The University of Washington's Fuzzy CS Diversity Success Math 107
theodp writes: The University of Washington's Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Access (DEIA) relies on "a set of objective measurements that will enable us to assess our progress." So, what might those look like? Well, for Goal O.3 "have effective pipelines for students to enter the Allen School as Ph.D. students with a focus on increasing diversity," the UW's 5-Year Strategic Plan for DEIA (PDF) specifies these 'Objective Measurements':
1. Measure the percentage of women at the Ph.D. level and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 40%.
2. Measure the percentage of domestic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Ph.D students and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 12% (the UW-Seattle average for Ph.D. students).
3. Measure the percentage of Ph.D. students with disabilities (measured based on DRS use) and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 8% (the UW-Seattle average).
But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.
Even if it falls short, at least UW attempted to publicly quantify what their overall DEI race/ethnicity goals are, which is more than what Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have done. That the UW felt compelled to break out U.S. and International students separately in an effort to facilitate more meaningful comparisons also suggests another way that the tech giants' self-reported race/ethnicity percentages and EEO-1 raw numbers for their U.S.-based tech workforce (which presumably includes International students and other visa workers) may be misleading, as well as a possible explanation for tech's puzzling diversity trends.
1. Measure the percentage of women at the Ph.D. level and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 40%.
2. Measure the percentage of domestic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Ph.D students and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 12% (the UW-Seattle average for Ph.D. students).
3. Measure the percentage of Ph.D. students with disabilities (measured based on DRS use) and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 8% (the UW-Seattle average).
But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.
Even if it falls short, at least UW attempted to publicly quantify what their overall DEI race/ethnicity goals are, which is more than what Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have done. That the UW felt compelled to break out U.S. and International students separately in an effort to facilitate more meaningful comparisons also suggests another way that the tech giants' self-reported race/ethnicity percentages and EEO-1 raw numbers for their U.S.-based tech workforce (which presumably includes International students and other visa workers) may be misleading, as well as a possible explanation for tech's puzzling diversity trends.
In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:1)
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's your solve for racist/sexist people favoring the white and/or male candidate over the equally qualified alternative?
How do you know that anybody is even doing that?
I could ask in turn what's your "solve" for racist/sexist people favoring non-whites and non-males? Because they publicly, loudly, do so.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:5, Informative)
> How do you know that anybody is even doing that?
All the studies ? Like comparative grading of anonymous student's papers compared to papers with names, comparing hiring selection based on CVs with and without names, or orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.
Those also suggest how the discrimination can be reduced with little or no effort.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:3)
I'm confused. Is anonymous grading good?
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/or... [harvard.edu]
Or is it bad?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
> Or is it bad?
Thanks for the link. A while ago I'd have said keep the blind and favour "affirmative action", but now I think I'd say funding needs to be targeted a lot earlier than that.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
It depends on your goal. If you do not want discrimination based on a particular feature, eliminate information about that feature from the grading/hiring/whatever process.
If you *want* discrimination, then don't do that.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:3)
orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.
To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions [nytimes.com]
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:3)
> How do you know that anybody is even doing that?
All the studies ? Like comparative grading of anonymous student's papers compared to papers with names, comparing hiring selection based on CVs with and without names, or orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.
Those also suggest how the discrimination can be reduced with little or no effort.
I don't believe that the studies about 'names' controlled for perceived class; I'm not sure how those 'researchers' selected names for their study and called them 'white' and 'black' (or whatever), but if you don't control for class perception then the researchers might have been revealing their own biases and limited view. Social research is fraught with these kinds of problems and worse (like outright fabrication, or more kindly 'non-reproducibility')
As for blind orchestra auditions, some orchestras are trying to do away with those so they can get the right mixture of skin tones to fit their preferences. The folks who got into the orchestras by benefit of blind auditions are out of favor among the politically active set and must be replaced. [nytimes.com]
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Yeah, some surely aren't well done. But I think some are, easily enough to confirm there's a solid population level effect.
On class, I wasn't thinking about that specifically, just more generally about discrimination, so class would fall under that too.
But if you're saying, I also agree class is a huge bias.
These stories are the ultimate ./ troll (Score:2)
Minorities (Score:4, Informative)
What makes you think admissions is favoring white people over other minorities? The demographic breakdown in the UoW is *very* specific in whom it tracks, and some rather large minority populations are not included. In my CS classes way back in the early 90's, white people were the minority.
And, to be completely clear, I didn't care then and I don't care now.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:1, Insightful)
There are more women than men globally and in the USA. Men are the minority.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
When it comes to cognitive ability testing as measured by IQ, I'd venture and say that there are no differences between men and women. But in reality the ratio of college graduates in the U.S. is heavily women vs men [ed.gov], including Ph.D. To top that, the percentages reflected on that page for black Americans aren't that far off from race distribution in the U.S, [census.gov] especially when you consider the multiple race column. Some lagging happens with Hispanics, especially for masters and Ph.D., but they actually are above their percentages for associate degrees.
This is another instance of "promote women and minorities." Why don't they just say "Fuck the white male?"
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:4, Insightful)
The real answer in my opinion is actually to make university schooling cheaper and/or free and place less emphasis on the particular school you go it. This really only happens because admissions at the "top tier" schools are such a scarce resource. We should be treating state and community systems like CalTech and CUNY/SUNY with similar regard so people don't feel like they are "losing out" by attending such schools and those schools actually make up the bulk of qualified graduates.
It's like the story that printed this weekend in the WSJ about how a girl with a 1550 SAT couldn't get admitted into the Ivy leagues she wanted to when in reality there are actually far more people qualified than her than there are seats in those schools. College admissions has become a competitive bloodsport.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Typo, meant CSU system, not CalTech
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
I could argue that in tech, Asian candidates are favored over equally qualified alternatives, and that would be borne out by the fact that Asians are overrepresented in tech. My question to you, given that Asians, which includes dark-skin hued Indians, are statistically favored, is that racism or not? If not, then there's nothing to see here, but if it is, is the solution to discriminate against Asians?
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Overrepresented in tech.. in what way? By what measure?
Let's simplify, China & India, populations of ~1.4 & 1.38 billion (according to Bing moments ago)... that's ~2.78 billion people.
Population of Europe is ~742.65 million, while the US is ~331.45 million.
Even if we were to assume that the population of each country is completely homogenous, of the 3.85 billion people in this pool, 72.2% are Chinese or Indian... are you saying that more than 72% of people working in tech are Asian?
It's a simple matter of numbers. There are simply more people in some countries, and even if the % is lower there than here (wherever here is) of those going to college and going into tech... the raw #'s of people going into it will see a significant output of people who end up in the field.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Looking at the demographics of the US tech industry, Asians are overrepresented.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
I'm not one who really focuses on what my co-workers look like or where they are from... so who is more/less represented isn't something I spend many cycles on. Even if we accept your assertion, they are overrepresented based on the US population/demographics (which also counts a visa holding Asian as the same as one whose family has been here for generations), you ignore the why.
China & India are big, so are going to see a larger # of graduates in a particular field than a country with a smaller # of people is going to be able to do. This means more applicants from those bigger countries... same reason you don't see many applications or tech workers from... Malta or Liechtenstein.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Comparisons of the demographics of the US tech industry are against the US population as a whole, not against the world population.
In a world where H1B's do not exist, that would be a valid way to look at things. Unfortunately, that's not our reality.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:4, Informative)
Current job ad at my alma mater:
The Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo is seeking an exceptional scholar and researcher to fill a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Tier 2 Canada Research Chair and tenure track position at the rank of Assistant Professor with an anticipated start date of 1 July 2022. In the case of an exceptional candidate, an appointment at the rank of Associate Professor will be considered. This call is open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:3)
Must not be that important of a job if it's only being offered to half the population. A token job that doesn't really need to be done.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Yeah, there was one at McGill recently that was only open to black people.
Someone needs to take these to the human rights commission. They're blatantly illegal.
Or, you know, identify as non-binary, at least until the hiring process is over.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:2)
You know you're doing something wrong when you feel you have to pre-emptively explain that you're not actually doing anything wrong.
It'll work itself out of course. Unfortunately the people who get hurt will be the ones these things are supposedly trying to help.
Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:1)
Er, ok (Score:2)
But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.
And that would be a problem ... why?
Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Because with such a small sample size, the success or failure of your initiative comes down to a +/- 1 result.
Re:Statistics (Score:2)
Under "Full Time Ph.D" it has two numbers:
Allen School Total Enrollment, Fall 2021: 325
Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class, Fall 2021: 54
What is the difference? They are both listed under "Full Time Ph.D".
Re:Statistics (Score:2)
It takes multiple years to finish a Ph.D.
Comment removed (Score:0, Flamebait)
Think again. (Score:2, Insightful)
FIRST - the issue of institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States is a resolved fact. It did happen.
"racial discrimination", yes. "institutionalized" is problematic because it blames "institutions" rather than the people that make up those institutions. This is a problem because a) you gotta make people behave differently and b) that works better if you don't focus so much on "you're a bad person". No matter how righteous that feels.
Also, you're trying very hard to overlook that at the end of the day it's still people making the policies, and so people being ultimately responsible. "Institutions" are like Don Quixote's windmills in this context. Makes for better virtue signalling opportunities, though. "Lookit! I'ma fighting them institutions!" 'Yes dear, very nice.'
The only fair reaction at this point is to intentionally reverse discriminate until something like equilibrium is restored.
Nope. You don't fight racism with more racism.
It feels good to activists to pretend "reverse racism" is "good racism" because now it's the other guy that's getting discriminated against, regardless of whether that individual was ever part of the previous discrimination.
What you're really doing is giving the pendulum a good push, as hard as you can, the other way. It'll come back soon enough, no worries. What you should want is no racism, pendulum in the middle. And for that all you can do is slow it down.
Who says when equilibrium is restored?
I'm sure there'll be know-it-all academics who'll invent some sort of whacked-out yardstick. They're no less off their rocker than anyone else veering deep into the details of the (perceived or actual) badness they pledge their life and career to fight against, coming up with detailed typologies and so on.
How do we accomodate the explicitly unfair nature of discrimination, even "reverse" discrimination? Is it reasonable to continue knowingly doing something wrong in an effort to correct a prior wrong?
We (the US, at least) seem to be caught in a cleft stick of our own making. Denying our history will prove counterproductive. I don't know how to fix this, but I will say that given a choice between doing something wrong or doing nothing - weirdly, I think we need to continue doing something wrong (EO); doing nothing leads to total destruction for our society as we know it. At least, doing something will let us learn from mistakes and (hopefully) improve.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
To give you a hint: Unearned money is worthless. What do you do about that? How do you get communities thriving anyway?
You start at the beginning, make sure the kids stay in school, the fathers with the mothers, and pester them to get educated, find jobs and/or start businesses, go out in the world and make it, on their own strength.
And, where necessary, you protect the communities as a whole from undue interference.
But all that is hard work. You can't easily signal your virtue with it either. As washington university and msmash are doing.
Re:Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:2)
At least, doing something will let us learn from mistakes and (hopefully) improve.
In this case I'm not sure anything can be learnt from doing the wrong thing. Actually the opposite. The question here is, why are the percentages for minorities lower than you'd expect? The answer is very complex but I believe is mainly to do with disproportionately high poverty among some ethnic groups. What we're doing with reverse discrimination is fudging the numbers, and declaring the problem solved. Whereas in reality nothing changes and we learn nothing about the real underlying causes of the issue.
I think it's a classic case of "When a metric becomes a target, it stops being useful"
Re:Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:2)
I, for one, feel sad for girls who are being groomed for STEM fields by old goats who are not happy with "diversity ratios".
If they don't like that, then I hope they will speak up. Men can't because they will immediately be branded sexist the moment they open their mouths, even if it's just mentioning verifiably true statements like 60% of college admissions are women.
Re: Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:3)
You can't intentionally reverse it like that without intentionally being ethnically choosy.
In this case if more than half are international though f it, should be diverse enough. Just make the admission test based and not on your mugshot, i refuse to belive that they would be same ethnicities with that high international percentage unless you completely lump everyone not 1 ethnicity to being 1 other ethnicity. Finnish and french and algerian and pakistani are not same ethnicity unless you count everything else than say hispanic as being same.
Re:Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:2)
Re:Bad answer for a bad problem. (Score:2)
Oh so two wrongs make a right and the answer to discrimination is MORE discrimination? I disagree with your conclusion.
People should be selected on merrit (Score:2, Interesting)
This is completely ludicrous.
A university should select people based on merit, not sex or ethnicity. A Caucasian male could sue them because of racism, if his merit is higher then all the other candidates.
Comment removed (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:1)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we hold black people accountable for absent black fathers, and the resultant increase in criminal behavior?
I mean, even if you're a black man who married the mother of their children, aren't you responsible for fixing the mess even if you personally didn't make it?
If skin color creates shared responsibility, there are some unintended consequences for the woke world view.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:0)
Seemingly tangential arguments are not relevant. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
You don't get to shirk the consequences of your subject just because you don't like them.
We (collectively) enslaved a large group of humans over an extended period of time.
The first ones were white. Why switch to black? Why specially import them? Especially when they're four times as expensive? Because the hope was that the extra expense would cause the slaveowners to treat their slaves better.
We have since denied them access to remedy for the harm we did them under due process of law.
What would that remedy have looked like? Transportation back whence they came? Sacks of free monies? What? Go on, tell us.
Therefore, the Statute of Limitations could reasonably be argued to be inapplicable.
Across death? I don't think so. But you're welcome to reasonably make that argument.
Do you really think leaving an entire segment of our society with no option but legal redress is going to be a viable solution?
I don't mind you lot getting off your lazy arses and make your justice tolerable again. It should mete out the same justice to anyone regardless of skin colour, as well as regardless of a couple other things, and it currently does not do that at all.
We'd better start acting collectively to correct the effects of our corrective error, or history will do so for us.
Rewriting history is not a race, nevermind a rat race.
You have read history, yes? You do know what happens when a population group institutionally subjugates another population group for an extended period of time, right?
I think you're in such a state that you're panicking more than you're thinking.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:3)
We did not, collectively, enslave blacks.
You may want to research the word "collectively".
https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]
Slaves had individual owners, they were not community property.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's immediately subjugate white people. Let them know they are eternally responsible for things they didn't do, but others who looked like them did. Collectively punish and separate people based on skin color.
Obviously, individual guilt doesn't matter when it comes to justice - we must absolve all black people of any wrongdoing, and blame all white people for all wrongdoing.
Blacks are good, whites are bad. Any disagreement is racism.
Pots and Kettles. (Score:2)
There is a deep and long history of tribes in Africa and other areas slaughtering other tribes throughout history - will they also be held responsible?
In fact much of the African slave trade was enabled by stronger tribes capturing and selling weaker tribes - without that it would not have been viable. Where is their responsibility?
The same can be said for several American Indian tribes (the slaughter bit, not the slavery so much), and in fact tribes in almost all cultures, including white of course.
At what time does historical guilt stop? Is there a date? Or is it just 'only if whites did it'? What about Asians?
Cultural development is what has reduced the slaughter, equal sufferage (that means voting for those who dont know), open communication, etc.
With the exception of 'socialism' unfortunately, which has almost without exception caused a huge slide back to slaughter of any who disagree.
Isnt it interesting that those promoting 'minority rights' also tend to support the very system that has slaughtered their peoples the most.
Re:Pots and Kettles. (Score:2)
Only whites have historical guilt. And asians who are white adjacent. Anyone who pledges fealty to blacks, and isn't white, gets a pass for everything they've ever done, or anything anyone with their skin color has done.
The only solution to racism is more racism, forever.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is the tunnel vision fixated on one instance of wrong in human history. Nearly every ethnic groups has been subjected to slavery and discrimination at various points in history. That does not lessen the tragedy that was slavery in the US, but it demonstrates it was not unique either. How about the black Africans who rounded up and sold the slaves? Are they not also responsible?
History is to be learnt from, not dwelled on. When you dwell on it, you never move on. You never improve. You just create animosity. No one alive today was part of American slavery. Many of the whites people want to punish or make pay never had ancestors living in the US at that time. Many that did have ancestors in the US at that time had ancestors who were against slavery. You cannot collectively punish a group of people because they look like someone in the distant past who did something abhorrent. That is racism. That is obsessively dwelling on the past. When what we need to do is acknowledge the past wrongs (nearly everyone does), learn from them and move on by not repeating those wrongs. Progress is made when we move forward. Many of the "woke" solutions are nothing more than regressive, reverse discrimination schemes that solve nothing and do not move us beyond the past with any sort of unity.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Seemingly tangential arguments are not relevant. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
We (collectively) enslaved a large group of humans over an extended period of time. We have since denied them access to remedy for the harm we did them under due process of law. Therefore, the Statute of Limitations could reasonably be argued to be inapplicable. Do you really think leaving an entire segment of our society with no option but legal redress is going to be a viable solution? We'd better start acting collectively to correct the effects of our corrective error, or history will do so for us. You have read history, yes? You do know what happens when a population group institutionally subjugates another population group for an extended period of time, right?
Should black people sue African nations, since that's where the slaves were bought, and they were not predominately bought from white people in the first instance.
Or maybe we should stop trying to punish people for things they didn't do to people who died a century and more ago. There's plenty of crap going on today without going looking for stuff from history to be offended by.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:1)
We (collectively) enslaved a large group of humans over an extended period of time.
Maybe you, but not me and not anyone else living.
Can we blame you for the Holocaust? How about we blame you for the starving farmers in the USSR under Stalin. Can we blame you for the genocide in Rwanda? Maybe we should blame you for Athletes Foot and Japan's adventures in the 1930s in Manchuria? Blame is a lame excuse to deflect guilt. I have no guilt for slavery among any people anywhere at any period in history. Get over it.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
It's not possible to travel back in time and undo past wrongs, nor is it reasonable to try to make specific reparations for abstract injustices committed generations ago. What is reasonable is to lessen prejudice by considering history and context and to extend equal opportunity to all people. You can't force outcomes and you can't infer causes from outcomes. Every individual has to live with the consequences of their decisions and it's not the White Man's Fault if the horse doesn't drink.
All of us have to navigate a world of advantages and disadvantages. It is poisonous to the mental health and autonomy of individuals to adopt a viewpoint that externalizes problems and takes no responsibility for what _is_ within an individual's control.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Your solution is to say . . . what? You didn't do it, so there's no problem?
No, you idiot. The solution is help the poor, give them all the opportunities they need whatever their skin color may be.
With your stupid reasoning, you'd give grants to rich black kids because one of their ancestor may or may not have been a slave (yes, there are rich black people, and yes, not all black people descend from slaves) and tell the trailer park kid with a single methhead mom to fuck off because he's white, even is his ancestors were slaves (because yes, there are poor white people and yes, slavery wasn't limited to blacks, hence the work itself "slave", you muppet).
The reasons why a kid today is poor is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if that's because society fucked his ancestor or if his ancestors fucked up by themselves. The kid isn't responsible for any of that. If you think it matters, you're racist.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:5, Insightful)
White people are evil, and soulless. Discriminating against them is a righteous racism, no matter what the circumstances. We must enable people to blame their problems on others, avoid personal responsibility, and demonize white people. If we don't, their feels will be hurt, and angels will die.
So, to recap, black is good, white is bad, and facts don't matter.
Comment removed (Score:0, Troll)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:0)
Now do the Irish who came to the US as the equivalent of slaves and explain why their descendants are required to pay reparations.
Or the Italians who came to the US long after slavery ended. Will their descendants be required to pay reparations?
Or the Native Americans (those who weren't shipped off as slaves to other parts of the world) who intermarried with Europeans. Will they be required to pay reparations because of their European ancestry or will they, being dark-skinned, receive them?
And say, and weren't dark-skinned Africans selling other dark-skinned Africans into slavery 10 generations ago? How will we deal with the seller's descendants who live in the US now? Will they be required to pay reparations or will they, being dark-skinned, receive them even though they were part of the original problem?
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:4, Insightful)
Not buying it. A compassionate person does not need to feel guilt and shame for things his/her ancient ancestors did in order to be compassionate. I am not evil for refusing to feel guilty for things other people did, just because those people might have had the same skin color I do.
What my ancestors did is not something "we" did. No current group of which I am a member did these evil things, and so I have no reason to feel guilty about that. THEY did it, and THEY are dead.
What *I* did was pay my property taxes diligently so that the schools in my area have the funding they need to supply an education to everyone, including the minority races that live here. I am further interested in knowing if there are other factors than the availability of educational opportunities that are preventing minority students from getting a good education. It is outright obvious that if we are ushering children into life without the mental competence they need to be competitive, then we are failing them HERE AND NOW. And I am interested in addressing the causes of those failures, whatever they may be, to ensure that everyone gets a good education, here and now. And THAT is exactly how I show compassion for, and do right by, all my neighbors.
This notion of collective guilt inherited from our ancient ancestors is ridiculous.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:1)
And bestowing collective virtue upon the descendants of oppressed ancient ancestors is just as ridiculous.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Yes, you should feel shame. Eternal shame, without any hope for forgiveness. Bow down to the gods of the Woke, and endlessly repent without possibility of hope.
Only white people should ever pay for crimes, and they should pay for crimes they didn't do, so long as they're white crimes. Collective guilt is the only rational way to run the universe, and white people are the only evil people.
I feel whatever the woke gods tell me to feel about The Current Thing. My individual thoughts don't matter to the narrative.
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Do you feel shame for what other Jews are doing to Muslims? Have you renounced your religion because of it? Why not?
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:0)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re: People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:0)
The amount of stealing and crime those people have committed enormously outweighs any mythical reparations you white guilt freaks want to give them.
Abraham Lincoln should have sent them back to africa instead of letting them roam free like monkeys.
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:3)
The past taught us that basing things on race and gender was not good. So why are we trying to fix it by basing things on race and gender?
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Current evidence suggests that no, we cannot learn from the past.
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Yes, and entire generations of black (formerly slave) families should be allowed to sue for past discrimination.
Can you imagine having standing to sue for shit long since dead and forgotten generations endured rather than such powers being limited to immediate family?
This would most certainly usher in an unprecedented renaissance in genealogy while undoubtedly substantially increasing the proportion of GDP consumed by lawyers.
Yeah, when all the descendants of black slaves have all had their day in court, then we should get around to hearing that Caucasian male's tale of woe. Now, the University will be bankrupt long before then; hope that's not a problem for you.
Can you explain why this would be the case? What is the rationale?
Surely transgressions against the living are far more important and would have precedent over transgressions against the dead?
Amongst the dead surely immediate family would have precedent over generations removed?
Why prioritize in this manner?
Finally as a separate matter of law my understanding is that it is not possible to sue for things that were legal at the time. The constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto (retroactive law).
Merit (Score:2)
I agree, it should be based on the student's merit, not on their parent's money or alumni connections. If 12% of applicants are visible minorities, then 12% should qualify based on merit (unless for some reason you think they are inherently inferior to white applicants).
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Instead of past performance, why not select people based on anticipated potential?
Maybe you think your school has the right professors to bring that poor black kid's ranking from the 20th percentile (well below average) to the 50th (average). Wouldn't that be a huge success?
It's a tragedy that we don't rate schools and teachers that way [wikipedia.org].
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Instead of past performance, why not select people based on anticipated potential?
I would support that if you actually have an objective metric that can measure it. But let's face it, such a metric doesn't exist because people don't even agree on what "success" looks like. An award-winning public school teacher might be a "success" in terms of societal impact, but they're certainly not making billions of dollars.
Maybe you think your school has the right professors to bring that poor black kid's ranking from the 20th percentile (well below average) to the 50th (average).
Fuzzy feelings don't work. It's been tried before and results in discrimination against out-groups (i.e. not members of your race, gender, culture or religion), such as women and blacks.
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
Wasn't this settled about 45 years ago? see Bakke Decision from 1978 [britannica.com]
Re:People should be selected on merrit (Score:2)
I agree with you, we should select on merit. But there are still many things to consider.
You could advertise your program more generally or in more targetted ways to particular populations. This will drive application from a broader pool of students. And in that pool of student, your merit criteria may yield a more "balanced" distribution.
Also, I have sat on selection committees for various things from PhD admission to providing funding for students to attend events. Often what you see if that there are more good candidates than you have spots for. So quickly, you end up having a pool of X qualified candidates but you have only X/2 spots. At that point, selecting to compose the cohort you think is better for the future becomes a reasonable goal.
We tend to think that merit is a one dimensional measure that can be tested with extremely high accuracy. It is not. They have done the study of taking a population of student and getting them to take the SAT twice. And there was a significant variation in the scoring that would lead you to make different choices. This is talked about in a recent(ish) veritasium video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Also, you need to take context in consideration. Would you rather take the person who scored 92% and that had spent 3 hours a day for weeks studying for the test, or the one that score 89% and that worked 2 jobs for years, and that took the test after only 5 hours of sleep because of when their previous shift ended? The first one scored higher, but maybe the second one deserves it more.
Who gives a shit what theodp thinks? (Score:3)
Re: Who gives a shit what theodp thinks? (Score:1)
Re:Who gives a shit what theodp thinks? (Score:2)
to be fair, the gibberish in the headline is already a clear indicator for lack of serious content, read at your own risk of boredom.
meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:4, Insightful)
Education should be paid for by society, by industry and commerce. Anything that puts the economic burden on the student must be classist discrimination by definition. Only a free education, freely available to all, can be the foundation of a free society.
Education as it is now is simply being used to reinforce class structures and class barriers. The upper class does not want to share the rewards we all work for. Keeping lower class people out of positions of power is how this is accomplished. Power corrupts, the education industry has power and has become corrupted by self interest. Corruption is leading to the decline and collapse of our civilization.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:5, Insightful)
1) we need to teach them better than we were taught, which leads to 2) we need to let professional educators figure out what to teach them
I can't argue with point one but I do find that schools nowadays are more like daily-use warehouses where parents can park their kids. We expect schools to clothe, feed, and be social service centers for the community, not a center for education.
There are very few "professional educators" out there, those that are truly professional have my admiration. Those that try to feed their value system to kids and veer from the approved syllabus should be weeded out. In a nutshell don't trust the "professionals," watch them, and question them. If you do that your child will get a good education.
"Professional Educators" with my children involved a school principal who called me to a conference because my son rode his new bike to school one day. He wasn't late, he observed all the safety rules of riding but this "educator" thought it was irresponsible of this parent to allow him to do so.
"Professional Educators" called me up to say one of my sons "hacked" their "proxy server" and could get to the content that wasn't approved. After reading this educator the riot act of how insecure their network was and that middle schoolers could "hack" their infrastructure, she shut up.
"Professional Educators" called me one day to say my son had a citation issued for decking another student in the class. It turns out the "other educator" lost control of the class when another student became belligerent and mouthed off to the "other educator" and the rest of my class, including my son. Of course, to be fair, both students were issued citations by the "resource officer."
I could go on and on about personal experiences here but please don't call most of these hall monitors "professional educators."
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:2)
Source? I support an educational district where most of the older teachers are pondering leaving.The ones that are left are like the one who recently yelled at everyone for putting meat in the staff refrigerator, because it contaminates her vegan meals.
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:3)
Bullshit. If you keep thinking "the man is keeping me down" then the man in your head will.
We have community colleges and state colleges and if we're honest not every damn position out there requires a full 4-year degree either. Companies have just become snobby insisting that you have a bachelor's or a master's degree for an entry-level job now. That's ridiculous.
I'll take people who are enthusiastic, willing to learn, and will stick with it over a guy looking for $200K for an entry-level position.
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:2)
You don't think there might be a halfway point?
Like, for example, perhaps it can become more common that large businesses provide scholarships to promising students, with jobs as soon as those students graduate. There would be details to work out, of course, to protect everyone's interests, but something like this would be totally workable.
I don't think that there should be a blanket corporate tax that winds up funding education for any student and any degree. There are too many worthless degrees that are nonetheless popular, and degrees that would be valuable except that the market is totally over-saturated. In these cases it makes zero sense to fund these degrees because it only causes harm and waste.
So long as there is no way to wind up forcing taxpayers to fund worthless degrees that may be popular for bad (or especially political) reasons, then I think it makes sense as a means of inter-generational wealth transfer that provides mutual benefit.
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:2)
We've become too attached to "higher education" and use it as a crutch for positions that don't need it. This raises expectations of the job seeker while the potential employer starts narrowing the job requirements so that a small percentage of applicants may fit the position. It's ludicrous. I agree with you, there are useless degrees that have nothing to do with the real world but then again do I need a 4-year degree to be a React dev? No.
The education system we have now is fundamentally broken and in order to change it, we'll need to break down a lot of barriers, mostly having to do with what are we trying to teach and why. If we take that approach we could be successful but if we start trying to shove too many abstract topics at people they'll wind up unemployable and frustrated.
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:2)
Bullshit. If you keep thinking "the man is keeping me down" then the man in your head will.
And if you constantly keep telling a group that society is racist against them, will hinder them and keep them down, like a significant proportion of the population does (politicians, elders of the group, and many others), it's no surprise the youngs will believe it, hate society, won't even try to suceed (because the man will keep them down), resent those of the group who try (traitors), feel no responsibility for their failures (society's fault anyway), and pass on that idea to their children.
Yes, discrimination exists and at equal wealth, life is harder for some groups, but you can't succeed if you don't take some responsibility and don't even try.
Re:meanwhile the rich get in and the poor do not (Score:2)
We had that. For 65 years, three generations. No discernible difference between family income and educational opportunities, be it in class or outside.
Would you guess what the outcome at school, college or university was under this perfectly leveled playing field? Everyone got top marks? Everyone got bad marks? Everyone scored in the middle?
Yes, you guessed correctly, it was a Gaussian distribution. So how would the "equity" fools account for reality?
Diversity Goals? (Score:1)
Re:Diversity Goals? (Score:2)
UW has to do a rather odd dance, though. Officially, UW is forbidden from enforcing quotas based on race or gender - but leadership also has made these public declarations of their commitment to DEI. So you get a lot of behind-the-scenes discussion that boils down to "we're only hiring a woman faculty member this time - we'll interview some men too, and just give them lower DEI tie-breaker scores wink wink nudge nudge".
Huge Mistake, Wrong Logic (Score:0)
Diversity sucks (Score:0)
Seriously, what benefit has accrued that even comes close to compensation for the shit we've had to put up with having it rammed down our throats? What problem did we have in 1965 that's now been improved by more diversity? We were doing fine. Take your DIE initiatives and shove them up your ass.
What happened to merit? (Score:2)
-or-
The truly best quota is to enroll the dumbest people in the chance some can become competently smart, which arguably helps society the most.
Instead we are looking at race and gender - a statistic that is essentially meaningless (yea sadly, this isn't the case because we are people, after all).
Wow, USA is a nazi county now (Score:1)
Sorry, but if you decide anything based on the person's race, you are a nazi.
Math nitpick (Score:2)
But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.
You would need to add one more (American Indian/Alaska Native?), to get at least 12% (2/20 is only 10%).
"White guilt" is a red herring (Score:1)
Arguments dismissing racial quotas as punishment against white people for crimes their ancestors committed are misdirected. Perhaps deliberately so. Nobody is accusing white people living in the US today of owning slaves or practicing government-sanctioned apartheid. Programs like UW's DEIA are not about punishing white people.
Let me state this explicitly just in case I didn't make it clear: This is not about us (white people).
Racial oppression in the US did NOT abruptly end with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Social policies, traditions, laws and regulations deliberately designed to maintain the order "white people on top everyone else at the bottom" are still baked into our culture.
Policies like UW's DEIA include an objective quantifiable way to determine how well said DEIA is compensating (and possibly changing, but that's another *very* slow process) for the racism baked into our culture.
Some will lose privilege we never should have had in the first place in order for everyone else to enjoy the rights to which we are all inalienably endowed. There's only so many seats at UW; if someone gets in then someone else doesn't.
But most of the "privilege" that only some of us enjoy: experiencing police interactions that have negligible probability of ending in arrest or death, being able to move into a “nice” neighborhood and be accepted not harassed, not being singled out to "represent" your race in a social or academic gathering, and on and on and on... should not be reserved for just one race. These are not part of a zero-sum game. Respecting these rights for everyone doesn't remove these rights from anyone.
Here's a story: .357 downstairs, muzzle pointed down, finger off the trigger. As I came downstairs I saw a shadow dart through the living room door into the back yard and stop just outside. I looked at the figure outside the door and saw a cap with a brim and about 8 sides. And a blue uniform. A police officer. I immediately opened the cylinder, dumped out the shells, put the pistol down on the couch, and walked around the other end to invite the officer in. While he was in the house, I picked up the (unloaded) gun and put it at the opposite end of the room. The officer explained that the door was open and somebody had called the police to check in on the house. He asked me and my wife to show our IDs to prove we were really the people who live here and not burglars.
I heard a noise in my living room late at night. Somebody was in my house. I took my loaded
The officer assessed the situation, and all observable aspects of my being, which include my behaviour, race, age, gender, body language, and I'm sure lots of other things I have not been trained to observe. He concluded--at no small risk to his own life were he to be wrong--that I was not a threat to him.
Everyone should be afforded fair and rational treatment, but only some of us are. I am alive today.
That is white privilege.
Re:"White guilt" is a red herring (Score:2)
Arguments dismissing racial quotas as punishment against white people for crimes their ancestors committed are misdirected.
Racial quotas are inherently prejudicial and discriminatory. This is reason enough to dismiss the idea.
Programs like UW's DEIA are not about punishing white people.
They are about deliberately perpetuating prejudice. In many countries this type of discrimination is explicitly illegal. Taxpayer funding should be withheld from any university engaged in explicit discrimination. Students should continue to file lawsuits when they are explicitly racially discriminated against.
Racial oppression in the US did NOT abruptly end with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Social policies, traditions, laws and regulations deliberately designed to maintain the order "white people on top everyone else at the bottom" are still baked into our culture.
What existing US laws are racist? Which existing regulations are racist? Which policies are racist? I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.
Re:"White guilt" is a red herring (Score:1)
The privileged assume that their privilege is the norm and you are no exception.
Racism is an integral part of US Law and has always been so. But don't take my word for it; see what the lawyers have to say about it:
Here is a good place to *start*:
Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice [americanbar.org]
Their math books will be banned in Florida (Score:2)
Why? (Score:1)
Wouldn't it make more sense to survey potential students to find the percentages of each group they are targeting who are interested in potentially earning a CS PhD, and then compare that to the numbers who actually enter the program? What happens if the target groups aren't interested? It's literally retarded.