I think the expectation that I have random projects that I'm passionate about to be more disrespectful of my time. I have to compete against an unknown, I don't know what the other people interviewing will be doing for their projects so I have to try and make it more impressive than projects I don't even know about.
It's much less stressful and takes much less time to give me a basic to intermediate coding problem to solve on my own with a pre-set number of days/hours to work on it.
Just find the pharmaceuticals these greedy assholes are dependent on to stay alive, buy up the manufacturing rights, shut down production, and get rid of some of the world's problems. Could probably could get a kickstarter going, I'd donate.
Totally agree, but as another commenter suggested it is difficult to measure socioeconomic status. I think the bigger issue is -- why are negative points applied to Asian applications on my affirmative action schemes, rather than negative points evenly distributed against the entire non-preferred pool? Is anyone seriously arguing that Asian applicants have it easier than caucasians?
Having grown up quite poor in NYC, I was always dismayed by not being able to take advantage of affirmative action programs...but getting selective negative points is just plain unfair.
Organizations are somewhat damned if they do and damned if they don't with affirmative action. In particular the onus of proving that an e.g. university is not being discriminatory rests on them. But diversity quotas such as at least 10% of all accepted applicants will be green, 15% blue, etc are illegal. It puts organizations in a situation where they cannot have diversity quotas, but my run into issues if their results do not look like diversity quotas. This same issue is faced by larger corporations as well.
Consequently, you end up with affirmative action that is based on equality of result instead of equality of opportunity. There are a large number of extremely well qualified Asian applicants so in order to constrain the amount accepted (keeping in mind that acceptance is a zero sum game) they are substantially penalized. I think there's a more fundamental problem with this beyond just fairness.
The whole point of affirmative action was to combat widespread overt racism and other discrimination in hiring/acceptance. Equality of opportunity is extremely important. In times past it's entirely possible the talent in individuals like Neil deGrasse Tyson would not have been allowed to be cultivated because of the color of their skin, and that would be a great tragedy. The problem is that systems that end up de facto equality of result face the exact same problem as we did when overt racism and discrimination was so widespread. You end up viewing certain people as less meritorious than they are, because of the color of their skin. This is something that should never be tolerated, no matter how benevolent the reason may be.
I imagine this is a huge can of worms, there is no one answer, and any answer I give will be a broad and imperfect generalization. That said, i'll provide my viewpoint as an Asian-American born and raised in NYC. I'm comparing to others in NYC (obviously there is the broader USA where poverty abounds and knows no color.)
No, most asians of my generation did not have it easier. We rarely had an uncle at a hedge fund or lawfirm suddenly drop an internship in the middle of Junior year high school to beef up our college applications. Few had legacy connections or friends at the investment bank who could write a great recommendation. I went to a top-3 science high school in NYC and by and large, the Asians I saw succeed did it through sheer, soul-crushing hard work. In many cases we had slave masters (our mothers usually, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_mother) ensuring success at any cost.
Sure, most of my friends and I got into ivy league schools in droves, but in many cases it was almost a pyrrhic victory. I honestly wish I could have normal fun and social development in high school. Instead I was forced to maximize one and only one objective function -- getting into an Ivy League school.
So to answer your question: No, we Asian-Americans dont have it easier, most of us simply overcompensated at great personal cost.
These are all gross generalizations circa 1994-1997 based on my highly diverse high school graduating class of ~800 and another thousand people I know from my neighborhood, civic organizations, summer jobs, etc. I'd value other perspectives.
>> Again, statistically. On average, people of all colors don't have an uncle at a hedge fund...
Huge numbers of people I went to undergrad with had uncles at hedge funds or big law firms. Those are the people I was competing with for entrance. You're absolutely right, I was never competing with many people in the Midwest (of all races) who had it worse than me because large populations amongst the Ivy League schools come from ~2 dozen high schools. My high school was proud to produce 71 (i think, something around that) students who proceeded into Ivy League schools from our graduating class (for whatever that is worth.) It is even more with 5 other NYC schools and a couple on Massachusetts.
Finally, You dont need to believe my anecdotes -- you can read hundreds of first-hand accounts online. When the "Tiger Mom" NY Times article and book came out, you chould see the outpouring of condemnation of some of this NY (and broader) Asian subculture -- a lot of it was from Asians like myself.
I encourage you to read the comments section of that famous article as well as the dozens of offshoot conversations and heated debate that ensued over the persoanl/emotional/psychological cost of success at any cost mentality.
>>> Huge numbers of people I went to undergrad with had uncles at hedge funds or big law firms.
Yes, in a top school in NY.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for "penalising" or "rewarding"
anyone for their skin color. I hope you didn't get that message from me.
I am way more into personalised life experience reward/penalty system. And that should be limited to scholarships based on socio economic situation, not test scores.
Well that is sort of my point...When Asians compete for spots at top universities, they arent really competing against the entire united states, they are competing against the applicant pool.
Ivy League schools get more valedictorian applications than there are seats. Some get more perfect SAT scores than there are seats, so they end up using other factors like sports, well-rounded-ness, speaking ability, unique experiences, etc.
A lot of the folks in that applicant pool have all sorts of unique experiences -- summar safaris in africa, a performance at Lincoln Center, summer internship at a major law firm, internship at some Congressperson's office, etc, etc.
Those types of non-academic admissions factors disfavor most minorities (they espcially disfavor those of African descent given the lack of diversity in most of those fields, which is why i can appreciate affirmative action for clearly underpriviledged groups.)
Now, things are getting better for Asians, Indians, etc and are certainly better than what they were in 1996 when I applied to college. People always tend to point at Nadella, Pandit, Pichai -- but seriously -- how much of the real power base in the US is actually diverse?
Looking beyond technology into the broader economic, cultural, media, and political base of the US, can anyone really argue that Asians are so well represented that they deserve Negative application points relative to all others?
Diversity has departed from it's root meaning. Or else is currently being used in in a more limited context. For example: Lesbian is diversity. Appalachian accent or over 50 is not diversity but poor cultural fit.
>What is the reason to not get a salary accordingly to my seniority, expertise and work output?
I've said this many times and will say it again, most people's salaries are more closely aligned with their leverage than their output. Now leverage can be value too, so it's a complicated picture to unpack and I won't get into it too much.
People who are benefitting more so from leverage (which tends to be the people with the best salaries) will HATE this move. Salary transparency would take away their leverage and they would have to focus more on their output to justify their high salaries.
That would not be the result of publishing salary information. It might be a drop in the bucket for equality at best. And you're speaking to someone who consistently votes and donates to democratic socialist candidates and causes.
Depends how you look at it. I think rich people are more likely to look out for each other. You can often see this in the way our laws work, if the middle and lower classes are screwed over it's a huge fight to bring justice. But if rich people are screwed over, justice seems to come at a swift pace.
I think rich people treat rich people better and poor and middle classes tend to treat each other like trash but treat rich people like they are gods.
Your paid based on your leverage not how much your output is worth. If supply of workers with your skills goes up, your leverage to negotiate goes down and so does your wages.
Labor does not get to share in economic growth, they get to split an ever decreasing share of profits. The more people that are available to sell their labor, the more pieces that shrinking pie has to be cut into.
Don't forget about the entitlements of the business owners. Many, many, many believe they are entitled to highly skilled and highly educated workers without paying them enough to afford the shittiest house/condo within an unreasonable commute to the office.
So at some point it isn't the workers that are being unreasonable. And I'm really curious what you think that point is? What defines who is being unreasonable among the business owner or worker? Or is that just dictated by which socioeconomic class you fall into?
Before landing my first job out of college I had to refuse quite a few offers because I would effectively have to pay to work on them. And that was in a growing economy in a much more young-accepting climate, besides, rent was cheaper by the time.
The way you phrased it, it sounds entitled. But I guess the people downvoting your comment have no idea what it is to enter the workforce nowadays.
Asshole entrepreneurs are one of the other factors I was talking about. They tend to make it very hard for young people to enter the job market (the famous 5+ years of experience required).
It's a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the prospective employees, and a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the entrepreneurs. The latter are rightfully mad at the government, and since they're in it for the money, they try to save as much money as they can. I'm not condoning these practices, I'm just saying that, when everything you earn from January to June goes in taxes, I can understand them trying everything they can.
Then quit supporting these companies by working for them!
The elite have this country over a barrel, it sucks. All anyone that isn't rich can do is to choose to die before they will work for these companies.
We've got tons of young men and women that sign up to be in the armed forces who happily go die to enrich the already wealthy...and we celebrate them!
So as a society can we start shaming workers that work for Palanatir, Comcast, Pfizer, Equifax? You being on your death-bed and unable to afford food is not an excuse to make the world worse. Die with some fucking integrity.
It's much less stressful and takes much less time to give me a basic to intermediate coding problem to solve on my own with a pre-set number of days/hours to work on it.