Close

Complete Captcha

• 3 years - 84 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 276 Goods vs 157 No Goods

1. Economist
   b812
   

   Can't wait for the conservative backlashm

   Lol. Cons can't do s**t. They abandoned academia long ago and left it all to the crazies. Now enjoy the fruits of your labor, Americans.

   You may be confusing cause and effect here, but whatev.

   It doesn't matter if I am. The fact is, cons abandoned academia decades ago. Hence, they can't influence what happens. Why doesn't matter anymore.
   And the rest of society outside of academia, not to mention the culture, doesn't look much better for cons. If not much worst than academia.
   So what exactly have cons succeeded in "conserving" in the past 30 years? They have lost everything, and everywhere. Constantly losing. That's the problem with cons (not just in academia but society at large). They don't backlash. They retreat into their gated communities in the hope that the barbarian horde will not reach them. That is a losing strategy.

   The younger generation of conservatives is not as cowardly as the old one.
   Or the defeatist kind who believes "conservatives of today are the progressives of yesterday".

   The backlash will likely come from the young conservatives, not from the ones who think headpats from liberal journalists is the greatest good.

   Young conservatives and old ones sometimes don't even like each other.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   fc5b
   

   Can't wait for the conservative backlashm

   Lol. Cons can't do s**t. They abandoned academia long ago and left it all to the crazies. Now enjoy the fruits of your labor, Americans.

   You may be confusing cause and effect here, but whatev.

   It doesn't matter if I am. The fact is, cons abandoned academia decades ago. Hence, they can't influence what happens. Why doesn't matter anymore.
   And the rest of society outside of academia, not to mention the culture, doesn't look much better for cons. If not much worst than academia.
   So what exactly have cons succeeded in "conserving" in the past 30 years? They have lost everything, and everywhere. Constantly losing. That's the problem with cons (not just in academia but society at large). They don't backlash. They retreat into their gated communities in the hope that the barbarian horde will not reach them. That is a losing strategy.

   Conservatives have control of something like 2/3 of the state legislatures and governorships, control of majority of the judiciary, the presidency, and the senate. They are winning in most places. They have already turned their attention to higher education, but academics are not smart enough to understand the strategies at play. The decline in state funding is a systematic effort to weaken academics. Academics are further foolishly weakening their soft power by over emphasis on wokeness.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   3b0d
   

   The upcoming decline of enrollment will destroy the majority of traditional universities. The more corrupt those universities are, the easier they will be destroyed.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   fc5b
   

   The younger generation of conservatives is not as cowardly as the old one.
   Or the defeatist kind who believes "conservatives of today are the progressives of yesterday".
   The backlash will likely come from the young conservatives, not from the ones who think headpats from liberal journalists is the greatest good.
   Young conservatives and old ones sometimes don't even like each other.

   I agree with this. I think what will happen is that the current losers of the diversity discrimination will regroup and do slow but methodical work that eventually unravels all this diversity discrimination. The model is what was done with same-sex marriage where for many years it looked like same-sex marriage would be banned. (California voted as a state to ban same-sex marriage.) Then what-looked-like-suddenly the Supreme Court made it legal.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   b812
   

   Conservatives have control of something like 2/3 of the state legislatures and governorships, control of majority of the judiciary, the presidency, and the senate. They are winning in most places. They have already turned their attention to higher education, but academics are not smart enough to understand the strategies at play. The decline in state funding is a systematic effort to weaken academics. Academics are further foolishly weakening their soft power by over emphasis on wokeness.

   And what exactly did we gain with that?
   Families are broken, drugs are about to be legalized and normalized, promiscuity and all the other vices are seem as virtues and wokeness rules academia, business and many governments.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   de82
   

   Does being bisexual help? Cuz i totally am

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   fc5b
   

   Conservatives have control of something like 2/3 of the state legislatures and governorships, control of majority of the judiciary, the presidency, and the senate. They are winning in most places. They have already turned their attention to higher education, but academics are not smart enough to understand the strategies at play. The decline in state funding is a systematic effort to weaken academics. Academics are further foolishly weakening their soft power by over emphasis on wokeness.

   And what exactly did we gain with that?
   Families are broken, drugs are about to be legalized and normalized, promiscuity and all the other vices are seem as virtues and wokeness rules academia, business and many governments.

   It is more an indication of what the priorities of the conservative leaders are. It is in business interests and not traditional conservatism.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   b812
   

   I mean, in the cultural side we lost all wars in the last 30 years.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   4562
   

   Dear Colleagues:

   At Northwestern, we recognize that true academic excellence can only be accomplished in an educational environment that is diverse and inclusive.

   The Graduate School strives to create an environment that values diverse backgrounds, approaches, and perspectives, as well as one that fosters best practices for recruiting, retaining, and encouraging the success of underrepresented students. We support the recruitment of underrepresented students into doctoral and MFA programs through several methods, each meant to encourage and facilitate effective matriculation.

   For the 2019-20 admissions cycle, The Graduate School will support the recruitment of underrepresented students through the following initiatives (please click each link for detailed information):
   Diversity Fellowships
   Enhanced Funding Options
   Personalized Outreach
   These initiatives enable us to assist programs in their recruitment endeavors. Please consider these options when determining your admission strategy.

   It is equally important to note that all diversity recruitment efforts must remain confidential and not be disclosed to prospective or current students to foster a sense of inclusivity within our graduate community.

   We are eager to partner with all of our programs in these important recruitment efforts. If you have any questions, please reach out to The Graduate School Diversity & Inclusion team at tgsdiversity. They are ready and willing to assist you.

   My best,

   Teresa K. Woodruff, PhD
   Dean, The Graduate School

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    4562
    

    Doctoral and MFA programs often have exceptionally strong underrepresented students
    who require active recruitment. At the dean’s discretion, The Graduate School will work with
    programs under its purview to enhance offers to attract these top prospects.
    • For the purposes of enhanced funding, underrepresented students are defined
    as minorities and women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics).
    o Minorities are defined as U.S. citizens or permanent residents who identify as
    Hispanic/Latinx, African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native
    Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.
    Enhanced Funding Options
    The Graduate School may provide enhanced funding to a prospective underrepresented student
    through one or more of the following options:
    • A one-time fellowship stipend supplement to cover relocation or research-related
    expenses (included in the student’s first paycheck at the end of September)
    • Stipend supplements for one or more years (for a maximum of five years)
    The Graduate School may consult with the program to determine which option(s) the
    prospective student may find the most appealing and what may be necessary to remain
    competitive with peer institutions.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    4562
    

    Diversity fellowships are provided by The Graduate School to recruit underrepresented
    students with proven potential. They are awarded to admit and fund students with strong
    indicators for success in doctoral or MFA study who would contribute to a diverse and
    inclusive educational environment.
    • For the purposes of these fellowships, underrepresented students are defined as
    minorities who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents and who identify as
    Hispanic/Latinx, African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian,
    or Pacific Islander.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    b812
    

    It is more an indication of what the priorities of the conservative leaders are. It is in business interests and not traditional conservatism.

    I agree.
    But that was a big mistake. And why the new generation is abandoning the market rhetoric, which will eventually weaken the business conservatives.
    The young conservatives are social conservatives. Why should they fight for the allies who abandoned them to the cultural left? For people who treat them with contempt and who will use their tax cut money to fund social liberal causes?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    fc5b
    

    I mean, in the cultural side we lost all wars in the last 30 years.

    I think the difference is that in the cultural side of the past issues the majority of the country was not aligned with the conservative viewpoint. On these diversity things, the majority of the country is aligned with the conservative viewpoint.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    b812
    

    I mean, in the cultural side we lost all wars in the last 30 years.

    I think the difference is that in the cultural side of the past issues the majority of the country was not aligned with the conservative viewpoint. On these diversity things, the majority of the country is aligned with the conservative viewpoint.

    Opinions changed a lot in those decades.
    The percentage of people who say "promiscuity is wrong" (for example) declined a lot in the last 30 years. In some environments saying this will probably be very controversial.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    26cb
    

    ...
    It is equally important to note that all diversity recruitment efforts must remain confidential and not be disclosed to prospective or current students to foster a sense of inclusivity within our graduate community.
    We are eager to partner with all of our programs in these important recruitment efforts. If you have any questions, please reach out to The Graduate School Diversity & Inclusion team at tgsdiversity. They are ready and willing to assist you.
    My best,
    Teresa K. Woodruff, PhD
    Dean, The Graduate School

    This need to keep diversity recruitment efforts confidential is the most insidious part. They know how it looks and realize for the whole charade to succeed, one can't be allowed to infer that affirmative action admits are inferior. So the official policy is to give URMs advantages, but not admit that you're giving them advantages. The scary thing is that as long as there is a protected pipeline all the way to the top, this can actually work. It only fails when a protected URM walks outside into the real world and his/her true type is revealed. But the way things are going, the bubble will soon encompass all academia and large parts of industry as well.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    3a6c
    

    Conservatives have control of something like 2/3 of the state legislatures and governorships, control of majority of the judiciary, the presidency, and the senate. They are winning in most places. They have already turned their attention to higher education, but academics are not smart enough to understand the strategies at play. The decline in state funding is a systematic effort to weaken academics. Academics are further foolishly weakening their soft power by over emphasis on wokeness.

    lol. Cons are losing literally everything and everywhere. They have failed to "conserve" a single thing, and in 30 years, this country has transformed in every conceivable away from the path that "conservatism" wants it to be on.

    Even when you win elections, you still lose! Hence "conservatism" is a useless garbage position.

    Someone above said "the younger generation of cons is different". Yes, I agree with that. That's because they are not "conservatives". To be a conservative, means there's something to conserve. There is literally nothing in this country worth conserving...in the state it is in.

    The younger generation of right-leaning people are...radicals. They are radicalized and their aim is to overturn precisely what this country has become. Hence, they are not "conservatives". Not just in the US, but this is a trend in most of the world now.

    As for academia, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. There is no mechanism for turning things around to normalcy. Whether you're a traditional con or a radical right-winger, there is nothing you can do. Because the game was lost 30 years ago.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

17. Economist
    3a6c
    

    It is more an indication of what the priorities of the conservative leaders are. It is in business interests and not traditional conservatism.

    I agree.
    But that was a big mistake. And why the new generation is abandoning the market rhetoric, which will eventually weaken the business conservatives.
    The young conservatives are social conservatives. Why should they fight for the allies who abandoned them to the cultural left? For people who treat them with contempt and who will use their tax cut money to fund social liberal causes?

    And to add to that, the "market rhetoric" in fact is the reason the social left was allowed to advance so far. Left social policy was/is to the benefit of the "market right". Uncontrolled immigration is good for reducing labor costs. Hence it was advocated by these same "conservatives". The break down of social norms is good for producing cheap labor. You don't need to waste money creating high human capital: just import it. You don't need sophisticated consumers who can make rational choices. You need impulsive buyers. You don't need people with group or national identification. You need a break down of national barriers and identities to move capital where it is most profitable.

    The problem is the re-discovery of the traditional" right" ideology, came way too late. Now there is no way to reverse the damage.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    9240
    

    This methodology has had an enormous impact. As we discussed last month, for a 2018-2019 search in the Life Sciences, UC Berkeley rejected 76% of the applicants without even considering their research, teaching skills, or academic merits (out of 893 qualified applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate). This methodology has also resulted in extreme racial and gender disparities. In 2018-2019 UC Davis ran eight open discipline searches using this methodology. With all the other searches conducted at UC Davis in 2018-2019, under 10% of the applicant pool were minorities, just above 5% of the finalists, and 2.3% of hires. But in the pilot searches nearly a third of the applicants were minorities, over 80% of the finalists, and a full 100% of those hired were minorities. The results for female hires was similarly sharp, with 87.5% of those hired through the pilot program being women compared to 45.5% campus wide.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    9240
    

    This is a list of all of the searches that have utilized or plan to utilize this methodology.

    leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2020/01/were-you-rejected-in-one-of-the-university-of-california-job-searches-utilizing-the-unlawful-diversi.html

    If you applied to and were rejected to one of these searches, or are planning to apply to one of the upcoming searches, you can help to challenge UC’s unlawful policies. Daniel Ortner from the Pacific Legal Foundation is looking for individuals who were impacted by these searches to potentially offer free pro bono representation.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    765c
    

    This methodology has had an enormous impact. As we discussed last month, for a 2018-2019 search in the Life Sciences, UC Berkeley rejected 76% of the applicants without even considering their research, teaching skills, or academic merits (out of 893 qualified applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate). This methodology has also resulted in extreme racial and gender disparities. In 2018-2019 UC Davis ran eight open discipline searches using this methodology. With all the other searches conducted at UC Davis in 2018-2019, under 10% of the applicant pool were minorities, just above 5% of the finalists, and 2.3% of hires. But in the pilot searches nearly a third of the applicants were minorities, over 80% of the finalists, and a full 100% of those hired were minorities. The results for female hires was similarly sharp, with 87.5% of those hired through the pilot program being women compared to 45.5% campus wide.

    I am not condoning this methodology. But we have to consider it in context. For centuries academia has been plagued with sexism. How would you feel if 90 percent of your hiring or tenure committee was all female? Because that is what has been happening to female academics.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »