From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:02:20 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <C056zA.FAu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>It seems to me that you spend a great deal of time defining things in
>>>terms of classes, and have shown little interest in dropping the class
>>>distinctions and looking at every case individually.
>>
>>But isn't part of looking at individual cases developing an intuition
>>about the individual, instead of going strictly by paper qualifications?

>Who specified ONLY PAPER QUALIFICATIONS? I have repeatedly stated that a
>short session at the blackboard will tell far more about qualifications,
>and a few questions will easily determine knowledge.

Determining the extent of knowledge of people you don't know personally,
from a short oral interview, is much more of an art than you may think.
I've talked to people who have done this for many years, and can do it
very well. They do not believe it's an easy, or completely objective task.

Remember, some people think very well on their feet. Others do not
(including some highly respected mathematicians). 

If you like, I can also find out more about the art of giving oral
examinations. I can talk to one of the professors, one who is very
expert at this art (to the delight of some, and the dismay of others).
I don't know when he'll be back from winter break, but I'll talk to
him as soon as he gets back, if you're interested.  

Remember, also, that part of evaluating applicants for graduate school,
is, as I said before, not only evaluating their knowledge and abilities,
but evaluating their maturity and determination. The reason this third
factor is considered is that the department doesn't want to waste its
money on an individual who will give up easily.   
 
>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
>non-objective thing.

I was merely echoing the word used by male mathematics professors, to
describe the art of evaluating job applicants, or giving oral
examinations. If you can think of a better word, tell me.

>>And part of such an intuition may be an *individual's* history of
>>overcoming adversity. 

>A history which will end the moment you give brownie points and differential
>treatment. And you have yet to show that there is a single demonstrated
>professional advantage.

I did, maybe in this posting. Maturity and determination are considered
to be as important as talent, in determining success in graduate school.

If you've ever been to graduate school, you know this quite well.

>>Note that I am in favor of affirmative action in terms of groups
>>only in limited and extreme circumstances; (which have to be
>>a lot more extreme for government than for private institutions).

>Feminists yell loud and clear that -any- such differential treatment
>(not in a womans favor) is WRONG. A few feminists even say that any
>such differential treatment at all is wrong. You have drawn non-extreme
>lines which seem to contradict the above. 

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. But I'm not obligated
to follow anyone's definition of what a feminist should believe in --
whether its Muffy's, or yours.
 
>>I am, particularly, not in favor of *automatic* preference to women
>>and minorities in public university admissions programs.

>But I wonder what you would do if given the power to make such PC acceptable 
>selection preferances? I suspect (from reading all your posts) that
>given the opportunity, you would give preferences based upon race and sex,
>after all, you -define- those poor opressed souls as disadvanteged, and
>those opressor white males with all the advantages will have no problem
>getting a job as a corporate executive elsewhere, right? It's about time 
>that they learn to overcome disadvantages. Too bad noone cares if they
>have, even if all their lives.

>Rich
>payner@netcom.com

Your assumptions are quite unrealistic. You're also assuming an 
unnecessarily adversarial tone, based on these assumptions.

There are many *abuses* of affirmative action around. I'll be 
posting on this subject shortly, so keep tuned...

Lenore Levine