With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.