I have a couple questions about your doctor story, but first, let's clear up a few things. Companies don't hire applicants based on statistics, they hire them based on qualifications, which I will explain shortly, and for a good paying job it will be challenging and competitive. Naturally, STEM fields tend to be challenging and competitive because, well, they involve a lot of smart people (remind me to bring that up when we get to your doctor story). But you see, all good paying jobs involve a lot of smart people, because that is why that company you are applying to is there to begin with. If they were not good at what they do then they wouldn't be there, right? So, assuming you made it past HR with valid transcripts from an accredited school with an appropriate degree and with a GPA of 3.0 or higher, when you show up for the interview, the chances are pretty high that you are going to be interviewed by a smart person with a lot of experience,
This person doesn't even need to see your transcripts, in fact that is HR's deal. They know what school you went to, what your degree is in, and your GPA. Those are not qualifications. The interview will be about what you did in school, what kind of courses you took, any projects you worked on or internships you worked at. During that interview your qualifications will become apparent or not. The smart person interviewing you (actually you will meet several people) will know if you are qualified. And I jumped ahead a little bit. Before this point the employer would have already looked at half a dozen resumes (with experienced hires it will be a lot more) and then from that 6 or so they might pick 3 to interview (they might pick none). So you were competing with 6, made the first cut and now are competing with 3. You understand why it is in the best interest of the employer to hire the most qualified, right?
So, about your doctor story. I find it surprising that you think what you think (actually most of the time I guess). As I recall from a couple of friends that went that route, it is something like 7 years of school + internship + residency. You could have 10 years in it before you even become a "doctor". And then you apply somewhere to work, like a hospital or a practice with some other doctors. I suppose you could just open a single doctor shop, but that doesn't seem to be true anymore. So here you are, after 10 years of education, applying to a place with other doctors, smart people. Aren't they going to pour through your qualifications like the IRS doing an audit? I mean, this is serious business and these are smart people. I don't think they want to make any mistakes when they add one to their practice. I suspect the same goes for lawyers. That must be a grueling interview and vetting process.
Back to the problem. Your form of socialism is to send unqualified students to college to drop out (if they are lucky) or to barely graduate and be in debt for life because they can't compete. My form is vastly different. Rather than having only one option that we know many aren't ready for or simply have no interest in, I would rather give them many options, and the early the better. And rather than this silly financial aid system we have, I would base financial aid on the pay range of the expected outcome. For example, someone going to school to be a beautician would go to beauty school without owing a dime. A dental hygienist, the same. As we get into the higher paying fields the burden shifts more onto the student (via student loans). Doctors and lawyers, they are on their own. Nature already gifted them brains, they will have to work for the rest. You see, in that system, there is fairness and an incentive to do what is best for the student.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Paul Tanner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Louis Talman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> The idea that affirmative action is color based discrimination or >>> different sets of rules depending on skin color is a racist falsity. >>> Affirmative action is merely the idea that a proportionate amount of >>> minorities that meet the minimum standards should be allowed "in the >>> room" with the whites who meet the minimum standards. >> >> >> I see. And if you were to develop, say, heart trouble, and need to consult a >> cardiologist, would you be happy knowing that the one person you saw was one >> who met the minimum standards---but no more---for board certification? What >> if you knew of other cardiologists who were willing to take your case but >> whose qualifications far exceeded the minimum standards? >> > > First, with respect to doctors - and I know since I grew up in a > medical family and still have family members who are doctors - you > won't know whether they "far exceeded the minimum standards" on the > exams unless you asked them for written proof as to their their scores > on the exams. Good luck on that one - they will almost all tell you to > get lost, including all of the ones who "far exceeded the minimum > standards" on the exams. And how do you know whether one "far exceeds > the minimum standards" when they got certified? Where they graduated > from? That guarantees nothing. And so on. By the way: Do you go around > showing such as your college transcripts to everyone who demands them > of you who might want to hire you as an independent contractor for > some job? I thought not. Besides, if you are not on traditional > Medicare that allows you to choose any doctor you want in the US if > he/she will have you and you instead have some sort of private plan > that limits your choice of doctors, then you have to take what you can > get within that plan anyway. > > Take what I said to all other areas of employment, whether it be blue > collar or white collar professions. All you're really going to know is > whether they meet various certifications or whatever and what > experience they have had. Good luck on getting them to provide proof > in writing in detail what their scores were or whatever - they almost > all will tell you to forget it including the ones that scored high on > the tests. > > Of course, if you buy the racist BS about what affirmative action is > and is not, then you'll stay away from the those certain minorities > since you believe that they are inferior. Since you said what you said > above relating to affirmative action, one wonders. > > Finally, what you said above negates nothing as to what I said > affirmative action is and what it is not - it is not the racist > falsity I denounced above. > > On top of that I again say that without something that is > statistics-based like affirmative action, it is utterly impossible to > meaningfully enforce anti-discrimination laws, and therefore its > absence will pretty much give the green light to all those closet (or > otherwise) bigots who control the entrance to "the room", meaning they > will deny entrance to more and more qualified non-whites, and their > good old days of not having to see non-whites "in the room" will come > closer and closer to again becoming a reality.