3 ms·

Perhaps you were simply evaluated against your noggin and not your skin? Edit: what are the arguments against this?

by dgfitz 3y ago

lazide 3y ago
they very well might have been evaluated based entirely on their abilities alone. A toxic element of DEI is that now they have to always wonder (as does everyone else) if it was done because of their skin color/gender/race, regardless of what their mentor says. Because it very well may be true as well.
- judahmeek 3y ago
  [flagged]
- thewanderer1983 3y ago
  Just like the justice system. People should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. DEI and more broadly CRT are toxic because minorities, like all humans have faults and these ideas promote minorities to assume discrimination instead of faults. Therefore not helping these individuals improve their faults. This also promotes division and hatred in society. Overall net negative.
  - achenet 3y ago
    to be fair, I don't think yelling at someone for their flaws is very effective at fixing them. My reasoning can be summed up as "look at prison recidivism vs Skinner's work on positive reinforcement".
noobermin 3y ago
This comment does not make sense in reply to this question...where did they say anything about evaluation, the point they made is the difference it made is their advisor doing outreach.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  I made the mental leap of “the advisor reached out because they saw the potential” which I assumed… was assumed.
  - nsagent 3y ago
    In this case, "outreach" means [1]: the extending of services or assistance beyond current or usual limits | an outreach program [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outreach#dictionary-entry-2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outreach#dictiona...
  - kelipso 3y ago
    No it's not on an individual basis, outreach work means something more like the professor talked to a group of students about their work and what they can do to join their lab for a phd. There are lots and lots of undergrads who don't know a thing about graduate school.
OJFord 3y ago
> Edit: what are the arguments against this? I happen not to agree with them, but leaving that aside they're often that Ok fine, it's a pipeline problem^, but the solution is to address that at every stage, not just the beginning. (^meaning for example schoolgirls aren't sufficiently interested and encouraged into STEM so university applications are low, so admissions are low, so graduations are low, so job applications are low, so offers are low, so employer gender ratios are low)
- WalterBright 3y ago
  STEM is something you gotta have some substantial internal motivation to do, such as doing it for a hobby. The kind of work I enjoy, you gotta really like it or it isn't going to work out for you. For example, I was taking machines apart when I was 7 trying to figure out how they worked. I'd break open resistors to see what was inside - just baffling grey dust. Eventually I took bicycles apart, then engines, then whole cars. It was just foregone that I was going to engineering school.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Maybe decades ago when college students based their choice of majors on feelings or whatever that might have been true. Nowadays college students are much more practical. An obvious example is the rise in CS majors in the last decade. The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous.
    - jasonm23 3y ago
      To go into a subject, with no foundation, no motivation and no interest. How is this a set up for success? I mean, sure, people can go into any subject, but... if they're to succeed?
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous. Pretty much all the ones I know that are good at it love it. Just like musicians and athletes. Sure, there are those in it for the money. They're usually the tweeners. > Nowadays college students are much more practical. I'm not so sure about that. There's a large number of math avoiders in college, and when they graduate discover their degree is worth a minimum wage job.
avs733 3y ago
perhaps he wasn't. clearly we are at an impasse Maybe put some value and engage with someone's articulation of their personal experience as opposed to simply dismissing it because it does not comport with your world view.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  What did I dismiss? By all accounts they sounds quite successful as well as appreciative of their undergraduate advisor. Engage in their experience? See above. Should I have snuck in there somewhere “nice job kind gentle person, you succeeded” or something? What world view is that?

Perhaps you were simply evaluated against your noggin and not your skin? Edit: what are the arguments against this?

by dgfitz 3y ago

Perhaps you were simply evaluated against your noggin and not your skin? Edit: what are the arguments against this?

they very well might have been evaluated based entirely on their abilities alone. A toxic element of DEI is that now they have to always wonder (as does everyone else) if it was done because of their skin color/gender/race, regardless of what their mentor says. Because it very well may be true as well.

judahmeek 3y ago
[flagged]
thewanderer1983 3y ago
Just like the justice system. People should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. DEI and more broadly CRT are toxic because minorities, like all humans have faults and these ideas promote minorities to assume discrimination instead of faults. Therefore not helping these individuals improve their faults. This also promotes division and hatred in society. Overall net negative.
- achenet 3y ago
  to be fair, I don't think yelling at someone for their flaws is very effective at fixing them. My reasoning can be summed up as "look at prison recidivism vs Skinner's work on positive reinforcement".

noobermin 3y ago

This comment does not make sense in reply to this question...where did they say anything about evaluation, the point they made is the difference it made is their advisor doing outreach.

dgfitz 3y ago
I made the mental leap of “the advisor reached out because they saw the potential” which I assumed… was assumed.
- nsagent 3y ago
  In this case, "outreach" means [1]: the extending of services or assistance beyond current or usual limits | an outreach program [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outreach#dictionary-entry-2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outreach#dictiona...
- kelipso 3y ago
  No it's not on an individual basis, outreach work means something more like the professor talked to a group of students about their work and what they can do to join their lab for a phd. There are lots and lots of undergrads who don't know a thing about graduate school.

OJFord 3y ago

> Edit: what are the arguments against this? I happen not to agree with them, but leaving that aside they're often that Ok fine, it's a pipeline problem^, but the solution is to address that at every stage, not just the beginning. (^meaning for example schoolgirls aren't sufficiently interested and encouraged into STEM so university applications are low, so admissions are low, so graduations are low, so job applications are low, so offers are low, so employer gender ratios are low)

WalterBright 3y ago
STEM is something you gotta have some substantial internal motivation to do, such as doing it for a hobby. The kind of work I enjoy, you gotta really like it or it isn't going to work out for you. For example, I was taking machines apart when I was 7 trying to figure out how they worked. I'd break open resistors to see what was inside - just baffling grey dust. Eventually I took bicycles apart, then engines, then whole cars. It was just foregone that I was going to engineering school.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Maybe decades ago when college students based their choice of majors on feelings or whatever that might have been true. Nowadays college students are much more practical. An obvious example is the rise in CS majors in the last decade. The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous.
  - jasonm23 3y ago
    To go into a subject, with no foundation, no motivation and no interest. How is this a set up for success? I mean, sure, people can go into any subject, but... if they're to succeed?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous. Pretty much all the ones I know that are good at it love it. Just like musicians and athletes. Sure, there are those in it for the money. They're usually the tweeners. > Nowadays college students are much more practical. I'm not so sure about that. There's a large number of math avoiders in college, and when they graduate discover their degree is worth a minimum wage job.

avs733 3y ago

perhaps he wasn't. clearly we are at an impasse Maybe put some value and engage with someone's articulation of their personal experience as opposed to simply dismissing it because it does not comport with your world view.

dgfitz 3y ago
What did I dismiss? By all accounts they sounds quite successful as well as appreciative of their undergraduate advisor. Engage in their experience? See above. Should I have snuck in there somewhere “nice job kind gentle person, you succeeded” or something? What world view is that?