6 ms·

I agree that the goals are worthwhile, and also feel that requiring every proposal to include this is not efficient and/or very effective. They should take all

I agree that the goals are worthwhile, and also feel that requiring every proposal to include this is not efficient and/or very effective. They should take all the funds and time spent on this every year as part of every award, and just fund programs specifically designed to attract inner-city kids to science, or funnel talented, low-income, high school students to be mentored, taught advanced classes, etc. I would be happy to spend time mentoring URM, etc. But it'd work a lot better if others managed such a program, thought about how to attract them, etc. Specialization is good.

daveguy 2y ago
That seems like a reasonable middle ground to me. But I didn't have any problem with DEI. If you have inner-city kids underrepresented by 50% then fund according to %population * %underrepresnted -- if 25% population then 12.5% of funding for programs to increase participation (don't think it would be that high). Maybe divide that by N if you have N different groups you would like to be more represented (eg rural kids). Performance is just that. Funding would be more effective. I expect anti-DEI folks would like the funding effort even less than the performance effort. It's obvious they believe diversity itself is part of the problem (whether admitted or not).
- exe34 2y ago
  > they believe diversity itself is part of the problem (whether admitted or not). they admit it. President Trump stated unambiguously that the recent crash and tragic loss of life is due to DEI hires, even though all the pilots and air traffic controllers involved were able-bodied white (presumably heterosexual and cis-gendered) men. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmdm1m7m9o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmdm1m7m9o > Asked by a reporter how he could blame diversity programmes for the crash when the investigation had only just begun, the president responded: "Because I have common sense."
  - vkou 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - exe34 2y ago
      I listen because he controls the most powerful army in history and can crush my country's economy if we don't allow his gang of oligarchs to mess with our democracy. When the US sneezes, the whole world catches a cold.
      - vkou 2y ago
        Sure, you listen in the same way that you listen to the demands of an armed gunman in a store. But you can't engage with trying to find any sense in it. His administration does not live in the same reality that anyone else does. Repeating the lies only gives them undeserved legitimacy.
        exe34 2y ago
        I rather thought my original post was dripping with sarcasm, but I understand that it doesn't translate as well in text. I quote the orangeführer and his sidekick to bury them (in ridicule), not to praise them.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The way Trump works is that he's careless with details, entirely on purpose. Because it causes opponents to dispute the details he gets wrong, which in turn allows him to frame the debate. Compare this to someone who says something indisputably true, which no one can counter, and so then opponents ignore it and talk about something else instead. It also allows him to exaggerate, because if you say "we got the best numbers ever achieved in history" but it's actually "just" the best numbers in a century, opponents who point out that was actually done by Teddy Roosevelt 120 years ago and not since are only underlining that it hasn't been done in a long time, while making themselves look like pedants. But that doesn't mean that "Trump said it, therefore it's wrong" gets you out of the debate. For example: > President Trump stated unambiguously that the recent crash and tragic loss of life is due to DEI hires, even though all the pilots and air traffic controllers involved were able-bodied white (presumably heterosexual and cis-gendered) men. A plausible explanation for this is that because they were already all white men, new hires weren't allowed to be, so viable candidates were turned away, leading to under-staffing. Is that what actually happened? Someone would have to investigate it, but until they do, you can't be sure that Trump is even wrong, or that he's necessarily wrong on the logic of it as might apply to other cases in general regardless of what turns out to be the case here in particular. And in the meantime he's got people talking about the possible dangers of doing the thing he doesn't like.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
>They should take all the funds and time spent on this every year as part of every award, and just fund programs specifically designed to attract inner-city kids to science, or funnel talented, low-income, high school students to be mentored, taught advanced classes, etc. Or just have pay for decent, functional K-12 schools in non-rich districts without housing bubbles?
mrguyorama 2y ago
>just fund programs specifically designed to attract inner-city kids to science, or funnel talented, low-income, high school students to be mentored, taught advanced classes, etc. And how do you find out which programs successfully do that without studying them? The magic of "just" in a suggestion I guess.

daveguy 2y ago

That seems like a reasonable middle ground to me. But I didn't have any problem with DEI. If you have inner-city kids underrepresented by 50% then fund according to %population * %underrepresnted -- if 25% population then 12.5% of funding for programs to increase participation (don't think it would be that high). Maybe divide that by N if you have N different groups you would like to be more represented (eg rural kids). Performance is just that. Funding would be more effective. I expect anti-DEI folks would like the funding effort even less than the performance effort. It's obvious they believe diversity itself is part of the problem (whether admitted or not).

exe34 2y ago
> they believe diversity itself is part of the problem (whether admitted or not). they admit it. President Trump stated unambiguously that the recent crash and tragic loss of life is due to DEI hires, even though all the pilots and air traffic controllers involved were able-bodied white (presumably heterosexual and cis-gendered) men. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmdm1m7m9o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmdm1m7m9o > Asked by a reporter how he could blame diversity programmes for the crash when the investigation had only just begun, the president responded: "Because I have common sense."
- vkou 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - exe34 2y ago
    I listen because he controls the most powerful army in history and can crush my country's economy if we don't allow his gang of oligarchs to mess with our democracy. When the US sneezes, the whole world catches a cold.
    - vkou 2y ago
      Sure, you listen in the same way that you listen to the demands of an armed gunman in a store. But you can't engage with trying to find any sense in it. His administration does not live in the same reality that anyone else does. Repeating the lies only gives them undeserved legitimacy.
      - exe34 2y ago
        I rather thought my original post was dripping with sarcasm, but I understand that it doesn't translate as well in text. I quote the orangeführer and his sidekick to bury them (in ridicule), not to praise them.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The way Trump works is that he's careless with details, entirely on purpose. Because it causes opponents to dispute the details he gets wrong, which in turn allows him to frame the debate. Compare this to someone who says something indisputably true, which no one can counter, and so then opponents ignore it and talk about something else instead. It also allows him to exaggerate, because if you say "we got the best numbers ever achieved in history" but it's actually "just" the best numbers in a century, opponents who point out that was actually done by Teddy Roosevelt 120 years ago and not since are only underlining that it hasn't been done in a long time, while making themselves look like pedants. But that doesn't mean that "Trump said it, therefore it's wrong" gets you out of the debate. For example: > President Trump stated unambiguously that the recent crash and tragic loss of life is due to DEI hires, even though all the pilots and air traffic controllers involved were able-bodied white (presumably heterosexual and cis-gendered) men. A plausible explanation for this is that because they were already all white men, new hires weren't allowed to be, so viable candidates were turned away, leading to under-staffing. Is that what actually happened? Someone would have to investigate it, but until they do, you can't be sure that Trump is even wrong, or that he's necessarily wrong on the logic of it as might apply to other cases in general regardless of what turns out to be the case here in particular. And in the meantime he's got people talking about the possible dangers of doing the thing he doesn't like.

eli_gottlieb 2y ago

>They should take all the funds and time spent on this every year as part of every award, and just fund programs specifically designed to attract inner-city kids to science, or funnel talented, low-income, high school students to be mentored, taught advanced classes, etc. Or just have pay for decent, functional K-12 schools in non-rich districts without housing bubbles?

mrguyorama 2y ago

>just fund programs specifically designed to attract inner-city kids to science, or funnel talented, low-income, high school students to be mentored, taught advanced classes, etc. And how do you find out which programs successfully do that without studying them? The magic of "just" in a suggestion I guess.