From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:23:24 GMT

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. 

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.

>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. 

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. 

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 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.
 
>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!

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 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.

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.

Now, why am I telling this story? And not you? 

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!

>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 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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism