Why are you mad right now?

[Mathemagician]

Yeah man that just sucks all around. And cats are pretty damn loving with their owners when they want to be. So they’ll for sure be missing her after a few days.

 

[ImNotAhab]

This college bribery scandal annoyed more more than it should have. It is just a fact of life that if you are loaded, you can build Yale an international airport and they will admit your kid. Much ado about nothing, right?

But fraud/test interference and abuse of a system designed to facilitate people with some kind of impairment is really, really, gross.

 

[Mathemagician]

From the initial headlines I saw yesterday at the very least it appeared that THIS was a system in place prior to anything hitting the college’s desk. So for now the colleges are not implicated in any of this.

Has there been any update on that front?

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

I seriously hate Windows. All versions. It is all fucking garbage, and I hate being forced to use it.

And before someone goes, "wElL uSe AnOtHeR oS" like some brain dead jackass: I do not have a choice in the matter. As such, I am forced to use Windows, which has to be the worst OS. I really do not get why it is so widespread as an OS, because it sure as FUCK is not user friendly, nor is it an enjoyable user experience. I would love to switch every computer I ever have to touch over to Linux. Unfortunately, colleges, employers, etc. would most likely have an issue with that.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

harvard is/has been in trouble for supposedly having racial quotas. they've supposedly been turning away equally or better qualified asian students in favor of other minorities due to subjective personality qualities they extrapolate from the interview process. the best part is that when alumni interviewed the same people they consistently scored them higher on their personality/other qualities.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-...lawsuit-against-harvard-judge-s-hands-n971776

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...or-final-time-in-boston-courtroom-11550103739

 

[TedEH]

I seriously hate Windows.

I think I would have previously defended Windows for a number of reasons, but the thing that bothers me right now is the "as a service" thing. I don't want my OS to be a "service", I just want my computer to run, with the lowest amount of friction between me and my work or games.

Linux is still a little to user-unfriendly to be an every day thing, and Mac OS has some designs that just don't make sense to me - where Windows would normally sit in that middle ground of not hiding it's functionality under "user friendliness" that obscures what's actually happening while also not requiring you to understand the deeper workings of what your computer is doing......... but at the end of the day the real reason we all use Windows is that there isn't much choice in terms of what is or isn't supported. Games run on Windows. More things people need for work run on Windows. If you only ever use things on the web, then you've got options but otherwise.....

 

[Mathemagician]

harvard is/has been in trouble for supposedly having racial quotas. they've supposedly been turning away equally or better qualified asian students in favor of other minorities due to subjective personality qualities they extrapolate from the interview process. the best part is that when alumni interviewed the same people they consistently scored them higher on their personality/other qualities.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-...lawsuit-against-harvard-judge-s-hands-n971776

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...or-final-time-in-boston-courtroom-11550103739

The thing about this is however, if you are in charge of accepting students to try to create a diverse student body m, so that your students themselves interact with people of all walks of life this will naturally happen.

If you have tons and tons of kids applying from backgrounds where they when to “the best” private schools, all had 4.0 GPA’s, all did extracurricular volunteering and sports.

They are basically carbon-copy candidates. The issue with the “Asian quota” argument which also tangentially implies a “wealthy white quota” as well is that if you ONLY look at GPA and extra curricular a you’re going to have pretty much ONE profile of student.

Doesn’t matter if they are coming in from Connecticut, NYC, Miami, Houston, SF. They will be kids whose parents made them study and take college prep everything.

Cool, now why would you NOT want the student from a bad neighborhood with one parent who worked from the age of 15 to support younger siblings and still has a 3.5 GPA, at a school with a 50% dropout rate, with tons of gang problems.

That person overcame a LOT “just” for the 3.5, they NEVER had SAT prep coaching nor did they have parents who were able to provide comfortably to the point where they were encouraged to do extracurricular to “round out” their college applications.

The (elite) universities want people who will 100% be successful and contribute a different worldview in class discussions and the student body.

Not everyone starts from the same starting point, so you have to measure apples to apples.

It is very naive to think that one can have a diverse class of students just on quantitative metrics like GPA, number of sports played, number of clubs joined, etc.

And that is the underlying issue. The people with the huge advantages in life want it to be entirely “quantitative” because they have an advantage.

They don’t like hearing that they didn’t “measure up” on qualitative things like background, or that they didn’t get in because mommy is a hedge fund manager but the guy who got in was shot at in a gang shootout as a kid.

It’s harder to get to a Harvard entrance interview from a small town in Missouri with an opioid crisis and no one whose gone to college in 20 years, than from a family of doctors and attorneys.

It’s basically saying that at a certain point the wealthy/Type A/ destined for greatness candidates are interchangeable because they’re a just so many of them. And they want to be sure they let in the immigrant who used to have to call the repairman or talk to the bank teller on behalf of their parents from the age of 7, who was on free school lunch most of their life but has grinder beyond what any of their peers ever attempted.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

The thing about this is however, if you are in charge of accepting students to try to create a diverse student body m, so that your students themselves interact with people of all walks of life this will naturally happen.

If you have tons and tons of kids applying from backgrounds where they when to “the best” private schools, all had 4.0 GPA’s, all did extracurricular volunteering and sports.

They are basically carbon-copy candidates. The issue with the “Asian quota” argument which also tangentially implies a “wealthy white quota” as well is that if you ONLY look at GPA and extra curricular a you’re going to have pretty much ONE profile of student.

Doesn’t matter if they are coming in from Connecticut, NYC, Miami, Houston, SF. They will be kids whose parents made them study and take college prep everything.

Cool, now why would you NOT want the student from a bad neighborhood with one parent who worked from the age of 15 to support younger siblings and still has a 3.5 GPA, at a school with a 50% dropout rate, with tons of gang problems.

That person overcame a LOT “just” for the 3.5, they NEVER had SAT prep coaching nor did they have parents who were able to provide comfortably to the point where they were encouraged to do extracurricular to “round out” their college applications.

The (elite) universities want people who will 100% be successful and contribute a different worldview in class discussions and the student body.

Not everyone starts from the same starting point, so you have to measure apples to apples.

It is very naive to think that one can have a diverse class of students just on quantitative metrics like GPA, number of sports played, number of clubs joined, etc.

And that is the underlying issue. The people with the huge advantages in life want it to be entirely “quantitative” because they have an advantage.

They don’t like hearing that they didn’t “measure up” on qualitative things like background, or that they didn’t get in because mommy is a hedge fund manager but the guy who got in was shot at in a gang shootout as a kid.

It’s harder to get to a Harvard entrance interview from a small town in Missouri with an opioid crisis and no one whose gone to college in 20 years, than from a family of doctors and attorneys.

It’s basically saying that at a certain point the wealthy/Type A/ destined for greatness candidates are interchangeable because they’re a just so many of them. And they want to be sure they let in the immigrant who used to have to call the repairman or talk to the bank teller on behalf of their parents from the age of 7, who was on free school lunch most of their life but has grinder beyond what any of their peers ever attempted.

I don't have an issue with looking closely at certain qualitative factors like socioeconomic background as you mentioned, but race shouldn't really even be considered imo. It's always been a contentious and nebulous area for college admissions imo.
The issue is that Asians are consistently scoring HIGHER in terms of grades/extracurriculars (which is quantitative and easy to show) but are consistently given lower personal quality scores by admission than other ethnicities. It's not an apples to apples comparison where everything is equal except for their personal qualities.
Plus you must have missed how I said, the same students were judged by both admissions personnel AND alumni, and there was a consistent disparity between the two interviewing groups where admissions scored the same students lower than the alumni for the same vague personal qualities. Alumni generally scored asians as high as whites in these vaque personal qualities.
Some of these vague qualities include : "likability", "maturity", "integrity" and "effervescence"

Peter Arcidiacano from Duke University compared ethnicities statistically (holding grades and extracurriculars equal across the racial board) and found that asians had only a 25% chance of admissions vs 32% for whites, 77% for hispanic, and 95% for african americans.

 

[Seabeast2000]

Some of these vague qualities include : "likability", "maturity", "integrity" and "effervescence"

P.

I'm pretty sure that right there would help divert quality applicants with integrity from applying. Sounds more like a beauty pageant qualifier.

 

[Mathemagician]

I'm pretty sure that right there would help divert quality applicants with integrity from applying. Sounds more like a beauty pageant qualifier.

If you’ve never had to work 80+ hours a week in an investment bank or traveling around with other consultants for months and months on end then you have no idea why likeability would matter. You can be the smartest motherfucker in the room, but aside from hard-math engineering or computer science soft skills matter.

And knight I’m not trying to deny that Asians seem to be getting lower likeability scores, but there may be a bias where the college interviewer sees many more students a year than the volunteer alumni who meet with these same kids and the alumni may have things on common whereas the interviewers are comparing them across many other candidates don’t.

There may simply be underlying cultural differences at play that make certain Asian candidates (this includes India/Pakistan/etc) appear less outgoing than other candidates too.

I wasn’t saying that the end result IS a valid apples to apples comparison, the opposite. The goal is fine, but it’s always going to be red delicious apples to Granny Smith apples to oranges to bananas. The reality is that universities want a diverse student body and diverse personalities.

And if most Asian candidates are an A+ gunner and you want a more “melting pot people from all walks of life” class profile then you either just let in all the quantitatively “better” candidates and get a mostly Asian and white student body, or you have different entrance metrics for different people all of whom you believe can still do well by attending your university.

It makes sense that the Asian/white candidates would feel entitled to the first system, but then how the fuck is the broke white kid from Missouri or the Mexican kid from LA going to “get a shot” at an education they killed themselves for in a different way?

Neither option is really “fair”. But one doesn’t just stack success on already successful people. Harvard only has so many open spots, which class make-up do they want?

All the accusations at admissions processes in the world don’t change that fundamental problem. There are MORE perfectly qualified applicants for a spot than there are spots.

Is a 30% white student body fair? 50%? 80%? Replace white with anything else. It’s private school admissions and someone is always going to be salty.

From 2015, Asian-Americans make up around 5.5% of the US population but made up 22% of Harvard and 26% of MIT’s student bodies.

I don’t think this post has solutions, just keeping conversation going.

I sort of read this as “an average Asian candidate gets stack ranked lower than an otherwise equally average non-Asian due to biases of higher expectations”. Even at publicly funded state schools. This right here would be some bullshit man. Because it starts from an unrealistic standard.

So it’s the average kids not getting scholarships to state schools that are suffering the most, not the guys trying for an M7 MBA.

 

[Yul Brynner]

I'm all for equality and such but the wording they used really bothers me. Dressing "provocatively" implies intent to "provoke". So if you dress "provocatively" don't be surprised when people are "provoked". To me the way they worded it doesn't help their cause.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I'm all for equality and such but the wording they used really bothers me. Dressing "provocatively" implies intent to "provoke". So if you dress "provocatively" don't be surprised when people are "provoked". To me the way they worded it doesn't help their cause.View attachment 67870

i'm sure it's like a lot of the middle east where "provocative"= exposing skin anywhere besides your face

 

[Yul Brynner]

i'm sure it's like a lot of the middle east where "provocative"= exposing skin anywhere besides your face

Maybe. Still, the use of the word provocatively makes their argument sound like women are dressing slutty with full intention of causing a reaction. Just a terrible word choice imo.

provocative
/prəˈvɒkətɪv/

adjective

1. causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.
   "a provocative article"
   synonyms: annoying, irritating, exasperating, infuriating, provoking, maddening, goading, vexing, galling; More
   
   • intended or intending to arouse sexual desire or interest.
     "a provocative sidelong glance"
     synonyms: sexy, sexually arousing, sexually exciting, alluring, seductive, tempting, suggestive, inviting, tantalizing, titillating

 

[TedEH]

Seems like a correct use of the word to me. If someone thinks that clothing is literally deserving of harassment, then they see said harassment as being provoked. I don't condone the attitude, but I don't see an issue with the word choice.

 

[Yul Brynner]

Seems like a correct use of the word to me. If someone thinks that clothing is literally deserving of harassment, then they see said harassment as being provoked. I don't condone the attitude, but I don't see an issue with the word choice.

So if I walked around wearing a shirt that says "I hate (insert any applicable slur)", I should not be harassed even though I am dressing provocatively?

 

[TedEH]

That's not even close to what I said. I mean quite literally and only, that if someone thinks that clothing can be a deserving cause of harassment -> It is because they see said clothing as having provoked that harassment. The use of the word isn't wrong. I'm not injecting any opinion into that.

You're attributing the opinion to the person writing the headline, not to the person who stated the objectionable opinion in the first place. The issue isn't word choice, it's that someone somewhere thinks dressing sexy is "asking for harassment".

 

[Yul Brynner]

That's not even close to what I said. I mean quite literally and only, that if someone thinks that clothing can be a deserving cause of harassment -> It is because they see said clothing as having provoked that harassment. The use of the word isn't wrong. I'm not injecting any opinion into that.

You're attributing the opinion to the person writing the headline, not to the person who stated the objectionable opinion in the first place. The issue isn't word choice, it's that someone somewhere thinks dressing sexy is "asking for harassment".

Yes the person writing the headline should have worded it differently. None of the women in the video were dressing provocatively. The headline should have read more like
Some women in Egypt believe women should be harassed for the way they dress.

 

[TedEH]

None of the women in the video were dressing provocatively

It's just splitting hairs about who are you attributing the opinion to at that point. The writer of the headline wasn't saying this was the case, nor am I. The "some women in Egypt" are the ones making this statement. From their point of view - it's accurate. I'm not passing any judgement as to what is or isn't provocative, nor do I think the author of the headline intended to, without any farther context than a screenshot.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

I was willing to change my opinion of Two Notes since they offered to help me out, but nah... still trash.

 

[broj15]

Wasn't sure if I should vent here or in the first world problems thread (cuz atleat l I'm lucky enough to be gainfully employed) but I just need to vent real quick.

Tell me, whats the greatest lie capitalists ever told the proletariat? That if you work hard you'll be rewarded. Well I've been working crazy hard the past 3 weeks. Between picking up shifts from an employee who was recently fired and covering for people who wanted time off, I've been putting in 45-55 hours a week (and busting my ass for all of it). Now I work in a restaurant and the most coveted shifts are prep shifts. All that entails is going in early and making a list of food to prep for the day and when you finish you get to go home. Now I've been given prep shifts before and have more than proven myself that I can work efficiently. Hell, I've even worked with the owner (who makes the schedule) and even she has commented on the speed and quality of my work. However, I lost all those prep shifts I was getting when the manager of the prep kitchen said his partner (a former employee) needed to come back and work prep to make money after her small business closed.

Now I understand seniority is a thing. Both of them have been there for 4 years, a little over twice as long as me. However, seniority should lose all it's value when someone's quality of work isn't up to the standards that have been set. I can't count the number of times we've ran out of stuff in the middle of service that we definitely should NOT be running out of, simply because they both wanted to dip out early.

None of this is lost on the kitchen manager (2nd in command, right after the owners). Me and him are pretty tight and he's been pushing for me to have more prep shifts since that's the kind of work I enjoy (solitary and with a set goal to work towards).

Now, imagine my reaction when I wake up this morning (getting ready to work my third double in a row) and I see that our new schedule has been posted for the next month.... And I don't have a single fucking prep shifts.

However what I did get was a text message from the owner (the person signing my paychecks) saying she "appreciates" all my hard work, bit how she's afraid that I'll get burnt out and to let her know if there's anything she "can do to help support" me.
Now, I didn't even bother responding, but what I really REALLY wanted to say was "working long hours doesn't make me feel burnt out, but busting my ass all the time just to feel like I'm getting fucked over sure as hell does. I don't want a fucking thank you and a pat on the back. I want to see that my hard work is actually being recognized, and I want something to show for it."

I'd understand if I was asking for a raise, but I'm not asking for more money. All I'm asking is to be rewarded for all the work I put into that place, bit so far I've gotten nothing.

Anyways, feels good to type that out and get it off my chest. Anyone else ever been in a similar situation where you feel like your hard work goes unnoticed, or like it doesn't really matter how hard you work because either way the out come is always gonna be the same?