Is a competency crisis in the name of diversity and equity coming? (controversial, deaths)

[AZ Desert Guy]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

Placing a student who should be in a technically college or community college in an esteemed highly competitive university might be the worst thing you can do for them. For the other students as well, the teacher may feel the need to lower the standards for the entire class to make them feel included.

It has been found that many minority students that are admitted to 4 year university programs in demanding fields (such as STEM), change to easier tracks like the humanities in their 2nd or even 3rd year.


A study at Duke went unpublished because of backlash by leftist student groups when this was assessed about 10 years ago.

"The researchers analyzed data from surveys of more than 1,500 Duke students before college and during the first, second and fourth college years. Blacks and whites initially expressed a similar interest in tougher fields of study such as science and engineering, but 68 percent of blacks ultimately choose humanities and social science majors, compared with less than 55 percent of whites. The research found similar trends for legacy students - those whose parents are alumni."

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...n19-story.html


Other universities had come up with similar results.

Are minority students less motivated or less intelligent? Of course not.

But it is evident that many are less prepared due to lowered standards and affirmative action/DEI policies stubbornly kept in place by progressives at these schools.

At this point however, it certainly looks like some, if not many, students that are mismatched are just herded through to graduation (and employment on their credentials afterwards).

They dont seem to be pressured to change to easier degrees because standards were maintained in the past for STEM degrees.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

Placing a student who should be in a technically college or community college in an esteemed highly competitive university might be the worst thing you can do for them. For the other students as well, the teacher may feel the need to lower the standards for the entire class to make them feel included.

A woke college or university staff might feel good by lowering academic standards to allow students not actually prepared, or not intellectually gifted enough to compete with the other students in school. It's not fair to the individual student. They will not be happy, and may not even be learning, if they are unprepared and unable to absorb the material. They will be depressed and miserable struggling at the bottom 5% of the class.

Many times these people feel embarrassed, depressed or even bitter and angry, and then simply drop out.

If the student had gone to a school which matched their scholastic achievements and natural abilities, they may have graduated as the valedictorian. They may have felt enough pride and confidence to go on into higher learning. But the student sent to the wrong school may spend the rest of their life feeling bitter and lacking confidence in themselves.

[green_mariner]

I thought about something. If DEI was for real, I would probably have a job in my field by now. Being Black, I'm supposedly someone's "preferred minority". Based on my experiences, I don't feel like a "preferred minority".

After a layoff and then a furlough, I'm currently working at a job that is way out of my field. I'm working, and that's good. However, I think about this. I re-tooled my resume to leverage the experience I have (for jobs requiring GIS skills and my education). I figured that if I was a match, I'd get an interview and/or an offer after said interview. I got over 100+ rejection letters. Some of those rejections letters MONTHS after I applied. Never even heard back from some companies.

Based on my experiences, whenever I hear people talk about "DEI" and what it's doing, it never seems to match my own experiences.

[Yoski]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

A woke college or university staff might feel good by lowering academic standards to allow students not actually prepared, or not intellectually gifted enough to compete with the other students in school. It's not fair to the individual student. They will not be happy, and may not even be learning, if they are unprepared and unable to absorb the material. They will be depressed and miserable struggling at the bottom 5% of the class.

Many times these people feel embarrassed, depressed or even bitter and angry, and then simply drop out.

If the student had gone to a school which matched their scholastic achievements and natural abilities, they may have graduated as the valedictorian. They may have felt enough pride and confidence to go on into higher learning. But the student sent to the wrong school may spend the rest of their life feeling bitter and lacking confidence in themselves.

There is a lot of truth in this. There is a clear and documented unequal level of performance in and preparedness for challenging higher education pathways. This disparity is there from early childhood all the way through secondary education. It's rooted in a number of societal and family disparities and unequal baselines starting points that certain groups can't seem to escape, while others have been quite successful in doing so. That is the only way this issue can be properly addressed, which ironically, affirmative action was intended to do. Unfortunately it's the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and the belief that afflicts one of our political parties that allows this situation to persist in search of a government answer.

With that being said, you offer no proof that academia in higher education is simply passing that lower performance along with others. You even stated that they end up choosing less a academically demanding degree paths. You also offer no proof that companies are accepting less qualified applicants because of these so called woke DEI initiatives or that competency is in crisis because of these initiatives. Instead of proof we get unsupported and unsubstantiated claims such as Boeing issues being due to DEI, even when there are numerous whistleblowers and evidence to support Boeing issues being due to a company culture based on profit over safety and engineering. This most trace back to it's merger with McDonnell Douglas decades ago, not DEI. So you have to ask, what's the motive of those who try to blame so many problems on DEI. Many of us see it very clearly.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Based on my experiences, whenever I hear people talk about "DEI" and what it's doing, it never seems to match my own experiences.

It does not match any experience because they offer no proof, just unsupported assumptions largely rooted in political influenced opinion at best, racism at worst.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I thought about something. If DEI was for real, I would probably have a job in my field by now. Being Black, I'm supposedly someone's "preferred minority". Based on my experiences, I don't feel like a "preferred minority".

Based on my experiences, whenever I hear people talk about "DEI" and what it's doing, it never seems to match my own experiences.

The entire process was better in the 1990s and 2000s, the mindset of early affirmative action was not quotas. The thought was you go out of your way to search for and cast out a wide net to invite a more diverse group of applicants. The application process was a bit longer, the reach was broader, and you went out of your way to interview women and minorities, especially if you were not seeing that many applying.

Today the idea of affirmative action has been perverted into excluding people from the application process, especially "cis white men." Worst case scenario, would be making the goal to exclude 99% of the US population, to virtue signal.

By restricting applicants so you can hire a trans woman of color to fill a high level position, is akin to setting a height and weight criteria for your next CFO. How many people would fit a criteria that has nothing whatsoever to do with the skills, experience and expertise of the position? Much less how is it in the best interest of the company, employees, investors or customers? Then looking like a fool when you are forced to fire the CFO after losing the company millions of dollars.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

After a layoff and then a furlough, I'm currently working at a job that is way out of my field. I'm working, and that's good. However, I think about this. I re-tooled my resume to leverage the experience I have (for jobs requiring GIS skills and my education). I figured that if I was a match, I'd get an interview and/or an offer after said interview. I got over 100+ rejection letters. Some of those rejections letters MONTHS after I applied. Never even heard back from some companies.

Is your field of expertise a small one? If you position is a popular one, they may be recruiting based on DEI, but there are so many people that fit your description you just haven't hit the lottery yet. Or maybe you are a not LGBTQIA+, which means you're not so unique anymore.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I thought about something. If DEI was for real, I would probably have a job in my field by now. Being Black, I'm supposedly someone's "preferred minority". Based on my experiences, I don't feel like a "preferred minority".

After a layoff and then a furlough, I'm currently working at a job that is way out of my field. I'm working, and that's good. However, I think about this. I re-tooled my resume to leverage the experience I have (for jobs requiring GIS skills and my education). I figured that if I was a match, I'd get an interview and/or an offer after said interview. I got over 100+ rejection letters. Some of those rejections letters MONTHS after I applied. Never even heard back from some companies.

Based on my experiences, whenever I hear people talk about "DEI" and what it's doing, it never seems to match my own experiences.

Did you mention what race you are on your resume? I think not as resume's don't require that so there was no discrimination or preference based on your race. They probably hired more qualified people that was not based on their race. They probably had a lot of people apply so something stood out on other people's resumes to get an interview or to be hired.

However, it's a well known fact that many companies do diversity hiring regardless of one's qualifications. Remain in denial if you wish.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Yoski

There is a lot of truth in this. There is a clear and documented unequal level of performance in and preparedness for challenging higher education pathways. This disparity is there from early childhood all the way through secondary education. It's rooted in a number of societal and family disparities and unequal baselines starting points that certain groups can't seem to escape, while others have been quite successful in doing so. That is the only way this issue can be properly addressed, which ironically, affirmative action was intended to do. Unfortunately it's the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and the belief that afflicts one of our political parties that allows this situation to persist in search of a government answer.

With that being said, you offer no proof that academia in higher education is simply passing that lower performance along with others. You even stated that they end up choosing less a academically demanding degree paths. You also offer no proof that companies are accepting less qualified applicants because of these so called woke DEI initiatives or that competency is in crisis because of these initiatives. Instead of proof we get unsupported and unsubstantiated claims such as Boeing issues being due to DEI, even when there are numerous whistleblowers and evidence to support Boeing issues being due to a company culture based on profit over safety and engineering. This most trace back to it's merger with McDonnell Douglas decades ago, not DEI. So you have to ask, what's the motive of those who try to blame so many problems on DEI. Many of us see it very clearly.

If all a college or university does is invite a larger number of minority students to apply, then no, you will not see an increase in unqualified students struggling to keep up with a subject matter and pace that is beyond their ability.

I'm referring to the obvious results if the criteria for admission is no longer academic performance. If the motivations and criteria become skin color, ethnicity, political affiliation, and gender or sexual preferences, then there surely will be unqualified students being admitted. Because otherwise these students would be accepted without these motivations.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Did you mention what race you are on your resume? I think not as resume's don't require that so there was no discrimination or preference based on your race. They probably hired more qualified people that was not based on their race. They probably had a lot of people apply so something stood out on other people's resumes to get an interview or to be hired.

However, it's a well known fact that many companies do diversity hiring regardless of one's qualifications. Remain in denial if you wish.

In that poster's case, it could be a problem with unimpressive credentials combined with a lack of experience and spotty work history. It's really difficult to overcome those issues. Those are the applicants that are usually never even considered.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Did you mention what race you are on your resume? I think not as resume's don't require that so there was no discrimination or preference based on your race. They probably hired more qualified people that was not based on their race. They probably had a lot of people apply so something stood out on other people's resumes to get an interview or to be hired.

However, it's a well known fact that many companies do diversity hiring regardless of one's qualifications. Remain in denial if you wish.

There might still be a way. I'm fairly certain in today's technological world, where everyone has a digital footprint, that a determined and motivated HR department is capable of searching the web for information on an applicant.

Just for grins I did an internet search for a random made up name and profession. I searched for Josh Phillips engineer. If you are Josh, and you apply to work at a company, they might easily be able to find your social media accounts.

An HR department or person, whose job is to identify prospective employees with the information you supplied on your resume, they can probably figure out if you are a Biden or Trump voter. If they were a political partisan they may just toss all the MAGA applicants. Would it be a stretch for them to toss applicants according other personal bigotries?

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Yoski

There is a lot of truth in this. There is a clear and documented unequal level of performance in and preparedness for challenging higher education pathways. This disparity is there from early childhood all the way through secondary education. It's rooted in a number of societal and family disparities and unequal baselines starting points that certain groups can't seem to escape, while others have been quite successful in doing so. That is the only way this issue can be properly addressed, which ironically, affirmative action was intended to do. Unfortunately it's the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and the belief that afflicts one of our political parties that allows this situation to persist in search of a government answer.

With that being said, you offer no proof that academia in higher education is simply passing that lower performance along with others. You even stated that they end up choosing less a academically demanding degree paths. You also offer no proof that companies are accepting less qualified applicants because of these so called woke DEI initiatives or that competency is in crisis because of these initiatives. Instead of proof we get unsupported and unsubstantiated claims such as Boeing issues being due to DEI, even when there are numerous whistleblowers and evidence to support Boeing issues being due to a company culture based on profit over safety and engineering. This most trace back to it's merger with McDonnell Douglas decades ago, not DEI. So you have to ask, what's the motive of those who try to blame so many problems on DEI. Many of us see it very clearly.



It does not match any experience because they offer no proof, just unsupported assumptions largely rooted in political influenced opinion at best, racism at worst.

I have no idea what's going on in the schools for real. I know many schools are bad, at least the public schools. I've heard on the news years ago about many schools being bad. However, I'm not watching the news very much these days. I know that some professors have passed students when they didn't deserve it. However, as to what's been going on over the last 5 years, I'll just say this. I haven't set foot in a classroom in years. I don't own a television. I rarely watch the news. I get most of my news if I happen to hear about it on Facebook, or if I listen to NPR. I might hear about something on BBC if I go to their website. Since I don't have boots on the ground knowledge, all I can do is look things up.

As for the disparities, I'm only learning about this because of what I've heard and what I'm hearing on city-data. I've had to look alot of things up myself for a reason. Up until age 20 (I'm 38 now), I hardly ever thought about educational disparities. I figured if you didn't do well in school, you were either not applying yourself or not good a the subject. Also, I grew up in the suburban/exurban areas, so I wasn't privy to what went on in the inner city schools. I do think about the things that I personally experienced and how they affected me.

As for DEI, I keep hearing about it over and over. The way I see it, if it was for real, I would have benefited from it. I hear and read about stuff here on city-data. And then I look at what I'm seeing around me. It's not just about DEI. It's about alot of other topics. Many times, it does not match what I'm seeing around me.