2 ms·
Very well. This is still trying to incentivize equality through what is essentially bribery. At least they don't intend on doing it regularly, not for now. The
by vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Very well. This is still trying to incentivize equality through what is essentially bribery. At least they don't intend on doing it regularly, not for now.
The rest of my claims still stand. In fact, the affirmative action is probably one of the lesser worries. There's other, much bigger reasons.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Very well. This is still trying to incentivize equality through what is essentially bribery. Its not incentivizing equality. The major incentive is for getting any set of 15 or more students through the program. This is 75% of the potential reward. The minor incentive is for getting 7 or more girls in the set of 15 or more students. This is obviously not an incentive for equality (as, at the minimum number of total students and girls for the incentive, its not equal, and, there's no ratio-based requirement -- if you get 30 students through and only 7 are girls, you get the same additional $250 on top of the base $750 as if you get 15 students through and 7 were girls.) In addition to not being "incentivizing equality", I don't see how rewarding what works in acheiving goals is bribery. > The rest of my claims still stand. The rest of your claims are unsupported fuzzy generalities. In the one case you discussed an easily verifiable fact claim, it was completely wrong. I don't see any reason to assume that your generalities are based on any clearer of a picture of reality than your simple fact claim.
- wildgift 13y agoIf that extra pay for recruiting girls more heavily works, that's ok. If, absent that reward, there weren't many or any girls in the class, isn't that some kind of problem right off the bat?