If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan de SD" enscribed:
"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message ... "Jack May" enscribed: These meeting also prove one of my pet unproven theories that beautiful women tend to be much smarter than average looking women. You got a lot of pet, unproven theories. So do you, starting with the one that says if a group of people isn't hired in the same proportion as the population or applicant pool, somebody must be discriminating against them... :O| It's real simple. You have two sample S and P. The question is are they drawn from the population Q. If |S| and |P| are large enough, then you can compute the whether S and P are both in Q to confidence level R. If there's a high confidence that the samples are different, there aren't a lot of alternatives. It could be 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the states were wrong and some sub-populations are naturally inferior. Or it could be there was an unconscious bias and, having seen it, the company managers being motivated to being better human beings will want to correct their behavior. Or they could be racist scum that caught with their pants down. Math doesn't lie. Scum does. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan de SD" enscribed:
I see your problem, DC. You're one of those holier-than-though, hypersensitive assholes who thinks that any outcome other than what YOUthink should occur in your little utopian world MUST be the result of intentional discrimination and bigotry. Apparently the concept that some groups are It's not always intentional. Companies dedicated to EEO and AA because its the Right Thing use the mechanisms because they realize they could have unconscious biases. Everyone has their prejudices. "underrepresented" because perhaps they are not as likely to have the skills or training to land a particular job is too much for your little one-track mind to handle. :O( The difference whether you control your prejudices, or they control you. Your "concept" is explicitly racist. Deal with it. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan de SD" enscribed:
"Jack May" wrote in message ... DC isn't the brightest kid on the block - most likely some C-average community college student freshly indoctrinated by his "multicultural studies" instructor... :O| You two should get a room before you frighten the horses. I note you continue to resort to personal attacks because you can't refute the message. Who or what I am is irrelevant to the truth I write. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Jack May wrote:
BTW, in business you are constantly being judged by you strength and weaknesses to do your job and to be promoted. Those weakness and strength are commonly discussed by decision makers for individuals If you don't understand that, you are living in a total fantasy world. If that is true, why do we keep hearing about the glass ceiling? A lot of women feel that there is a barrier that stops them from making it to the top. Then again, one doctor in our province spoke out about the shortage of doctors being directly related to the feminization of the profession. While there is a percentage of placements in medical school reserved for women, he claimed that female doctors do not put in as many hours as their male counterparts and tend to go into speciality fields where there are less emergencies, relatively regular hours and a shorter work week. And then there is the public sector where employment equity where jobs are filled by quotas. The school board in the area where I live had a program to promote more women and their policy was that for the next 5 years all new principal appoints would be women. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Disgruntled Customer wrote: "Stan de SD" enscribed: "Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message ... "Jack May" enscribed: These meeting also prove one of my pet unproven theories that beautiful women tend to be much smarter than average looking women. You got a lot of pet, unproven theories. So do you, starting with the one that says if a group of people isn't hired in the same proportion as the population or applicant pool, somebody must be discriminating against them... :O| It's real simple. You have two sample S and P. The question is are they drawn from the population Q. If |S| and |P| are large enough, then you can compute the whether S and P are both in Q to confidence level R. If there's a high confidence that the samples are different, there aren't a lot of alternatives. It could be 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the states were wrong and some sub-populations are naturally inferior. Or it could be there was an unconscious bias and, having seen it, the company managers being motivated to being better human beings will want to correct their behavior. Or they could be racist scum that caught with their pants down. Math doesn't lie. Scum does. -- Feh. Mad as heck. The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear difference between some sub groups. When someone insists that you consider the eighth to tenth over the second or third then I have a problem whatever the reason. There was simply too much difference. In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were not available so we didn't hire. We found a short term person for next year and we'll see what happens. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank F. Matthews" enscribed:
The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear difference between some sub groups. When someone insists that you Congress has decided that such things as a race, color, creed, previous condition of servitude, national origin, etc will produce no clear, nor even signficant, difference in any employment in the US, except for creed and clergy. Why not explain to Congress why they are wrong. consider the eighth to tenth over the second or third then I have a problem whatever the reason. There was simply too much difference. Racists can always find an excuse. In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever? -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Disgruntled Customer wrote:
In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever? Speak for yourself. I have no personal history of discrimination and oppression. My parents had no history of discrimination and oppression, and my grandparents were pretty accepting of people of other faiths and races. Perhaps if you go far enough back in history some of my ancestors may have had slaves. I don't know of any. I can't understand if I am accepting of people of other races why I should be held responsible for deeds that they may have done hundreds of years ago, long before I was around. There is also the possibility that my ancestors may have been victims of discrimination and oppression. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Disgruntled Customer wrote: "Frank F. Matthews" enscribed: The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear difference between some sub groups. When someone insists that you Congress has decided that such things as a race, color, creed, previous condition of servitude, national origin, etc will produce no clear, nor even signficant, difference in any employment in the US, except for creed and clergy. Why not explain to Congress why they are wrong. consider the eighth to tenth over the second or third then I have a problem whatever the reason. There was simply too much difference. Racists can always find an excuse. In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever? -- Feh. Mad as heck. Bull****. I was not the one who made the initial evaluations but they looked like reasonable evaluations to me. Now an administrator with no knowledge of the field decides to add additional conditions that knock out the two females in the top set of three. That's the damned discrimination. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith enscribed:
Disgruntled Customer wrote: In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever? Speak for yourself. I have no personal history of discrimination and oppression. My Boo hoo. There must be some reason for the administration to push a sub group on you. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Disgruntled Customer wrote: Dave Smith enscribed: Disgruntled Customer wrote: In our case we could not find an acceptable applicant within the sub group pushed by the administration and by then the good candidates were If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever? Speak for yourself. I have no personal history of discrimination and oppression. My Boo hoo. There must be some reason for the administration to push a sub group on you. -- Feh. Mad as heck. Well the administration professes a concern that we have no black or Hispanic faculty in our group of six. Of course they don't pay any attention to the number of Ph.D. Mathematics graduates who are Black or Hispanic and their job opportunities at institutions offering a Ph.D. degree. We did hire a Hispanic six years ago but he only lasted a year before he found a better job. If they were so concerned they might have noticed that there is only 1 tenure track female. Of course they didn't pay any attention to that when they deep sixed the female candidates. The administrator in question simply has his own biases. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Banking for long term world travel? | [email protected] | Travel - anything else not covered | 0 | April 9th, 2005 06:54 AM |
HAL Committed To Protecting Environment! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 3 | April 24th, 2004 06:11 AM |
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. | Anchors Away Cruise Center | Cruises | 1 | April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM |
Most of the World Still Does Without | Earl Evleth | Europe | 1 | December 26th, 2003 08:07 PM |
_Lonely Planet_ Threat to Environment | Tame | Africa | 1 | October 24th, 2003 05:53 PM |