When should America discriminate?

[AliHajiSheik]

What you do not seem to understand:
1. Half the secondary-school graduates are NOT going on to a post-secondary education.
2. Of those that do, a significant percentage are failing to complete.

One must ask, therefore, the question, "What is happening"?

It could very well be that they cannot afford the money for even a six-month Vocational Training? And the fact that an Associate's or Bachelor's degree costs $10K a year is beyond their means?

So why shouldn't we provide them a post-secondary education that costs them exactly the same amount as a secondary-schooling degree?

Instead of spending about half the Discretionary National Budget on the DoD ... ?

You don't seem to realize is that I did ask the question what is happening and you only left me with speculation on your part. You started with data and ended with speculation. Fill in the speculation and perhaps there could be more agreement.

 

[Lafayette]

You don't seem to realize is that I did ask the question what is happening and you only left me with speculation on your part. You started with data and ended with speculation. Fill in the speculation and perhaps there could be more agreement.

Moving right along ...

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Moving right along ...

I’ll be waiting until you stop dodging. If you can’t handle the reasonable questions, you may not be in the right site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

What you do not seem to understand:
1. Half the secondary-school graduates are NOT going on to a post-secondary education.
2. Of those that do, a significant percentage are failing to complete.

One must ask, therefore, the question, "What is happening"?

It could very well be that they cannot afford the money for even a six-month Vocational Training? And the fact that an Associate's or Bachelor's degree costs $10K a year is beyond their means?

So why shouldn't we provide them a post-secondary education that costs them exactly the same amount as a secondary-schooling degree?

Instead of spending about half the Discretionary National Budget on the DoD ... ?

My guess about what's happening has more to do with secondary grads not being prepared to work at a post-secondary level. Here in California for years about half of those admitted to the California State University system had to take remedial classes in math and English.

 

[Lafayette]

My guess about what's happening has more to do with secondary grads not being prepared to work at a post-secondary level. Here in California for years about half of those admitted to the California State University system had to take remedial classes in math and English.

I'm not surprised.

California is not alone. The same phenomenon is happening here in France. Unlike the US, France's secondary and tertiary education is run by the state. So, the president is taken to be responsible for how they run.

The result, some say, is due to sociological problems. The children are not studying sufficiently because the parents do not insist upon it. I think on both continents we may have created a generation that has not understood sufficiently the importance of tertiary-education to having a good job at an adequate pay-scale.

Other sociologists say that the real criminal is the smartphone which has captivated adolescent attention and affected their ability to learn ...

I teach at university here in France. I am pleased to see the classes contain a high percentage of females. But, I am not the least bit impressed by the students' ability to assimilate facts, analyze them adequately, and write a convincing, factual argument.

I do see nonetheless that the girls are taking their studies far more seriously than the boys. The future "breadwinners" in Europe likely will be females ...

 

[Lafayette]

I’ll be waiting until you stop dodging. If you can’t handle the reasonable questions, you may not be in the right site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tapatalk on a iPhone is for people who do not know how to write a well-thought and cogent counter-argument.

They feel obliged to respond saying something, anything, and quickly ...

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Tapatalk on a iPhone is for people who do not know how to write a well-thought and cogent counter-argument.

They feel obliged to respond saying something, anything, and quickly ...

Do they now? Your meager dodge/answer wasn't that long. Perhaps you should try Tapatalk, it might shorten your answers to the relevant information rather than long, drawn out fact free answers.

 

[Xelor]

Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

Well, it's naive to think that. We, people, individuals daily discriminate. There's nothing wrong with doing so. The basis on which one discriminates, context, is what on some occasions is unethical and others is legitimate.

• Choose Micky D's over Wendy's -- I might choose to patronize "this" Wendy's because it's drive through line is shorter than is the McDonald's one next door.
• Choose BMW instead of Audi -- Maybe the steering feel is more to my liking.
• Apply to Harvard but not Yale (or accept an admission offer from one of them)
• Hire John instead of Bill or Mary -- If the a reason I choose John is because John is [insert race/sex], that's probably a problem. If John is just a better fit on one or more substantive qualities, it's not a problem.
  • I said "probably" because I know that in my firm, at least, diversity is at times a success factor. If we don't have enough whites, blacks, males, Jews, etc. for substantially most projects or internal firm activities to benefit from the unique perspectives available and contributions makeable only by dint of one's being a member of a given identity group, then one's race, gender, sexual identity, ethnicity, religion, etc. could conceivably go from irrelevant to substantive. It wouldn't become so substantive that it'd result in our choosing, say, a woman having an overall incomparably accomplished performance record than the man with whom she's competing for the same position.
    • Job offers/promotions involve many considerations, particularly for positions such as those at my firm wherein employees and partners are expected to be outstanding at a wide variety of things. That said, consider the following:
      • Let there be two candidates for a given position/promotion, and for example, overall both are fine candidates. If one is stronger at managing and the other stronger at project delivery, even though both are strong at both skills, which one gets the nod will depend on things having to do with neither of them, per se...things like what skill is most needed "now" or "in the longer term" in the practice unit/layer into which the person will be hired/promoted.
        • If, for example, a very strong sales partner has recently left or is soon to do so, I'll want to bring in someone who'll help fill that gap.
        • If, instead, the pipeline is flush with engagements that are about to "pop," I need the stronger project delivery person. (Though as a practical matter, this particular blessing is one whereof we likely need both candidates.)
      • For more basic job classifications, low to mid-level "back office" ones, the assessment criteria may, on occasion, be more objectively weighed.

What's the point of all that? It's that while it'd be nice for choosing to be objective and/or binary, it's just not that easy. There are far too many factors to consider. "Never" and "always" simply aren't assertions that anyone giving the matter serious thought can make and expect to be taken as credible.

 

[Xelor]

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14

It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Well, on the face of that image alone, I can't say whether discriminating for or against any of those identity groups is warranted. To wit,

• As go academic admissions to colleges/universities, it does the school no good to create an "underclass" comprised of "this or that" ethnic identity group. Admitting people solely on account of their race, gender or ethnicity, for instance, is absurd. Giving a slight preference to a minority applicant who exhibits the standards the school expects of all students and whose identity group is underrepresented in the student body is fine. The point of doing so would be to create diversity among the student body, and in the realm of intellectualism and expressions of it, sharing/conjuring ideas, that's a good thing because, like my profession, scholasticism benefits from diversity.
• Looking at the infographic, however, I'm forced too to ask factors give rise to them. In my firm, there aren't many women in the senior most ranks. It's not that we don't want women in those positions, but when there are only two women and twelve men, all of whom are very highly accomplished, vying for, say, the one managing partner position available, the numbers alone, and nothing else, don't suggest a woman will get the job, but a woman might. Don't ask me why it happens that so many more men are even applying for the position, because I don't know. (As anyone can, I can speculate just fine, but I don't know.) I know that from entry level to the line partner level, attrition among women is greater than it is among men and that below the line partner level, the distribution of men and women is comparable.
  
  Do I "lose sleep," over the fact that many women exit the profession prior to becoming eligible for the top-most position? No. Would I vote to promote a woman on account of her sex? Mostly no, but if circumstances were such that advancing a woman has some business value, then, yes, a woman candidate would have a slight edge, all other things -- the candidates' qualities and the firm's needs going forward -- being equal.

 

[Lafayette]

I know that from entry level to the line partner level, attrition among women is greater than it is among men and that below the line partner level, the distribution of men and women is comparable.

You've hit the nail on the head, and you haven't the foggiest notion of an answer?

Think about it! Why is it that women do not "go the entire ten yards?" Think!

Some help here, from the Huffington Post: Are Women “Less Ambitious” Than Men? Yes, and Here’s Why. - excerpt:

In a recent study conducted at the Harvard Business School, men and women were shown a ladder with rungs numbered from 1 to 10 and were asked to choose a rung for their ideal position. When thinking about what they wanted, women chose lower rungs on the ladder.

The researchers, and the media, concluded women are less “ambitious” and in many ways, that’s true. Compared to men, women in the study listed life goals that see the whole picture, not just work. They also associate having power with more conflict and negative consequences (which is real, since we still live in patriarchy).

If leadership is defined as climbing up the corporate ladder, women are less “ambitious.” We are less willing (or interested) to play the old game. And that’s why we will lead the effort to redefine leadership. In this redefinition, leadership is about choosing what’s meaningful, and not about climbing to the “top.” Leadership means starting a business, writing a book, having a baby, or doing whatever the hell we want. Leadership is being redefined to be more cooperative, deep, personal, vulnerable, relationship-based, and service-oriented.

As shared in this wonderful NY times piece, women want to study engineering when they feel it can make a meaningful difference and impact in other people’s lives. In other words, women are natural ladders. It isn’t about climbing to the top or being number one, for more and more women, it’s about being of service.

Get this: In the male genetic chemistry, we are "programmed to strive and win" Why? Because over the millenniums necessary to develop mankind finding food and defending the family/tribe were primordial requirements of our existence. Males were stronger and better hunters. Women weaker and better gatherers.

We have since evolved, but the genetic structure has not.

To such an extent that it is written in our genetic coding. That does not make male-dominance in a work-environment either "right or acceptable" a behaviour/outcome in a modern society. One must absolutely appreciate sufficiently a sense of fairness and equitability as regards both sexes and regardless of the context ...

Post Scriptum: And what has happened in Hollywood recently is just one more example of male-manipulation of females - only this time in a market where fortunes a made.

 

[Xelor]

You've hit the nail on the head, and you haven't the foggiest notion of an answer?

Think about it! Why is it that women do not "go the entire ten yards?" Think!

Some help here, from the Huffington Post: Are Women “Less Ambitious” Than Men? Yes, and Here’s Why. - excerpt:



Get this: In the male genetic chemistry, we are "programmed to strive and win" Why? Because over the millenniums necessary to develop mankind finding food and defending the family/tribe were primordial requirements of our existence. Males were stronger and better hunters. Women weaker and better gatherers.

We have since evolved, but the genetic structure has not.

To such an extent that it is written in our genetic coding. That does not make male-dominance in a work-environment either "right or acceptable" a behaviour/outcome in a modern society. One must absolutely appreciate sufficiently a sense of fairness and equitability as regards both sexes and regardless of the context ...

Post Scriptum: And what has happened in Hollywood recently is just one more example of male-manipulation of females - only this time in a market where fortunes a made.

Wow! You actually proponed the notion that women are genetically predisposed to being less ambitious. Wow! Just wow.

 

[Lafayette]

Its just like the work for welfare program. When lazy people were told they had to work in order to get their free money they got off welfare and decided to find a real job because at least it paid better.

Monkey gibberish.

Who are YOU to decide the "lazy people"? Based upon what criteria? You've made a study and can tell from their faces. Or feces?

Come down off your high-horse and learn what it means to be poor and living on below $25K a year with a family to feed ...

NB: Edmund Burke - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Lafayette]

Wow! You actually proponed the notion that women are genetically predisposed to being less ambitious. Wow! Just wow.

And you don't know how to read correctly.

Read it again. With a dictionary in one hand ...

Hint: Ambitious about what? Amassing riches? Yes, many evidently don't think becoming a billionaire is worth the effort. So they place their energies/minds elsewhere. Why is that notion so alien to you? Think about the question before knee-jerk answering with a wisecrack.

 

[Xelor]

And you don't know how to read correctly.

Read it again. With a dictionary in one hand ...
Hint: Ambitious about what? Amassing riches? Yes, many evidently don't think becoming a billionaire is worth the effort. So they place their energies/minds elsewhere. Why is that notion so alien to you? Think about the question before knee-jerk answering with a wisecrack.

​

 

[Lafayette]

​

Kartoons are for kids. Do join us when you've grown up.

Moving right along ...

 

[Xelor]

not disputing the general fact that college grad make more, I'm saying how much more and how many are unemployed depends on what their major is. AND the reason for both - less unemployment AND better PAY is because there are fewer of them than the general public. IF you start giving everyone a "free" education you increase the competition for jobs, which lowers salaries. Simple relationship, really.

The trick to being a good bridge player is the same as the trick to everything else: thinking about the right thing at the right time.
-- Momma​

What you've described is a basic principle of supply and demand. The trick to applying the principles of supply and demand is to accurately identify what it is that is being supplied and demanded.

With regard to employment, your remarks above imply that employers demand college degrees. They do not. Employers demand a set of skills -- i.e.,​ critical thinking skills, technical skills, certain experiences, and subject matter knowledge. A college degree is merely a preliminary indicator that an applicant may have those skills, and it is such because of the standards one must meet in order to obtain that degree.

Why do employers specify that applicants for a given position have a degree in XYZ or PQR or whatever? Among other reasons:

• Because the employer knows that, aside from in rarefied circumstances, one can only obtain the skills, knowledge and abilities needed to perform the job at the level the employer requires by having gotten the noted degree.
• Because one's having a college degree, particularly a young person, is demonstrable evidence of their being self-motivated, which corresponds to the ability to set a goal and remain focused on achieving it and do so with minimal supervision and outside assistance.
• Because one's performance in the course of obtaining one's college degree measurably and comparably among different students indicates the pace at which one can "consume" large amounts of information, accurately evaluate it and its implications, and, in turn, use that information to devise implementable solutions.
  • For any given course, students who score higher in the class have demonstrated they faster and more comprehensively mastered the content of the course than did their lower scoring peers.

The above applies to entry level "career path" jobs/applicants. At some point in any given career, that one has or lacks a degree becomes largely irrelevant; however, it's also very possible to commence and build a very fine career without a degree. To wit, Sean Hannity hasn't a college degree. Bill Gates has no college degree; neither did Steve Jobs. Other highly successful people who have no college degree and who come readily to mind: Oprah, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, John Mackey, Beth Holmes, Matt Mullenweg, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Ellen DeGeneres, Jack Taylor, Dan Ek, Dave Neeleman, Ty Warner, and David Geffen.

Even though they haven't a college degree, each of those individuals developed the skills needed to perform every bit as admirably as can a college grad. One thing that each of those individuals developed aptly and that many people do not are vision, courage and entrepreneurial and competitive spirit. College does not and cannot teach that, yet those two qualities are what every successful self-employed person possesses.

 

[Bullseye]

The trick to being a good bridge player is the same as the trick to everything else: thinking about the right thing at the right time.
-- Momma​

What you've described is a basic principle of supply and demand. The trick to applying the principles of supply and demand is to accurately identify what it is that is being supplied and demanded.

With regard to employment, your remarks above imply that employers demand college degrees. They do not. Employers demand a set of skills -- i.e.,​ critical thinking skills, technical skills, certain experiences, and subject matter knowledge. A college degree is merely a preliminary indicator that an applicant may have those skills, and it is such because of the standards one must meet in order to obtain that degree.

No, I don't employ employers demand college degrees as a blanket requirement. In fact I agree that your list of skills is far more important to job performance. That being said some employers do demand a degree.

Why do employers specify that applicants for a given position have a degree in XYZ or PQR or whatever? Among other reasons:

• Because the employer knows that, aside from in rarefied circumstances, one can only obtain the skills, knowledge and abilities needed to perform the job at the level the employer requires by having gotten the noted degree.
• Because one's having a college degree, particularly a young person, is demonstrable evidence of their being self-motivated, which corresponds to the ability to set a goal and remain focused on achieving it and do so with minimal supervision and outside assistance.
• Because one's performance in the course of obtaining one's college degree measurably and comparably among different students indicates the pace at which one can "consume" large amounts of information, accurately evaluate it and its implications, and, in turn, use that information to devise implementable solutions.
  • For any given course, students who score higher in the class have demonstrated they faster and more comprehensively mastered the content of the course than did their lower scoring peers.

The above applies to entry level "career path" jobs/applicants. At some point in any given career, that one has or lacks a degree becomes largely irrelevant; however, it's also very possible to commence and build a very fine career without a degree. To wit, Sean Hannity hasn't a college degree. Bill Gates has no college degree; neither did Steve Jobs. Other highly successful people who have no college degree and who come readily to mind: Oprah, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, John Mackey, Beth Holmes, Matt Mullenweg, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Ellen DeGeneres, Jack Taylor, Dan Ek, Dave Neeleman, Ty Warner, and David Geffen.

Even though they haven't a college degree, each of those individuals developed the skills needed to perform every bit as admirably as can a college grad. One thing that each of those individuals developed aptly and that many people do not are vision, courage and entrepreneurial and competitive spirit. College does not and cannot teach that, yet those two qualities are what every successful self-employed person possesses.

You're preaching to the choir. IF you thought I was saying a degree is a requirement for employment, think again. My point, just as yours, is that employers frequently use the list of skills and abilities you've listed. However, some still do require a degree, frequently for entry level positions.

 

[Xelor]

No, I don't employ employers demand college degrees as a blanket requirement. In fact I agree that your list of skills is far more important to job performance. That being said some employers do demand a degree.

You're preaching to the choir. IF you thought I was saying a degree is a requirement for employment, think again. My point, just as yours, is that employers frequently use the list of skills and abilities you've listed. However, some still do require a degree, frequently for entry level positions.

Yes, some firms do. Indeed, my firm is among them. That said, we do have a very few "front of the house" employees and one partner who haven't degrees. Most employers are willing to make exceptions; however, individuals desiring to be the exception must rise to the challenge of demonstrating they are worthy of being so. The challenge is primarily that of convincing a principal to test one as they might a candidate who has a degree.

 

[Xelor]

Kartoons are for kids. Do join us when you've grown up.

Moving right along ...

Yet again your novelty shows.

 

[Lafayette]

Yet again your novelty shows.

More one-liner useless cynicism.

You'd be happier on a Message Board ...

 

[Lafayette]

To wit, Sean Hannity hasn't a college degree. Bill Gates has no college degree; neither did Steve Jobs. Other highly successful people who have no college degree and who come readily to mind: Oprah, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, John Mackey, Beth Holmes, Matt Mullenweg, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Ellen DeGeneres, Jack Taylor, Dan Ek, Dave Neeleman, Ty Warner, and David Geffen. .

We are born with brains, but not skills (which we learn). They are two different traits.

Ask anybody who worked for either Gates or Jobs. They were both "it's my way or the highway" managers.

Brains are honed by education and allow a person to have multiple skills because they learn to have a variety of means to tackle jobs. We have this absolute admiration for anyone who has made a megabuck, as if they were all Extremely Smart.

It doesn't take smarts. It takes a good idea and a determined will to profit from it. Most important is the "good idea" that is justified by a correspondent market-demand for the product/service.

Besides, to my mind, anybody with brains does not try to spend their life making a megabuck - because "you can't take it with you when you go". They try to enjoy life, which is (after all) highly variegated and thus interesting.

So, its kinda-sorta stoopid to make such an effort to make millions (and continue to make-millions) that becomes a life-long addiction ...

PS: From the Guardian - thinking about money ... Can money buy happiness?

If poverty makes us miserable, it stands to reason that wealth makes life worth living. But does it? Psychologists aren’t so sure

One survey of 1,000 Americans, conducted in 2010, concluded that money does make us happier – but only up to a certain point. The findings, by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton, both from Princeton University, showed that self-reported levels of well being increased with salary up to $75,000 (roughly £50,000) a year. But after that, increasing amounts of money had no further effect on happiness.

However, a more recent study, published by researchers at the University of Michigan in 2013, challenged the idea that the positive effect of money plateaus. After comparing life satisfaction and happiness levels in both rich and poor countries, and rich and poor people within a country – with “rich” being defined as an income greater than $15,000 (roughly £10,000) per person – Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers concluded: “The relationship between well being and income … does not diminish as income rises. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.”

 

[Xelor]

We are born with brains, but not skills (which we learn). They are two different traits.

Ask anybody who worked for either Gates or Jobs. They were both "it's my way or the highway" managers.

Brains are honed by education and allow a person to have multiple skills because they learn to have a variety of means to tackle jobs. We have this absolute admiration for anyone who has made a megabuck, as if they were all Extremely Smart.

It doesn't take smarts. It takes a good idea and a determined will to profit from it. Most important is the "good idea" that is justified by a correspondent market-demand for the product/service.

Besides, to my mind, anybody with brains does not try to spend their life making a megabuck - because "you can't take it with you when you go". They try to enjoy life, which is (after all) highly variegated and thus interesting.

So, its kinda-sorta stoopid to make such an effort to make millions (and continue to make-millions) that becomes a life-long addiction ...

PS: From the Guardian - thinking about money ... Can money buy happiness?

I agree.

to my mind, anybody with brains does not try to spend their life making a megabuck - because "you can't take it with you when you go". They try to enjoy life, which is (after all) highly variegated and thus interesting.

FWIW, the wealthy folks I know didn't set out or commit to become wealthy. Their aim, to a person, was and remains being (1) doing things they enjoy doing and (2) putting their all into doing it. Put another way, while nobody minds being wealthy, nobody sets being wealthy as their goal.


...And, no, not I, and not the rich folks whom I know, well equate being successful with being wealthy. We equate success with achieving goals.

 

[Lafayette]

IF you thought I was saying a degree is a requirement for employment, think again. My point, just as yours, is that employers frequently use the list of skills and abilities you've listed. However, some still do require a degree, frequently for entry level positions.

In the case of "professionals", it is a must.

I mean doctors and lawyers, etc. ...

 

[Lafayette]

IPut another way, while nobody minds being wealthy, nobody sets being wealthy as their goal.

I beg to differ on that one.

Given human nature, nobody sets out without a goal. Food is not a goal but a necessity to any animal on earth.

The hardest goals require both effort and some smarts (dedicate effort being one of those "smarts"). Nobody makes (not "wins" but "works") a megabuck without effort and some smarts ... not even Donald Dork.

Of course, it would help anyone (like him) to start out in life with a megabuck inheritance (40/50/100-guestimate) and running the family real-estate company in New York ...