• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • I definitely would.

    Votes: 4 7.1%

  • I definitely would not.

    Votes: 31 55.4%

  • I might, or I'm not sure.

    Votes: 21 37.5%
  • Total voters
    56
I doubt I would hire any fool who majored in gender studies or social justice; especially if they looked to be female or minority axe-grinders. I found such folk to be trouble makers, especially on diverse staffs. Nope best run them off with a carefully orchestrated plan of sidelining to "special projects" in remote office buildings, writing progressively harsh reviews, and putting on the pretense of being a Mr. Rodgers deeply concerned about their unsuitability for the job.

Unfortunately modern law does not make ending an employees tenure quick and easy, if forces you to torture the poor bastard under the guise of sweet talk. The "my way or the highway" approach was, in the long run, far more humane.
 
Ahlevah said:
Yeah, I realize that. I started out as an econ major, but headed for the exit when a core class in intermediate micro-economics was getting into some pretty heavy (for me) integral calculus within the first week. This was before I had taken calculus, which every student in the college was required to pass as a core requirement. (I ended up with an A-. :mrgreen:) I would imagine the difficulty of any program in a social science would depend on the requirements of the program. Some programs are extremely demanding and more quantitatively oriented, while others are less challenging. The rigor of the programs are also tailored to the academic ability of the students. One point Heather Mac Donald makes is students in California's UC system are guaranteed a spot if they're in the top 9% of their high school class. But she notes there is no distinction between the quality of the schools. So if you take a kid from a marginal school in which he graduated with honors just for showing up, he's probably going to have a hard time academically at a university such as Berkeley, whether he's in psych or engineering. He'll be a good candidate for mentors, a student union where he can (hopefully) get in to a study group, and empathetic professors who'll give him extra credit for spending time serving homeless people at a soup kitchen or whatever.
Click to expand...

Red:
The way that works isn't nearly as straightforward as your summation makes it seem.

Given what I've read about the need for courses to appear on the UC system's "a-g" list, it seems to me that while the "quality of schools" isn't expressly a factor, whether a given school's courses meet the "a-g" inclusion requirements seems to take course quality (rigor) into account. Furthermore, it appears that graduating "with honors" is indicative of whatever the school district says it means.

Be that as it may, the UC system doesn't appear to give a damn about one's having graduated with honors; however, it does care whether a given course one takes is an honors course. According to the statewide site, an honors courses are "Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate Higher Level and designated Standard Level courses, UC-transferable college courses and UC-certified honors courses that appear on your school's course list."
There again, it seems the UC system pays close attention to the curricula of the courses it deems suitable to prepare students to attend a UC system institution, and, in turn, the system seems to accord admissions "credit" based on the coursework a student completed rather than anything having to do with the reputation, graduation performance, etc. of the school a CA student attended.


Frankly, I think many people think that preparedness for college is "all about" one's grades in high school. I dare say that is part of it, but one's personal preparedness -- maturity and dedication, in particular -- is also a huge factor. Some high schools proactively provide the guidance needed to prepare students as individuals, whereas others do so only reactively (my alma mater, a private prep school, is that way and ever has been, AFAIK), which is how things go in college. High schools, particularly ones that are evaluated on graduation rates, all but "bend over backwards" to make sure a student graduates, though even when graduation isn't in question, non-prep school high school teachers tend (from what I've heard) to take a proactive approach when they notice a student of any aptitude struggling with a given topic.


I recall chemistry "giving me the blues" in high school. Nobody came to me asking whether or on what I was having difficulty. Then I got Cs and Bs on quizzes and a B on the first exam, and I then realized that I needed to reach out to the teacher because even though I was otherwise a straight-A student, he damn sure wasn't coming to me. When I went to my teacher, he actually told me he could tell I was having trouble and he wondered whether I just didn't care and was happy to just pass the class or whether I'd come to him for help. When I sought his help, however, he gave me the guidance I needed to improve my grades and improve they did. That was the first and last time I took chemistry. I guess I just didn't like chemistry, and to this day, I don't know why. (That I didn't like it was odd because I liked all my other classes.)
 
I work for an engineering company, so no, I wouldn't hired someone with degree in gender studies or social justice. They wouldn't be qualified.
 
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...

If they just got a degree in gender studies I might hire them. Depends on their attitude during the hiring process. Same thing with social justice only dependent on the job that I am looking to fill.

If however a person got a degree BOTH of those? HELLZ TO THE NO! You're just ASKING for trouble in that case.
 
There are degrees in social justice?
 
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...

It must be hard being such a victim and living under the oppression that you white males have to do it. I am impressed you were able to overcome all of those obstacles what being a white male puts in front of you. It would also be hell if you actually had to speak to a woman you hired with respect and professionally in a work place. You gotta keep those women with self respect out of your work place.
 
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...

The question is "their degree" not "did they take a class".

So, the impact of the argument being made is "this person chose to specialize in grievance, meaning they are probably the kind of person who seeks out and focuses on grievance".






As for the original question, it would depend on the nature of the job. Perhaps I (for whatever reason or another) wish to make another person miserable, or I wish to create some other kind of trouble for them. In that case, this sort of individual might be well-suited for the skill set I need. Alternately, perhaps I don't actually need the job done, but am attempting to help someone whose parents clearly didn't raise them well that money comes from work - in that case, someone with one of these degree's is probably most in need.

For most jobs, however, it would count as a strike against. That doesn't mean the answer is a flat "no", but it means they need to bring other things to the table, all else being equal.
 
Xelor said:
Be that as it may, the UC system doesn't appear to give a damn about one's having graduated with honors; however, it does care whether a given course one takes is an honors course. According to the statewide site, an honors courses are "Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate Higher Level and designated Standard Level courses, UC-transferable college courses and UC-certified honors courses that appear on your school's course list."
There again, it seems the UC system pays close attention to the curricula of the courses it deems suitable to prepare students to attend a UC system institution, and, in turn, the system seems to accord admissions "credit" based on the coursework a student completed rather than anything having to do with the reputation, graduation performance, etc. of the school a CA student attended.
Click to expand...

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.

Xelor said:
Frankly, I think many people think that preparedness for college is "all about" one's grades in high school. I dare say that is part of it, but one's personal preparedness -- maturity and dedication, in particular -- is also a huge factor. Some high schools proactively provide the guidance needed to prepare students as individuals, whereas others do so only reactively (my alma mater, a private prep school, is that way and ever has been, AFAIK), which is how things go in college. High schools, particularly ones that are evaluated on graduation rates, all but "bend over backwards" to make sure a student graduates, though even when graduation isn't in question, non-prep school high school teachers tend (from what I've heard) to take a proactive approach when they notice a student of any aptitude struggling with a given topic.
Click to expand...

Okay, but the biggest problem I see with the current social justice/diversity movement is they're trying to build a house from the roof down. They operate from the premise that getting ahead is about power and those who wield it. Presumably, white males sit at the pinnacle of the power heap thanks to their privilege. If we could just get more Hispanics and blacks into elite schools like Berkeley and U.C.L.A., then they can assume their rightful place in society. But in order to get there, we have to move from a strictly merit-based approach to one based on other criteria. It doesn't matter what those criteria are, just as long as the result is a more racially-diverse student body. So the students are admitted, and then what? They either drop out, change to a less challenging degree program, or they emerge ill-prepared. The universities and colleges are really doing these students a disservice.

One more thing: I think the problem of educational achievement transcends race. It really is a cultural problem. We have many white kids today who are born out of wedlock to single parents. A large portion of them will end up dropping out of school. They'll then enter poverty because there is only one wage earner and they're not well educated. This increases the odds that their kids, in turn, won't make it as adults. They're more likely to end up in the criminal justice system or as uneducated and impoverished citizens. If we want to increase the achievement of our citizens, then we need to figure out how to get back to a society that values family, education, and hard work as the path to success rather than one in which success is based on getting knocked up in high school. I see it every day in my job in the casino business: cocktail servers or dealers who had kids at an early age, usually high school, never married or perhaps they marred but then divorced after a few months or years, but now live in apartments, working two jobs or picking up extra shifts just to make ends meets. It's really kind of sad, but then I always told my own kids that life is about choices: you can make good ones, or bad ones. Sometimes people are their own worst enemies.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
What.....do you study...for such a degree?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know. I presume it's things like power and privilege, safe spaces, microaggressions, etc. and not quantum field theory.
 
Ahlevah said:
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...
Bold:
The above makes no sense to me.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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%?"
      • I don't think you did because the two path links I provided make clear that the general "must be in the top 9%" dictate applies to ELC and "statewide" applicants.

Ahlevah said:
Okay, but the biggest problem I see with the current social justice/diversity movement is they're trying to build a house from the roof down. They operate from the premise that getting ahead is about power and those who wield it. ... If we could just get more Hispanics and blacks into elite schools like Berkeley and U.C.L.A., then they can assume their rightful place in society. But in order to get there, we have to move from a strictly merit-based approach to one based on other criteria. It doesn't matter what those criteria are, just as long as the result is a more racially-diverse student body. ...
Click to expand...

Blue:
I have no idea of how you've concluded thus. No social justice initiative I know of has the model you've noted. Each and every one of them I know of is driven by the notion that getting ahead is a matter of access to educational and job opportunity, not to "power and people who wield it."

As for the program to which your paragraph's remarks allude, affirmative action in college admissions, that program aims as much to provide access to college education opportunities as it does to effect some measure of reparative justice for people who have traditionally [quite literally for some 200+ years] been oppressed, denied the noted opportunities. (The aims are slightly different in the workplace, but the notion of facilitating opportunity is nonetheless present.)

As for whether affirmative action works:
  • Education context
    Moderate levels of race-based preferential admissions can benefit both employers and gifted members of under-represented minority groups by providing an opportunity for these individuals to signal their ability to employers in the labor market.
    -- Bruce Wydick, "Affirmative Action in College Admissions: Examining Labor Market Effects of Four Alternative Policies"
  • Employment context:
    • Affirmative action redistributes jobs and student slots towards minorities and females, though these effects are [small]. Minorities who benefit from affirmative action often have weaker credentials, but there is fairly little solid evidence that their labor market performance is weaker. While minority students admitted to universities under affirmative action have weaker grades and higher dropout rates than their white counterparts, both their graduation rates and later salaries seem to rise as a result of these policies. Affirmative Action clearly generates positive externalities for the minority and low-income communities (in terms of better medical services and labor market contacts), and perhaps for employers and universities as well.
      -- Harry J. Holzer, "The economic impact of affirmative action in the US"
    • "Studies provide no evidence for a negative effect of affirmative action on firm performance; there were no differences between organizations that appeared to emphasize affirmative action and those that did not."
      -- Economic Effects of Affirmative Action on Organizations
  • Supplemental reading: How to Think About Affirmative Action Like an Economist
 
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...

you sound like you have your own axe to grind
 
Having a degree in anything shows that you have been educated to a certain standard, and you have proved yourself capable of achieving that level. The precise subject isn't a major factor in most jobs.
 
Hell to the nah...
 
But this is a good opportunity to explain why people don't get ahead. Getting degrees in this BS all the while there is a booming economy and a skilled labor shortage....

Wallowing in victimhood just don't pay the bills...
 
Manc Skipper said:
Having a degree in anything shows that you have been educated to a certain standard, and you have proved yourself capable of achieving that level. The precise subject isn't a major factor in most jobs.
Click to expand...

Sort of like a participation trophy....I get it...
 
I guess that I would HAVE TO hire them, wouldn't I?

Can you imagine what would happen to an employer who turned down a person who majored in "gender studies" or "social justice"?

Why, s/he would run screaming to the politically correct media: "Discrimination!!! Bigotry!!! Misogyny!!! Fascism!!!"
 
Probably not.

Between the likelihood of encountering a generally unpleasant, overly contentious, misandrist personality type, and the relative certainty of incurring litigation for failure to walk on eggshells, I don't see that I'd be denied so broad a candidate pool as to justify such a personnel selection blunder.

Iow, **** no.
 
As a software engineering lead someone with a gender studies degree probably doesn’t have the relevant background. However if they did I wouldn’t hold their field of study against them.

As a general rule I care equally about skills and temperament. I worry about how a new hire will effect my team’s dynamics. I’ve passed on technically qualified candidates that I felt just wouldn’t fit in and have hired people who were less qualified technically but that I felt would strengthen the team in other ways.
 
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.
 
Manc Skipper said:
So you haven't got one then.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. Being a classically French-trained Chef, I haven't needed one.

Besides, I's is selfs eduatated don'ts yous knows...
 
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...
In theory there are some basic other requirements in every degree, or I thought there were supposed to be.

I'm not and may never be in a position to hire people, but I would probably not hire someone with that degree unless the position was related to that...field of study?
Unless they had experience in some area which enhanced their resume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom