Would you consider hiring someone with a degree in gender studies or social justice?

Xelor said:

Admissions that used to be assured to the top 12.5% across the state (statewide) are now guaranteed only to the top 9% across the state, yet somehow that may, in your mind, may be a less merit-based way of granting of admissions.

Click to expand...

Sure it it, and, frankly, I'm surprised you don't see it. Previously, the top 12.5% of students came from a single pool of top high school students based on a formulaic method using test scores and GPA. So kids from better school districts who, say, took Advanced Placement or honors-level classes coupled with high entrance-exam scores disproportionately comprised the pool. Kids from poorer-performing schools and districts, with not as many AP programs or courses and who weren't as well-prepared for the board entrance exams, were at a perceived disadvantage. So the UC Board of Regents lowered the percentage of students who could qualify via the statewide pool, nixed the two SAT subject exams, and carved out another program where kids in the top 9% of their class at their school qualified for admission.

Xelor said:

Just how did you manage to conjure that the top 9% of students be less meritorious than are the top 12.5%? 3.5% of the students who once were high-enough performers would now be not-high-enough performers to obtain admission.

Click to expand...

That's due to the cutout reserved for students from eligible schools in the Local Context (ELC) program. Now it's possible to deny a spot to a more-qualified kid because spots are reserved to specific schools rather than having the students considered as part of a statewide pool comprised of all high schools. And, honestly, it's not just in my mind that this would reduce college admissions based on merit:

Some Asian-Americans have charged that the university is trying to reduce Asian-American enrollment. Others say that may not be the intent, but it will be the result.

UC officials adamantly deny the intent is to increase racial diversity, and reject allegations the policy is an attempt to circumvent a 1996 voter-approved ban on affirmative action.

"The primary goal is fairness and eliminating barriers that seem unnecessary," UC President Mark Yudof said. "It means that if you're a parent out there, more of your sons' and daughters' files will be reviewed."

New UC admissions policy angers Asians - US news - Life - Race & ethnicity | NBC News

Click to expand...

The changes weren't intended as an end-run around racial preferences but were designed to increase "fairness" and remove "barriers that seem unnecessary"? Really? What's more fair than admissions based on individual merit, UNLESS one believes that it's fair to admit kids with lower board scores or GPAs because their parents were born in Honduras instead of Vietnam? I mean, I get that maybe it isn't "fair," in one sense, that a Hispanic kid from Oakland is at a disadvantage compared to a white or Chinese kid from Palo Alto. But is the state being fair denying the better-qualified candidate admission to UC while setting up the Hispanic kid for an increased chance of failure? What's wrong with placing him in a school where his chance of graduating is higher, say, at Cal State East Bay in Hayward? Whereas 96% of female "Asian-Pacific Islander" freshmen eventually graduated from UC Berkeley in a cohort taken from 2006-10, 86% of "Underrepresented Minority" freshmen graduated. 65% of African-American males graduated :doh (https://diversity.berkeley.edu/reports-data/diversity-data-dashboard). I highly doubt it was a pleasant experience for many of those dropouts, but then every war has its casualties. :shrug:

I might not hire someone who HASN'T read Mein Kampf. That displays a lack of intellectual curiosity, and that's a trait that I need in the job.

Jetboogieman said:

Just for completing a course you'd not hire them?

Let me ask you a different question.

Would you not hire someone who's read Mein Keimpf?

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Did you not click on the links I provided, and read the content there found, detailing how one qualifies for the admission guarantee under the "top 9%?"

Click to expand...

Yeah, actually I did. I'm trying to learn more about the history of the local program-when it began, what percentage of students at a high school were eligible for it, the reasoning behind it, etc. For example, I found this old link from the UCR catalog of 2004-05:

Under the Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) path, the top four percent :shock: of students at each participating California high school are designated UC eligible and guaranteed admission to one of UC's nine general campuses, though not necessarily at their first-choice campus.

UC Riverside 2004-2005 - Undergraduate Admission

Click to expand...

I'm not drawing any conclusions, but if one wants to decrease Asian enrollment in the UC system to something more representative of the state as a whole, then increasing the percentage of students taken from specific high schools, most of which are where Asians aren't concentrated, is one way to do it.

Ahlevah said:

Sure it it, and, frankly, I'm surprised you don't see it. Previously, the top 12.5% of students came from a single pool of top high school students based on a formulaic method using test scores and GPA. So kids from better school districts who, say, took Advanced Placement or honors-level classes coupled with high entrance-exam scores disproportionately comprised the pool. Kids from poorer-performing schools and districts, with not as many AP programs or courses and who weren't as well-prepared for the board entrance exams, were at a perceived disadvantage. So the UC Board of Regents lowered the percentage of students who could qualify via the statewide pool, nixed the two SAT subject exams, and carved out another program where kids in the top 9% of their class at their school qualified for admission.

Click to expand...

I didn't know what you were talking about in post 36 because, unlike what you have written above, it was incoherent:

Until Fall 2012, the U.C. guaranteed admission to the top 12.5% of high school students statewide. Beginning in Fall 2012, that was cut to 9%, but the system also admitted the top 9% at virtually every high school across the state. So whereas previously a school could provide a larger portion of students if they were above the qualifications of a school where, say, a large potion of students dropped out, under the new regime each school effectively had a cap on how many students would be admitted. I can see how this might skew admissions away from more of a merit-based approach to one designed to increase diversity.

Click to expand...

Thank you for rephrasing your thoughts in a coherent fashion. The rationale, the methodological approach, as you've now expressed it makes sense, and I now understand what you mean. I don't know if the fact pattern you've depicted elides a or some material fact(s) (or inserts a/some non-extant quality(s)), but, if I'm so inclined, what you've now written is clear and precise enough that I can check and determine whether your analytical conclusion is valid and sound.

Again, thank you.


P.S.
What I want to or do see isn't really the point. It's what you write in presenting your case that, when I'm conversing with and trying to understand you, that matters. I'm unlikely to put words in your mouth or assume you are making a case based on ideas you haven't expressly or necessarily implicitly expressed.

Ahlevah said:

I probably wouldn't. And I don't care what I'd being hiring for. I'd assume they had an ax to grind against me as a "privileged" white male, or that I'd have to watch EVERYTHING I said lest I offend them. I'd also assume that they couldn't pass a degree program in math, engineering, accounting, English--pretty much anything with the possible exception of an old standby for the less intellectually gifted among us such as psychology or communications. I mean, I wouldn't assume they're dumb, just that they probably aren't top-notch talent. So I'd likely take a pass.

Click to expand...

LMAO holy uneducated bigotry and irony batman!!!!! wow nothing like completely exposing yourself

anyway on to your question

theres not enough info . .

whats the job.... does it require education in those areas . . . is it HR? Am i hiring for a human rights or equal rights firm etc? then the answer is absolutely yes if that education fits the job . . .

if the job is something else that doesnt require that education then the answer is maybe. If they have the education/skills/background needed for the job im hiring then yes i hire them . . if not then no im not.

What does a degree in those fields have to do with white privileged males or ability in math, engineering, accounting, English?:lamo

Jetboogieman said:

But that’s just my point, perhaps a person did the same with the course.

Click to expand...

I read the OP and thread title as someone having a degree in the fields of study, not just as one that had taken a course.

My business requires a certain degree field so no...I wouldnt hire someone with a degree in Gender Studies. If I had a business where I didnt really care about the degree field, i probably wouldnt have a degree as a requirement for hiring.

Ahlevah said:

Yeah, actually I did. I'm trying to learn more about the history of the local program-when it began, what percentage of students at a high school were eligible for it, the reasoning behind it, etc. For example, I found this old link from the UCR catalog of 2004-05:

I'm not drawing any conclusions, but if one wants to decrease Asian enrollment in the UC system to something more representative of the state as a whole, then increasing the percentage of students taken from specific high schools, most of which are where Asians aren't concentrated, is one way to do it.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you keep bringing up race in this discussion. I thought the thread asked the question of whether one would consider hiring someone having one of the degree types noted in the thread title, and I believe I've answered that question here. Moreover, I don't see what any of this discussion you and I have had about college admissions has to do with whether I would "consider hiring someone with a degree in gender studies or social justice."

I've hired and determined the promotion outcomes of people for roles including "back of the house" workers ranging from receptionist to controller, "front of the house" consulting professionals from undergraduate recruits to experienced partner/principal hires, and C-level and C-level-reporting executives (I didn't personally deliver the offer to the C-level folks; I was merely part of the selection committee.). Only for the undergraduate and grad school recruits was what degree they had relevant in any way, but rarely (if at all; I just can't remember every candidate I've ever hired or promoted) was their degree pivotal in my hiring decisions. (Obviously, for experienced hires/promotees, the candidates' degree was all but irrelevant.)

Frankly, in no hiring situation did I ever give a wet rat's ass about the race, gender, national origin, state of residence, etc. for any of those folks. If they impressed me with their professional acumen and abilities, along with their character and judgment, the obtained my approbation. If they impressed me thus more so than did their competitors, they obtained not only my approbation, but my agreement to give them an offer of hire or promotion.


Aside:

Xelor said:

I don't know why you keep bringing up race in this discussion. I thought the thread asked the question of whether one would consider hiring someone having one of the degree types noted in the thread title, and I believe I've answered that question here. Moreover, I don't see what any of this discussion you and I have had about college admissions has to do with whether I would "consider hiring someone with a degree in gender studies or social justice."

Click to expand...

As I wrote previously, this thread was prompted by an editorial (The Scourge of Diversity) I read concerning Heather Mac Donald's contention that identity politics "threatens higher education and civilization itself." It's kind of hard to discuss diversity without mentioning race or identity politics as a threat to higher education without noting where it actually affects higher education, such as the admissions practices of colleges and universities. If you know of another way, I'm all ears. :blink: I tend to agree with her that it is a threat, so just as I wouldn't hire a white supremacist, I wouldn't hire one of these identity politics loons.

Xelor said:

Like it or not, people who are good looking (no matter their race) have an easier time obtaining others' "good graces," at least at the outset of a firm-to-client (professional) relationship. Since mine was a professional services firm and personal relationships and one's facility at establishing and developing them makes a difference, there's no sense in not hiring the better looking of two otherwise comparable candidates. Until I sold it, mine was a small firm; it made no sense to give up any competitive advantage that came my way and that I didn't have a logical performance/business-related reason to forsake.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't fault you for that one bit. It's like in my line of work (casinos): When hiring for a poolside party pit, the dealer can be as dumb as a box of rocks just as long as she can count to 21, but she better have a pretty face and solid set of tits.

Ahlevah said:

As I wrote previously, this thread was prompted by an editorial (The Scourge of Diversity) I read concerning Heather Mac Donald's contention that identity politics "threatens higher education and civilization itself." It's kind of hard to discuss diversity without mentioning race or identity politics as a threat to higher education without noting where it actually affects higher education, such as the admissions practices of colleges and universities. If you know of another way, I'm all ears. :blink: I tend to agree with her that it is a threat, so just as I wouldn't hire a white supremacist, I wouldn't hire one of these identity politics loons.

Click to expand...

Well, okay, but why to discuss diversity, why title the thread by asking a question that one can and, frankly, that every principal I know would answer without regard to anything having to do with racial diversity concerns?

You've asked a title question about one's hiring rationale/practices, yet what you want to discuss is diversity as it applies to (public?) colleges'/universities' admissions policy.

Had it been evident, or at least somewhat plainlly inferred by the title, I would not at all have posted in this thread because the topic is hackneyed.

Ahlevah said:

I probably wouldn't. And I don't care what I'd being hiring for. I'd assume they had an ax to grind against me as a "privileged" white male, or that I'd have to watch EVERYTHING I said lest I offend them. I'd also assume that they couldn't pass a degree program in math, engineering, accounting, English--pretty much anything with the possible exception of an old standby for the less intellectually gifted among us such as psychology or communications. I mean, I wouldn't assume they're dumb, just that they probably aren't top-notch talent. So I'd likely take a pass.

Click to expand...

Obviously you wouldn’t want to hire someone who would pre-judge others.

Nickyjo said:

Obviously you wouldn’t want to hire someone who would pre-judge others.

Click to expand...

I couldn't use that as a standard, because, like the Abominable Snowman, no such person who would not prejudge others actually exists.

Ahlevah said:

Actually, I don't fault you for that one bit. It's like in my line of work (casinos): When hiring for a poolside party pit, the dealer can be as dumb as a box of rocks just as long as she can count to 21, but she better have a pretty face and solid set of tits.

Click to expand...

Red:
I wasn't going that far with it, and provident chariness has conscribed my having done.

While the concepts of continuity and limits are expressly taught as part of calculus (and sometimes precalculus), the concepts have applications all over the place in our daily lives. Part of prudence involves recognizing how pragmatically to apply those concepts, regardless of whether one has a formal foundation in them.

Xelor said:

Red:
I wasn't going that far with it, and provident chariness has conscribed my having done.

While the concepts of continuity and limits are expressly taught as part of calculus (and sometimes precalculus), the concepts have applications all over the place in our daily lives. Part of prudence involves recognizing how pragmatically to apply those concepts, regardless of whether one has a formal foundation in them.

Click to expand...

Okay, well, table games managers/directors largely skipped calculus class, but they probably could have been experts at using second-degree quadratic equations to evaluate lines, curves, and cones. They can define the perfect symmetry between the vertices of two cones that conjoin at their base in a hyperbola intersecting a vertical plane. Personally, I did take calculus eons ago but have largely forgotten it, so that will serve as my excuse for my use of crude language. I don't normally do that, but in this case it was meant to implicitly highlight the contrast between the public corporate persona presented with such purpose and flowery prose as to how employees are expected to be treated against the reality of what actually happens when operations staff are directed to hire people appropriate to what "product" is to be presented to guests.

Xelor said:

Well, okay, but why to discuss diversity, why title the thread by asking a question that one can and, frankly, that every principal I know would answer without regard to anything having to do with racial diversity concerns?

Click to expand...

That's a fair question. "Social justice" obviously encompasses territory beyond identity politics, but more recently I think there's been a movement among so-called "social justice warriors" to place identity politics/diversity at the forefront of their "struggle." When I was in college back in the 1980s, they seemed more fixated on wealth and its role in defining class and power. The fall of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe took the wind out of their sails for most of the '90s, but now they're back with a vengeance. It's difficult to have a discussion with these people today without them voicing some grievance against "privilege" of some sort. Normally, their biggest bugaboo is personified as a rich white male placed in some position of authority. Donald Trump fits the bill nicely, so I can see why they were hugging each other and sharing Kleenex boxes on November 9th. You can see their fixation on the topic of identity with the terms they use: "ableism," "ablesplaining," "ageism," "appropriation," "bigender," "bigotry," "brocialism".... All of these terms revolve around idenity in some form, and I haven't even gotten to the "Cs" yet. So it's only natural that critics (like me) of the social justice movement tend to conflate terms such as "social justice" with this current incarnation.

Anyway, one of my biggest beefs with these folks isn't their emphasis on identity, but their effort to stifle free speech, specifically on college campuses. So, as I said, if I ever saw "Social Justice" in a resume I probably wouldn't hire the person. I'd definitely wince before I tossed the resume.

Xelor said:

You've asked a title question about one's hiring rationale/practices, yet what you want to discuss is diversity as it applies to (public?) colleges'/universities' admissions policy.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to dictate the flow of the thread. I will discuss any aspect of "social justice" that a reasonable person chooses to bring to the discussion or why I disdain these people.

Xelor said:

Had it been evident, or at least somewhat plainlly inferred by the title, I would not at all have posted in this thread because the topic is hackneyed.

Click to expand...

Well, you are free to depart the thread at any point you choose, but it seems to me that some of your subsequent responses to your initial post belie your statement.

My PhD specialization, like a minor for an undergrad, is gender (ecology degree). And if any of the backwards hillbillys that talk **** about social justice think I'd work for them, that's a laugh.

"Well, gee, BillyBob, think we can shovel all this crap by ourselves? No way, BobbyJoe, we gonna have ta hire us one of them gender people to help". Sure.

Ahlevah said:

I probably wouldn't. And I don't care what I'd being hiring for. I'd assume they had an ax to grind against me as a "privileged" white male, or that I'd have to watch EVERYTHING I said lest I offend them. I'd also assume that they couldn't pass a degree program in math, engineering, accounting, English--pretty much anything with the possible exception of an old standby for the less intellectually gifted among us such as psychology or communications. I mean, I wouldn't assume they're dumb, just that they probably aren't top-notch talent. So I'd likely take a pass.

Click to expand...

Geezus. Find a safe-room!

ecofarm said:

My PhD specialization, like a minor for an undergrad, is gender (ecology degree). And if any of the backwards hillbillys that talk **** about social justice think I'd work for them, that's a laugh.

"Well, gee, BillyBob, think we can shovel all this crap by ourselves? No way, BobbyJoe, we gonna have ta hire us one of them gender people to help". Sure.

Click to expand...

So far we've got 22 BillyBobs and BobbyJoes in the "Definitely No" column (I wasn't one of them) in this thread compared to the the 3 in the "Definitely Yes" column. This isn't a scientific poll and not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole, but my gut tells me the Yays have a public relations problem in much of the country.

Ahlevah said:

So far we've got 22 BillyBobs and BobbyJoes in the "Definitely No" column (I wasn't one of them) in this thread compared to the the 3 in the "Definitely Yes" column. This isn't a scientific poll and not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole, but my gut tells me the Yays have a public relations problem in much of the country.

Click to expand...

A buncha neckbillys really got us educated folk a shakin' in er boots.

ecofarm said:

A buncha neckbillys really got us educated folk a shakin' in er boots.

Click to expand...

BillyBob's vote is worth just as much as yours. And, frankly, it isn't just BillyBob who feels this way. Some of the people who are tired of being told to sit down and shut up are in the academy.

Ahlevah said:

BillyBob's vote is worth just as much as yours.

Click to expand...

But I don't need his crap-shoveling job. I have an education.

If I was running a Women's Studies or Social Justice think tank or lobbying firm I might possibly hire them, assuming I have an open position for their skills. Otherwise, I'd likely pass.

Hell no, what a useless degree. Hire them for what? That qualifies them for nothing that produces value.

Same goes for an art history major, or anything else that would indicate poor decision making when choosing a major.

I would also be concerned about them finding everything as "problematic" the way Anita Sarkeesian does. I'd want a worker, not hammer looking for nails to waste HR's time with. Clock in, clock out, do the job, take the pay and don't cause me any problems. STEM majors, licensed professionals or MBA holders are who I would look to.

Ahlevah said:

Okay, well, table games managers/directors largely skipped calculus class, but they probably could have been experts at using second-degree quadratic equations to evaluate lines, curves, and cones. They can define the perfect symmetry between the vertices of two cones that conjoin at their base in a hyperbola intersecting a vertical plane.

Personally, I did take calculus eons ago but have largely forgotten it, so that will serve as my excuse for my use of crude language. I don't normally do that, but in this case it was meant to implicitly highlight the contrast between the public corporate persona presented with such purpose and flowery prose as to how employees are expected to be treated against the reality of what actually happens when operations staff are directed to hire people appropriate to what "product" is to be presented to guests.

Click to expand...

Blue:
FWIW, "second degree quadratic equation" is redundant because all quadratic equations (those which define a parabola) are second-degree equations.

• Solving second degree equations

From your high school discussions[SUP]1[/SUP] of the Diophantine equations (some folks covered it in geometry, others in algebra I or II) and learning how to solve them, you may recall, however, that not every second degree equation is quadratic.


Note:

1. In looking for a Diophantine equations reference, I stumbled upon it and, upon perusing it, I realized its topical scope, tone and flow mimics the Diophantine (and all the rest) lecture my math teachers gave: conversational, yet every word, every comma, etc. carefully chosen and critical to comprehending them.
   
   One of the nice "tips" I recall our math teacher sharing was that he'd "only ever put Diophantine equations" on exams because all the rest "are, frankly, a pain in the ass. Besides, if you've not by now mastered arithmetic, my exam questions are the least of your problems." At the time he first mentioned them, he didn't tell us what "Diophantine" meant -- and, of course, none of us asked because at that point our aplomb at asking intelligent question remained immature; I recall thinking it must have either meant "relatively simple" or it was something I'd read the night before and forgot...it was neither...LOL -- but those of us who bothered to look it up after class found that revelatory pearl very useful on the occasion when multiple choice problems appeared (we didn't often have multiple choice questions, but when we did, they were by far the hardest questions on a test) and one or more rational values were answer options.
   
   Sorry...nostalgia overcame me. All the same, TY for catalyzing my recollection of that learning moment from so long ago. Perhaps most importantly, remembering those days reminded me of just how so is what, to a man, our (my) high school teachers told us: "almost all you ever really need to know, you will learn here." I can't say whether that's so for most high schools and folks' high school experiences, but it sure has been for mine. I didn't for the past 40+ years think much about that, but reflecting on my participation on this forum has shown me they couldn't have been more correct.

Red:
Many folks store glassware upside down.



Pink:
Remembering how to "do" calculus is of little value unless one has one of the rarefield careers that calls for such; one needs to remember from it are the concepts and how to apply them in them....

• Is "such and such" continuous or not? If so, what are the implications of it being whichever it is? How does it compare to/with alternative, similar or related processes that are continuous/disjoined?
• Is a given process cyclical or not? If so, what are the implication of being whichever it is? How does it compare to/with alternative, similar or related processes that may or may not be cyclical?

Sure, in calculus class, one has to go through the exercise of actually doing the math, i.e., calculating specific rates of change, but in the "real world," few if any be occasions calling one to do that. Even in my career which called for me to apply calculus (and a bit more than that, really), I didn't ever actually have to "do the math;" that's what computers are for.

Tan:
Okay.

Superfly said:

If I felt that they could do the job I was hiring for, why would I not hire them?

And yes, failure to hire them just because you don't like them, or their field of study, is discriminatory, and they can go after you. If they don't meet your criteria for the position you are hiring for, then you can move on, but if they don't meet your personal standards of what you approve of? You are discriminating.

During the interview process, you shouldn't even make a mark on their application. Not a single mark. No stickers, no gold stars. The very act of doing so can set you up for discrimination lawsuits at a later time. Plus, the job application is a legal document that shouldn't be written upon by anyone but the applicant.

Click to expand...

That is what copies are for....the original goes in the HR file...the copy goes in my interview file

And it has all sorts of notes on it...from body language, to dress, to tone of voice...

I time certain questions....

Without notes, with the number of interviews I do, I would never remember all the nuances

I get 30-100 applicants per job...call at least 10-15 to weed down to the final 5-7 I want to interview

It is a process....but somone who had gender studies as a major would never make the first cut....unless accounting was a minor