From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:10:27 GMT

In article <C08r71.J9D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <C04yLw.D4n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>[I deleted some stuff, this is getting big]
>
>Me too. 

Finally got some free time, on with the show.
 
>Note: The discussion about learning disabilities is getting irrelevant
>to the purposes of this group. If you are interested in pursuing it
>further, please email me.

It still seems relevant to the discussion of special programs, but as you
wish.
 
>>Why do I get the feeling that of you -do- end up on a seletion committee,
>>that you will probably ignore any objective criteria (easily checked
>>by asking a few questions at the chalkboard) and make a sexist descision
>>based upon your personal likes/dislikes? I doubt that I would fare well
>>under such conditions from what you have posted, not in competition against
>>a young women from a background you would identify with, regardless of
>>her performance or mine.
>
>I've never been on a selection committee, but I just spent a very
>interesting hour talking to a person who has, since your questions
>made me curious. 

Hey, this data could get in the way of wild speculation!!!  ;^)
 
>OK. So they're selecting people to be admitted to graduate school in
>mathematics. (No particular reason to pick mathematics, just who was in
>the computer room this afternoon.) The one criterion they use is, "Is
>this person likely to complete the Ph.D?"
>
>Of course, answering this question is very difficult. The main factors
>considered are grades, letters of reference and statement of purpose.
>According to my interviewee, the main thing he looks for in the grade
>transcript is consistency. That is, a person whose grades swing wildly
>from year to year may be likely to go through similar mood swings in
>graduate school.
>
>Detecting sincere enthusiasm in letters of reference is considered
>to be an art in itself. The statement of purpose is counted as the
>approximate equivalent of one letter of reference; and this statement is
>read for evidence of maturity, reasonable but not excessive confidence, 
>and dedication to obtaining a degree.
>
>My interviewee said that the most common cause of people dropping out of
>a Mathematics Ph.D. program is depression and frustration -- that is, 
>lack of dedication. Evidence of persistence would certainly be sought. 

Hmm, depression may have other causes, often of a transitory nature.
 
>By the way, I really suspect you are mistaken about my personal
>preferences. I think I rely on individual intuition quite a lot more
>than you suspect.

I can only go by what I read in what you have posted. As do you. By
"individual intuition", I assume that you mean your own.
 
>>>I merely said,
>>>that background should be one factor considered.
>
>>I disagree, I think it should not be a factor at all.
>
>See the reasons why it's considered, above.

You are not talking about academic background, but background as
related to sex and home life. These above text does not seem to
support your argument, despite the use of the same word ("background")
in different contexts.
  
>>Tell me why anyone should share or agree with your intuition? I did not
>>realize that research mathematics was a social science. Why do you feel
>>that ability cannot be determined completely by objective means?
>
>The quality of a *paper* can be judged by means which are very close to
>objective. Judgments as to whether a person who is not yet at the
>research level, has the potential to get to that level, involve a great
>deal of intuition. And there are some people who have almost uncanny
>intuitions for this!

You mean that they know what to look for and which questions to ask I
think. If they can consistantly do it, then I would suspect that rules
could be spelled out. And people change and grow (or not), no assessment
can take into account future events.
 
>Me: 
>>>P.S. I suspect that there are currently many *abuses* of affirmative
>>>action. If you concentrated on them, you might convince a very
>>>large audience that does not believe affirmative action is
>>>inappropriate in all cases.
>
>>Huh? It sounds like that "large audience" needs no convincing.
>
>That is, if you talked about specific cases, you might well convince
>your audience that affirmative action is not appropriate in those
>cases.

I have a problem with the use of AA, not the overt abuses. AA is mandated
discrimination, because discrimination is wrong. It is an abomination.
There was not even an -attempt- at simply enforcing existing laws.
  
>>>I also note that you tend to assume a very adversarial style. I
>>>really get the impression that you are disgusted, not only with
>>>my ideas (which of course, may be mistaken), but with the moral
>>>quality of the person advocating them.
>
>>I cannot shake the impression that you would discriminate against
>>me based upon non-performance criteria and feel that you had done
>>the -right- thing. (if I were seeking a job at your university)
>
>I think that if you knew me you would find this suspicion quite
>unrealistic.

I note that the discrimination you favor just happens to include the
group to which you seem to belong. It seems a sound conclusion.
 
>Me:
>>>I suspect a more
>>>deadpan style would be a lot more convincing.  
>
>Let me note that a few years ago, I worked for a Silicon Valley company
>that seemed overeager to hire people of color for affirmative action
>purposes. I had a coworker in this category who was extremely competent.
>
>He told me (and I believed this) that he was going to leave this company
>because his efforts were not taken seriously. Everyone assumed he was
>just a token.

He was hired for the wrong reason, and it seems everyone knew that. It took
me years to get recognition where I work, I started in a similar situation.
You -can- work through these things. 
 
>Now, why am I telling this story? And not you? 

I just told a similar story. And I do not understand what your question
means.
 
>If you are posting to the net because you want to have anyone, at all,
>read you, take you seriously, and respect you -- and maybe even
>be convinced by you -- a more deadpan style, less willingness to assume
>an adversarial relationship, and more specific examples -- might make
>you succeed in your purposes a lot better!

What do you think my purpose -is-?
 
>>I doubt that anyone here has convinced anyone else of anything that
>>they did not already believe.
>
>Just out of curiosity, then: What is the purpose of your postings?

I will respond after you respond to the above question if you don't mind.
 
>>I have a job today, but the future is uncertain.
>
>Rich Payne
>
>My sympathies. A final piece of advice from the person I interviewed:
>Don't try too hard to tailor your application to your guesses on the 
>preferences of those who read it. He said such efforts are not as
>helpful as people might think. 
>
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com  (finally with a workable vt-100! No more ^L)



Newsgroups: alt.feminism