I was thinking of what I would say if I commented on this as I was reading and then you pretty much nailed it at the end with this Dr. Krauss:
“I would suggest that spending money specifically improving educational infrastructure, including public science education that should be accessible to all, while expanding the research enterprise itself so that there are more opportunities for all qualified young scientists to contribute to the national science effort might be a much better use of NSF funds and would do more for both the nation’s scientific leadership, and to open the scientific enterprise to a broader audience.”
I actually like DEI as an idea but how it’s being implemented is both worrying and perhaps more concerning for its future, feels like it’s on the precipice of being despised by most people as an good idea gone bad, or even worse, misguided altogether.
Diversity in workforce and thought is a good thing, especially when thinking of ways to get new scientific breakthroughs in healthcare to the individuals most in need (for example). So while I don’t want someone less qualified being hired in lieu of someone more qualified, I think we should be mindful of what the scientific endeavor/industry is in each case and what exactly is being quantitatively and qualitatively defined as, “qualifications”. Maybe the scientific industry or place of business is ripe full of the best of the best experimenters but doesn’t know lick about how to best implement these breakthroughs to the populations most at need or how to advocate for the continued funding or future development of the effort. I think a broad and diverse workforce would help in these areas and are worth its efforts.
Diversity is good, and inclusion is good, as long as fair consideration of merit is involved in selection. Equity is bad; equality is good. Using artificially high tuitions supported by the ruinous fed guarantee of student loans to hire poorly educated administrators in excess of qualified professors, and then to let those administrators run amok with canon and curriculum, in either STEM or the study of the impact of Dark Ages gender neutral dance traditions in the early formation of Welsh basket weaving trade associations... is all bad (and probably a little more damaging in the former educational vertical than the latter). Just spitballing here; no need for a zoom call to follow up.
The question is : How do "we" increase opportunity to those who heretofore have not had the advantages of stimulating and challenging, i.e., quality education, good stable home environments, effective guidance, —all those things that relative wealth can bring. But increased opportunity should go and in hand with performance, measured fairly. Needed are equal "playing fields" . Inclusiveness, diversity will do no good for knowledge/science without also the emphasis on performance in the chosen fields. Not all people are created equal in their ability to contribute significantly to stem fields, even if given the "right" opportunities. Standards ought not to be sacrificed to diversity and inclusiveness, even if it is hard to develop those standards. Unfotunately, it seems that intellectual standards have been degraded in bringing to the academy those less qualified, for whatever reason.
This is tough to talk about in view of the inequalities of our system.
Lawrence: I am a scientist that came to this country when I was 18 years old. I have nothing but admiration for the amazing science that you and so many others has help put this country at the forefront in so many human endeavors. My greatest admiration however, is the generosity of its people, their frankness, directness and trust. No one ever asked me, who and what my parents did or my social status in the country of origin. All that matter was my ability to do well the tasks at hand. Whether they were at the first “menial” job that I performed at the beginning, or later as a researcher at the University of California. All these opportunities, are the result of this generosity and empathy that is so American, is what enabled me to be successful. I don’t understand at all, what on earth motivates this obsession of yours of late, to see every institutional effort to continue this tradition of opportunity for all, as some dark force that is taking over this country. What I believe is a real problem, in my view, is that it positions you (unwantedly) among those racially motivated to oppose these efforts.
You miss the point completely. What I want for everyone is what you had. Who you are or where your parents came from or what color your skin is or your gender, none of that should matter. Just being good at what you do.
I was thinking of what I would say if I commented on this as I was reading and then you pretty much nailed it at the end with this Dr. Krauss:
“I would suggest that spending money specifically improving educational infrastructure, including public science education that should be accessible to all, while expanding the research enterprise itself so that there are more opportunities for all qualified young scientists to contribute to the national science effort might be a much better use of NSF funds and would do more for both the nation’s scientific leadership, and to open the scientific enterprise to a broader audience.”
I actually like DEI as an idea but how it’s being implemented is both worrying and perhaps more concerning for its future, feels like it’s on the precipice of being despised by most people as an good idea gone bad, or even worse, misguided altogether.
Diversity in workforce and thought is a good thing, especially when thinking of ways to get new scientific breakthroughs in healthcare to the individuals most in need (for example). So while I don’t want someone less qualified being hired in lieu of someone more qualified, I think we should be mindful of what the scientific endeavor/industry is in each case and what exactly is being quantitatively and qualitatively defined as, “qualifications”. Maybe the scientific industry or place of business is ripe full of the best of the best experimenters but doesn’t know lick about how to best implement these breakthroughs to the populations most at need or how to advocate for the continued funding or future development of the effort. I think a broad and diverse workforce would help in these areas and are worth its efforts.
Wow, that was long. Sorry. Rant over 😂
of course these goals are worthwhile.. if one thinks about sensible ways to achieve them.
Well, stupid acronyms won’t do it that’s for sure 😄😉
Diversity is good, and inclusion is good, as long as fair consideration of merit is involved in selection. Equity is bad; equality is good. Using artificially high tuitions supported by the ruinous fed guarantee of student loans to hire poorly educated administrators in excess of qualified professors, and then to let those administrators run amok with canon and curriculum, in either STEM or the study of the impact of Dark Ages gender neutral dance traditions in the early formation of Welsh basket weaving trade associations... is all bad (and probably a little more damaging in the former educational vertical than the latter). Just spitballing here; no need for a zoom call to follow up.
The question is : How do "we" increase opportunity to those who heretofore have not had the advantages of stimulating and challenging, i.e., quality education, good stable home environments, effective guidance, —all those things that relative wealth can bring. But increased opportunity should go and in hand with performance, measured fairly. Needed are equal "playing fields" . Inclusiveness, diversity will do no good for knowledge/science without also the emphasis on performance in the chosen fields. Not all people are created equal in their ability to contribute significantly to stem fields, even if given the "right" opportunities. Standards ought not to be sacrificed to diversity and inclusiveness, even if it is hard to develop those standards. Unfotunately, it seems that intellectual standards have been degraded in bringing to the academy those less qualified, for whatever reason.
This is tough to talk about in view of the inequalities of our system.
Lawrence: I am a scientist that came to this country when I was 18 years old. I have nothing but admiration for the amazing science that you and so many others has help put this country at the forefront in so many human endeavors. My greatest admiration however, is the generosity of its people, their frankness, directness and trust. No one ever asked me, who and what my parents did or my social status in the country of origin. All that matter was my ability to do well the tasks at hand. Whether they were at the first “menial” job that I performed at the beginning, or later as a researcher at the University of California. All these opportunities, are the result of this generosity and empathy that is so American, is what enabled me to be successful. I don’t understand at all, what on earth motivates this obsession of yours of late, to see every institutional effort to continue this tradition of opportunity for all, as some dark force that is taking over this country. What I believe is a real problem, in my view, is that it positions you (unwantedly) among those racially motivated to oppose these efforts.
Emilio Garcia, Ph.D
You miss the point completely. What I want for everyone is what you had. Who you are or where your parents came from or what color your skin is or your gender, none of that should matter. Just being good at what you do.