Race and hiring revisited!

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting article related to this subject.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/

Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollment, But Not in Graduation

Blacks are catching up to whites when it comes to going to college. But when it comes to finishing college and getting a degree, they are making much less progress.

<snip>

<snip>

Lastly, the Department of Education&#8217;s graduation data also doesn&#8217;t distinguish between students who were ready for college and those who weren&#8217;t. According to Complete College America&#8217;s data, only 35 percent of students who take remedial courses earn a bachelor&#8217;s degree within six years, compared to 56 percent for the undergraduate population as a whole. Blacks are roughly 45 percent more likely to take remedial courses than whites. (Hispanics and Asians are also more likely than whites to take remedial courses, though less likely than blacks.)

Even a college degree doesn&#8217;t fully close the racial gap. College-educated blacks are more likely to be unemployed than college-educated whites, and they earn less money on average. But getting a degree makes a big difference. For blacks aged 25 to 29 with a college degree, the unemployment rate in 2013 was 7.6 percent. For those without one, it was 17.8 percent.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

supplies!? People hire people more like them. duh.

So the question really is what people like the OP and the "researcher" expect to happen now. Is this to be used as a bludgeon like the OP is attempting or does it go even further than that?

 

[glenn1]

Interesting article related to this subject.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/

It's not interesting, it's so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it. Universities are so desperate to enroll blacks and other "desireable" minorities that they accept them even if otherwise unqualified. When they fail out at higher rates, they simply don't give a shit since they'll just replace them as needed with others equally unqualified. They don't care about them as people or students, they're simply trophies to brag about and as long as the minority mix remains within tolerance limits they're happy since they have achieved their token quantity of minority representation to achieve "diversity."

 

[Subyman]

It's not interesting, it's so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it. Universities are so desperate to enroll blacks and other "desireable" minorities that they accept them even if otherwise unqualified. When they fail out at higher rates, they simply don't give a shit since they'll just replace them as needed with others equally unqualified. They don't care about them as people or students, they're simply trophies to brag about and as long as the minority mix remains within tolerance limits they're happy since they have achieved their token quantity of minority representation to achieve "diversity."

Look at SIUC in Illinois. Used to be a decent and safe school. Then they started actively pulling from East St Louis and Chicago. Now the drop out rates are terrible and campus crime is high. They had a program where each incoming freshman gets a tablet. Guess what showed up in droves on craigslist?

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh good, another thread where clueless people try and critique research design instead of discussing its implications. I figured as much.

Those two "red flags" would be red flags that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Experimental research design" doesn't mean that it's some made up type of experimental, untested research, it means it's a type of research that involves an experiment. It's MORE reliable than other research designs, not LESS.

LOL. Clueless people.

Refuting other research is not a bad thing either, btw.



Baseless blathering.



Holy shit.

Of course they were all different. If they weren't different you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions.

It's probably a good thing you stopped reading after that. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. Hahaha.

Gosh, and he had me thinking he's brilliant and saw deep things other simpler minds had completely missed but your refutation has me thinking he probably went in looking to discredit the study and found what he was looking for.

I wouldn't know who to believe but over time and as a result of reading many many different threads I have somehow come to the conclusion that when it comes to rational arguments according to how I seem to think anyway, yours are consistently the most persuasive.

 

[Moonbeam]

Speaking is broad stereotypical generalities, Black people are like CBDs. They have been conditioned, damaged actually, by negative childhoods that cause armored and defensive egos to be erected in the psyche to protect the self from feelings of humiliation and shame. These ego structures, which destroy the sanity of adults, are the only way, as children, we can survive in such childhood conditions.

As adults. Blacks and CBDs pose enormous challenges to help overcome this "negativity disease" because it makes such people as adults deniers of the problems they have.

A turtle while powerfully armored, isn't going to win many races, but the fear of throwing away the armor is so extreme hard it requires extensive psychotherapy to do, and that is possible only when one has gotten some insight into ones condition.

We live in a world where people have been hideously psychically scared, and the worst of the cases are people who are tremendously self destructive.

Expect enormous difficulties in trying to fix this problem while denying the root of it.

Those with ignorant but lofty ideals, who want to fix the broken, soon discover how difficult the task is. They fail, and that feeling of failure is exactly what we all feel and don't know that we do. The result is that we hate people who do not respond to our help and wind up saying fuck them to ourselves. Negativity always wins if there is no deep understanding. We will never be able to fix this problem if we don't fix ourselves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not interesting, it's so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it. Universities are so desperate to enroll blacks and other "desireable" minorities that they accept them even if otherwise unqualified. When they fail out at higher rates, they simply don't give a shit since they'll just replace them as needed with others equally unqualified. They don't care about them as people or students, they're simply trophies to brag about and as long as the minority mix remains within tolerance limits they're happy since they have achieved their token quantity of minority representation to achieve "diversity."

My take away was completely different...it's if you're black and decide to go to college, you better damn well finish and get that degree or you're pretty much hosed. I won't begrudge them being given "equal" opportunity and I'm glad to see that there's been great strides in this area.

 

[mrjminer]

Oh good, another thread where clueless people try and critique research design instead of discussing its implications. I figured as much.

Those two "red flags" would be red flags that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Experimental research design" doesn't mean that it's some made up type of experimental, untested research, it means it's a type of research that involves an experiment. It's MORE reliable than other research designs, not LESS.

LOL. Clueless people.

Refuting other research is not a bad thing either, btw.



Baseless blathering.



Holy shit.

Of course they were all different. If they weren't different you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions.

It's probably a good thing you stopped reading after that. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. Hahaha.

So, I don't know what "experimental research design" means. Shit happens. However, my non-statistician status hardly makes my criticisms meritless, or in anyway provides credibility to the author. The study is critically flawed due to proven studies the author himself cites and gives credence to, then disregards in his study in order to formulate his conclusion.

Also, I liked this part from the initial Wikipedia paragraph on experimental design:

In general usage, design of experiments (DOE) or experimental design is the design of any information-gathering exercises where variation is present, whether under the full control of the experimenter or not. However, in statistics, these terms are usually used for controlled experiments.

So, his usage of "experimental design" is even out-of-line with the norm, as he himself admits the inability to control the computerized selection processes -- or any of the processes the institutions to which the applications were made utilize. Personally, I would call this an uncontrolled experiment, but I'm sure you know best, oh great eskimospy.

You claim that if the backgrounds of the candidates were not different, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions? Exactly the opposite. A more equal study would be to use identical resumes, and change only the names, which would be in-line with the studies the author cites regarding the process being heavily based on organizations to which the individual belonged. From this, a more accurate conclusion could be drawn.

Instead, the author introduces accepted studies, repeatedly inserts his "suggestions," disregards the methodology and conclusions of those studies, then makes an assertion contrary to the foundations by which he bases his study.

Sorry, but logic points out some obvious flaws in this study. Perhaps you should use some.

 

[fskimospy]

So, I don't know what "experimental research design" means. Shit happens. However, my non-statistician status hardly makes my criticisms meritless, or in anyway provides credibility to the author. The study is critically flawed due to proven studies the author himself cites and gives credence to, then disregards in his study in order to formulate his conclusion.

It should give you a moment of pause as to how credible your criticisms are if you literally didn't even understand what the study was.

Also, I liked this part from the initial Wikipedia paragraph on experimental design:
So, his usage of "experimental design" is even out-of-line with the norm, as he himself admits the inability to control the computerized selection processes -- or any of the processes the institutions to which the applications were made utilize. Personally, I would call this an uncontrolled experiment, but I'm sure you know best, oh great eskimospy.

This is also incorrect, and comes from your basic lack of understanding with statistics and research design. This was also a controlled experiment, as he was using randomization and control groups of non-black names to determine the effects. As for the selection process, of course he can't control the selection processes by the targets of his resumes. Measuring them was literally the whole point.

Personally I would say you have no idea what you're talking about.

You claim that if the backgrounds of the candidates were not different, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions? Exactly the opposite. A more equal study would be to use identical resumes, and change only the names, which would be in-line with the studies the author cites regarding the process being heavily based on organizations to which the individual belonged. From this, a more accurate conclusion could be drawn.

No, it would mean that he could only make one conclusion, while the purpose of the study was to examine it from several different angles. What you're recommending would have defeated the purpose of much of the study.

Funny you mention that, because previous studies that have done precisely that, like the other one I mentioned in the OP. Conservatives attacked them for not accounting for other variations as this study does.

Makes you wonder if the goal is evaluating the research or trying to find a way to avoid the conclusions, huh.

Instead, the author introduces accepted studies, repeatedly inserts his "suggestions," disregards the methodology and conclusions of those studies, then makes an assertion contrary to the foundations by which he bases his study.

This is referred to in research as a 'literature review'. This is a basic, basic element of literally every academic paper written.

The author is not saying they accept all the conclusions of those studies, they are providing the reader with some background on the state of research in the field. If the new research agreed with it all, there wouldn't be much point in publishing.

Sorry, but logic points out some obvious flaws in this study. Perhaps you should use some.

Your posts point out that you are attempting to critique something that you have literally no understanding of. Logic points out that's a dumb idea. Maybe you should use some.

Jesus Christ.

 

[mrjminer]

It should give you a moment of pause as to how credible your criticisms are if you literally didn't even understand what the study was.



This is also incorrect, and comes from your basic lack of understanding with statistics and research design. This was also a controlled experiment, as he was using randomization and control groups of non-black names to determine the effects. As for the selection process, of course he can't control the selection processes by the targets of his resumes. Measuring them was literally the whole point.

Personally I would say you have no idea what you're talking about.



No, it would mean that he could only make one conclusion, while the purpose of the study was to examine it from several different angles. What you're recommending would have defeated the purpose of much of the study.

Funny you mention that, because previous studies that have done precisely that, like the other one I mentioned in the OP. Conservatives attacked them for not accounting for other variations as this study does.

Makes you wonder if the goal is evaluating the research or trying to find a way to avoid the conclusions, huh.



This is referred to in research as a 'literature review'. This is a basic, basic element of literally every academic paper written.

The author is not saying they accept all the conclusions of those studies, they are providing the reader with some background on the state of research in the field. If the new research agreed with it all, there wouldn't be much point in publishing.



Your posts point out that you are attempting to critique something that you have literally no understanding of. Logic points out that's a dumb idea. Maybe you should use some.

Jesus Christ.

ROFL. I love reading your nonsense eskimo. It's always immensely amusing how vehemently defend the obviously flawed.

But please, go on about how he is measuring uncontrolled variables using unequal control groups and then formulating a conclusion that blacks are discriminated against. Are you just choosing to be willfully ignorant of the fact that he is making a claim that blacks are discriminated against by using multiple different educations, organizations, backgrounds, etc. coupled with "white names" and "black names," then concluding that discrimination is the factor and not the selected organizations, et al. that he chose for each individual candidate, despite the accepted studies he cites showing otherwise?

If what you claim he is measuring is actually what he was measuring, the names of the candidates would have been the same -- rather than specifically hitting up demographic information just to choose "white names" and "black names." It is impossible for him to isolate whether the names or the organizational and academic information on the resumes caused the result. Unless you're delusional, that is.

Hypothetical equivalent of this study:
1. A guy goes up to a woman using a fake girly tone of voice and asks in the high pitch, "Do you want to go out some time?" She laughs.
2. A guy goes up to a woman using a deep manly tone of voice and states "Bend over because I am going to buttfuck you right there on the street." She slaps him.
3. A guy goes up to a woman and uses neutral tone of voice and states "Let's go out for a drink." She accompanies him to a nearby bar.

Conclusion:
The tone of voice causes the result.

eskimospy logic:
The study is unflawed.

 

[fskimospy]

ROFL. I love reading your nonsense eskimo. It's always immensely amusing how vehemently defend the obviously flawed.

But please, go on about how he is measuring uncontrolled variables using unequal control groups and then formulating a conclusion that blacks are discriminated against. Are you just choosing to be willfully ignorant of the fact that he is making a claim that blacks are discriminated against by using multiple different educations, organizations, backgrounds, etc. coupled with "white names" and "black names," then concluding that discrimination is the factor and not the selected organizations, et al. that he chose for each individual candidate, despite the accepted studies he cites showing otherwise?

Hypothetical equivalent of this study:
1. A guy goes up to a woman using a fake girly tone of voice and asks in the high pitch, "Do you want to go out some time?" She laughs.
2. A guy goes up to a woman using a deep manly tone of voice and states "Bend over because I am going to buttfuck you right there on the street." She slaps him.
3. A guy goes up to a woman and uses neutral tone of voice and states "Let's go out for a drink." She accompanies him to a nearby bar.

Conclusion:
The tone of voice causes the result.

eskimospy logic:
The study is unflawed.

Your previous posts make it completely obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. The fact that you didn't even know what a literature review was tells me that you may have never read an academic article in your entire life before now. (at least not competently)

This is another example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. You're so incompetent in this area that you don't even know all the shit you don't know. I hardly see the purpose of embarrassing you more.

 

[chucky2]

Ahh, Nick Nick'ing on a Friday...someone is bored...

 

[mrjminer]

Your previous posts make it completely obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. The fact that you didn't even know what a literature review was tells me that you may have never read an academic article in your entire life before now. (at least not competently)

This is another example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. You're so incompetent in this area that you don't even know all the shit you don't know. I hardly see the purpose of embarrassing you more.

Please, feel free to explain how my criticism is wrong then. Enlighten the world as to how you can form a conclusion about two dependent controlled variables when tested against uncontrolled variables in this instance, and attribute the result to only one of the controlled variables.

The only person you are embarrassing is yourself. The only thing you've done is point out the definition of a phrase used with controlled experiments, then even failed to address how it is acceptable for it to be used with the uncontrolled variables of this experiment. Everything else you've said is just personal attacks on some basis that you are a superior being. Sorry, but you are clearly wrong. Learn to accept it once in a while instead of choosing to remain ignorant.

 

[chucky2]

You understand you're having a conversation with Nick right?

 

[mrjminer]

You understand you're having a conversation with Nick right?

No, I'm having a conversation with eskimospy. Even Nick wouldn't be so ignorant as to repeatedly claim a conclusion about a single control variable can be drawn from two dependent control variables tested against countless uncontrolled variables.

 

[fskimospy]

Please, feel free to explain how my criticism is wrong then. Enlighten the world as to how you can form a conclusion about two dependent controlled variables when tested against uncontrolled variables in this instance, and attribute the result to only one of the controlled variables.

The only person you are embarrassing is yourself. The only thing you've done is point out the definition of a phrase used with controlled experiments, then even failed to address how it is acceptable for it to be used with the uncontrolled variables of this experiment. Everything else you've said is just personal attacks on some basis that you are a superior being. Sorry, but you are clearly wrong. Learn to accept it once in a while instead of choosing to remain ignorant.

There's only 1 dependent variable, which is the response rate. Everything else you're talking about are independent variables.

Let me repeat: Jesus Christ. At some point you should probably stop digging.

 

[mrjminer]

There's only 1 dependent variable, which is the response rate. Everything else you're talking about are independent variables.

Let me repeat: Jesus Christ. At some point you should probably stop digging.

Clearly, you are right again. The response rate measured against two dependent variables against multiple uncontrolled variables. But yes, the strategy of attacking the terminology instead of the counterarguments is such a clever way to avoid actually using your brain.

It's ok, one day, you will grow a brain my son.
--
Regardless, it has been fun. Yet I again tire of the pointless converse with you Mr. eskimospy. I will try again in the future when I suspect your ability to use rudimentary logic has improved.

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly, you are right again. The response rate measured against two dependent variables against multiple uncontrolled variables.

It's ok, one day, you will grow a brain my son.
--
Regardless, it has been fun. Yet I again tire of the pointless converse with you Mr. eskimospy. I will try again in the future when I suspect your ability to use rudimentary logic has improved.

The response rate IS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE.

You don't even know the terms you learn on literally day 1 of stats class.

There are not enough facepalms for someone saying things this stupid and then trying to call someone else dumb.

 

[mrjminer]

The response rate IS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE.

You don't even know the terms you learn on literally day 1 of stats class.

There are not enough facepalms for someone saying things this stupid and then trying to call someone else dumb.

Yes, yes, attack the terminology eskimo. Continue to use it as a guise to dodge the flaws of the study I have pointed out, of which you have not attempted to address.

Time to get back to work. I might check back in this later if I get time to see if you have attempted to address any of the criticisms I have brought with the study itself, or if you're just going to keep going for the worthless ethos arguments.

 

[PokerGuy]

This was also a controlled experiment, as he was using randomization and control groups of non-black names to determine the effects. As for the selection process, of course he can't control the selection processes by the targets of his resumes. Measuring them was literally the whole point.

The author of the study specifically indicates that the resume's of the candidates he used are not the same, but that the 'candidates' are given "similar" titles in "similar" organizations and activities. In other words, the name is not the only difference. The school and degree are the same though. It is not a controlled experiment because those differences could impact the results.

Either way, I don't see gross flaws in the methodology of the study that would invalidate the results IMO.

Makes you wonder if the goal is evaluating the research or trying to find a way to avoid the conclusions, huh.

Many 'studies' are simply made to support a predetermined conclusion. Idiots then latch onto those conclusion without critical analysis or thought, and use them to push desired policies. Hence, it's very important to take a critical look at such research to see if it's valid or not.

I don't see why anyone would want to try and avoid the conclusions. You mean it's shocking to someone that people are more likely to seek out the familiar than the unfamiliar? That's true whether in hiring or in any other aspect of life. I don't find that hard to believe at all.

An interesting followup would be to do a similar study, but instead of looking at results based race (using names as a proxy), look at differences between "normal" common names and "weird" names generally identified with the same race. Comparing those results to those of this study might yield further insight into a racial component versus familiarity/cultural. After all, in this study, there's no conclusion if the difference is the result of race, or the result of unusual / weird names.

 

[chucky2]

No, I'm having a conversation with eskimospy. Even Nick wouldn't be so ignorant as to repeatedly claim a conclusion about a single control variable can be drawn from two dependent control variables tested against countless uncontrolled variables.

No, we're talking about the same Nick...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Joey: What happens when you're wrong?
Nick Naylor: See, Joey, that's the beauty of argument. When you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, yes, attack the terminology eskimo. Continue to use it as a guise to dodge the flaws of the study I have pointed out, of which you have not attempted to address.

Time to get back to work. I might check back in this later if I get time to see if you have attempted to address any of the criticisms I have brought with the study itself, or if you're just going to keep going for the worthless ethos arguments.

Here's the thing: when you don't use the terms correctly it's impossible to figure out what you're even trying to argue.

Are you saying that you believe that because they were varying resumes based on college selectivity and race together that you somehow think that's invalid? It's not, because the samples used in the t test are based on unique combinations.

 

[Screech]

Trying to decide if mrjminer attacking a study for having an experimental design and a literature review is more self-owning than trevader attacking a movie about an iraq war vet that he thought was about vietnam. We have some solid contenders for ownage of the year and it isn't even the end of january yet. Good luck eskimospy but I think you simply will not be able to discuss this with him -- there is no way you can dive into that level of stupid.

The rest of the conclusions in the article are basically completely unsurprising, I thought this stuff was shown previously rather conclusively. You can make the argument that maybe it isn't the race but instead the funny/unique/unknown name but I imagine the results are basically the same if there is a strong correlation with some names and races.

 

[realibrad]

Silver lining????

However, although there are employment benefits to a college degree for everyone, data suggest
Discrimination in the Credential Society 6that among bachelor's degree holders, black men make approximately 75% of the wages of white
men and black women make approximately 90% of the wages of white women (Bradbury 2002).

I guess the equality is better for women...

The thing I dont see addressed, is the automated filtering done by many companies. I know my company filters out applicants with software. I wonder if many of the companies the researcher applied to use the same software. Its possible the researcher could have done something when setting up the data that made it biased.

Did I miss that spy?