Affirmative Action Grading

[RD_151]

I think that sounds like a better approach. Getting in shouldn't be biased, but paying for it probably should be in some cases. It's kind of odd how these things work though. I remember my roomate, he was on a free ride for income reasons and driving a Lexus Gotta love the way these things work in the end!!! In theory, sure, but in practice, well, that's another matter.

 

[Aunty Em]

In my experience, really well-off people are pretty good at hiding their income especially when they know in advance that they need to.

The trouble with penalising private schools though is that a lot of middle income parents scrimp and save and go without to give their kids that type of education and now it's basically being taken away from them...

You just can't seem to get it right no matter what you do.

 

[RD_151]

Yep, basically. Its impossible to get it right. I guess that's why we have settled with the limitations of the current programs for so long.

 

[drkavnger99]

I look at it this way... I have a good friend of mine who has been working his butt off in college to get into medschool. He was recently declined for that with a 4.0 gpa. Tell me how this is possible.... well actually I will tell you how it is... his black friend with for the most part same past academic schedule but a 3.92 gpa got in.... Say it aint so... I agree with RD 151 on most of what he said and unbegrudgenly my buddy saw his friend off to med school. I just find that even with jobs if you have more experience and are the most qualified for the job you should get it whether your black, white, asian, hispanic, martian, or aquadic animal. It doesn't make sense to hire someone without the better skills if they meet your pay requirements. As in this med school thing; my buddy raised himself from the ground up no support from his family since the age of 15. Got student loans coming out his ears (like all of us) and you know what you don't see anyone trying to lend a hand to him and he doesn't ask one. If you don't have the will to stay in it till the finish no matter what then your in the wrong place....

I am curious at how you would capitalize on something that you know is unfair for both sides of the coin. This program backfires all the time and it success is hard to measure. But too many times have I seen underqualified "minorities" struggling to get a grip on something they are not knowledgeable about. I am sure it happens the other way too when you get a boss that discriminates against minorities too but you see that alot less because of the only part "I feel" works of affirmative action and that is a big fat lawsuit.

 

[outside looking in]

My personaly opinion on AA...

Well, I won't bother writing the intricate details of my opinion, where they came from, the background of where I was taught about AA and under what context, and how I came to change my opinion to what it is today. Instead I'll offer a simple analogy that I think accurately represents my view of the current situation with as little pain as possible...


There was clearly a need in our nation for something to be done. There was a wound, left by racial hatred and discrimination, and it was bleeding. With the best of intentions, we sought for something to heal the wound. We found what appeared to work as a great antiseptic, and perhaps a decent pain killer, and by applying judicious amounts of this ointment we found that we could keep the wound clean and free from infection. It felt right, it looked right, and common sense (as well as some very serious deliberation) led us to believe that in time, with the care we were providing, the wound would heal.

How unfortunately mistaken we were. Our ointment turned out to be not only a great antiseptic but also a rather efficient anticoagulant. While we could keep the wound superficially clean, we could not stop the bleeding. In fact, if anything, we made it worse. The outward appearance improved, but the wound was still there, deep as ever. Something different needs to be done.

What might that be? The solution might seem as cruel as is sometimes the case with real medical wounds. We should stop using the ointment. It might be painful for a while, and will certainly be messy, but it allows the body's natural resources to heal itself. In time, the blood will clot, the bleeding will stop, and scar tissue will form.

So many seem to believe that our goal should be eliminating the scar, while the truth is that the wound has never been allowed to heal. The scar is unavoidable after such a deep wound... the prolonging of the healing process is not.

 

[Gato_Solo]

As I've said before in this thread...for every 1,000 cases where affirmative action works as it is supposed to, you get 1 or 2 cases like your friends, drkavnger. The media will capitalize on every bad action to get their ratings, and the people who need the help that's out there, such as your friend, get screwed. Now back to the meat of the matter...

Not all of post-secondary education is based upon your GPA, and, considering the way most students get their 4.0, I agree with it. Some of your acceptance comes from extracurricular activities, volunteer work, charity, etc. Don't blame your friends non-acceptance on his being the 'wrong' color. That's a slap in the face to your friend, and the black person who got accepted. You don't know the whole story and, unless your friend was actively involved in the process of choosing the candidate, niether was he/she.

Another question...How many times have you actually seen the system backfire? You seem to be talking from personal experience...

 

[outside looking in]

As I've said before in this thread...for every 1,000 cases where affirmative action works as it is supposed to, you get 1 or 2 cases like your friends...

Are those stats made up, or based on some research? While I agree with your general sentiment, I hate to see numbers thrown around that have no meaning.

I have a problem with our social programs in general, including quota or point based AA programs. I think they are all well intentioned, but as I described above good intentions can have negative results. The bleeding continues.

 

[Gato_Solo]

As I've said before in this thread...for every 1,000 cases where affirmative action works as it is supposed to, you get 1 or 2 cases like your friends...

Are those stats made up, or based on some research? While I agree with your general sentiment, I hate to see numbers thrown around that have no meaning.

I have a problem with our social programs in general, including quota or point based AA programs. I think they are all well intentioned, but as I described above good intentions can have negative results. The bleeding continues.

It's based on personal experience. I know you may not agree with the numbers, but that's what I've seen. If you want to see, factually, how AA works, you have to be actively involved in the AA process, which I don't think any of us are. The best way to get around this 'social problem' is actually quite simple. Get rid of face-to-face interviews. Only go by a persons grades and community service references. Until that happens across the board, you'll have whining and crying on both sides of the affirmative action fence.

 

[RD_151]

thats a good solution Gato. Only problem is it will still not be too effective when the issues is getting promoted to higher positions in the same firm. But I guess its a start. I suppose people would be looking for things in the persons voice too though. They'd still find a way to discriminate. Maybe we can make all interviews over ICQ or Yahoo IM. Nah, my spelling is bad, I'd have to oppose that one too

 

[outside looking in]

The best way to get around this 'social problem' is actually quite simple. Get rid of face-to-face interviews. Only go by a persons grades and community service references. Until that happens across the board, you'll have whining and crying on both sides of the affirmative action fence.

I disagree. Face to face interviews serve a very practical purpose. Just as grades don't guarantee an intelligence level, a resume and references will never guarantee that the candidate meets all requirements. What if public speaking skills are a priority? Wouldn't you want to talk to the individual in person?

No... there simply is no way to "get around" this social problem. That is precisely what AA is trying to do, and that's why it is not a solution. Instead of "getting around" the problem, we need to solve it. That might be a messy and somewhat painful process, but it is necessary. Regarding face to face interviews, the only solution is to render the color of the face as completely irrelevant. That will take time and effort to accomplish; but so long as programs like AA artifically emphasize that color, it will never be possible.

 

[RD_151]

Sadly only time can help, and how much time that will take is probably unacceptable for those facing discrimination today. It could take centuries! Sadly though, for a lot of people AA is making this take even longer. AA isn't the answer, clearly, but people would like to address problems quickly, not wait centuries for them to go away. But again, it seems the solution is not much better than the alternative. Who knows the answer to this one? I know many people get angry about AA and thats not good either. I suspect when the negative or at least perceived negative impact is greater on the larger group than the positive impact or perceived impact is on the smaller group in question, you are only going to make things worse. People blame AA for their problems even when 99% of the time it wasn't even the issue. I think this has a worse impact than simply not having the program. There are no easy answers. Time is the only thing that is really gonna help in these matters. It's sad, but its unfortuantely the case. Interfering may only make things worse. The mere existance of the program causes people to believe they have been discriminated against because of it, even if it didn't even happen. I'm mostly indifferent, but I can say if I had to vote on it, I'd probably vote against AA. Furthermore, I think in the long run these social problems would go away faster without it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The best way to get around this 'social problem' is actually quite simple. Get rid of face-to-face interviews. Only go by a persons grades and community service references. Until that happens across the board, you'll have whining and crying on both sides of the affirmative action fence.

I disagree. Face to face interviews serve a very practical purpose. Just as grades don't guarantee an intelligence level, a resume and references will never guarantee that the candidate meets all requirements. What if public speaking skills are a priority? Wouldn't you want to talk to the individual in person?

No... there simply is no way to "get around" this social problem. That is precisely what AA is trying to do, and that's why it is not a solution. Instead of "getting around" the problem, we need to solve it. That might be a messy and somewhat painful process, but it is necessary. Regarding face to face interviews, the only solution is to render the color of the face as completely irrelevant. That will take time and effort to accomplish; but so long as programs like AA artifically emphasize that color, it will never be possible.

Sorry you disagree, but 90% of above-minimum-wage jobs out there do not require public speaking. In those areas, face-to-face interviews are nothing more than trying to bullshit your way onto the payroll. Before you answer this, ask yourself a question...How much public speaking does your job actually require? And, no, answering phones does not count, as each business has, pretty much, it's own way of customer relations by phone...for example...

"Air freight, SSgt Haskins, may I help you?" is *not* public speaking...

 

[outside looking in]

You're not really serious are you? I do interviews and recruiting from time to time, and our business is extremely technical... certainly not much in the way of public speaking requirements. But to hire someone without even speaking to them?!?

Simply inconceivable. Phone interviews wouldn't work either, simply because the human face betrays so much of our thoughts and emotions against our will... a built in lie detector test of sorts. I'm not just looking for someone who has been taught the tools we require, but much more importantly someone who knows how to use those tools. That information simply doesn't exist on a resume. Sure, people list prior work experience, projects, accomplishments, etc., but those typically equate to jack shit as far as telling me how capable that person is of doing what I need. Until I put them on the spot, ask a question, and require them to solve or explain whatever I have presented, I can't judge whether they are competent or not. Resume's are almost always "beautified" to make them look nice.

Aside from the technical requirements of whether they are capable, personality plays some role in the decision making process as well. I need someone who is not only capable of doing the job, but who will actually do the job. I don't need someone that's lazy, confrontational, has the world's largest ego, or any other of a host of behavioral problems.

If I am presented with two equally qualified (on paper) and equally competent (from interview) candidates, I will choose the one that has a personality most suitable for the position. For our work, that does mean good communication skills, interpersonal relationship skills, etc.

And you want me to hire someone based off of a piece of paper they send in? Seriously?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'm as serious as a heart attack. Once you 'see' their face, you've stepped into the realm of bullshit. If the person is lying on their resume, that's fairly easy to check, and no interview is needed. You know that as well as I, so let's cut to the chase.

The only reason why face-to-face interviews are required is so that you can pick person A over person B because of personal preference. There is no other reason. Competence is judged not on what a person says but what a person does, and has done. You have niether of those at your fingertips during an interview unless you conduct your interviews out of the office on the workfloor. It's simply inconceivable that you'd cling to that belief after conducting a few interviews...

 

[outside looking in]

Once you 'see' their face, you've stepped into the realm of bullshit.

Only if you are prejudiced.

If the person is lying on their resume, that's fairly easy to check, and no interview is needed. You know that as well as I, so let's cut to the chase.

I'm not talking about lying. I'm talking about the listing of projects or work experience that sounds fantastic but in reality just isn't all that special. I see very few resume's that don't have that characteristic.

Competence is judged not on what a person says but what a person does, and has done. You have niether of those at your fingertips during an interview...

Are you saying that knowledge can't be conveyed by words, but only by actions? What a strange concept. I, for one, can at least get an indication of the true competence of an individual by their responses to detailed technical questions. You might bullshit personality, or background, or possibly even education, but when it comes to what I do I know if someone really knows what they are talking about or not. I need to see their face as they answer questions to know if they fishing for an answer, making up something on the fly, or really know their shit.

The only reason why face-to-face interviews are required is so that you can pick person A over person B because of personal preference.

I strongly disagree on the judgement of competence based on a piece of paper, but aside from that, yes. If I am presented with two candidates that have equivalent education and experience, equivalent resumes, and equivalent competency as judged by an interview or extensive background research, then what criteria do you use to choose one over the other? A quota? Personally, I'd prefer the one that was able to communicate more clearly, more relaxed, more confident, and more sociable. Those qualities indicate something other than confidence... they indicate that the person is likely to integrate well with other coworkers, cogently present ideas to management, contractors, or customers, etc.

It's simply inconceivable that you'd cling to that belief after conducting a few interviews...

To be clear, I don't think interviews are the only method to judge candidates, and perhaps not always the most important one, but it is a crucial tool that can't be replaced by reading a piece of paper. It provides information a resume doesn't.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Are you saying that knowledge can't be conveyed by words, but only by actions? What a strange concept. I, for one, can at least get an indication of the true competence of an individual by their responses to detailed technical questions. You might bullshit personality, or background, or possibly even education, but when it comes to what I do I know if someone really knows what they are talking about or not. I need to see their face as they answer questions to know if they fishing for an answer, making up something on the fly, or really know their shit.

Not exactly, but pretty close. Let's use an example (just cause you don't like them)...

Little hobie wants to drive a car, so he picks up his drivers education book, and completely memorizes it. Unfortunately, since he spends so much time with his head in the book, he never gets a chance to spend some time behind the wheel. Can Hobie drive a car? The best answer is maybe. Little Trishia wants to drive, too, so she glosses over the book, and then hops into the car. Hobie and Trishia both spend the same amount of time on the knowledge, and both pass the written drivers exam...Hobie with 100%, and Trishia with 75%, and are both given their drivers license. Who's the better driver? You can't tell that by asking in an interview, or by looking at a resume, but, put them both in a car, on equal footing, and Hobie will most likely fail...Knowledge is what you get from the books...Comprehension is what you get from actually applying that knowledge. You can't get a firm grasp on either unless you put them both on the table.

 

[PT]

Just gave me more reason to do a personal interview there Gato.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Just gave me more reason to do a personal interview there Gato.

And what, pray-tell, would that be, PT?

 

[PT]

put them both in a car, on equal footing, and Hobie will most likely fail

You can't put them both in the car in real life, Gato, not when you're talking about jobs. You do personal interviews to establish which is the most qualified to do the job. I'm sorry, but I agree with OSLI on at least that part of his argument. A personal interview gives you a clearer picture of who is the most qualified to do the job than a resume, or even a phone interview. I've been in the postiont to hire people, and I can tell you, if I went with my gut after reading the applications, I don't think I would have done as well as I did after doing interviews.

Now, all this does rely on the fact that you aren't a bigot.

 

[outside looking in]

Here's another example... and extreme one, but it gets the point across.

We get a new contract as sub for an analysis... something technical, maybe a shock analysis for a composite structure. The contract starts in two weeks, and we need another person. With limited time, we gather resume's and review them. None have anything listed that would be an immediate indicator that they have performed this specific analysis before, but there are four candidates that have at least some relevant background, and there is a distinct possibility that they possess knowledge not specifically listed as part of a previous project or job (I know there are tons of things I am knowledgable about due to personal interests or hobbies, and I have worked on more projects of wide variety than I could possibly list on a typical resume).

Perhaps one candidate is familar with the software we are using in general terms, but doesn't appear to have any shock or composite analysis experience. Maybe another has extensive shock analysis background, but has never used our specific software, and hasn't attempted to apply his/her knowledge to composites. Perhaps another has extensive composite analysis background, but not shock. And so on.

We have to hire someone, and the goal is to minimize the amount of training it will take to bring them up to speed for the task at hand. How do you make that determination? Look at their resume's and take a guess? How about something a bit more methodical... like bringing each of them in to ask questions about composite shock analysis? Perhaps they do possess knowledge and abilities not explicitly listed on their resume, or perhaps what appeared to be "extensive composite experience" turns out to really just be a vague familiarity with composites from having been partially involved in projects that had a composite component over several years - looks good on paper, but the individual really hasn't picked up the knowledge you're looking for.

So you ask them questions pertinent to the job. A few well directed questions will indicate whether they know enough about similar software packages and what principles they are all designed around (as opposed with intimate knowledge of the 'details' of one, but a lack of understanding of what's happening in the background) to judge how easily they will adapt to the software you are using. A few more well directed questions will illuminate their knowledge of composites... not just "have you worked on composites before" that would be indicated on a resume, but have they gained knowledge on laminate theory, faliure mechanisms, modeling limitations, etc. A few more on shock analysis... etc.

I hope you see where this is leading. It was an extreme example, in that you would hope not to be in the position of needing a new employee for a difficult task in just two weeks, but even with more relaxed schedules you are always wanting to optimize the amount of training needed, and if at all possible to bring in employees that bring new knowledge and skills with them.

For many jobs, there is simply more knowledge contained by an individual that what can be expressed on a resume or reflected by a transcript. That was certainly the case when I was hired. Even with a three page resume (which I consider now to have been overly lengthy), it was the simple mention of one word in passing in reference to a project I had worked on... composite. I didn't list any details at all because, othe than space considerations, I assumed I would be hired for a job dealing with mechanism... something I had more expreience with. As it turns out, I also had a rather unique and extensive background in the area that was desirable for my employer. Fortunately they were not under heavy time constraints, and since the rest of my resume indicated I was reasonably well educated for the position, they interviewed me out of curiosity. And the rest is history... I was a perfect match; something they simply could not have judged by my resume. The same could have been true for umpteen other areas of knowledge I don't list on my resume.

To clarify, I'm a mechanical engineer. My resume indiactes that I have experience in a variety of areas, but by no means conveys all that I am capable of. How could it? I have years and years of education and background, and no employer would read a forty page synopsis of my abilities. I'm not bragging... most people are capable of far more than they would immediately think to list if asked. An employer looking for a new engineer would want to know that the education met a minimum standard for the position (grades, courses, projects, etc.), and perhaps that the candidates have some experience in applying their education. Rarely, in my profession at least, do you see a resume that is obviously a perfect match. When I interview, I sort resumes by the background to ensure that I have am likely to interview competent engineers, and the interview tells me if they are competent in the specific area I'm interviewing for.