posted
You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
quote: If the students don't leave college and make money, the college loses money.
Also wrong. The loans in question are Stafford loans, which means the money comes from either the federal government directly (Direct Loans) or from one of about 100 lenders (FFELP Loans).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
All I know is my own experience. In WA you need two years of Algebra to be accepted to a state university. I was paid to teach Algebra 1 to plenty of jocks.
Maybe they did take 2 years of Algebra in high school but passed due to effort. Obviously, their knowledge didn't reflect their academic history. Eventually, the real world catches up. When the real world catches up with the idiot with a BA, their loans default.
Again....
Which Universities will be impacted most by a Progressive policy to cut funding based upon student loan repayment percentages? Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates? Is the average graduate of a minority university as successful as standard university? Not sure myself...I tend to believe affirmative action and effort grades will eventually meet up with needed competency.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition, and offer more in terms of grants and scholarships. That means their graduates finish with lower loan balances than say the average Stanford or USC graduate does.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope there is no disparity. I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans. Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned. In one way, I agree with them on this....don't spend tax payer dollars on universities that fail to produce results. I still believe the cutting of federal funds based upon student loan repayment will disproportionately impact minority universities.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans.
Is that supposed to refer to me? Because if so, you are wrong on both counts.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned.
Yeah, students' work has NOTHING to do with their grades! And everyone's paycheck reflects exactly how much work they have done.
Tell me, is the sky blue in your world?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone could be a college graduate
Patently false.
How could you not? Anyone can get a student loan. Is your objection due to intelligence or finance? Financially, anyone can....as I did. Student loads are not based on credit and the poorer you are the more grants you get. I was extremely poor, I had grants, yet had to repay 30k in loans AFTER graduation. There is no financial obstacle to college for anyone. Loans are deferred until you graduate.
Even intelligence is relative...you could major in an Ethnic Studies field or Underwater Basket Weaving. True, a guy with a degree in African American Culture might have a problem repaying his student loan. Unless he's fortunate enough to become a leading community organizer working for ACORN or SEIU. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition ...
Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Loans are deferred until you graduate.
For 6-9 months after, actually. And sometimes longer. (If you haven't figured out yet what I do for a living, you're paying even less attention than I thought.)
I know many, many people who have been unable to cope with finishing college. Sometimes the reasons are financial. Sometimes they are emotional. Sometimes they are academic. Sometimes they have more to do with the student's family or other commitments. Most often, it is a combination of more than one of the above.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
What are you TALKING about? They're in the middle of the process every school has to go through every 3-5 years to keep their accreditation. There's every indication they will do fine.
Their medical program has faced some criticism, but that's entirely separate from the school's Middle States accreditation, which affects ALL programs. Not just one or two.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But there have always been people who vote not on policy, but on race, gender, religion, or party. Who can honestly say they don't know someone who votes for a party because that is what they have done for generations?
I don't find the existence of some small amount of corroboration enough to justify the broad stereotyping that is being engaged in here. I think even if what mal was saying was closer to the reality, his totally shallow interpretations of other people's motivations in general blinds him to any other possibility but the one that is most "obvious," and subsequently very convenient for him. He's just lazy, really.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, mal, I'm still curious what this whole wildly inaccurate and uninformed sideline has to do with the actual topic of discussion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal, you talking about Jocks getting out of hard academic work does not make you a racists.
The fact that you automatically assume that those Jocks are all poor black men looking to find an easy way out does push you in that direction.
I went to a predominately white school. The Jocks there were mostly good old white boys playing football and basketball. Yes, they practiced this sport for hours every day and got out of academic programs that they would need later in life.
Its a shame.
Its not based on race or economics. Its just people dreaming the athletic dream making poor choices, and a community that pays for the school preferring to have a winning sports season to brag about to having a class of truly educated students to support the community later.
You brought up that "anyone can graduate college" then proved this point by mentioning the ease of getting college loans. Being able to afford college, and getting a degree from that college are not equal. Colleges will happily take money from people going there, but then not pass or graduate them unless they turn in the work.
You also have argued earlier that you spent many many hours working your way through college, at a variety of retail and food service jobs. (I think that was you.) Now you mention loans. Either way, what is the difference in academic effort between Joe who spends four hours of effort perfecting his hook shot, and Jane who spends four hours a night serving hamburgers?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Interesting. I didn't know that kind of thing persisted.
To the best of your knowledge is there some reason Mal is using the term "minority universities" (as in is it some kind of code word with some connotations) rather than historically black?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Actually, studies of highly successful people bear out the opposite conclusion. While natural talent plays a significantly role in success in any given field, actual time spent engaging in any activity in which a person is talented is a major determiner of success.
One of the main racial problems in the US is the attitude you have just displayed- that black people have certain racially specific areas of talent. No, in fact the reason many influential black people are athletes or performers is because mainstream society accepts black success in those fields, after a very long and established history of black performers and athletes. There are as many (and logically, even more, given their greater numbers) of talented white athletes and performers, but our society implicitly allows whites to engage in a broader range of activities professionally. These are not evil or intentional or specifically racist trends, although intention and racism do play into the equation to a degree- they are mostly the conclusion of a well established pattern of social attitudes and behaviors. However, the idea that problems of racial economic disparity would be wholly solved by an adjustment in ambition on the part of blacks is naive. The entire society's expectations and understanding of black people needs to shift. This requires a conscious effort.
Although you don't demonstrate a real understanding of what affirmative action is, it is and was nevertheless used as tool for obviating the social biases of white dominated academia in order to promote candidates to positions which, for social and cultural reasons, rather than for reasons of actual ability or hard work, are less accessible to them. The "level playing field" does not demand a *lower level* playing field, but rather a playing field upon which the rules of the game apply to all people equally, rather than favoring the home team. You don't seem to get this. At least, you have yet to ever demonstrate an inkling of appreciation for the existence of this rationale, whether you could ever bring yourself to credit it with the slightest value. Affirmative action, applied correctly, can and does increase the pool of qualified candidates for any position, and encourages a higher level of performance. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is largely in disagreement with the actual data- and is frankly motivated by knee-jerk reactionary racism and scapegoating.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle. Giving a D student enough extra credit to get a passing grade does not make the student any better despite the piece of paper they get for graduating. Employers expect results despite the color of the employee. I'm a government contractor and am fully aware of preference points. Usually it's a sham...most government contracting companies are female/minority owned - on paper.
Apply for a government job. A female minority has preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran is equal to a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you're guaranteed a job despite your ability. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points. The qualifications do not matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon factors that have nothing to do with job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
quote:Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Literally every single time you try to talk about how things are or what the reality for african americans is, you come off as breathtakingly wrong, insensitive, and crass.
Why is it that if you find yourself in a hole, it just encourages you to dig faster?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the best and most useful thread ever.
quote: I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
Perhaps you're simply not the most qualified. Just because you're a veteran doesn't make you qualified for any governmental job. It means you're a veteran, which might put your further up in the pile, depending on the job.
In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
When an agency advertises job vacancies through the Office of Personnel Management or locally through direct hire authority the agency must select from the top rated eligible applicants. The official may not pass over a Veterans Preference eligible, however, and appoint a nonpreference eligible lower on the list unless the reasons for passing over the veteran are sufficient.
Veterans preference gives special consideration to eligible veterans looking for federal employment. Veterans who are disabled or who served on active duty in the United States Armed Forces during certain specified time periods or in military campaigns are entitled to preference over nonveterans both in hiring into the federal civil service and in retention during reductions in force. There are two classes of preference for honorably discharged veterans:
Five Point Preference
Five-point preference is given to those honorable separated veterans (this means an honorable or general discharge) who served on active duty (not active duty for training) in the Armed Forces:
During any war (this means a war declared by Congress, the last of which was World War II); or
For more than 180 consecutive days, other than for training, any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955 and before October 15, 1976; or
During the period April 28, 1952, through July 1, 1955; or
During the Gulf War from August 2, 1990, through January 2, 1992; or
For more than 180 consecutive days, any part of which occurred during the period beginning September 11, 2001, and ending on the date prescribed by presidential proclamation or by law as the last day of Operation Iraqi Freedom; or
In a campaign or expedition for which a campaign medal has been authorized, such as El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, South-west Asia, Somalia, and Haiti. Campaign medal holders and Gulf War veterans who originally enlisted after September 7, 1980, or entered on active duty on or after October 14, 1982, without having previously completed 24 months of continuous active duty, must have served continuously for 24 months or the full period called or ordered to active duty.
Effective on October 1, 1980, military retirees at or above the rank of major or equivalent, are not entitled to preference unless they qualify as disabled veterans.
Ten Point Preference
Ten-point preference is given to:
those honorably separated veterans who 1) qualify as disabled veterans because they have served on active duty in the Armed Forces at any time and have a present service-connected disability or are receiving compensation, disability retirement benefits, or pension from the military or the Department of Veterans Affairs; or 2) are Purple Heart recipients; the spouse of a veteran unable to work because of a service- connected disability; the unmarried widow of certain deceased veterans; and the mother of a veteran who died in service or who is permanently and totally disabled. When applying for Federal jobs, eligible veterans should claim preference on their application or resume. Applicants claiming 10-point preference must complete form SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference. This form is included in the Quick & Easy Federal Jobs Kit Software program. Veterans who are still in the service may be granted 5 points tentative preference on the basis of information contained in their applications, but they must produce a DD Form 214 prior to appointment to document entitlement to preference.
Note: Reservists who are retired from the Reserves but are not receiving retired pay are not considered "retired military" for purposes of veterans' preference.
The Office of Personnel Management provides abundant information on these programs. To find out whether you qualify for veterans' preference, visit OPM's Veterans Preference Information page. (State employment service offices have veteran representatives available to assist veterans in gaining access to this information.)
What Does This Mean?
If you apply for a federal job, your knowledge, skills and abilities will be rated on a point system. You will receive points for related education, experience, special skills, awards, and written tests if required. The maximum points anyone can accumulate is 100. If an eligible five-point preference candidate accumulates 90 points, five additional points are awarded on preference for a total score of 95. Therefore, the preference veteran, in most cases, must be hired before an agency can hire anyone with less than 95 points in this example. A 10-point preference vet would have a total score of 100.
Hiring preference in civil service examinations is awarded regardless of scores. Qualified veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more are placed at the top of most civil service examination registers, except for scientific and professional jobs at GS-9 or higher.
A federal agency hiring candidates from an examination list must consider the top three available candidates for each vacancy. An agency may not pass over a candidate with preference and select an individual without preference who has the same or lower score, unless OPM approves the agency's reasons.
I don't see any mention of ethnic minority status and the only gender preference is for a mother.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here Malanthrop, I rewrote your paragraph for you:
Apply for a government job. A female minority has no preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran has 10 preference points over a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you receive 10 preference points just like a white male disabled veteran. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white (nondisabled) vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points because neither of us receive any additional points to our total score. The qualifications matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified without preference points given to people who have served during active war, disabled veterans, or dependents of totally disabled or deceased veterans.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Actually, as I understand it, Malanthrop is closer to the truth on the purpose of affirmative action than you are in this case. I could be wrong, but it seems like what you're describing (Orincoro) is the non-discrimination act which says that a person can't be denied an opportunity based on being a minority.
The point of affirmative action is to close gaps. (Income, education, etc.) If we didn't have affirmative action which occasionally pulls folks who are less qualified than non-minority applicants through, there wouldn't be a chance of closing these gaps. You're not allowed to discriminate based on minority status, but a lack of a decent education or job experience are easy things to pull the trigger on for an application and non-discrimination doesn't cover those. Without affirmative action society would be entrenched in the status quo.
So yes, affirmative action's purpose is to equalize the playing field, but we need to take extra (affirmative) steps (action) in order to achieve the equality.
ETA: I just read the post you quoted from, Orincoro. Yeah, you're much closer to how it's supposed to work. I know you're not a fan of folks rescinding their posts, so I'll leave the previous content stay.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. The knee-jerk reaction to "affirmative action" makes people forget even the meaning of the phrase. The idea is that, yes, we should require our institutions to make a special effort to seek out qualified minority candidates is just too much for some people. Even worse, they forget the part where there *is* extra effort involved in finding well qualified minority candidates, and that they are not just taking whomever comes by who happens to be black, regardless of qualification. No part of affirmative action lowers the bar of qualification, and since it increases the pool of candidates by mandating wider searches, it can *raise* the standards beyond the status quo.
I have been affected myself by affirmative action. In this country, foreigners are not allowed to be hired until affirmative action has been taken to seek a native European to do the same job. Since my work generally requires the unique qualification of being an American (such as teaching American history, culture, and English), this is rarely a problem. However if I ever wanted to work as a tram driver or a street sweeper, those positions would be effectively closed to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell veterans are the only ones who get preference in hiring for federal civil service jobs. However, that does not mean that there are no state, county, or city governments that give preferences based on gender or ethnic background.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
The same is actually true for certain agencies in the US -- but for many people, the concepts of "highly selective government job" and "lazy government worker" cannot exist simultaneously.
posted
But now we've tied economic justice with environmental justice. If you're a rural white guy, don't put too much hope in the future green jobs: (EPA Administrator speech for grants thanks to stimulus dollars)
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
You sited the Veteran's preference section from USA Jobs. When you actually apply, the preference questions are not only veteran question related. You can "claim" multiple preference categories. Perhaps the other categories of the questionnaire when applying are for statistical purposes only? No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Doesn't that kind of invalidate the draft? Not that we'd have one again, but there were plenty of people who got drafted and had to fight whose lives are measurably worse as a result, from injuries, PTSD, etc.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider the draft equal to the declaration of martial law. I think a draft is inherently unconstitutional, like marital law. In times of great emergency, extreme measures.
I completely agree that anyone who was drafted deserves extreme compensation. Stop-loss compensation has been elevated. A draftee who is disabled deserves extreme compensation...although I can't understand why one would want to work for a government that forced them to serve. The draftee's should've been compensated directly at the time, or after the fact. I doubt their is anyone under the age of 55 who was drafted.
I know the college exemption to the draft is considered discriminatory in many ways but the military (although involuntarily) might have been a better career than the alternative. We should draft the dropouts first...we need the smart to develop weapons.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. We should worry less about labels than reality. Republican/Democrat is meaningless when JFK would be considered a right wing extremist today. Position over party...stand by your principles. To be completely honest, I'm sick of the middle. At least Nancy Pelosi is consistent. The "independents" and "moderates" are for sale to the highest bidder.
Parties change but all parties have shifted to the left. I still insist that the Republican party has been the party of freedom. The republican party was formed as an opposition to slavery. The civil rights act met an opposition of 80% democrat. Republicans have always fought for freedom and individual responsibility. Dems opposed freedom then offered handouts. Individual freedom cannot exist without individual responsibility. Once you accept the handout you become a willing slave.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider the draft equal to the declaration of martial law. I think a draft is inherently unconstitutional, like marital law.
Here we go again with your bizarre inability to actually understand constitutional law. The constitution expressly provides authorization for the Congress to raise and support armies using conscription.
The only restriction the constitution puts on conscription is that any and all federally allocated funds for conscripted armies can last no longer than two years. That's it. If you think a draft is "inherently unconstitutional," it's not a matter of opinion, you're just flat out wrong.
Imagine my surprise when you don't change your opinion.
quote:Republican/Democrat is meaningless when JFK would be considered a right wing extremist today.
It's a good thing he wouldn't be considered a right wing extremist today.
quote: The republican party was formed as an opposition to slavery.
No, not quite. It was more in protest against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The primary opposition was not towards slavery but to popular sovereignty.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll accept that you feel that no one should have preference points, whether they be combat veterans, disabled veterans, or dependents of killed veterans. I don't think you've shown evidence that gender or ethnicity plays a part in the federal jobs you've applied to.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was active duty and preparing to leave military service, so too was one of the guys working for me on my team. I helped him prepare his resume. I had a degree and he didn't...I was higher ranking with more years of service. I was not only a military worker in the field, I was a military instructor in that field. He had 6 year experience and I had 12. We applied for the same job with the city. I didn't even get a call for an interview, they left the position unfilled for 3 months so that he could take it. In the end, I got a higher paying job than that one and he's asking me for a job. He was fully qualified for the position but not the best candidate. They are hungry for marginally qualified minorities. Evin Alvin (they guy I speak of) one of my best friends, calls and laughs about the hiring practices. Other than my superior education and experience, the only difference between us was race. I didn't even get an interview, they bent over backwards to hire him. He was qualified and also a minority.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No...he's one of the smartest guys I've ever met. He grew up in Colorado and was the extemest of extreme minorities. The only black in the class. He learned the same lessons of life and had the same opportunities as his classmates. Now he's one of the "sell out" blacks...he's a conservative. Between us it's a joke. He called me a couple days ago to ask how my trip to visit my mother with cancer went. I replied, it was strange being in a town without black people. He understood my comment, he was raised in a town without black people, other than him.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure, malanthrop, that you are easily ignorant of the multitude of traits you have that would make people want to avoid hiring you if they were at all aware of them.
Hint: it has nothing to do with the color of your skin.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure those traits were obvious in my resume. His resume was almost identical to mine...his last 3 years was verbatim to mine (except I was his supervisor). We separated in the prior 9 years and education.
It served him well. In the end experience will pay off. In the end, I do have a better job. I'm a supervisor and he's asking me for a job. If I have an opening, I'll hire him...not because he's black.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure those traits were obvious in my resume. His resume was almost identical to mine...
Did they interview you, contact any of your references, or have any contact with him, or check any of his references? (ETA, ah yes, they didn't interview you, hmm). Are you aware of all factors that went into the decision? As you say, your resumes were in fact different. Perhaps you were seen as overqualified and a liability, or perhaps he wrote a more convincing resume than you did. Or perhaps he lied, or perhaps he was an excellent interview. Or perhaps the interviewer had a good day and liked him.
How, after all, did they know he was black? Did the resumes include pictures? I can think of plenty of situations in which I would rather hire a less experienced individual over someone in the same field with similar, but more experience and status. First of all, you would have wanted more money, and you would have wanted more mobility- at least, they would have seen you as a greater liability in that sense. And I'm sure there were other factors. You were applying for a job which did not require a degree- it is difficult for an over-educated individual to get many of those jobs. Depends on the job, and the education.
quote: No...he's one of the smartest guys I've ever met.
Bingo. He's smarter than you- that is unless you're contending that the pool of the smartest people you've ever met are not as or equally as smart as you. If so, get out more- I haven't ever met anyone who could honestly believe that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
