• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

\(\)
I'm not seeing whatever you're asserting in the tables you provided. I didn't check every single item in there, but I did a scan through most of them. Taking the total scores and standard deviations, nothing stood out as being statistically noteworthy. They all look to be within one sd of the means shown.

Oh boy. That's not how you test statistical significance. Standard deviation only tells you about the width of your data, but data with same shape/width gets more and more significant with increasing N. That's why standard error is more important here, which you get with \(\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}\).

If we look at the matriculant table, the total MCAT for blacks gives us \(SE=\frac{6.6}{\sqrt{1845}}=0.153\) and for whites we get \(SE=\frac{6.2}{\sqrt{9534}}=0.063\). As you can see, the difference in means is much greater than the standard errors. If you want to do a pairwise comparison of two groups, you can use Student's t-test. The formula uses standard errors: \(t=\frac{\bar{X}_{1}-\bar{X}_{2}}{\sqrt{SE_{1}^{2}+SE_{2}^{2}}}\)

We can also do ANOVA/Tukey's HSD to check for statistical difference between all the groups at once. I will use this nifty calculator. I get a large table of pairwise comparisons but also this image of confidence intervals.
download.png
As you can see, the Asian and white CIs are well to the right of Latino and black CIs. You can also see that most CIs are narrow except for American Indian and Pacific Islander ones because the Ns are very small.
So again, you can't just go by standard deviation.
 
Last edited:
Professor Jason Arday was the victim of a “public execution”, his friend and peer Lord Simon Woolley told a vigil which was attended by thousands of people. Organisers said more than 30,000 people gathered outside the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, central London, on Monday evening to pay tribute to the former Cambridge professor. As he addressed the crowd, Lord Woolley described the press coverage of Prof Arday as a “public execution” and a “lynching”, to cheers of approval. “For them, Jason doesn’t deserve to be alive. There needs to be some reckoning. There needs to be some justice.”

The Independent

"a public execution"?!!
"a lynching"?!!

Good grief, these people are out of their ever loving minds.
 

Of course, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are still problems in many environments. In my own city some black folks are prejudiced against mixed race marriages, which are very common here. My mixed race married neighbors told me that and I was shocked, as I thought it was only a small percentage of white people who still felt that way.
Why did you think that it only white people who felt that way? Do you really believe that only whites can be racist?
Racism is everywhere. It not just whites against non-whites. It a 2-way street.
It's one skin tone vs. another skin tone everywhere.
And then there is ageism, the last acceptable form of bigotry. But, in the case of Arday, it sounds more like incompetence from Cambridge that was responsible for this tragedy. They could have simply told Arday that he needed more experience and they could have also checked out his crazy claims regarding his childhood.
I wonder though if Cambridge had checked the claims of his childhood whether they would have been accused of racism?
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
Last edited:
Professor Jason Arday was the victim of a “public execution”, his friend and peer Lord Simon Woolley told a vigil which was attended by thousands of people. Organisers said more than 30,000 people gathered outside the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, central London, on Monday evening to pay tribute to the former Cambridge professor. As he addressed the crowd, Lord Woolley described the press coverage of Prof Arday as a “public execution” and a “lynching”, to cheers of approval. “For them, Jason doesn’t deserve to be alive. There needs to be some reckoning. There needs to be some justice.”

The Independent

"a public execution"?!!
"a lynching"?!!

Good grief, these people are out of their ever loving minds.

But he was publicly lynched. Don't you think so? In this thread title you called him "a sad casuality". Wasn't he? You think he was a casuality of DEI, right? So he was a victim?

Regardless of whether we think the criticism against him was deserved or not, him comitting suicide over it is a tragedy. Don't you agree?

The road to hell IS paved with good intentions.

I think Arday was a tragic victim and we should all feel bad about how we were in some small way complicit.

This is what the Greek myth of Phaethon is about. Helios shouldn't have let Phaethon drive the sun chariot, no matter how much he loved him. Obviously Phaeton wanted to ride the chariot. It was on Helios to say "no". Saying "no" would have been the loving thing to do.

It's not cool to elevate anyone above their capacity, no matter what. I think we have a social tacit agreement to keep eachother in check. We help eachother when necessary, and tell eachother no, when we're over extended. The need to not be racist clearly made Cambridge institutionally unable to treat black academics fairly. The tragedy of this is that it will make people start to question the credentials of, especially, black academics. That's not cool. That's racism. While at the same time, continue to be primed to elevate black academics. It's not good. And it's not obvious what the solution is.

Just saying that we should all be colour blind and treat eachother based on character, and not on skin colour, is easy to say. Less easy to do. As this Cambridge example proves

Am I wrong?
 

Of course, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are still problems in many environments. In my own city some black folks are prejudiced against mixed race marriages, which are very common here. My mixed race married neighbors told me that and I was shocked, as I thought it was only a small percentage of white people who still felt that way.
Why did you think that it only white people who felt that way? Do you really believe that only whites can be racist?
Racism is everywhere. It not just whites against non-whites. It a 2-way street.
It's one skin tone vs. another skin tone everywhere.

No, I don't think that only white people can be racist, but I've known so many mixed race couples in my area and if anyone objected, it was always someone white. In fact, the white mother of my neighbor was the only one who had a fit when her daughter told her she was marrying a black man. His family had no problems with their marriage. Considering how common mixed race relationships are where I live, I didn't expect such a reaction coming from anyone who lived here.

In the Northeast, there is far more racial segregation compared to the South these days, and I can understand the dislike of white people coming from some black people there, due to the extreme segregation in most of the Northeast. It's just not as common in my small racially diverse city, so it was surprising to learn that my neighbors, who are very dear people, were treated unkindly, regardless of the skin color of the others who seemed to have a problem with mixed race relationships.

When I was still working, many of my younger coworkers were in mixed race relationships and I don't recall a single negative comment from the other workers. In fact, some of the older workers and even a few of the residents had mixed race grandkids, so yes, it was a bit surprising to learn that my neighbors were treated with bigotry regarding their marriage. Sure, we still have some white racists here, but they are usually openly racist. Sure, there are likely some black racists here in town, but mixed races couples are so common here, that I didn't expect to hear how my neighbors had been treated by some black folks. Since in most cases, it's a white woman with a black partner, maybe some of the black women feel like the white women are taking potential partners from them. Who knows? I have known two couples where the black partner was female and the guy was white. Still, I thought we had moved past that here. I know another mixed race couple that we've been friends with for many years and they have never told me that anyone has treated them unkindly due to being in a mixed race marriage. The white parents were upset at first, but they got over it in time.
And then there is ageism, the last acceptable form of bigotry. But, in the case of Arday, it sounds more like incompetence from Cambridge that was responsible for this tragedy. They could have simply told Arday that he needed more experience and they could have also checked out his crazy claims regarding his childhood.
I wonder though if Cambridge had checked the claims of his childhood whether they would have been accused of racism?
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I think any strange claims from an applicant for such a position should be investigated, regardless of the ethnicity of the applicant. When someone with a doctorate degree claims he couldn't speak until age 11 etc. that needs to be investigated because it doesn't make sense. The man made many strange claims that should have been verified. Cambridge had other more qualified applicants who were also minorities and/or women. If they wanted a more diverse staff, they could have given them more consideration. Personally, I think we've exhausted the discussion of why Arday was hired, which eventually lead to his suicide. The man obviously suffered from some mental health problems for a long time.
 
The case of Mr Arday is a very strange one. Without expertise in the field nor the resumes of other applicants, relying on journalists opinions about qualifications is a bit squishy.

As to his claimed marathon running exploits or his nonverbal status until the age of 11, both are irrelevant to the requirements of the position. They are odd, but lots of academics are truly odd.

I admit that if I had been on a hiring committee and a top applicant made such claims, I’d wonder about their attachment to reality and scrutinize their resume more closely. I’d have tried to check the veracity of the fund raising claims, and checked to see if the publications listed had their name attached and were oeer reviewed. It would not have occurred to me to check for plagiarism because I’d assume the publishers of the articles and the granter if the PHD had done so.
 
Professor Jason Arday was the victim of a “public execution”, his friend and peer Lord Simon Woolley told a vigil which was attended by thousands of people. Organisers said more than 30,000 people gathered outside the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, central London, on Monday evening to pay tribute to the former Cambridge professor. As he addressed the crowd, Lord Woolley described the press coverage of Prof Arday as a “public execution” and a “lynching”, to cheers of approval. “For them, Jason doesn’t deserve to be alive. There needs to be some reckoning. There needs to be some justice.”

The Independent

"a public execution"?!!
"a lynching"?!!

Good grief, these people are out of their ever loving minds.

But he was publicly lynched. Don't you think so?

No he was not lynched and the use of the word lynched is deliberately provocative. Arday was exposed for the obvious fraud he was and the Cambridge University hiring department was exposed to be blinded by DEI nonsense.

In this thread title you called him "a sad casuality". Wasn't he? You think he was a casuality of DEI, right? So he was a victim?
It is a sad tale and he was collateral damage for Cambridge University's blind adherence to DEI, even after suspicions were aroused.

Regardless of whether we think the criticism against him was deserved or not, him comitting suicide over it is a tragedy. Don't you agree?

The criticism of Arday was deserved. He was an obvious fraud. Cambridge should also be criticized for their part in this, not the people who exposed the fraud. It is a tragedy that could have been avoided in my opinion.

Just saying that we should all be colour blind and treat eachother based on character, and not on skin colour, is easy to say. Less easy to do. As this Cambridge example proves

Cambridge had a chance to rectify the situation before things went too far. They chose not to. They did the opposite.
 
The case of Mr Arday is a very strange one.
Particularly with the heavy interest that has absolutely nothing to do with racism, but the term "DEI" is brought up relentlessly.
Without expertise in the field nor the resumes of other applicants, relying on journalists opinions about qualifications is a bit squishy.
People are speaking in a very specific familiarity over this subject, which I find quite impressive. I wasn't aware of how in touch some of our posters here are with hiring protocols of universities (I say that noting that the people that actually do, haven't leapt to extraordinary judgment) as well as this very specific hire.
 
I wasn't aware of how in touch some of our posters here are with hiring protocols of universities
Some of us are very, VERY familiar with college hiring practices, from both sides of the process. Alas, everyone who actually knows anything about the subject is a Woke (that's how they get you).
 
As you can see, the Asian and white CIs are well to the right of Latino and black CIs. You can also see that most CIs are narrow except for American Indian and Pacific Islander ones because the Ns are very small.
So again, you can't just go by standard deviation.
You know one thing... when I needed a surgical procedure, I trusted my PCP in the referral. And I've never asked a doctor or surgeon what their MCATs were.
 
As you can see, the Asian and white CIs are well to the right of Latino and black CIs. You can also see that most CIs are narrow except for American Indian and Pacific Islander ones because the Ns are very small.
So again, you can't just go by standard deviation.
You know one thing... when I needed a surgical procedure, I trusted my PCP in the referral. And I've never asked a doctor or surgeon what their MCATs were.
And yet you are still living. You are a very strange person indeed.
 
The case of Mr Arday is a very strange one. Without expertise in the field nor the resumes of other applicants, relying on journalists opinions about qualifications is a bit squishy.

As to his claimed marathon running exploits or his nonverbal status until the age of 11, both are irrelevant to the requirements of the position. They are odd, but lots of academics are truly odd.
I've met many an oddball. You can wear Spider-man socks and a bow tie for all I care but I draw the line at lying. It speaks to an individual's character.

I admit that if I had been on a hiring committee and a top applicant made such claims, I’d wonder about their attachment to reality and scrutinize their resume more closely. I’d have tried to check the veracity of the fund raising claims, and checked to see if the publications listed had their name attached and were oeer reviewed. It would not have occurred to me to check for plagiarism because I’d assume the publishers of the articles and the granter if the PHD had done so.
I would follow a set procedure and have been careful not to scrutinize his resume any more than any other resume. Imagine the uproar.
 
Honestly, I'd be more likely to hire a doctor who confessed they'd gotten a B or two in high school. Being filthy rich and being a good person (or capable technician) aren't necessarily synonyms; there is something to be said for actually living in the real world for a while. And "perfect" scores are as likely to represent curation as real talent, which is exactly why the major schools started backing away from weighting them heavily in admissions decisions.
 
Last edited:
Remember that the same people who think no one should be admitted to Harvard with less than a 1200 SAT score, also think that a pro wrestling magnate with zero experience in education is fully qualified to run the US Department of Education, because a daytime television personality and real estate scammer is the one who hired her.
 
The case of Mr Arday is a very strange one. Without expertise in the field nor the resumes of other applicants, relying on journalists opinions about qualifications is a bit squishy.

As to his claimed marathon running exploits or his nonverbal status until the age of 11, both are irrelevant to the requirements of the position. They are odd, but lots of academics are truly odd.
I've met many an oddball. You can wear Spider-man socks and a bow tie for all I care but I draw the line at lying. It speaks to an individual's character.

I admit that if I had been on a hiring committee and a top applicant made such claims, I’d wonder about their attachment to reality and scrutinize their resume more closely. I’d have tried to check the veracity of the fund raising claims, and checked to see if the publications listed had their name attached and were oeer reviewed. It would not have occurred to me to check for plagiarism because I’d assume the publishers of the articles and the granter if the PHD had done so.
I would follow a set procedure and have been careful not to scrutinize his resume any more than any other resume. Imagine the uproar.
From my limited experience, you'd be surprised at how much latitude there is in following "set procedures" for evaluating candidates in academia.
 
Honestly, I'd be more likely to hire a doctor who confessed they'd gotten a B or two in high school. Being filthy rich and being a good person (or capable technician) aren't necessarily synonyms; there is something to be said for actually living in the real world for a while. And "perfect" scores are as likely to represent curation as real talent, which is exactly why the major schools started backing away from weighting them heavily in admissions decisions.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't see the relevance to this situation.

Do you think Arday should have been granted leave to plagiarize, lie, and mislead everyone simply from the argument that he wasn't filthy rich? I really don't know where you're going.
 
The article says there were two women who were more highly qualified but he was given the position.
So no matter who got the position, the peanut gallery would consider it a "DEI hire" anyway...
If Cambridge deliberately excluded white men from consideration for hiring, then it's a DEI (or "EDI" as it's called across the pond) hire by definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom