> the qualifications for being a professor should be related to your capability as a scientist your ability to teach and your quality as a mentor. > should not

> the qualifications for being a professor should be related to your capability as a scientist your ability to teach and your quality as a mentor. > should not be related to your parents income or education level but unfortunately this is the case His initial assertion is that being a professor should be related to your ability to teach, but he cannot see the relationship between higher parental income level or higher parental education level and a person's ability to teach. Nor does he pay much attention to the idea that a parent with expertise is like a very motivated private tutor for that expertise. > this would ignore the economic component as the study also found that on average academics come from wealthier families this would likely mean that they went to more expensive schools and could afford more expensive colleges previous Here the guy in the video catches a brief glimpse of awakening, an understanding that economic factors make you (in aggregate) a better candidate. This is the core idea of the liberal definition of woke. Without understanding this core principle, you can't see the systemic racism. You can't have a cohsive, coherrant, or convincing narrative. > the more money we receive from our parents the more likely we are to continue on to do a PhD Here again the guy in the video is dangerously close to understanding that people who aren't spending time meeting their basic needs are more able to spend time becoming qualified to be a professor. > the more prestigious the university the more likely faculty is to have a PhD parent this means that more prestigious universities are hiring from a smaller pool Here the guy in the video contradicts himself. Prestigious universities have way more choice and therefore they are able to be more selective. The demographics the candidates come from are smaller, but that does not mean the pool of options is small. Here we see again, that the author does not understand that more money is the same thing as more meritorious candidate, by his own definition of merit. If the most meritorious candidates come from a narrow set of people then we would expect more selective institutions to have a narrow set of staff. Since the guy does not see that that the distribution of merit itself is not equal among various sets of people, the guy is prevented from seeing the truth. > diversity is so important we want people from different backgrounds as they bring a different way of thinking which is crucial to science Here we see the author starting to change his definition of merit. Merit is no longer scientific capability and ability to teach and mentor alone, but also defined by their diverse perspective. > this means that when hiring new faculty committees should consider all aspects of diversity gender race socioeconomic status country of origin and many more this will help to maximize And this is the contradiction that so enrages conservative people. The video starts out saying choose professors based on merit, and ends with lets choose factors other than merit. The guy in the video is still sleeping while dreaming of being awake.