@sh76 saidThat's BS. Being black in the US gives you an arbitrary disadvantage that has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with preconceived stereotypes.
It's the age old question: Do you want the doctor who only got into medical school due to a set-aside (or legacy... I really don't want to make this just about race) to operate on you?
Even though the doctor went through medical school, and the internship, etc., I don't think I want to be operated on by the doctor who wasn't talented enough to get into medical school without ...[text shortened]... up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
@sh76 saidI'm not sure how lawyers are up there with doctors and pilots 🙂
It's the age old question: Do you want the doctor who only got into medical school due to a set-aside (or legacy... I really don't want to make this just about race) to operate on you?
Even though the doctor went through medical school, and the internship, etc., I don't think I want to be operated on by the doctor who wasn't talented enough to get into medical school without ...[text shortened]... up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
@sh76 saidNo. Math uses numbers. Your equation does not add up.
Still, the underlying point is that quotas and set-asides, by definition, decrease the over-all talent in the force that ends up getting jobs. If you're going to skip over candidates for other candidates based on specified criteria, such as race, by definition, you have to take some people with lower levels of qualifications over some people with higher levels of qualifications. ...[text shortened]... ust basic math. Quotas and set-asides, or even preferences, cannot co-exist with a pure meritocracy.
If you've ever hired someone you would know this is not how hiring works. What does a "pure meritocracy" look like in your mind? If I get 2 applicants with high school transcripts and one has a 4.0 GPA but the other has a 3.9, would a pure meritocracy require me to hire the person with better grades?
@sh76 said
It's the age old question: Do you want the doctor who only got into medical school due to a set-aside (or legacy... I really don't want to make this just about race) to operate on you?
Even though the doctor went through medical school, and the internship, etc., I don't think I want to be operated on by the doctor who wasn't talented enough to get into medical school without ...[text shortened]... up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
Look, we both went to law schools that aren't exactly NYU or Columbia. I had classmates that had no business being lawyers, and I imagine you did as well. Yet most of them graduated. I have no idea how they ended up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
This is what DEI was meant to address. The white guy who gets into Princeton because his parents put him in SAT prep when he was 12 years old, but is fundamentally NOT more qualified than the candidate who went to Howard University. There are more "qualifications" than pedigree and grades, but hiring agents have biases and prejudices that might prefer the buttoned up Princeton graduate over a more qualified candidate.
@wildgrass saidOf course not, because GPA is not the only indicator of talent for a specific job.
No. Math uses numbers. Your equation does not add up.
If you've ever hired someone you would know this is not how hiring works. What does a "pure meritocracy" look like in your mind? If I get 2 applicants with high school transcripts and one has a 4.0 GPA but the other has a 3.9, would a pure meritocracy require me to hire the person with better grades?
Race, on the other hand, except when the job is community outreach or acting the part of Malcolm X, has zero do to with talent for the job.
I've hired hundreds of people for part and full time roles. There are times that I have given minority candidates extra consideration because in the public facing service we provide, sometimes have a diverse faculty that's more analogous to the student body is helpful.
But that's job-related. Who makes a good educator for a specified student body is such a an amorphous thing that factors such as race can actually have real importance. I would never consider race in hiring a data analyst or a tax consultant, because race is utterly irrelevant - as it is with pilots.
@KellyJay saidI have looked into it because I also had never heard of the guy until this week. I am still waiting to see a good example of the respect and heroism that right wingers are insisting on. Do you have a good example to share?
He would be an easy figure to research, as he was a conservative who went to college campuses to set up a tent with the intention of sparking conversation, telling those who came to his tent, “Prove me wrong.” He allowed people to speak their minds and tried to have civil conversations; they posted it all on YouTube. It could get heated, but I don’t think he was there to pu ...[text shortened]... rent ideas. I know some here hated him, justified or not, they will have to give their own reasons.
@Sleepyguy saidYeah, that's what people say until they've been F-ed by bad legal advice.
I'm not sure how lawyers are up there with doctors and pilots 🙂
Something as innocuous as "put that house in a trust" can easily cost the client $100k+ in capital gains tax if the trust isn't properly thought out and drafted.
Not as dramatic as plane crash, obviously, but far more common.
@sh76 saidYou wrote it is basic math. So - Do you have numbers to back up your claim that black pilots are less qualified?
Of course not, because GPA is not the only indicator of talent for a specific job.
Race, on the other hand, except when the job is community outreach or acting the part of Malcolm X, has zero do to with talent for the job.
I've hired hundreds of people for part and full time roles. There are times that I have given minority candidates extra consideration because in the pub ...[text shortened]... iring a data analyst or a tax consultant, because race is utterly irrelevant - as it is with pilots.
@wildgrass said===The white guy who gets into Princeton because his parents put him in SAT prep when he was 12 years old, but is fundamentally NOT more qualified than the candidate who went to Howard University. ===Look, we both went to law schools that aren't exactly NYU or Columbia. I had classmates that had no business being lawyers, and I imagine you did as well. Yet most of them graduated. I have no idea how they ended up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
This is what DEI was meant to address. The whit ...[text shortened]... and prejudices that might prefer the buttoned up Princeton graduate over a more qualified candidate.
First, the word "white" is totally extraneous in that sentence. Anyone whose parents put him in SAT prep when he was 12 years old is going to have an advantage, whether white or block.
Second, talent and ability isn't all innate. Education and upbringing count too. If someone had a good childhood and grew up level-headed, educated and with a good work ethic may very well be better at a job than another person who may have a few extra natural IQ points but had a messed up childhood.
That's why we, as parents, try to give our children every possible advantage.
I'm fully in favor of ending legacy admissions... though I really don't think going to a top university is the advantage it once was. On the contrary, when I see that someone went to Dartmouth undergrad, I get a sneaking suspicion that they're either a legacy, rich, or a sucker. Paying $70k/year tuition for an undergraduate degree seems insane to me.
@wildgrass saidI never made such claim.
You wrote it is basic math. So - Do you have numbers to back up your claim that black pilots are less qualified?
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
@sh76 saidI've hired people too. A common occurrence is a handful of applications that are simply a toss up related to qualifications. One has on paper strengths in one area, another has on paper strengths in another area. There is no math equation that can be used to determine who will be better at the job.
I've hired hundreds of people for part and full time roles. There are times that I have given minority candidates extra consideration because in the public facing service we provide, sometimes have a diverse faculty that's more analogous to the student body is helpful.
DEI training, at least in principle, is meant to remove inherent (often unconscious) biases related to background and training, not to force you to pick the black person in your stack of equally qualified candidates.
There's no evidence I am aware of that black pilots are less qualified, or that air safety was compromised because of DEI training. Does that evidence exist, or are you making it up?
@sh76 said
I never made such claim.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
If you're going to skip over candidates for other candidates based on specified criteria, such as race, by definition, you have to take some people with lower levels of qualifications over some people with higher levels of qualifications. That's just basic math
@Sleepyguy saidRoberts denies the existence of systemic racism in the US; I, aware of decades of sociological evidence showing the contrary, don't.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Roberts got it right. You got it wrong.
He will just accept its pernicious effect on human beings, I won't.
@no1marauder saidYou do accept the pernicious effect on human beings from systemic racism, and thus ensure its continuation.
Roberts denies the existence of systemic racism in the US; I, aware of decades of sociological evidence showing the contrary, don't.
He will just accept its pernicious effect on human beings, I won't.
@sh76 saidYes, sorry, white goes with Princeton. My unconscious bias, I suppose.
===The white guy who gets into Princeton because his parents put him in SAT prep when he was 12 years old, but is fundamentally NOT more qualified than the candidate who went to Howard University. ===
First, the word "white" is totally extraneous in that sentence. Anyone whose parents put him in SAT prep when he was 12 years old is going to have an advantage, whether white or ...[text shortened]... legacy, rich, or a sucker. Paying $70k/year tuition for an undergraduate degree seems insane to me.
It sounds like you agree that "pure meritocracy" - which is the term you used earlier - does not exist and cannot exist as it pertains to hiring practices (or college admissions, or athletics, or anything really).