It's simply not a level playing field.

On top of that, how many kids with potential have it stiffled by their depressed communities and/or the uneducated adults they depend on? After all, if a kid has virtually no significant contact with the outside world, how can they know how or even why they should enter it?

Organizations have to be extremely rigorous in enforcing hiring policies just to keep it unbiased and as objective as possible, so naturally most don't do that great of a job. Many smaller companies don't even try and most companies in the US are smaller ones.

Anyway, I'm Irish-American. According to my family, we used to rock the gov't jobs until EOE drove us out.

[Aquatic]

Yeah giant that's why there's EOE. Equal opportunity. NOT Equal outcome. I'm not naive enough to not know that there is still discrimination. But just reverse discriminating doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse. Why am I being punished? As stated I'm a flaming liberal. Black people? Love 'em. I have a friend from Nigeria.

[Sondjata]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Sondjata how old are you?

Don't be so naive. You have to freakin' fill out affirmative action cards at agencies in RI. What do you think those are used for? Picking less or equally qualified minorities over whites. That's racist. It must stop. Two rights don't make a wrong. This is a really simple issue.

Just go to the RI Dept. of Environmental Management site. Or any companies in New England or other agencies. They proudly state they are affirmative action. It's a real problem. I want to get job. Now. I want to work for an environmental agency, state or federal, long-term. Perhaps private sector short term. At least in my field there is a lot of this "affirmative" oh woops I'm sorry I mean "diversity' business going on. Just go to www.eco.org. I mean seriously...wtf people.

And sondjata, are you really black? I mean seriously shouldn't you of all people understand where I'm coming from? Have you ever been discriminated against? Didn't it suck? It sucks for me too. I am not saying a more qualified black person shouldn't be selected. Not even close.

As for "stupid courses"...spindler I agree with you 100%. I'm sorry, but some courses are just easier than others. Why is this being debated!? Some courses are just more abstract, require more work, are much more different than the traditional k-12 knowledgbase prepares you for, etc. And some majors are just harder. I spent hundreds of hours wading through wetlands this year. Then learning GIS, learning how to analyze regulation, write technically and on a graduate level (without any courses or training, just on my own, reading Google Scholar articles and soaking it up.) That course is probably harder than Music 101. It's just more cerebral. Even at the 100 level some things are just harder. A Religion 101 courses is probably going to require less time investment and intense analytical thinking and reflection than Chem 101. Chemistry just has multiple ways of thinking attached to it...I would think. But you know what, I'm less sure on this whole diatribe. I'm not an Education major. I'm not really qualified to analyze this side-argument.

Getting back to the topic: Affirmative Action. It's racist, and that's wrong. Discuss, if you disagree.


So the "flaming liberal" questions whether I'm actually black? So now I must prove myself to the great white man. Gee, that brings back flashbacks. Perhaps I ought to post studies about how black men (and women) are routinely challenged by white people on qualifications and in some cases thier blackness. But back to the question:

I am http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com
I'm over 30 as well. And No, if you mail a resume to a firm you don't fill out squat. The state of NJ also does not require one to state one's race for the purposes of sending in a resume. If RI does something different then that's a different case. Either way, the statistics cited in the reports linked to and quoted from completely unseat the idea that black people have a more favorable employment situation.

[Aquatic]

Black people are still discriminated against. All I have to say is: why is discriminating based on race right? What does it matter if it's discrimination against whites or blacks? It's the same thing: discrimination based on race. Racism. Shouldn't it stop somewhere? Why not now? Look, white people are definitely discriminated against in the Northeast, thanks to liberal people with good intentions, who instituted affirmative action. I'm just saying, now that I'm in the real world, looking at many web sites and job descriptions, Affirmative Actions and "diversity" keep cropping up. It just seems antithetical to the whole progressive movement. We need to get past it.

Can ANYONE justify affirmative action?

I must further note, that I visited your blog and I think you have a well-reasoned and very independent and objective view of things in general. I'm looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this issues, sondjata. And let me state for the record that discrimination against anyone based on ridiculous things such as race or gender or orientation or whatever is obviously just plain awful. That's why I'm up in arms!

[Sondjata]

Affirmative Action is a remedial program (as in remedy for Slavery, Jim Crow, et. al and not intelligence). Other groups got in on the action. Jews tried to get in on it too. If you have a problem with AA take it up with the fools who implemented Slavery and Jim Crow and their descendants.

Take it up with the fools who decide to get caught out there not interviewing qualified black people because of thier names or their address. How about those whites with criminal records who apparently rate better than non-criminal blacks.


Say, how about a nice thread about that?

[Aquatic]

Why should I be discriminated against because of activities of assholes decades ago!?

[giant]

Originally posted by Sondjata
So now I must prove myself to the great white man. Gee, that brings back flashbacks.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Affirmative Action is a remedial program. If you have a problem with AA take it up with the fools who implemented Slavery and Jim Crow and their descendants.
You know, I've no problem recognizing the obstacles for americans of color, but this shit has to stop. Really.

[midwinter]

Make it about economics and it will.

[progmac]

por wittle atuatic is discwimitated against.

cry me a freakin' river. finding the perfect job is tough, whether you're white black pink or blue. fortunately for you, innumerable studies show it's easiest for whitey.

[Aquatic]

I'm not complaining about a specific instance. I don't think it has happened to me yet, to my knowledge. Actually it may happen to me at the Dept. of Heath sheerly since there are so many applicants, and thus it's likely someone is a minority. Anyway I'm just saying it's a phenomenon I've noticed. I'll read those cases later. But I can't see the logic in discriminating on race. OR ON INCOME. I'm sorry but discrimination on anything other than qualifications is BULLSHIT. America, by the 21st century, should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome. For college admissions, that's what financial aid is for. Shouldn't have anything to do with the selection process. In fact, that's what "blind" admissions are for (I think those are great, especially for public ones.) As for hiring, my statement stands I think.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Why should I be discriminated against because of activities of assholes decades ago!?

Aquatic, while I gladly support ending discrimination of any nature, you don't really appear to have proven any discrimination yet, even anecdotally or perceived.

Originally posted by Aquatic
I'm not complaining about a specific instance. I don't think it has happened to me yet, to my knowledge.

Then to be polite, shut up about it. Don't cry wolf if there isn't a reason. There are real instances and you give those less credence when you presume.

Actually it may happen to me at the Dept. of Heath sheerly since there are so many applicants, and thus it's likely someone is a minority.

Last I checked having a minority apply wasn't a crime even if they got the job.

. Anyway I'm just saying it's a phenomenon I've noticed. I'll read those cases later. But I can't see the logic in discriminating on race. OR ON INCOME. I'm sorry but discrimination on anything other than qualifications is BULLSHIT.

In the job field perhaps, but in endeavors that society provides to help lift people up, a little economic affirmative action doesn't hurt. People can be hurt by their own ignorance, lack of adult advocates and their background in matters of education and training.

As for qualifications, you'll feel different a few years down the line because the qualifications KEEP CHANGING. After you do finally garner and keep this elusive adult job, you don't want to lose it five years down the line simply because now the state requires X class that it didn't require when you were in school. Perhaps the new graduates will be more qualified then you ON PAPER at that time, but you will still be capable of doing your job, receiving additional training, and shouldn't lose your job or be considered incompetent because some legislator got a bug up their butt and passed law Z requiring x class.

America, by the 21st century, should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Agreed, but there is still the notion that everyone hasn't had a true opportunity if they can't, with proper effort, obtain any sort of decent outcome.

For college admissions, that's what financial aid is for. Shouldn't have anything to do with the selection process. In fact, that's what "blind" admissions are for (I think those are great, especially for public ones.)

Again as Midwinter has mentioned, and as I support as well, economic affirmative action is worth pursuing in college admissions. If minorities are disproportionately poor, then they will disproportionately benefit and that is okay in my book. When growing up in poverty there are simply things you are ignorant about and things that you will take your lumps learning as you climb that ladder. There isn't anything wrong with insuring those who are already so far down on that ladder get a little help.

As for hiring, my statement stands I think.

I haven't read a statement of what happened to you yet. You sound very frustrated, pissed off and desire to blame someone. You haven't put forward anything yet that would be considered reverse discrimination in my view. If you want some empathy, then do some sharing.

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by giant
Of course, that's totally subjective. The things that are hard for me could very well be easy for you.

Even in math and engineering this is true. The "hardest" 2nd year math course in my university was "Abstract Algebra" - I found it very easy and got the highest grade in class while my friends pulled their hair out.

The situation was reversed in differential equations - I was the dunderhead there and they all were OK with it.

[Aquatic]

Look, I'm simply assuming discrimination will happen to me in the future. I can't believe I'm being blasted from both sides, from hardcore conservatives AND liberals, about this. Aren't you all making this out to be more complicated than it really is? Why is racism or economic discrimination okay? "Gee Roy, let's not hire him, he's white. AND upper-middle class! let's hire this poor black woman because, well...she's a poor black woman and we need Diversity!" This is assuming that I'm slightly more qualified, even slightly, but I still don't make the cut. I'm being hypothetical in this thread, but I'm not shitting you people. I'll pull some examples.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/jobs/index.htm

"Environmental Management is an Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer M/F/D. "


I understand that they want multi-lingual employees. That's fine. It makes sense. There are lots of RI residents that may be more fluent or comfortable speaking Spanish. Makes me wish I was more fluent. But, if that gave someone else the edge, hey, I'd understand that! That's what I mean by qualifications: things that matter. Also, in my field, a knowledge of soil science, wetlands, ecology, etc. would be good. As well as the standards like communication, computer, and writing proficiency. Skin tone...just doesn't strike me as a qualification.

At RIDOH:

http://www.health.ri.gov/management/human/equal.php

"The Department reaffirms its commitment to identify and eliminate past and present effects of discrimination in employment. To achieve equal opportunity, the Department recognizes the need to take affirmative action to identify classifications with underrepresentation of minorities, females, and the handicapped; to set goals and timetables for increasing the employment of underrepresented groups,"

They pledge in the beginning to not discriminate based on race for example, but the they seem to directly contradict that sentiment in the following section on AA.

While typing this post I actually started getting nervous, wondering if someone there happened upon this thread and connected me in real life with this thread. All I'm saying is...can someone justify AA? I would define AA as discrimination between applicants based on a trait other than a real qualification, e.g. picking someone based on race rather than knowledge of hydrology.

Am I making any sense? Does anyone else support my argument? What rationale is there for AA? I'm glad I stoked such a lively discussion!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aquatic

"The Department reaffirms its commitment to identify and eliminate past and present effects of discrimination in employment. To achieve equal opportunity, the Department recognizes the need to take affirmative action to identify classifications with underrepresentation of minorities, females, and the handicapped; to set goals and timetables for increasing the employment of underrepresented groups,"

They pledge in the beginning to not discriminate based on race for example, but the they seem to directly contradict that sentiment in the following section on AA.


You assume that "underrepresented groups" are always about color. Women are included in this, as well.

About 6 years ago (before I was hired), our department wanted ot hire someone through a good old boy network. The guy was qualified, but the admin said "If you hire another white male, you have to hire a minority, too." So they hired a woman of Spanish descent.

[Aquatic]

And don't you think that was wrong? And I was using race as an example, I'm aware it encompasses more. But how much more? Can I be underrepresented, too? I'm a Mac user after all! :smokey: And what's the good ol' boy network? I'm assuming it's a bunch of, I guess, guys, that know each other? Any more to it?

[vinea]

Originally posted by spindler

I have no doubt that the B's I got at Penn, would definitely have been A's if I went to an average state school.

I've seen the curriculum for classes at average schools that my friends went to. In computer science at Penn, it's all theory and all concepts. You don't spend half your time learning Windows. You learn nothing but background, because that is what is hard to learn on your own. If we spent half our time in Operating Systems Concepts learning the details of how Windows works we would have learned only half as much really difficult stuff.


Funny...Top 25 Computer Science Schools list about as many state schools as private. No U. Penn through.

Guess your school isn't as great as you think it is in Computer Science.

http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/usnews2003/systems.htm

As an aside, my CS classes for the the freshmen year were almost all theory. We did algorithimic proofs and computed algorithmic time in our first two required classes. Needless to say, these two are weeder courses.

Our OS class required you to build a OS from scratch to learn about the complexities of what goes into a OS. Needless to say that one was a tough one.

Vinea

PS Yes, I know that Penn is ranked #4 overall. Doesn't make it a top 25 CS school though.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aquatic
And don't you think that was wrong? And what's the good ol' boy network? I'm assuming it's a bunch of, I guess, guys, that know each other? Any more to it?

I think it was wrong to hire someone through a good old boy network. I think it was wrong for the admin to impose a quota. I think it was wrong for a department full of white, mormon males to have not ever hired ANYONE of color or with even a touch of "ethnicity."


And a good old boy network works like this:

Say you have a bunch of guys who all graduated from Penn. Say one of them gets a job and gets put in charge of hiring someone. He says "Hey, I know this guy I went to college with!" and hires one of his buddies. And on, and on. If these are allowed to go on long enough, they can become very, very powerful (presidential admins are a good example, and Bush's is particularly good...everyone in this admin was in Bush I and lots of them were in Reagan, Ford, and Nixon's admins.

Put it another way:

if you are a white male, you have benefitted from a massive good old boy network for your entire life, whether you knew it or not.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Look, I'm simply assuming discrimination will happen to me in the future. I can't believe I'm being blasted from both sides, from hardcore conservatives AND liberals, about this.

You are being lectured because the assumption of discrimination and actually experiencing discrimination are not the same thing.

Aren't you all making this out to be more complicated than it really is?

Not really. I think the reverse is true. It is much more complicated to believe your assumed future discrimination in the absense of any proof.

Why is racism or economic discrimination okay?

Racism isn't okay, but we endorse economic discrimination as you might term it all the time. We have a progressive tax rate, and that is economic discrimination. We have taxes that are narrow and selective for all manner of reasons. Free and reduced lunch programs might be seen as a form of economic discrimination.

One of the things you are noticing is a practice that I abhor which is applying words without thought. People will claim they oppose discrimination, or support peace, one word instead of thoughts behind actual policies. You've taken some first steps here in realizing that just supporting a word isn't really an enlightened position. However now you still have to put some thought into your own position instead of just being pissed off.

"Gee Roy, let's not hire him, he's white. AND upper-middle class! let's hire this poor black woman because, well...she's a poor black woman and we need Diversity!" This is assuming that I'm slightly more qualified, even slightly, but I still don't make the cut. I'm being hypothetical in this thread, but I'm not shitting you people.

First it doesn't matter who is more qualified if you are both qualified enough for the job. Second, I've never seen a job application that wants to know my current economic state (rich, poor, whatever) so I have no ideal where you are coming from with that assertion. If the ONLY reason she was selected over you is race, then you have a point but you haven't made that case yet even anecdotally. You have nothing but future assumptions for now and you aren't going to get much sympathy for those.

I understand that they want multi-lingual employees. That's fine. It makes sense. There are lots of RI residents that may be more fluent or comfortable speaking Spanish. Makes me wish I was more fluent. But, if that gave someone else the edge, hey, I'd understand that!

I wouldn't understand it unless it were related to the actual job and dealings with the public. That said while I believe it wrong in principle, my son is still learning all day in Spanish because practical has won out over principle in California and I don't want my son to lose out on future opportunities.

That's what I mean by qualifications: things that matter. Also, in my field, a knowledge of soil science, wetlands, ecology, etc. would be good. As well as the standards like communication, computer, and writing proficiency. Skin tone...just doesn't strike me as a qualification.

It isn't a qualification but you haven't made the case yet that someone was hired ahead of you for that reason.

They pledge in the beginning to not discriminate based on race for example, but the they seem to directly contradict that sentiment in the following section on AA.

The only questionable word there might the word goals which often becomes a hiring quota. (You must hire X blacks and Y whites) If you can state they have a hiring quota, I'll say it is wrong. If you can show they have lowered standards in order to fill positions, I'll say it is wrong. Same standards and outreach though, that isn't wrong.

While typing this post I actually started getting nervous, wondering if someone there happened upon this thread and connected me in real life with this thread.

I think perhaps you've been drinking a bit too much.

All I'm saying is...can someone justify AA? I would define AA as discrimination between applicants based on a trait other than a real qualification, e.g. picking someone based on race rather than knowledge of hydrology.

Race based affirmative action is wrong in my view. Economic affirmative action is not. Others feel differently though and you'll have to take it up with them. Economic affirmative action actually gets you more diversity and that is a laudable goal. It also insures better thinking and better solutions to problems because you get an array of backgrounds and thinking brought to the table and that, above the book learning can be very valuable.

That said, have you considered teaching, especially in an economically low neighborhood. As Grove mentioned and found out that is an employment area where you are under-represented and also where you might gain some experience and insight into people and circumstances. The turnover is high, but the starting pay is usually reasonable and has benefits.

ShawnJ was going to do this but instead he is going to take the money, run and then continue to post one-line comments about how thoughtless, uncaring and uncompassionate we all happen to be. Groverat is going to give this route a try and I will be very interested to hear him talk shop in a few months. Perhaps you ought to consider doing some teaching.

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by vinea
Our OS class required you to build a OS from scratch to learn about the complexities of what goes into a OS. Needless to say that one was a tough one.

An OS class where you build an OS, and a compiler class where you build a compiler are both pretty standard I think. I took both those classes at the University of Victoria - neither were as hard as theoretical computing (with tons of Turing machine proofs and stuff).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
I think it was wrong to hire someone through a good old boy network. I think it was wrong for the admin to impose a quota. I think it was wrong for a department full of white, mormon males to have not ever hired ANYONE of color or with even a touch of "ethnicity."


And a good old boy network works like this:

Say you have a bunch of guys who all graduated from Penn. Say one of them gets a job and gets put in charge of hiring someone. He says "Hey, I know this guy I went to college with!" and hires one of his buddies. And on, and on. If these are allowed to go on long enough, they can become very, very powerful (presidential admins are a good example, and Bush's is particularly good...everyone in this admin was in Bush I and lots of them were in Reagan, Ford, and Nixon's admins.

Put it another way:

if you are a white male, you have benefitted from a massive good old boy network for your entire life, whether you knew it or not.

But honestly doesn't this assume that the only friends of the people are the same race and sex?

It certainly could be a boys and girls club by now. I know many men would probably refer an educated wife or educated wife of a friend just as easily as a male friend. People want to help those who they know and care about and that human nature isn't likely to go away. This one guy I know even has his wife working at the same college as he does though I don't know if he referred her or she referred him.;)

Also the other assumptions there are that we have a father in our home, that we benefitted from his connections or that our parents went to universities and they and as a result we benefitted from those connections as well.

That is alot of assumptions that I don't feel comfortable asserting and working against. Perhaps daddy can help in certain instances, but plenty of white males don't have a daddy around or daddy was blue collar and doesn't know anyone or how to help with a white collar opportunity.

Nick

[vinea]

Originally posted by e1618978
An OS class where you build an OS, and a compiler class where you build a compiler are both pretty standard I think. I took both those classes at the University of Victoria - neither were as hard as theoretical computing (with tons of Turing machine proofs and stuff).

Theory classes have partial credit. You get that too in a compiler or OS class but works vs doesn't work (against test cases) is kinda obvious. :)

Oddly, in my school both the OS and Compiler classes were 400 level weeder courses. Why you would want a 400 level weeder is beyond me but the theory classes were easily an order of magnitude less work even if they were in actually 600 level courses that allowed seniors.

I did well in both theory and practical classes (with the caveat that I'm pretty lazy so sought the easiest prof's) but I have to say that in 20 years in the profession I've never had to prove the correctness of an algorithm (and yea and verily, I've done mission critical real time programming in the past). I have occasionally figured out the algorithmic time or whether something was or wasn't NP complete but not till I was a bit more senior.

Then again, I've never built an OS or compiler from scratch either. But the understanding of threading, multi-processing and how or what a lexical analyzer does has been moderately useful throughout IMHO.

CS programs that concentrate on practical aspects in the undergrad level aren't necessarily worse than ones that provide more theoretical grounding (ie prgram proofs, etc).

From an employer standpoint, in interviews of freshouts it has always been more important for me to see if they can actually understand basic OO concepts, read UML and most importantly: enjoy slinging code. I'd rather see a portfolio of open source projects than a bunch of A's in the CS theory classes. As long as they've heard the terms and get the general idea that some algorithms will suck by design (which no amount of optimization/tuning can fix) and some problems are intractable from the usual programming techniques that's good enough for me. That's typically covered in any 4 year CS program.

For senior folks the criteria would be different but then I hope they have a masters in CS or SwE by then. And not in EE or Physics. There is a minimum amount of formal CS theory a senior person should have and these aren't typically covered by other disciplines.

Vinea

[vinea]

On topic...while I have seen evidence of a "glass ceiling" and "good ol' boy network" it has mostly been in minority owned businesses. As a technical professional seeking a technical track it has been less of an issue IMHO in traditional white dominated corporations. Of course, these are larger and I've never looked for a position higher than mid-management at a technical level (i.e. Project or Program Manager) which in the scheme of things is before the glass ceiling starts ( guessing senior VP, CEO, etc level. There were sufficient numbers of minority Directors and lower senior exec level that I saw).

As a minority I have always known that the easiest way to penetrate the upper management is starting my own company.

I am ambivalent about AA. If the NAACP believes that it still is required, I'm inclined to agree but I think that more help to form minority businesses that don't depend on minority contracts to succeed would be more helpful in the long run. AA doesn't get you into the board room as far as I can tell. Even it does get you into better schools occasionally.

Vinea

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
It certainly could be a boys and girls club by now. I know many men would probably refer an educated wife or educated wife of a friend just as easily as a male friend.
It is and it isn't. If a woman went to Kellogg or HBS then she's certainly respected, but you still have the problems I pointed out on the last page:
Originally posted by giant
For women, it's a combination of "why invest in someone who might just get pregnant" and "let's go play a round of golf and go to the bar, guys." It's simply not a level playing field.
In the top levels of the business world the guys play golf, go on trips, etc, etc, and it makes it difficult for women executives. If a company decides to send all of the execs to vegas or a golf trip for two days as a bonus, it can be pretty awkward to be the one female exec.

It's even worse for women at firms where lack of participation in these kinds of activities is seen as "not being a team player."
Originally posted by trumptman
But honestly doesn't this assume that the only friends of the people are the same race and sex?
Well, in the real world it's often how it is, particularly in the upper classes.

[groverat]

Aquatic:

What evidence do you have that blacks and women who are less qualified are getting hired ahead of you?
What evidence do you have that this happens because they are black and/or female?

I think your judgment might be impaired by your personal frustrations.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by vinea
Theory classes have partial credit. You get that too in a compiler or OS class but works vs doesn't work (against test cases) is kinda obvious. :)

Oddly, in my school both the OS and Compiler classes were 400 level weeder courses. Why you would want a 400 level weeder is beyond me but the theory classes were easily an order of magnitude less work even if they were in actually 600 level courses that allowed seniors.

Not at my school - the theory class had 20-30 hours of homework per week, and it was run by a sadist who did not grade on a curve. Only two people passed the mid-term (I was one of them, heh heh heh).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
It is and it isn't. If a woman went to Kellogg or HBS then she's certainly respected, but you still have the problems I pointed out on the last page:

I've never been into dropping names of schools and knowing what that means. If you'll elaborate on this, I'll be happy to listen.

In the top levels of the business world the guys play golf, go on trips, etc, etc, and it makes it difficult for women executives. If a company decides to send all of the execs to vegas or a golf trip for two days as a bonus, it can be pretty awkward to be the one female exec.

I can see your point but I'll have to conclude as you did earlier that it is and it isn't. Perhaps a generation ago when women thought being athletic meant losing their sex appeal or their ability to be feminine the golf thing might have been true but women can hit the courts and be just as anxious to do it as men in this day and age. The eternal networking and sort of on-call mentality that many upper-tier jobs require (even when it appears to be something fun) can be very unappealling in addition to being awkward.

Perhaps it was just the crowd I ran with, (especially in Long Beach when it was a Navy town) but I've seen plenty of women in this day and age who have no issues with clubbing, bar-hopping, doing whatever. I'll gladly mention that large percentages of men in addition to women aren't comfortable with this type of lifestyle or mentality that work is life and life is work. Perhaps over the long run those percentages become more pronounced. But I still consider that more of a choice than actual sexism matter. I've also brought up the glass cellar as a counterbalance to the glass ceiling arguments. Women don't want to choose the variables there either and would rather leave them to the men.

Well, in the real world it's often how it is, particularly in the upper classes.

I'll concede that this may be the way it is outside of the Western United States. When I've traveled to various eastern locals, I will admit that I've been shocked at times at how clear the segregation is in towns and cities. You can literally see the line in certain areas. I'll also admit a bit of ignorance in matters people use to declare status. I seem to have been born without that gene. I've never been able to figure out that this is what you wear, buy or do when you are this. So I'll concede that others may have and act on that information.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by giant
It is and it isn't. If a woman went to Kellogg or HBS then she's certainly respected, but you still have the problems I pointed out on the last page:

In the top levels of the business world the guys play golf, go on trips, etc, etc, and it makes it difficult for women executives. If a company decides to send all of the execs to vegas or a golf trip for two days as a bonus, it can be pretty awkward to be the one female exec.

It's even worse for women at firms where lack of participation in these kinds of activities is seen as "not being a team player." Do you approve of the kind of thing that I posted earlier, where a white woman is given a job over a better-qualified man specifically because of gender, even though there are more women - and they do better than men - in college? I bet it happens all the time, I was just able to find out about it.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
I've never been into dropping names of schools and knowing what that means. If you'll elaborate on this, I'll be happy to listen.
I don't understand what part of that sentence is unclear.
I'll gladly mention that large percentages of men in addition to women aren't comfortable with this type of lifestyle or mentality that work is life and life is work.
For married adults over 30 it's so totally not the same. Married adult guys do those sorts of activities precisely because they are going out with the guys.

It's also one thing to talk about it from a distance and another to actually be a woman pressured to leave her spouse and go on vacation someplace like vegas and hang out with drunk married guys who want to do and talk about the kinds of things that drunk married guys do and talk about.
I'll concede that this may be the way it is outside of the Western United States. When I've traveled to various eastern locals, I will admit that I've been shocked at times at how clear the segregation is in towns and cities.
As far as Chicago's North Shore suburbs are concerned, you can't even see the kind of segregation that's there since people of color barely enter into the equation.
Originally posted by BRussell
Do you approve of the kind of thing that I posted earlier, where a white woman is given a job over a better-qualified man specifically because of gender, even though there are more women - and they do better than men - in college? I bet it happens all the time, I was just able to find out about it.
I don't know how I feel about it.

[midwinter]

Kellogg = Northwestern's business school

HBS = Harvard Business School

I believe the top two in the nation.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter
Kellogg = Northwestern's business school

HBS = Harvard Business School

I believe the top two in the nation.

Evidently not???

USNews ranks harvard 1... but kellogg is fourth...