Several SCOTUS decisions coming out today.....

[5-Points 3,491]

41 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What is "more qualified"?  Better words on a resume?

In my profession (before I retired), 95% of the salespeople came up organically through the engineering ranks.  The other 5% came from closely adjacent industries.  We all knew each other, and knew who was good.  I don't think we ever hired a person from outside the industry based on a resume.

It didn't matter if you were white, black, yellow, or purple.  But the nature of the electrical engineering ranks, certainly decades ago, was mostly white and Asian, with a few Indians and Arabs mixed in.  All of those were amply represented in our sales positions.

Dummies like Tim don't get it. 

[iam90sbaby 2,591]

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So let’s say @iam90sbaby is a hiring manager and is looking into a bucket of resumes.  Do you think he’s going to scoop out one that is named Jamal?

I’ll interview him just to waste his time and then throw his resume in the trash

[Ron_Artest 1,354]

7 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Dummies like Tim don't get it. 

Bruh that's networking.  That is the best way to get in front of a HM.

Today it's damn near impossible to get in front of a HM without an in.  With the number of applicants and the way everyone is using AI to filter out candidates, it's important to know somebody.

[seafoam1 2,950]

10 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Bruh that's networking.  That is the best way to get in front of a HM.

Today it's damn near impossible to get in front of a HM without an in.  With the number of applicants and the way everyone is using AI to filter out candidates, it's important to know somebody.

"Bruh". 

[TimHauck 2,756]

9 hours ago, jerryskids said:

What is "more qualified"?  Better words on a resume?

In my profession (before I retired), 95% of the salespeople came up organically through the engineering ranks.  The other 5% came from closely adjacent industries.  We all knew each other, and knew who was good.  I don't think we ever hired a person from outside the industry based on a resume.

It didn't matter if you were white, black, yellow, or purple.  But the nature of the electrical engineering ranks, certainly decades ago, was mostly white and Asian, with a few Indians and Arabs mixed in.  All of those were amply represented in our sales positions.

 

So color didn’t matter, but there were no blacks? Or at most, less than “a few mixed in”?  Why do you think that is?

Even just in regards to gender, a very quick search reveals reports of women often leaving engineering and blaming the male-dominated culture.  Hopefully things have improved since 2016:

https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-many-women-who-study-engineering-leave-the-field

I actually almost brought up something like what you say here earlier.  I’ll agree that resumes can be open for interpretation but also, simply saying someone else “interviewed better” is an easy way for a minority to be potentially discriminated against without it being considered racist.
 

[TimHauck 2,756]

On 6/27/2025 at 10:39 AM, Strike said:

Additional analysis of the birthright citizenship cases, which were really about universal injunctions, by a law professor:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/06/supreme-court-rules-for-trump-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

I haven’t followed this that closely, if this “is more about universal injunctions,” it’s still entirely possible that the Supreme Court can rule that overturning birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, correct?

[seafoam1 2,950]

16 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, I know you don’t actually believe this 

Constant race baiting. These liberals never stop. 

[TimHauck 2,756]

14 hours ago, 5-Points said:

We all have the same opportunities to succeed in life. Its up to the individual to take advantage of those opportunities and strive to succeed. 

 

11 hours ago, 5-Points said:

And yes, politics come into play from time to time and, as a white male, I've come out on the wrong side of that equation before.

 

@5-Points: we all have the same opportunities to succeed in life.

also @5-Points: well except white males

 

 

lol

[squistion 2,151]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

@5-Points: we all have the same opportunities to succeed in life.

also @5-Points: well except white males

lol

[5-Points 3,491]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

@5-Points: we all have the same opportunities to succeed in life.

also @5-Points: well except white males

 

 

lol

Are you retarded? 

[jerryskids 6,740]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

So color didn’t matter, but there were no blacks? Or at most, less than “a few mixed in”?  Why do you think that is?

Even just in regards to gender, a very quick search reveals reports of women often leaving engineering and blaming the male-dominated culture.  Hopefully things have improved since 2016:

https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-many-women-who-study-engineering-leave-the-field

I actually almost brought up something like what you say here earlier.  I’ll agree that resumes can be open for interpretation but also, simply saying someone else “interviewed better” is an easy way for a minority to be potentially discriminated against without it being considered racist.
 

The short answer to why there weren't more blacks in my field is, as I thought I implied, there weren't many blacks in electrical engineering.  If your question is why THAT is, that's a long socio/economic/education/cultural discussion.

For women, there has historically been some misogyny in engineering.  But the notion that there should be an equal number of women to men in engineering is just dumb.  The simple reality is that women are not generally drawn to engineering.  And yet MIT for instance lets in girls at twice the rate as boys, in an attempt to level the field.  This is an example of DEI applied incorrectly.

[TimHauck 2,756]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

The short answer to why there weren't more blacks in my field is, as I thought I implied, there weren't many blacks in electrical engineering.  If your question is why THAT is, that's a long socio/economic/education/cultural discussion.

For women, there has historically been some misogyny in engineering.  But the notion that there should be an equal number of women to men in engineering is just dumb.  The simple reality is that women are not generally drawn to engineering.  And yet MIT for instance lets in girls at twice the rate as boys, in an attempt to level the field.  This is an example of DEI applied incorrectly.

Yes, your second question is more what I was asking.

I agree that letting in girls at twice the rate is going overboard. But acknowledging that there is misogyny seems to also be acknowledging that @5-Points was incorrect to say that “we all have the same opportunities”

[seafoam1 2,950]

21 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, your second question is more what I was asking.

I agree that letting in girls at twice the rate is going overboard. But acknowledging that there is misogyny seems to also be acknowledging that @5-Points was incorrect to say that “we all have the same opportunities”

[jerryskids 6,740]

28 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, your second question is more what I was asking.

I agree that letting in girls at twice the rate is going overboard. But acknowledging that there is misogyny seems to also be acknowledging that @5-Points was incorrect to say that “we all have the same opportunities”

True.  It is much more difficult for a white male, and even moreso an Asian male, to get into MIT than a comparably qualified female or POC.   

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

True.  It is much more difficult for a white male, and even moreso an Asian male, to get into MIT than a comparably qualified female or POC.   

OK? Even if this is true, (I have no idea) it doesn’t begin to make up for the fact that throughout most of MIT’s existence, almost 100% of the students were white males. Why is an attempt to rectify that sad fact just a little bit still unfair? (So long as the applicants are all qualified.) 

[TimHauck 2,756]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

True.  It is much more difficult for a white male, and even moreso an Asian male, to get into MIT than a comparably qualified female or POC.   

True, wasn’t it Asians who the Supreme Court said was actually being discriminated against with affirmative action?

[supermike80 1,890]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK? Even if this is true, (I have no idea) it doesn’t begin to make up for the fact that throughout most of MIT’s existence, almost 100% of the students were white males. Why is an attempt to rectify that sad fact just a little bit still unfair? (So long as the applicants are all qualified.) 

Racism to counter prior racism is still racism

[seafoam1 2,950]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK? Even if this is true, (I have no idea) it doesn’t begin to make up for the fact that throughout most of MIT’s existence, almost 100% of the students were white males. Why is an attempt to rectify that sad fact just a little bit still unfair? (So long as the applicants are all qualified.) 

Rectify what?

There was never anything wrong.  Why are you trying to tell black people what they should do for a living?.

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Racism to counter prior racism is still racism

I don’t believe it’s racism. 
 

But…I’m been a little disingenuous here because I also don’t believe it works, at least not at the college level. I don’t believe in affirmative action/DEI, not because it’s racist (I strongly reject that argument) but because, like so many other government programs, it creates more inefficiencies than it solves. You can’t solve racism at the college level. 
 

Returning to the topic of Justice Jackson: she is actually much more of a victim of DEI than she is a beneficiary: because it causes so many of you to suspect that she is unqualified which is completely unfair. 

[jerryskids 6,740]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK? Even if this is true, (I have no idea) it doesn’t begin to make up for the fact that throughout most of MIT’s existence, almost 100% of the students were white males. Why is an attempt to rectify that sad fact just a little bit still unfair? (So long as the applicants are all qualified.) 

Well, a few things.

One, it is true.

Quote

I’ve been following the use of Disparate Impact Analysis as a legal tool to support claims of systemic bias and illegal discrimination for years and have rarely seen data this lopsided. Not only do female MIT applicants have more than double the acceptance rate compared to males, but the mathematical consistency over the years suggests the clear use of a gender quota system. (A little more investigation of the data on the NCES site reveals why women have a 2.2 admissions advantage rather than simply double. It turns out the female “yield” of accepted students is lower. So, in order to gender balance the resulting matriculated class, the admissions office actually has to accept more females than males.)

https://hxstem.substack.com/p/the-mit-gender-admissions-controversy

Two, your historical premise is false.  I was admitted in 1985; my class was 33% female.  At the time they had started their first attempt to DEI-wedge a 50/50 class, as each subsequent class had 5% higher females.  This carried on into the 90s, when they finally realized they were destroying their brand as the school for the top technical minds.  So the pendulum swung back, and then back to DEI again.  The latest court cases against such behavior are still working themselves out.

Three, I would argue that 33% was already too high.  As I stated, women just aren't as interested in engineering as men.  That's a stone cold fact.  On top of that, what percent of girls fits an MIT persona?  Think captain or robotics club, already started a tech company, world ranked in chess.  There just aren't that many.

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

10 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Rectify what?

There was never anything wrong.  Why are you trying to tell black people what they should do for a living?

@supermike80: 

Here, above is a racist argument. You didn’t make one, this guy did, when he wrote “there was never anything wrong.” 
 

I get accused of calling everyone who disagrees with me on issues like this racist. That is not so. I think it’s actually rather easy to distinguish the racist arguments from the non-racist ones. 

[seafoam1 2,950]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

@supermike80: 

Here, above is a racist argument. You didn’t make one, this guy did, when he wrote “there was never anything wrong.” 
 

I get accused of calling everyone who disagrees with me on issues like this racist. That is not so. I think it’s actually rather easy to distinguish the racist arguments from the non-racist ones. 

All you ever do is cry racism.

All liberals do. Black people are getting sick of it. 

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well, a few things.

One, it is true.

https://hxstem.substack.com/p/the-mit-gender-admissions-controversy

Two, your historical premise is false.  I was admitted in 1985; my class was 33% female.  At the time they had started their first attempt to DEI-wedge a 50/50 class, as each subsequent class had 5% higher females.  This carried on into the 90s, when they finally realized they were destroying their brand as the school for the top technical minds.  So the pendulum swung back, and then back to DEI again.  The latest court cases against such behavior are still working themselves out.

Three, I would argue that 33% was already too high.  As I stated, women just aren't as interested in engineering as men.  That's a stone cold fact.  On top of that, what percent of girls fits an MIT persona?  Think captain or robotics club, already started a tech company, world ranked in chess.  There just aren't that many.

MIT was founded in 1861. So 1985 is still relatively new. Go back a little farther (before the woman’s lib movement) and check the percentages. 

[seafoam1 2,950]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

MIT was founded in 1861. So 1985 is still relatively new. Go back a little farther (before the woman’s lib movement) and check the percentages. 

Liberals owned the slaves and ran the kkk.

Go figure. 

Now liberals like Tim want to pay the illegals slave wages in 2025. 

[5-Points 3,491]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, your second question is more what I was asking.

I agree that letting in girls at twice the rate is going overboard. But acknowledging that there is misogyny seems to also be acknowledging that @5-Points was incorrect to say that “we all have the same opportunities”

Learn to read.

I didn't say "we all have the same opportunities.'

I said "we all have the same opportunities to succeed in life." 

Everybody has opportunities to set themselves up for success or failure. 

Opportunities and outcomes are two different things. Most people understand this. Apparently, you don't. 

 

[TimHauck 2,756]

8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Learn to read.

I didn't say "we all have the same opportunities.'

I said "we all have the same opportunities to succeed in life." 

Everybody has opportunities to set themselves up for success or failure. 

Opportunities and outcomes are two different things. Most people understand this. Apparently, you don't. 

 

If there was a culture of misogyny, then it’s likely not everyone had the same opportunities

[BrahmaBulls 700]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t believe it’s racism. 

Because you don't understand what words mean and want everyone else to live in your stupidity.

[TimHauck 2,756]

36 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

@supermike80: 

Here, above is a racist argument. You didn’t make one, this guy did, when he wrote “there was never anything wrong.” 
 

I get accused of calling everyone who disagrees with me on issues like this racist. That is not so. I think it’s actually rather easy to distinguish the racist arguments from the non-racist ones. 

Ignore peefoam, even the righties hate him.  Well I guess @jerryskids thinks I’m worse than him, which might be the worst insult anyone has ever said to me

[seafoam1 2,950]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Ignore peefoam, even the righties hate him.  Well I guess @jerryskids thinks I’m worse than him, which might be the worse insult anyone has ever said to me

Timcrack can't hold his own. 

You should put on your metal helmet and sob some more. 

[jerryskids 6,740]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

MIT was founded in 1861. So 1985 is still relatively new. Go back a little farther (before the woman’s lib movement) and check the percentages. 

You didn't address a single point I made.  You merely reaffirmed that it is OK to you to have 2.2X the female acceptance rate to attempt to right a perceived yet unsubstantiated wrong to a population (females) 40+ years ago.

Good job, good effort.   

[5-Points 3,491]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

If there was a culture of misogyny, then it’s likely not everyone had the same opportunities

It must've been the culture of the NFL that kept me from being a starting Safety. 

 

 

[Engorgeous George 2,298]

On 6/29/2025 at 11:10 AM, The Real timschochet said:

OK? Even if this is true, (I have no idea) it doesn’t begin to make up for the fact that throughout most of MIT’s existence, almost 100% of the students were white males. Why is an attempt to rectify that sad fact just a little bit still unfair? (So long as the applicants are all qualified.) 

Because you are advocating making the current generation pay for the sins of the past, sins which their direct ancestors may not have committed themselves and which may actually have victimized thier direct ancestors.  You would balance past history by unbalancing the present.  I prefer that we seek a future where all are valued and have opportunity based upon merit and achievement and that requires a present which does so.  Your present looks backwards.  Mine looks forward.

[TimHauck 2,756]

5 hours ago, 5-Points said:

It must've been the culture of the NFL that kept me from being a starting Safety. 

 

 

Comparing engineering to the NFL, good joke

[seafoam1 2,950]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Comparing engineering to the NFL, good joke

So you think Antonio Brown would make a great structural engineer huh? 

Good one TCrack. 

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Because you are advocating making the current generation pay for the sins of the past, sins which their direct ancestors may not have committed themselves and which may actually have victimized thier direct ancestors.  You would balnace history by unbalancing the present.  I prefer that we seek a future where all are valued and have opportunity based upon merit and achievement and that requires a present which does so.  Your present looks backwards.  Mine looks forward.

The problem is that your present continues the problem. Even if we make all universities completely merit based in terms of acceptance we will still find the same racial disparities due mainly to the differences in education in primary school. 

Personally I am not advocating that we rectify this with DEI programs: as I wrote I don’t think they work, well-intentioned as they are. But the conservative solution to simply leave everything alone doesn’t work either. We do need government intervention, but it has to be earlier. 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,684]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Because you are advocating making the current generation pay for the sins of the past

This first part is true, because we benefit from that past and any negative result is our collective responsibility. 

[seafoam1 2,950]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem is that your present continues the problem. Even if we make all universities completely merit based in terms of acceptance we will still find the same racial disparities due mainly to the differences in education in primary school. 

Personally I am not advocating that we rectify this with DEI programs: as I wrote I don’t think they work, well-intentioned as they are. But the conservative solution to simply leave everything alone doesn’t work either. We do need government intervention, but it has to be earlier. 

 

Tim wants someone who went to a bad school and is less educated to run things over someone who went to a good school and is better educated. . 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,291]

Tim doesn’t want to have to mow his lawn and his wife doesn’t want to have to do the dishes. It’s a big fear for those types. 

[5-Points 3,491]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Comparing engineering to the NFL, good joke

You were the one that suggested an industry's "culture" was to blame for certain people's lack of opportunities. 

You dont get to pick and choose which industries your theory applies to and which ones it doesn't. 

[seafoam1 2,950]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

You were the one that suggested an industry's "culture" was to blame for certain people's lack of opportunities. 

You dont get to pick and choose which industries your theory applies to and which ones it doesn't. 

Right and wrong is defined by his opinion of things.