Missy, if you aren't actually going to USE that degree . . .

[Guest]

No, it presumes that most people wrongly confuse getting an education with getting a degree; that it is possible to live an intelligent, well-informed life without ever setting foot on a college campus; and that many people are better-suited by temperament and by circumstance to make a living using technical training than with a college degree.

Then you're presuming that people are idiots who don't understand that getting a degree and getting an education are two different things. This has nothing to do at all on who goes to college and who doesn't. This is America. Where one is supposedly free to do whatever they want to do - whether it be the smartest thing or the dumbest thing.

And just like I illustrated in the case of the Philippine McDonald's it doesn't matter what you are best suited for. When jobs are scarce you make yourself fit whatever the requirements are for the job that is available if you want to get employed.

My job doesn't require a college degree. I've been doing this same exact job description since I was 12. When Y2K came along, a programmer doesn't require any certification let alone a college degree to work as a programmer. Today, my job requires a Bachelor's Degree with Master's Degree preferred. So, I got a Master's Degree to continue to do what I've been doing since I was 12.

[Guest]

There are already kids who are not yet out of high school who are earning "loads of money" because they take advantage of what is available while they are young.

Sure. And some people win the lotto too.

[Vort]

Then you're presuming that people are idiots who don't understand that getting a degree and getting an education are two different things.

No, I'm not. Why do you say that?

[Wordnerd]

No, it presumes that most people wrongly confuse getting an education with getting a degree; that it is possible to live an intelligent, well-informed life without ever setting foot on a college campus; and that many people are better-suited by temperament and by circumstance to make a living using technical training than with a college degree.

This is so true, I notice a stronger push to get all students, regardless of temperament, into university. Schools are looking at university acceptance rate as a measure of success. Guidance Counsellors seemed to think that only a certain class of kids should go into the trades.

Funny story kind of, I was helping arrange a huge skills competition for the local construction association, it was to showcase the trades as a career option for local high school students, the first year we had to cold call school administrators to try to get students out to it. One guidance counsellor actually told me that her school didn't have any of "that kind" of kid, her students (all 3500) were university bound. After the event, which was a huge success, and had lots of local news coverage the principal of that school called, he wanted to be on the contact list for the next year because he thought lots of his students would have enjoyed it.

To be successful in a trade requires a high level of intelligence, and excellent problem solving skills, because problems are pretty much the only constant in the field. Obviously I'm biased, because I'm married to the most intelligent man I've ever met (that would be book smart+common sense) and he's a carpenter who runs his own construction company. His high school pushed him towards the academic route, but it didn't suit his learning style or needs, so he dropped out.

[Anddenex]

Sure. And some people win the lotto too.

Winning the lotto and a high school student who exercises his/her intelligence are not the same thing anatess.

Way to dumb down these High school student's success to sheer dumb luck.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Anddenex
shear to sheer

[selek]

That's not in the rant. The rant is about a woman who earned the spot that got into the university versus a woman who would have earned the spot but the university did not have room for her because it is occupied by the other woman.

I'm sorry, Anatess- but that's nonsense.

There is NO provision in Goff's argument (or in standard university admissions)- unless, of course, you're suggesting that an illegal (and sexist) quota and gender-spoils system is being employed.

By definition, the woman who is in that spot earned it.

Goff and her fellow travellers are insisting that a woman who earned her spot give it up to someone who did not earn it- based solely on her allegiance (or lack thereof) to their particular agenda.

Edited April 25, 2013 by selek

[Guest]

Winning the lotto and a high school student who exercises his/her intelligence are not the same thing anatess.

Way to dumb down these High school student's success to sheer dumb luck.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't comparing the LUCK factor. I was comparing the RARITY factor.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, Anatess- but that's nonsense.

There is NO provision in Goff's argument (or in standard university admissions)- unless, of course, you're suggesting that an illegal (and sexist) quota and gender-spoils system is being employed.

By definition, the woman who is in that spot earned it.

Goff and her fellow travellers are insisting that a woman who earned her spot give it up to someone who did not earn it- based solely on her allegiance (or lack thereof) to their particular agenda.

And you misunderstand me. Read my post again.

I said - the woman WHO EARNED the spot and got admitted to the University versus another woman WHO ALSO EARNED the spot BUT did not get admitted because there are no more spots available.

[selek]

And you misunderstand me. Read my post again.

I said - the woman WHO EARNED the spot and got admitted to the University versus another woman WHO ALSO EARNED the spot BUT did not get admitted because there are no more spots available.

No, I didn't misunderstand you- the fallacy is in your assumption that there is another woman who earned that spot.

It isn't necessarily so.

If I have fifty candidates and can only accept the top 25, #26 did not earn a spot.

#29 did not earn a slot.

Nor did #32, #47, or any of the other bottom 25.

By definition, only the top twenty-five earned their slot. The rest did not.

By the same standard and definition- and whatever selection criterion the school used- those who were not awarded a slot did not make "the cut".

They might inherit a position if someone else bows out- but they did not "earn it".

Thus, by definition, the situation which Goff is championing is that a woman who earned her slot should be forced to surrender it to someone who did not.

Goff's reasoning is pernicious and intellectually dishonest for two reasons; first, she is advocating for and championing blatant viewpoint discrimination in an environment that's supposed promote both critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas.

Or to quote the Talosian Keeper, "'Wrong thinking' will be punished. 'Right thinking' will be as quickly rewarded."

The second pernicious flaw in her reasoning is the assumption that the position would automagically go to another woman instead of to the next most qualified person, regardless of gender.

Returning to my example above, if Candidate #22 is forced to bow out, we can all agree that Candidate #26 should inherit the spot.

But what happens if Candidate #26 is <gasp> a man?

Should Candidate #32 (who happens to be the next most eligible female) be admitted instead of #26, a better qualified candidate who happens to be male?

By making such an assumption, Goff has leapt beyond viewpoint discrimination to blatant sexism, discrimination, and a betrayal of the stated ideals of feminism.

The feminists claim to want genuine "equality"- and the ability to compete freely based on one's talents and abilities instead of artificial gender constructs.

But as this entire kerfuffle shows, it's not "discrimination" that Goff objects to- she is more than happy to disciminate- so long as she get to be the one doing the excluding.

Despite all the lofty talk about "gender solidarity", Goff and her travelling sisterhood will happily throw a woman under the bus for not bowing towards their particular idol.

The assumption that another woman would get the now-vacant spot is equally indicative that plumbing- rather than merit- would automatically exclude men as well.

Thus do Goff and her fellow travellers become precisely what they claim to despise.

They don't object to discimination per se- they just want to ensure that they're the ones doing the discriminating.

Edited April 26, 2013 by selek

[Guest]

No, I didn't misunderstand you- the fallacy is in your assumption that there is another woman who earned that spot.

It isn't necessarily so.

If I have fifty candidates and can only accept the top 25, #26 did not earn a spot.

#29 did not earn a slot.

Nor did #32, #47, or any of the other bottom 25.

By definition, only the top twenty-five earned their slot. The rest did not.

By the same standard and definition- and whatever selection criterion the school used- those who were not awarded a slot did not make "the cut".

They might inherit a position if someone else bows out- but they did not "earn it".

Thus, by definition, the situation which Goff is championing is that a woman who earned her slot should be forced to surrender it to someone who did not.

Goff's reasoning is pernicious and intellectually dishonest for two reasons; first, she is advocating for and championing blatant viewpoint discrimination in an environment that's supposed promote both critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas.

Or to quote the Talosian Keeper, "'Wrong thinking' will be punished. 'Right thinking' will be as quickly rewarded."

The second pernicious flaw in her reasoning is the assumption that the position would automagically go to another woman instead of to the next most qualified person, regardless of gender.

Returning to my example above, if Candidate #22 is forced to bow out, we can all agree that Candidate #26 should inherit the spot.

But what happens if Candidate #26 is <gasp> a man?

Should Candidate #32 (who happens to be the next most eligible female) be admitted instead of #26, a better qualified candidate who happens to be male?

By making such an assumption, Goff has leapt beyond viewpoint discrimination to blatant sexism, discrimination, and a betrayal of the stated ideals of feminism.

The feminists claim to want genuine "equality"- and the ability to compete freely based on one's talents and abilities instead of artificial gender constructs.

But as this entire kerfuffle shows, it's not "discrimination" that Goff objects to- she is more than happy to disciminate- so long as she get to be the one doing the excluding.

Despite all the lofty talk about "gender solidarity", Goff and her travelling sisterhood will happily throw a woman under the bus for not bowing towards their particular idol.

The assumption that another woman would get the now-vacant spot is equally indicative that plumbing- rather than merit- would automatically exclude men as well.

Thus do Goff and her fellow travellers become precisely what they claim to despise.

They don't object to discimination per se- they just want to ensure that they're the ones doing the discriminating.

I don't understand what you mean by earn.

Let's see if we can apply it in another case: My son fulfilled all the requirements to get an orange belt in his BJJ class. He earned it. Bur he did not get it because they ran out of belts. The kid next to him is proudly wearing his orange belt that he also earned. He just happened to be the 25th kid called so he got the last belt. Now, there is no question that my son earned that belt.

In a college application, the Top 25 is not ranked by qualification alone. It is also ranked by demographic profile (x number of this and that race and gender, etc). It is also ranked by seat availability. Therefore, #25 and #26 may have completely equivalent qualifications, but only one of them can get the spot. And it can even be that you're the 25th white person and they need a black person now to fill the quota even if the next white person has a higher qualification than the black person. Is this discrimination? Sure. But that's how the govt requirement is set, so it's not necessarily the college's decision.

Edited April 29, 2013 by anatess