A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[Politesse]

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.

See?

 

[Toni]

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.

I believe what was being suggested by some is that Mr. Arday’s application and materials should have been scrutinized more closely or somehow scrutinized differently than they were and some people think he was less scrutinized and some that he was more scrutinized based on his skin color.

I don’t know about Cambridge but I know that people are often scrutinized differently based upon the color of their skin, their sex/gender, where they went to school, where they were born, their first language, and a host of other generally not relevant parameters. Usually very unconsciously.

 

[Derec]

The Independent

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

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

They are. It's all about race for them.

 

[Toni]

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.

What was/is it called when candidates were specifically excluded if they were not white and make and preferably ‘Christian?’

 

[Derec]

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.

What's wrong with giving equal consideration to white men? The idea that certain racial/ethnic group as well as women should be given special consideration is at the root of why Arday's claims were not given due scrutiny. The ideology of DEI/EDI is rotten at its core.

 

[Derec]

What was/is it called when candidates were specifically excluded if they were not white and make and preferably ‘Christian?’

Why does the Left think that discriminating against white "makes"[sic] today makes up for discrimination in the past rather than adding new injustices to old?

 

[Derec]

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.

How does what you wrote justify medical schools blatantly discriminating against white and Asian applicants?

 

[Derec]

Honestly, I'd be more likely to hire a doctor who confessed they'd gotten a B or two in high school.

It's not about being perfect, or never getting any "Bs". It's about having the same standards regardless of race. That is a properly liberal value, but one that has been abandoned by those who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" today. They don't see anything wrong with discriminating against race (and gender) as long as they get to choose which groups get the shaft.

Being filthy rich and being a good person (or capable technician) aren't necessarily synonyms;

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

there is something to be said for actually living in the real world for a while.

You can live in the real world and still have good MCAT scores and undergrad grades. And there is nothing that says only blacks, Hispanics live in the "real world" and that therefore we should expect lower academic standards from them.

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.

It's not about "perfect scores". It's not about saying that only grades and scores matter.
It's about holding people to the same standard regardless of race and ethnicity. Something that is increasingly anathema to the movement Leftism.

Backing away from objective measures of academic success is a big mistake. It leads to subjective metrics being given more weight of course. The admissions people like it because they can sneak in considerations of race while pretending they don't. But subjective metrics can also be gamed more easily, especially for those coming from "filthy rich" and privileged families. A rich family can hire a writer to craft the perfect personal statement for their scion. A physician parent who knows a PI at the local med school can get their offspring a position in a lab and their name on a few papers - sometimes without them having to make any real contributions. While standardized tests like MCAT and (for undergrad) SAT are not perfect, they are the great equalizer - everybody takes the same test.

The dismissal of objective standards also leads to erosion of quality. Take this article for example.
I teach calculus at Berkeley. Some of my students can’t do middle school math
The same "logic" of privileging subjective over objective metrics that results in people who can't do fractions admitted to Berkeley is the "logic" that leads to Cambridge hiring the likes of Arday.

 

[laughing dog]

The Independent

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

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

They are. It's all about race for them.

Coming from the author of this irrelevant conjecture of "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." that is monumentally ironic

 

[Toni]

What was/is it called when candidates were specifically excluded if they were not white and make and preferably ‘Christian?’

Why does the Left think that discriminating against white "makes"[sic] today makes up for discrimination in the past rather than adding new injustices to old?

Why can’t you answer a question?

 

[Toni]

Honestly, I'd be more likely to hire a doctor who confessed they'd gotten a B or two in high school.

It's not about being perfect, or never getting any "Bs". It's about having the same standards regardless of race. That is a properly liberal value, but one that has been abandoned by those who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" today. They don't see anything wrong with discriminating against race (and gender) as long as they get to choose which groups get the shaft.

Being filthy rich and being a good person (or capable technician) aren't necessarily synonyms;

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

there is something to be said for actually living in the real world for a while.

You can live in the real world and still have good MCAT scores and undergrad grades. And there is nothing that says only blacks, Hispanics live in the "real world" and that therefore we should expect lower academic standards from them.

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.

It's not about "perfect scores". It's not about saying that only grades and scores matter.
It's about holding people to the same standard regardless of race and ethnicity. Something that is increasingly anathema to the movement Leftism.

Backing away from objective measures of academic success is a big mistake. It leads to subjective metrics being given more weight of course. The admissions people like it because they can sneak in considerations of race while pretending they don't. But subjective metrics can also be gamed more easily, especially for those coming from "filthy rich" and privileged families. A rich family can hire a writer to craft the perfect personal statement for their scion. A physician parent who knows a PI at the local med school can get their offspring a position in a lab and their name on a few papers - sometimes without them having to make any real contributions. While standardized tests like MCAT and (for undergrad) SAT are not perfect, they are the great equalizer - everybody takes the same test.

The dismissal of objective standards also leads to erosion of quality. Take this article for example.
I teach calculus at Berkeley. Some of my students can’t do middle school math
The same "logic" of privileging subjective over objective metrics that results in people who can't do fractions admitted to Berkeley is the "logic" that leads to Cambridge hiring the likes of Arday.

Standards only matter if they are relevant.

For a long time, the most important standard for a young man starting out in life was to come from a good family.

For a young woman: coming from a good family, marrying into a good family a d bearing sons.

What was meant by ‘coming from a good family in the US tended to be: having exclusively European based ancestry, being Christian but not overly religious and having family money.

Medical schools are keenly invested in admitting only well qualified students who will complete their studies and become physicians.

For many years, that meant that being white and male was a necessary if not sufficient qualification.

Graded in relevant university courses and MCAT scores helped narrow the pool of applicants. AFAIK, there is a base line for GPA andMCAT scores that all successful applicants must, along with recommendations, written statements of goals and purpose, and relevant work or volunteer experience.

I am unaware that medical students admit students whose GOAs or MCAT scores or combination fail to meet that threshold.

I am unaware that there are any imperial studies which have established that those medical students admitted with the highest scores and best GPAs end up making the best physicians.

 

[Politesse]

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

Because that's what creates "perfect records". Talent has little to do with it. "Nice schools" in "nice neighborhoods" produce straight A students with glowing test scores, but no guarantee of actual capability.

 

[Emily Lake]

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

Because that's what creates "perfect records". Talent has little to do with it. "Nice schools" in "nice neighborhoods" produce straight A students with glowing test scores, but no guarantee of actual capability.

Sure, sure. So apparently my low-income upbringing in a mixed race household in fairly crappy housing and a mediocre public school was just a fignment of my imagination. All of my records and success are because of some invisible blessing bestowed upon me by your say so? My father's accomplishments were really just handed to him due to his backwater Arkansas public schooling while literally picking cotton in the morning and weekends, living in a shack with a well and no electricity?

Talent and dedication go a long ways toward capability.


+++++++++++++++++++++

Opining that success is only achieved because of unearned privilege is just as insulting and dehumanizing as opining that a person only got a job because of DEI.

Some people achieve success on the coattails of their family's wealth and opportunities not afforded to others, sure. But a whole, whole lot of people attain success through hard work and merit - and you shouldn't denigrate and dismiss that.

Some people attain jobs through DEI practices that favor some minority groups over others, this is also true. But a whole, whole lot of minorities get very good jobs through hard work and merit - and that also shouldn't be dismissed or handwaived away.

In both cases, however, when a person is not qualified for a position they've been given as a result of something other than qualifications and capability, that should be called out.

 

[laughing dog]

Honestly, I'd be more likely to hire a doctor who confessed they'd gotten a B or two in high school.

It's not about being perfect, or never getting any "Bs". It's about having the same standards regardless of race. That is a properly liberal value, but one that has been abandoned by those who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" today. They don't see anything wrong with discriminating against race (and gender) as long as they get to choose which groups get the shaft.

Being filthy rich and being a good person (or capable technician) aren't necessarily synonyms;

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

there is something to be said for actually living in the real world for a while.

You can live in the real world and still have good MCAT scores and undergrad grades. And there is nothing that says only blacks, Hispanics live in the "real world" and that therefore we should expect lower academic standards from them.

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.

It's not about "perfect scores". It's not about saying that only grades and scores matter.
It's about holding people to the same standard regardless of race and ethnicity. Something that is increasingly anathema to the movement Leftism.

Backing away from objective measures of academic success is a big mistake. It leads to subjective metrics being given more weight of course. The admissions people like it because they can sneak in considerations of race while pretending they don't. But subjective metrics can also be gamed more easily, especially for those coming from "filthy rich" and privileged families. A rich family can hire a writer to craft the perfect personal statement for their scion. A physician parent who knows a PI at the local med school can get their offspring a position in a lab and their name on a few papers - sometimes without them having to make any real contributions. While standardized tests like MCAT and (for undergrad) SAT are not perfect, they are the great equalizer - everybody takes the same test.

The dismissal of objective standards also leads to erosion of quality. Take this article for example.
I teach calculus at Berkeley. Some of my students can’t do middle school math
The same "logic" of privileging subjective over objective metrics that results in people who can't do fractions admitted to Berkeley is the "logic" that leads to Cambridge hiring the likes of Arday.

FFS, professors have been complaining about their students' lack of ability since Socrates. None of this has anything to do with the actual OP but one of your boring hobby horses.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Independent

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

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

They are. It's all about race for them.

Says the original poster of the thread.

 

[Toni]

The AAMC tables I posted include GPA and MCAT scores. Not net worth. Where did you get "filthy rich" from?

Because that's what creates "perfect records". Talent has little to do with it. "Nice schools" in "nice neighborhoods" produce straight A students with glowing test scores, but no guarantee of actual capability.

Sure, sure. So apparently my low-income upbringing in a mixed race household in fairly crappy housing and a mediocre public school was just a fignment of my imagination. All of my records and success are because of some invisible blessing bestowed upon me by your say so? My father's accomplishments were really just handed to him due to his backwater Arkansas public schooling while literally picking cotton in the morning and weekends, living in a shack with a well and no electricity?

Talent and dedication go a long ways toward capability.


+++++++++++++++++++++

Opining that success is only achieved because of unearned privilege is just as insulting and dehumanizing as opining that a person only got a job because of DEI.

Some people achieve success on the coattails of their family's wealth and opportunities not afforded to others, sure. But a whole, whole lot of people attain success through hard work and merit - and you shouldn't denigrate and dismiss that.

Some people attain jobs through DEI practices that favor some minority groups over others, this is also true. But a whole, whole lot of minorities get very good jobs through hard work and merit - and that also shouldn't be dismissed or handwaived away.

In both cases, however, when a person is not qualified for a position they've been given as a result of something other than qualifications and capability, that should be called out.

Sounds like what was being said was exactly the opposite of what you are reacting to.

FWIW, I agree with Politesse: Students with everything going for them: educated parents , upper middle class neighborhood, enviably good schools tend to get great grades and great test scores. I know that I am biased here but imo, people who grew up in more modest circumstances, as I did and as it appears that you did, can still make it, can still achieve stellar GPAs and SAT and ACT scores and be high achievers academically and in our careers and in our lives. I know it’s ego talking but I think the accomplishments of those who came from modest backgrounds don’t get nearly enough recognition. We’re rock stars! We’re resilient, don’t need our hands held. Or all of the attention in the room.

 

[Politesse]

The Independent

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

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

They are. It's all about race for them.

Says the original poster of the thread.

Who framed a suicide committed over an academic dishonesty charge as a problem with "DEI", because he looked at a photo of a human being and could only see their skin. Repulsive, these white nationalist stooges.

 

[barbos]

8 pages on clear-cut and obvious case.
And I thought I had a chance in...... russia-ukraine thread.

 

[southernhybrid]

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.

What's wrong with giving equal consideration to white men? The idea that certain racial/ethnic group as well as women should be given special consideration is at the root of why Arday's claims were not given due scrutiny. The ideology of DEI/EDI is rotten at its core.

Based on what I've read, Cambridge was overwhelmed by white men, so they felt it was past time to include some well qualified women and minorities. Sadly, they chose one who wasn't well qualified for the position. There is nothing wrong with wanting a society based on diversity and there are plenty of highly qualified people from all walks of life to fill positions that in the past were only filled by white men. I personally love diversity.

I have more Black friends than I do white friends because I find them, at least where I live, to be friendlier and have more in common with me, especially when it comes to music. Plus, the ones I know don't judge me for being an atheist, like so many white Christians do. Cultural diversity is what makes life interesting and more joyful.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

What's wrong with giving equal consideration to white men? The idea that certain racial/ethnic group as well as women should be given special consideration is at the root of why Arday's claims were not given due scrutiny. The ideology of DEI/EDI is rotten at its core.

Based on what I've read, Cambridge was overwhelmed by white men, so they felt it was past time to include some well qualified women and minorities. Sadly, they chose one who wasn't well qualified for the position. There is nothing wrong with wanting a society based on diversity and there are plenty of highly qualified people from all walks of life to fill positions that in the past were only filled by white men. I personally love diversity.

It wasn't feelings. It was a number of statistical reports. One conclusion of the reports is that blacks in the UK are less smart than others. Another conclusion is that the problem is systematic racism. It's probably the latter, I think.

If the system is racist, it doesn't matter if the people in it aren't. There's some quirks in the selection systems that skew selection against blacks. And it only seems to impact blacks. Asians aren't selected out. So the bias in the system seems to only be against blacks. They're working on figuring out wtf is up with that.