Why I support Affirmitive Action, and why you should too..

[downtown]

However, the Public Sector must treat everyone equally. Subjective criteria like "degree of difficulty" are not acceptable. Only the score, an objective evaluator, is acceptable (if the test is standardised, etc etc).

Okay, so basically, you've just chanted the world equality over and over again. People aren't treated anywhere close to equal before the test. Can you really not tell the difference between "genes", and being stuck in a school that doesn't teach math?

Not really, no. There is no need to nationalize the curriculum, the institutions themselves will make sure to prepare their students in the best way possible for the standardised exam. It's how it works (or worked) here.

Well, when I said "grades", i meant your actual performance in school...although if you were actually really hell-bent on treating everybody the same for your meritocracy, then this would be okay.

Again, everybody must be treated equally regardless of other factors.

Then treat them equally before the test. Make the test free, make sure that you can only take it once, make sure everybody gets the same quality of preparation. Then its just you and your smarts right? Its only fair and "equal"?

See, you just don't want to give up your own institutional advantages.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you want kids to have a fair chance, then they need to be raised in a middle income household. The only real way to do that is to have their parents have middle income jobs.

Sheesh, it's only a couple generations.

 

[downtown]

The Public Sector cannot use subjective criteria to choose candidates for a university position or a job. This is a basic principle of republicanism.

So nobody uses a resume when they apply for a public sector job in Brazil? Nobody interviews for anything? They just line up and take a test, and the "smartest guy" gets the gig?

 

[luiz]

Okay, so basically, you've just chanted the world equality over and over again. People aren't treated anywhere close to equal before the test. Can you really not tell the difference between "genes", and being stuck in a school that doesn't teach math?

There is a difference, and genes are even a more important factor. An extremely intelligent person will overcome most if not all dificulties, including a lousy school. An idiot will fail even if given all opportunities.

Both are "unfair". Nobody asks to be sent to be a bad school, just like nobody asks to be born stupid (or less intelligent then the competitores, which ammounts to the same). In fact, life is also much easier for the good looking then for the ugly, and so on. But we don't create AA for the ugly.

Well, when I said "grades", i meant your actual performance in school...although if you were actually really hell-bent on treating everybody the same for your meritocracy, then this would be okay.

I don't thik your performance in school should matter when applying for a public position, precisely because there is no standardisation. Hence the need for a test, equal for everyone.

Then treat them equally before the test. Make the test free, make sure that you can only take it once, make sure everybody gets the same quality of preparation. Then its just you and your smarts right? Its only fair and "equal"?

First, it is impossible to treat everyone equally. Second, it would still be "unfair".

As I said, it still won't take into consideration the genetic factor, and that's a huge factor. Second, the upbringing of a kid matters easily as much as the quality of the school he attends. Some parents will encourage readinf and learning from an young age, others will get drunk and beat the kids.

Even if you send all kids to identical schools (soviet BS if you ask me), there still won't be the "perfect fairness" that you seek so badly. The "fairest" we can get is sticking to the republican principle that everybody should be treated equally, and this includes, to the horror of some people, treating different people equally. Nobody has the exact same opportunities and qualities as the next guy, and so your subjective criteria are all immensely flawed.

See, you just don't want to give up your own institutional advantages.

No, I want to be given a similar test as everybody else and be selected or rejected based solely on my performance. My skin color and my bank account should have nothing to do with it.

 

[luiz]

So nobody uses a resume when they apply for a public sector job in Brazil? Nobody interviews for anything? They just line up and take a test, and the "smartest guy" gets the gig?

Yes, pretty much. We have something called "concurso público" (something like "public contest"), a test taken by all who apply on specific date. The highest scores will get accepted, and nobody asks skin color, financial condition, or anything like that. There is a law that dictates how the concursos públicos work, and there can be no discrimination.

After you are classified, there might be psychological evaluations and etc just to make sure it is not a madman they are employing.

But what matters to get in is just the score, and that's how it should be in a republic worthy of the name.

 

[downtown]

Yes, pretty much. We have something called "concurso público" (something like "public contest"), a test taken by all who apply on specific date. The highest scores will get accepted, and nobody asks skin color, financial condition, or anything like that. There is a law that dictates how the concursos públicos work, and there can be no discrimination.

After you are classified, there might be psychological evaluations and etc just to make sure it is not a madman they are employing.

But what matters to get in is just the score, and that's how it should be in a republic worthy of the name.

That sounds completely ********. No wonder your civil service is so corrupt

 

[luiz]

That sounds completely ********. No wonder your civil service is so corrupt

It is also how it works in many other countries...

And the corruption is not derived from this praiseworthy practice. It is derived from the fact that some positions, called "trust positions" or "sensitive position", are filled with people named directly by some authority, with no test whatsoever. The number of people hired this way has increased some 5 times under Lula, and it's no wonder corruption boomed.

People who OTOH enter the public sector via public contests are generally well qualified and the reason why we still have some decent results in a handful of public companies. They should remove their extraordinary job security, though, because some of those people, although qualified, don't work much since in Brazil it is almost impossible to fire a public employee who passed on a public contest.

Now what is so ******** about this system? Should we start rewarding people for having a dark skin or being "hispanic", like you enlightened folks do? Don't worry, some people here are already doing that. Some public Unis already take pictures of the candidates to determine who is black enough to receive the bonuses that their race entitles them, and who isn't. And some people want to extend that to jobs as well. I sent a letter to one of them suggesting that they digg up some Nazi literature, always so helpful to determine the race of each one. They should measure the skulls and stuff before giving AA bonuses, otherwise, you know, it might be unfair.

 

[aelf]

How do you test for leadership ability? You can be a bureaucrat by taking tests, but you can't be a leader by virtue of it.

Leaders are also part of administration. They are in fact the most important part. Having academically smart bureaucrats alone isn't going to guarantee anything. What if they have terrible leadership skills? They wouldn't then qualify to rise up to be leaders.

 

[downtown]

Now what is so ******** about this system? Should we start rewarding people for having a dark skin or being "hispanic", like you enlightened folks do? .

Again, I'll remind you that I haven't said a single word about race since I've been arguing with you. Stop setting up this stupid strawmen and putting words in my mouth, or I'll bring a mod in here.

Its stupid because it completely fails to take into account professional experience or relevant skills. If you're great at these tests, you're set up for life in the public sector. Once you're in, why work hard, since your previous work experience is apparently "subjective" and not brought into play in the hiring process? Just quit and take another test.

Are you completely incapable of working with people? Are you disorganized, and can't meet a deadline? Who cares? All thats important is that you can take a test! Why would anybody care about the quality of their work once they're hired?

 

[luiz]

Again, I'll remind you that I haven't said a single word about race since I've been arguing with you. Stop setting up this stupid strawmen and putting words in my mouth, or I'll bring a mod in here.

Again, I'll remind that this is a thread about racial AA. If you have nothing to say on the matter, leave the thread or... I am not 5 years old and don't make threats.

Its stupid because it completely fails to take into account professional experience or relevant skills. If you're great at these tests, you're set up for life in the public sector. Once you're in, why work hard, since your previous work experience is apparently "subjective" and not brought into play in the hiring process? Just quit and take another test.

Ideally, the performance of the people once admitted would be monitored just like in the private sector.

Clearly you can see the danger in having subjective hiring criteria for the public sector.

Are you completely incapable of working with people? Are you disorganized, and can't meet a deadline? Who cares? All thats important is that you can take a test! Why would anybody care about the quality of their work once they're hired?

If you are incapable you should be fired. But this will only be properly measured once you're in, anyway.

 

[imperfect.la]

Again, I'll remind that this is a thread about racial AA. If you have nothing to say on the matter, leave the thread or... I am not 5 years old and don't make threats.


Ideally, the performance of the people once admitted would be monitored just like in the private sector.

Clearly you can see the danger in having subjective hiring criteria for the public sector.


If you are incapable you should be fired. But this will only be properly measured once you're in, anyway.

This is probably not what you want to hear, but AA is a sacrifice. You sacrifice potential inefficiency and still give/keep the worker in the job in order to improve society in general. Yes, it's a sacrifice, but one that must be made if we want to improve general welfare.

 

[nihilistic]

Okay, so basically, you've just chanted the world equality over and over again. People aren't treated anywhere close to equal before the test. Can you really not tell the difference between "genes", and being stuck in a school that doesn't teach math?

Then the solution is to change the supposedly unequal pre-test treatment, not have different standards on the results of test. Try to go deliver the equal opportunity, not to pretend equal opportunities exist by lying about the outcome. If you were in need of open heart surgery, would you select the surgeon who was presumably 'privileged' with a medical school education or the bum off the street who was denied such accommodations?

 

[JerichoHill]

2 statements

1) AA cost me 3 college scholarships and two honors programs. AA doesn't account for the fact that ECONOMIC condition is a much greater hinderance than the color of your skin in a developed country such as America. Despite my family being poor, I was denied assistance and programs because of my skin color. In the end, it didn't matter.

2) Cream doesn't always rise to the top despite difficulties Luiz. "There is a difference, and genes are even a more important factor. An extremely intelligent person will overcome most if not all dificulties, including a lousy school. An idiot will fail even if given all opportunities."

Alot of otherwise bright folks get trapped at the bottom too. Especially in the developing world.

Bonus Statement:

3) If we had your so-called tests in America, I would not have had an opportunity to be in the particular job I have. But because we have personal interviews, not tests, raw talent can be spotted and hired. My Chief took a risk with hiring me, most folks in my position have 20 years experience as an economist and a pedigree much longer than mine. But that's most.

A test can't measure intuition or imagination. Not very well, at least.

 

[IglooDame]

How is that fair for Asians or Jews? It's not like we don't suffer from glass ceilings and racism. Yet AA only hurts us. So you'll screw over other minorities to be "fair" to the ones you choose?

The blacks, and possibly hispanics and native Americans are heavily disadvantaged by historical and current activity. Other minorities generally are not.

You forgot Muslims, Central and Middle-East Asians, Atheists, and homosexuals. Surely there should be quotas for them, too?

Were they kept as slaves? Do they have reduced ability to get equal jobs and education now?

The first question seems irrelevant to me - particularly given that hispanics and native Americans weren't kept as slaves to any substantial degree. For the second, sure. You think someone named "Abdul Abbas" isn't going to get his resume circular-filed as often as someone named "Darnell Jackson"? As for Atheists and homosexuals, check out fed.gov - there's a lot more blacks in Congress than there are Atheists, and if you own up to being homosexual the Dept of Defense fires you.