Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A good case study in affirmative action is the graduate enrollment at California Institute of Technology.
Unlike, M.I.T., it has few -- if any -- humanities (or other non-science/engineering/mathematics) graduate degree programs.
As a private school, it is under less pressure to have "diversity" than public universities.
The feds could pull the plug on student loans and research grants, but then they'd be losing out on the great scientific advances that Cal Tech offers to the nation.
So let's see....
Graduate enrollment at Cal Tech, 2015-2016:
White and Asian 95%
Non-white/non-Asian 5%
Men 72%
Women 28%
This is the result of admissions based solely on merit for one of nation's two leading schools of science, math and engineering.
I can't figure out your point. Please explain. So our top leading schools should be teaching students who can't even understand what they are learning but get admitted anyway because of their skin color?
I feel like AA is a bigger issue with lower skilled positions that have more general and ambiguous job requirements and qualifications (Something like HR). Seems like it is much easier to throw a flaky hire into these positions. Positions requiring deeper and narrower knowledge seem to be inherently immune to AA because the strict job requirements filter out most of the applicant pool in the first place. If Intel is looking process engineers with a PhD and 15 years in semiconductor device fabrication, then anyone without these base qualifications just won't be considered. Very hard to have manipulated quotas with specialized positions.
I feel like AA is a bigger issue with lower skilled positions that have more general and ambiguous job requirements and qualifications (Something like HR). Seems like it is much easier to throw a flaky hire into these positions. Positions requiring deeper and narrower knowledge seem to be inherently immune to AA because the strict job requirements filter out most of the applicant pool in the first place. If Intel is looking process engineers with a PhD and 15 years in semiconductor device fabrication, then anyone without these base qualifications just won't be considered. Very hard to have manipulated quotas with specialized positions.
Employment should be like sports and education system - they all should be merit based not skin color or gender based.
I need some help from the liberals. How is this not racism and sexism?
"Intel set a goal last year: Of all new hires, 40 percent have to be women or under-represented minorities (black, Latino, Native American). The company had never hit that level in the past. So for Intel, it was an ambitious goal. And the company reports today: It managed to exceed it, hitting 43.1 percent."
Also why is there no diversity initiative in mining, drilling, farming and construction industry where the vast majority of the workers are men??? How about athletes? NBA? NFL where most players are of a protected race. Why no diversity is acceptable?
40% women and underrepresented minorities is not very high. Women alone make up ~57% of bachelor's degrees, ~60% of Master's degrees, and ~53% of doctorates. Add in underrepresented minorities and we are well over 60% of bachelor's, approaching 70% of master's, and near 60% of doctorates. So maybe a company that relies on an educated workforce should expect to have at least 40% of employees be women and underrepresented minorities.
And maybe mining, drilling, farming, and construction could stand to have some more women employees, as well.
And again, we're not talking about the 0.001% of the world's best athletes. We're talking about employee headcounts that number in the 10,000s+ for each large company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mash123
I can imagine the screams if the NBA would limit the percentage of AA to 60% "because we need diversity of whites and asians".
Of course, reasonable efforts to hire a more diverse workforce merit comparison to the 0.001% of the world's most skilled athletes--that's a useful way to analyze our world .
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
What kind of culture test that would strongly favor white and Asian males?
The kind of culture test that results in a company like Google 70% men, and a 91% white or asian workforce. 62/89 for Yahoo, 68/91 for Facebook, et cetera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heterojunction
I feel like AA is a bigger issue with lower skilled positions that have more general and ambiguous job requirements and qualifications (Something like HR). Seems like it is much easier to throw a flaky hire into these positions. Positions requiring deeper and narrower knowledge seem to be inherently immune to AA because the strict job requirements filter out most of the applicant pool in the first place. If Intel is looking process engineers with a PhD and 15 years in semiconductor device fabrication, then anyone without these base qualifications just won't be considered. Very hard to have manipulated quotas with specialized positions.
Leaving aside the fact that more women are earning PhDs than men, most technical employees at these companies have a bachelor's (often a B.S.). Take a look at Google's jobs page today. There are 12 pages of jobs with the "PhD" box checked, 38 pages with the "Master's" box, and 85 with "bachelor's."
40% women and underrepresented minorities is not very high. Women alone make up ~57% of bachelor's degrees, ~60% of Master's degrees, and ~53% of doctorates. Add in underrepresented minorities and we are well over 60% of bachelor's, approaching 70% of master's, and near 60% of doctorates. So maybe a company that relies on an educated workforce should expect to have at least 40% of employees be women and underrepresented minorities.
Education in what? The percentages are meaningless unless it is in context, meaning women can make up 57% of bachelor's, but what are they majoring in? Gender studies and Psychology is not comparable to electrical engineering or physics, yet you speak as if all degrees are equal. Additionally, where are these degrees from? A degree in finance from Willy Wonka University is not the same as one from a t25 b-school, yet you speak as if they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
And maybe mining, drilling, farming, and construction could stand to have some more women employees, as well.
No one keeps women from applyinf for these positions, yet they do not. Even the DOL pegs the women goal rate in construction at 6.9%, fully knowing women hardly apply for these jobs no matter how many resources the gov and private sector dump into getting them to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
And again, we're not talking about the 0.001% of the world's best athletes. We're talking about employee headcounts that number in the 10,000s+ for each large company.
And? A company does not reserve the right to hire best talent just because they employ thousands of people? How do you figure that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Of course, reasonable efforts to hire a more diverse workforce merit comparison to the 0.001% of the world's most skilled athletes--that's a useful way to analyze our world .
Deflect of course, because you cannot answer the NBA question. What effort does a company need to hire a diverse workforce that the NBA would not need? Are you agreeing that merit in itself is the best method for hiring, so the NBA can get away with it, yet for a company, merit should not be the determining factor on hiring? You think non-job related factors should come into play for companies, but not for the NBA? You make no sense, all you keep referring to is "the NBA is 0.001% of the world's most skilled athletes", as if somehow that alleviates them of their responsibility to diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The kind of culture test that results in a company like Google 70% men, and a 91% white or asian workforce. 62/89 for Yahoo, 68/91 for Facebook, et cetera.
So, you do not like it that they hired based on skill, and became successful companies? Do you realize there are dozens and dozens of skills sets needed in each of these companies, and that each skill set has a different demographic availability? Did you know Google actually is underutilized in males and non-minorities in its technical skill areas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Leaving aside the fact that more women are earning PhDs than men, most technical employees at these companies have a bachelor's (often a B.S.). Take a look at Google's jobs page today. There are 12 pages of jobs with the "PhD" box checked, 38 pages with the "Master's" box, and 85 with "bachelor's."
Again, PhDs in what? Do you think a political science PhD is equivalent to a PhD in math? You keep on wanting to group all degrees together in order to make your argument, yet you are obtuse to there are different majors, each providing a different skill set.
You can go to any university not only in this country, but the world, and the overwhelming majority of people in the technical classes like engineering are men. No one, I mean no one keeps women out of these classes, and it is even laughable to think our own ultra-lib universities are putting up barriers to keep women out, hell, universities bend over backwards to women and anyone not white and Asian into these classes.
Education in what? The percentages are meaningless unless it is in context, meaning women can make up 57% of bachelor's, but what are they majoring in? Gender studies and Psychology is not comparable to electrical engineering or physics, yet you speak as if all degrees are equal. Additionally, where are these degrees from? A degree in finance from Willy Wonka University is not the same as one from a t25 b-school, yet you speak as if they are.
Elite schools have no shortage of women. In the Ivy League, every school is within 1.5% of 50-50--some have more women and others have more men, but they are all quite close. MIT has 45% women. The STEM gap exists, but the tech companies reporting diversity statistics do not hire only engineers. Even with the STEM gaps, the numbers are quite skewed for these companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
No one keeps women from applyinf for these positions, yet they do not. Even the DOL pegs the women goal rate in construction at 6.9%, fully knowing women hardly apply for these jobs no matter how many resources the gov and private sector dump into getting them to do so.
Why do you think that is? Do you think the culture of mining, drilling, and construction companies has any impact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
And? A company does not reserve the right to hire best talent just because they employ thousands of people? How do you figure that?
Why would you reflexively defend companies that admit they have a problem and want to do better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Deflect of course, because you cannot answer the NBA question. What effort does a company need to hire a diverse workforce that the NBA would not need? Are you agreeing that merit in itself is the best method for hiring, so the NBA can get away with it, yet for a company, merit should not be the determining factor on hiring? You think non-job related factors should come into play for companies, but not for the NBA? You make no sense, all you keep referring to is "the NBA is 0.001% of the world's most skilled athletes", as if somehow that alleviates them of their responsibility to diversity.
If you can't tell the difference between a professional basketball team with 12 of the best basketball players in the world and a company, like Google, with more than 61,000 employees, then you need more help than I can offer. Again, these companies think they have a problem and want to improve--i.e., it's not just job-related factors that make them non-diverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
So, you do not like it that they hired based on skill, and became successful companies? Do you realize there are dozens and dozens of skills sets needed in each of these companies, and that each skill set has a different demographic availability? Did you know Google actually is underutilized in males and non-minorities in its technical skill areas?
Google disagrees with you (and the statistics strengthen their case).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Again, PhDs in what? Do you think a political science PhD is equivalent to a PhD in math? You keep on wanting to group all degrees together in order to make your argument, yet you are obtuse to there are different majors, each providing a different skill set.
Feel free to provide data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
You can go to any university not only in this country, but the world, and the overwhelming majority of people in the technical classes like engineering are men. No one, I mean no one keeps women out of these classes, and it is even laughable to think our own ultra-lib universities are putting up barriers to keep women out, hell, universities bend over backwards to women and anyone not white and Asian into these classes.
It's not like these companies are only hiring engineers. And even they admit that their technical hiring should be more diverse (and data bears that out).
You're just hot because you think whites should have ALL the good jobs.
Perish the thought.
What if there are ten openings and it happens that the top 10 candidates are white?
Would you hire 10 white guys even if you had lesser qualified minority candidates?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
