Bo: "in academia it's indisputably the case that people of color are given advantages over white people...the who is the least likely to get a job all other things being equal is a white male"
Academia: 40% white males, 27% white women, 4% black, and less than 4% Hispanic.
Before someone says there aren't enough black academics with PhDs.
6.5% of PhD recipients are black and 7% Hispanic.
Yet these groups are max 4% each of full-time academic faculty.
The idea that black and Hispanic people have advantages getting faculty positions in academia, or have "minority privilege" in academia is completely divorced from the reality of academia.
If people want to make the argument that black people with PhDs aren't qualified, well...
Darn typo: "the people who is the least likely"*
Another thing people are asking is about new tenure track roles.
Minorities are still underrepresented in tenure track roles, and it's actually gotten worse in the last two decades.
66% of tenure track profs are white, only 52% of new PhDs are white.
But do tell me more about minority privilege in getting the good new academic jobs 🙄
There was some confusion as to why I said it had gotten worse.
Minorities have significantly increased their share of doctoral degrees received, but their share of tenure track positions have increased at a slower rate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A lot of the Twitter reactions to this demonstrate how disheartening it is what people focus on.
For any flaws, the two young people in this story reacted a lot more admirably than a lot of the adults commenting on it. nytimes.com/2020/12/26/us/…
I hope the young lady transfers to a college she wants to attend after. She seems to have changed her attitude from even before the video went viral, and still responds with the right spirit today.
The adults on here who think it's okay to refer to the young man who posted the video as a "psychopath", who simultaneously had little or nothing to say about the consistent racism mentioned in the same article, please understand this is why your pleas of good faith fall flat.
Pet peeve:
- Not every dataset has an average.
- Even when you specify what you're looking for, it doesn't mean there must be an average.
- Even when you can identify an average, some averages are more meaningful/useful than others.
Examples:
- There is no meaningful "average dog in America".
- There is no meaningful "average handsomeness of a man in New York"
- If I have 100 numbers, 99 of them is 1 and the other is 10,000,001. My mean in this case is 100,000. Which is extremely unrepresentative.
Finally, "average" is one of those ridiculous terms that have multiple meanings in math. The mean, median and mode are all averages. There are other averages too. Don't mess with a field that makes it possible for 1+1 to equal 10, or if you want to get funky, 2+2 to equal 5.
Structural racism - ongoing overall social disadvantage of a racialized group as a result of previous policies or social norms based on widely held beliefs of their inferiority in socially valued contexts.
While systemic racism is about currently existing beliefs of inferiority, structural racism reflects structures that are now "baked in". Let's say you create a race and deny that race the opportunity to earn wealth for 300 years. Structures that now depend on wealth enforce that
A lot of instances of structural racism are defensible if you ignore racial impacts. Schools being funded by income is defensible. Black neighborhoods being poorer, and that school funding system being rooted in that fact, makes it structural.
Yes, I definitely discount the views of people using those terms "seriously". They've chosen to signal something and that's how I respond to that signal.
We should though be able to get past that and focus on the value/morality of specifics if they are provided.
I think this because I want the same treatment when talking about racism.
A person knows something about me when and how I refer to racism, and it's fair for them to factor that in.
We can get stuck on my use of the word, or we can talk about the issue I'm pointing to.
I'll say we often find ways to focus on minor things like our disagreement on social terms to avoid answering the social specifics. This goes both ways too, because I think "cancel culture" or "fascist" as terms are intentionally broad to avoid specifics.
A lot of people think it takes special innate abilities to be a coder. That's very wrong. Almost anyone can learn to code.
Coding is simply giving a machine a bunch of instructions to iteratively solve *little* problems. You then do this again and again, and again. These little problems combine to be the solution for a bigger problem. Individual coders don't need to solve the big problem usually.
Coding instructions aren't complicated either, and I mean all of them. They are all tremendously straightforward. If A, then B. While X, do Y. If you can understand the idea of storing a value and those two things, you can code.
Heritability is one of the more misunderstood and misused terms in referring to human traits.
It's also a really strange concept in a modern sense, but this paper is a great explainer.
First, heritability is a claim about a specific group in a specific environment. It tells you nothing about any individual in the group. Add/remove people from the group or change the environment and the statistic would change.
Height is probably one of the better understood complex human traits from a genetics standpoint, and serves as a good example for explaining how heritability is often misunderstood.