@dadof3 are you referring race blind holistic admissions policies of the ivies? Dont you think that some of the Silicon Valley companies want to be more represented of the population as a whole because it helps to sell more products? Just because you can estimate the number of jelly beans it takes to fill a bathroom doesnt mean you will be the best employee!
@mcat2 could you imagine a CEO who thinks he can make employees do anything he wants without any consequences. Thats why we have unions and lawsuits and the EEOC
This is confusing to me. We are not talking about the dating pool in Silicon Valley. We are talking about hiring and retaining women as employees. The “brogrammer culture” is alive and well. My D2 was on a CS conference call recently, and spoke up – one of the guys said, “Wait, is there a GIRL on this call?”. Yup… and she knew the answer to his problem, too. And your comment about ‘dating age’ is also interesting – what are you saying? That women only get hired there if they are someone the “brogrammers” would want to date? Or only women under, say, 35? That means there is still a BIG program for women in SV if those are the criteria for hiring.
I wrote that paragraph in the tongue in cheek way and that paragraph should be read/interpret in such a way.
Guess I don’t understand the joke…
I’m flabbergasted at Smith’s decision about only permitting the “journalists” – well, public relations staff – students asked for. Surely members of the movement could write their own press releases. That’s part of an activist’s job in my book.
“You could be a 3-ft overweight Martian for all they care, as long as you can write code, and write it well.”
Most people who work in Silicon Valley aren’t writing code.
On the technical side of such companies, it is likely reflective of the pipeline of CS graduates. Note that California has a low black population, but a high Latino population, so the rarity of Latino technical employees is much more noticeable.
Looking at gender on the technical side of such companies, it does appear that US-born women are quite rare, while non-US-born women, though underrepresented, are not as rare. I.e. the gender ratios may be different for US-born versus non-US-born people. This appears consistent with data indicating that master’s and doctoral degree graduates at US universities (with a high percentage of international students) have a higher percentage of women than bachelor’s degree graduates.
How can anyone say that with a straight face?
@hebegebe,
I should have said “not as underrepresented minorities” rather than “not as minorities.” Is this likely because of this (?)
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/
Re: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/
Yes, the nature of immigration patterns acts as a selection filter for immigrants, and ethnic groups which have a high percentage of immigrants and low-generation-number native-born people. Note that similar selection of high-educational-attainment immigrants occurs for those from China and India, while the opposite occurs for those from Mexico.
Sure I can…remember how employee’s forced out the Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich ( the creator of the JavaScript programming language), over his support of Prop 8 in California?
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mozilla-lost-its-c-e-o
That New Yorker article also describes other reasons why Eich may not have been that great a candidate for CEO to begin with.
With respect to gay marriage, the article says that “At this point, a tech company having a C.E.O. who opposes gay marriage is not all that different from a company in 1973 having a C.E.O. who donated money to fight interracial marriage”. See http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-donations-in-silicon-valley/ for more on where opinions in that business sector are.
I apologize if someone has already brought this up in this long thread, but I strongly suspect that AOs are extremely worried right now about this SJW juggernaut.
SCEA, EA, and ED application are being evaluated, as we speak. RD application are due in about one month. Doesn’t it seem likely that AOs are evaluating application very carefully, based on concerns about problems that could result, if the applicant is admitted?? Could they be wondering: hmm, if we admit this kid will he/she be storming the president’s office in a couple of years and DEMANDING the resignation of administrators, deans, or even the president? Will he/she insist that any vestige of slavery be eradicated from our beloved university (building names, statues, etc.)? Will the president of the university take the hides of AOs that CHOSE to admit a student that yells and swears at a house master, or that slams a student against a wall in the library? Could I lose my job if I admit an applicant that demonstrates SJW tendencies in high school?? Isn’t that a red flag right now? What about my mortgage and my family? What will I do if I lose my job? Why not play it safe?
No university wants this kind of attention. Not Princeton, Yale, Mizzou, Claremont McKenna, Dartmouth, UNC-Chapel Hill. None. Period. Alums don’t like it. Donors don’t like it. Parents of prospective students don’t like it. Universities want MORE applicants, MORE money. The SJW movement is poison, and I bet that it’s being heavily considered in admission decisions right now.
@whatisyourquest what are you saying? That Black students are getting extra screening to make sure they wont exercise their first amendment rights. I certainly hope not! That is like only allowing only christian refugees into this country or making all Muslims register
I am only speculating about admissions this particular year, based on human nature and the firestorm in the news. Every week, there is a new revelation that shines a spot light on a revered, but heretofore never acknowledged, “racist” university… No one has a problem with exercising free speech – in an orderly, peaceful way that respects authority and allows all viewpoints to be heard and appreciated. (Please note the emphasis on “orderly,” “respects authority,” “all viewpoint,” and “appreciated.”) Put yourself in the shoes of administrators and AOs. Would you really want to admit students that “storm the castle” and bring negative media attention to your beloved university? and that could conceivably cause a decline in donations, applications, and ranking (heaven forbid!)? Nope. Better to play it safe. Avoid admitting the rabble-rousers.
“And complaining about calling Congolese art ‘primitive’? That descriptor is applied to the works of untrained artists (in the early stages of artistic technique) regardless of race or global location. So I don’t get her point.”
@cobrat: "To some…including those in the arts world, the use of the term “primitive” is considered a negative pejorative signifying an unfavorable dismissive value judgment of the artwork/artist from the one using the term.
It’s one reason why there’s some movement even within some arts schools/Profs/artists/ and art student communities to moving away from using that term according to friends who are art students/art curators/or artists in their own right. "
Additionally, the determination, classification, and consumption of art as we tend to discuss it is that formed under,and adhering to, a Western standard. There has lately (relative) been an understanding that terms such as classical and primitive reflect the school of Western ideals, and are not constructed, not designed to appreciate and incorporate the aesthetics or actual function of much of what has been produced by cultures outside of a Western sensibility.
@whatisyourrequest:
What would the litmus test for a social justice rabble rouser be, exactly?
If they are Black (with a capital B), or black, or African-American, or
on the student outreach and recruitment council at their school, or
their essay is about the indignities of people asking to touch their hair, or asking if they have to wash their hair at all, or a kid who speaks of wanting to be a lawyer at the highest level of our judicial system so atrocities such as those enacted against Abner Louima, Eleanor Bumpers, Jordan Davis, Sandra Bland, and others are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or prevented altogether, or
just the kids from Camden, or the Bronx, or East St. Louis, or
maybe all the kids named Kwame, or Justice, or Zion?
@waitingtoexhale Admissions at private universities are famously holistic. The process is mysterious, by design. No one in admissions will answer your questions. I can’t either. But I believe that it’s naive to think that the zeitgeist will not affect admissions, at least this year. Universities care foremost about their reputation, ranking, and endowment. Negative media attention can clearly affect all.
Personally, the recent news has strongly influenced my opinions regarding options for my kid. I’m absolutely certain that there are many parents like me that will steer away from universities that cannot ensure respectful fora for polite debates that permit all viewpoints to be heard and appreciated, concerning controversial issues. The words “demand,” “hunger strike,” and “resignation” are anathema. It’s easy to cross universities that tolerate these words/actions off of our list. There are many other attractive options out there. Universities must know this and recognize the negative impact of viral videos on their reputations, application pool, and ranking. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in administrations at Princeton and Yale right now.
@waitingtoexhale… Sorry, no. The term ‘primitive’ in art describes the early stages of technique development exhibited in the work. Etymology: Latin, primitivus - first or earliest of its kind. It’s a technical term, not a value judgment. Reading anything more into it is irrational.
No matter how I am unwilling to accept that this should be main focus of universities, there could be some truth in this.
The “noble” things like free speech, diversity, etc., are something nice to have only after the above have been mostly taken care of. Most of us (maybe except for the young college students) are “practical”, short sighted and likely not very idealistic, and most of us do not have a tenured job. The last but not the least, as far as I know, in history, the majority of institutions (educational one or not) in the world by and large care more about the interests of the “have”, not the “have-not”, except when it is a very turbulent time – I do not think it is now a very turbulent time.