So now we're completely away from the "race / competence non-correlation", and onto the "judge each person on his/her own merits" bromide. I'm 100% with you there. I also like motherhood and apple pie.
Can you rephrase that coherently please? What is an HR person to do about a candidate that had a "difference in opportunities in life for training" from another candidate, and therefore varies in competence?
The regulators have been involved all along. Measuring that by the volume of _new_ regulations is OTOH quite wrong. We don't pass new laws on murder every time someone gets killed.
"If the student defaults, the institution isn't on the hook."
Well sure, the institution has delivered what it agreed to. The loan was not from the institution but from a bank - or the feds, with their own perverse incentives.
"we should probably cut back on the for-profit college companies"
What, by outlawing them? No, even those people involved should be free to pursue their happiness.
"If Facebook has very low numbers of non-white applicants it suggests that the way they advertise jobs isn't very good"
Or it suggests that non-white applicants aren't very good at finding the advertisements. Or it suggests that there aren't that many non-white applicants available. Or it suggests... a thousand more possibilities.
... what, because the only legitimate alternative to state-subsidized internet access is "resignation from the social compact"? What about drawing a line a little closer to the "bare essentials", construed strictly?
But that is a grossly exaggerated meaning of the word. Not everything mean or unpleasant is "harassment" - esp. if the target is not even aware. Whether any criticism or attack is persistent or continued or tormenting enough (some keywords from a dictionary definition) is subjective to a readily weaponized degree.
Can you describe some of the "harassment of individuals" that took place in that subreddit? For those of us not regular participants, who saw only a few recent example postings, they were embarrassing photos / comments about people. But by what definition of the word 'harassment' apply?
"The ideal is that students who were struggling would get help, regardless of any other factors."
So the implication here is that the only reason achievement would be different is because struggling students were denied help based on their demographics?
"very similar verbiage is applied all over the place"
To require "equal achievement"? Really? (And I was asking about the school system.)
Exactly. They're requiring the _results_ to have certain statistical properties. That means that if the provisional results were to have politically-incorrect correlations, they would have to be suppressed (e.g., by grading on different curves per identity-group demographic, or by offering different courses/evaluation). The "intersectionalism" of it all will make the post-facto compensation even trickier - good luck!) So long to a standard course, with standardized testing.
I'm curious whether this "equal achievement" verbiage has ever been applied to other fields of study under that system, and how (if!) they managed to satisfy it.
Slashdot Mirror
So now we're completely away from the "race / competence non-correlation", and onto the "judge each person on his/her own merits" bromide. I'm 100% with you there. I also like motherhood and apple pie.
Can you rephrase that coherently please? What is an HR person to do about a candidate that had a "difference in opportunities in life for training" from another candidate, and therefore varies in competence?
... and don't you go and question their courage in transgender transracial transidentity.
Non sequitur. The TFA/quote says nothing about "best ones" or "merit" in that context.
"It is an issue because race doesn't correlate with competence."
[citation needed]
The regulators have been involved all along. Measuring that by the volume of _new_ regulations is OTOH quite wrong. We don't pass new laws on murder every time someone gets killed.
... and cats & dogs living together. Devastating, I tell you.
"If the student defaults, the institution isn't on the hook."
Well sure, the institution has delivered what it agreed to. The loan was not from the institution but from a bank - or the feds, with their own perverse incentives.
"we should probably cut back on the for-profit college companies"
What, by outlawing them? No, even those people involved should be free to pursue their happiness.
How is any of this on topic: namely Harper's own actions?
"Include some actual evidence,"
Are you insinuating that the captured IRC etc. traffic on display there is faked?
"The only people making these claims are ..."
No.
Thank you for having children, and presumably propagating your common sense.
One wonders whether it's the "for-profit" nature of the institution, or its "lack of government subsidy" that puts it at relative risk.
"If Facebook has very low numbers of non-white applicants it suggests that the way they advertise jobs isn't very good"
Or it suggests that non-white applicants aren't very good at finding the advertisements. Or it suggests that there aren't that many non-white applicants available. Or it suggests ... a thousand more possibilities.
Well, er, the Republicans did not write or vote for the law ... so yeah, its failures (and successes, if any) are entirely on the D's.
"The act uses the term "the state", not "a state". "
Maybe elsewhere, but not in the context that was being litigated: "established by a State".
Hey! It's a cisgenderist! Can we burn xer?
... of purple prose.
The mere existence of servers on standby is not a problem, let alone a "massive" one.
What nobility ... what goodwill ... what a brave new progressive world.
... what, because the only legitimate alternative to state-subsidized internet access is "resignation from the social compact"? What about drawing a line a little closer to the "bare essentials", construed strictly?
"[...] is seen [...] is seen as so vital by some [...] it is hoped [...]"
Anonymous, unquantified strangers say so, so it must be right.
Not on political hot topics. It's for wars of attrition, negotiating the WP:FOO meta-discussion wars.
But that is a grossly exaggerated meaning of the word. Not everything mean or unpleasant is "harassment" - esp. if the target is not even aware. Whether any criticism or attack is persistent or continued or tormenting enough (some keywords from a dictionary definition) is subjective to a readily weaponized degree.
Can you describe some of the "harassment of individuals" that took place in that subreddit? For those of us not regular participants, who saw only a few recent example postings, they were embarrassing photos / comments about people. But by what definition of the word 'harassment' apply?
"The ideal is that students who were struggling would get help, regardless of any other factors."
So the implication here is that the only reason achievement would be different is because struggling students were denied help based on their demographics?
"very similar verbiage is applied all over the place"
To require "equal achievement"? Really? (And I was asking about the school system.)
"I doubt it's actually achievable"
Exactly. They're requiring the _results_ to have certain statistical properties. That means that if the provisional results were to have politically-incorrect correlations, they would have to be suppressed (e.g., by grading on different curves per identity-group demographic, or by offering different courses/evaluation). The "intersectionalism" of it all will make the post-facto compensation even trickier - good luck!) So long to a standard course, with standardized testing.
I'm curious whether this "equal achievement" verbiage has ever been applied to other fields of study under that system, and how (if!) they managed to satisfy it.