3 ms·

How is any of that even helping groups being boosted? If you come from an underprivileged background, why would you want to try to survive on government grants?

How is any of that even helping groups being boosted? If you come from an underprivileged background, why would you want to try to survive on government grants? Pick up whatever pays well with fastest/cheapest education, maybe become an electrician if you are starting out poor, software engineer if you are middle class. Or if women value family and social life over work, why would we want to take that away from them? Whoever wished they worked more on their death bed? I get it that some people's personal sacrifices can benefit humanity at large, but why are those who are supposedly most downtrodden have to sacrifice more? Helping people pick up a marketable skill is a good thing, and can be done on need and motivation bases rather than scrutinizing one's melanin levels. But pushing people into lower pay jobs than they could do just to feel enlightened is just cruel.

davrosthedalek 4y ago
I don't think you quite understand what is done here. It's not grants for underprivileged. Let me explain (I'll start from the basics of the situation, please don't interpret this as I am assuming you wouldn't know at least some of this.). In the US, most research funding at universities and national labs for basic sciences comes from DOE or NSF. From these grants, we pay students (phd students get paid, and don't pay tuition), postdocs, equipment etc. The NSF typically wants a broader impact statement: How does the funding of the grant affect the society in general. Stuff like: I train the next generation of scientists. Outreach to the general population (who pays it in the end via taxes after all). Maybe school programs etc. DOE traditionally was focused only on the research aspect. Now, DOE has a new requirement that one writes about DEI efforts. This doesn't mean quotas (but could, it's up to the applicant), but it requires you to reflect on and engage in programs at the university which tries to help the problem. This also includes that all students are safe. First and foremost, it forces the grantee to at least inform themselves what programs exist already. One example: The percentage of women in physics is abysmal low, but it's still large enough that I can make some statistical observations. In my experience, female students outperform their male peers on average. This is a strong indication that the women cohort has a higher effective qualification cut-off. There are many possible reasons for that, but I want to make sure it's not for stupid/bad reasons. Because we clearly missing out on some excellent researchers there. I am member of an admission committee. Judging the qualification of students is a very hard task, most signals are very noisy. So people build heuristics. It's absolutely possible, even likely, that these heuristics are not fair and select indirectly on race or gender. In any case, depending how you see it, /all/ phd students survive on government grants. Because that's how the work is funded. It's not hand outs.
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  Whenever you find someone in an unusual field for their demographics, chances are they are pretty good. People tend to go with the flow and those who don't tend to have particularly strong motivation. But my point is PhD is not the most obvious choice for someone with disadvantaged background. You will not be earning much and will be on the hook for tuition for a long time and even afterwards your salary in research is likely to be much lower than what you could earn in industry with same talent and similar amount of training. Obviously research has benefits to society and individuals may have dreams for things other than money. But I don't think they should be pushed in the direction that may not be best for them personally otherwise.

davrosthedalek 4y ago

I don't think you quite understand what is done here. It's not grants for underprivileged. Let me explain (I'll start from the basics of the situation, please don't interpret this as I am assuming you wouldn't know at least some of this.). In the US, most research funding at universities and national labs for basic sciences comes from DOE or NSF. From these grants, we pay students (phd students get paid, and don't pay tuition), postdocs, equipment etc. The NSF typically wants a broader impact statement: How does the funding of the grant affect the society in general. Stuff like: I train the next generation of scientists. Outreach to the general population (who pays it in the end via taxes after all). Maybe school programs etc. DOE traditionally was focused only on the research aspect. Now, DOE has a new requirement that one writes about DEI efforts. This doesn't mean quotas (but could, it's up to the applicant), but it requires you to reflect on and engage in programs at the university which tries to help the problem. This also includes that all students are safe. First and foremost, it forces the grantee to at least inform themselves what programs exist already. One example: The percentage of women in physics is abysmal low, but it's still large enough that I can make some statistical observations. In my experience, female students outperform their male peers on average. This is a strong indication that the women cohort has a higher effective qualification cut-off. There are many possible reasons for that, but I want to make sure it's not for stupid/bad reasons. Because we clearly missing out on some excellent researchers there. I am member of an admission committee. Judging the qualification of students is a very hard task, most signals are very noisy. So people build heuristics. It's absolutely possible, even likely, that these heuristics are not fair and select indirectly on race or gender. In any case, depending how you see it, /all/ phd students survive on government grants. Because that's how the work is funded. It's not hand outs.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Whenever you find someone in an unusual field for their demographics, chances are they are pretty good. People tend to go with the flow and those who don't tend to have particularly strong motivation. But my point is PhD is not the most obvious choice for someone with disadvantaged background. You will not be earning much and will be on the hook for tuition for a long time and even afterwards your salary in research is likely to be much lower than what you could earn in industry with same talent and similar amount of training. Obviously research has benefits to society and individuals may have dreams for things other than money. But I don't think they should be pushed in the direction that may not be best for them personally otherwise.