Tools and power tools

Justice Antonin Scalia has been excoriated of late because of remarks he made in a recent supreme court case regarding affirmative action in college admissions. Justice Scalia stated that black students might be better off attending schools other than top-tier universities.  An example of the commentary unleashed on Justice Scalia can be found here.

As a general observation made in the 21st century, Scalia's comments should be, admittedly, troubling.  There is no reason that students of any race, sex, or religion should be expected to perform better or worse than their peers based purely on those identifiers.  The problem is, as Scalia alluded to, the admission process, which, driven by the over-riding need for "diversity", may be preferentially admitting minority students...and Scalia is right, that is a problem.

Here is the thing...I grew up a middle class, suburban white boy...went to a state university and did well enough there that I got a scholarship under the National Science Foundation's Manpower Development Program to go to a small Eastern technical school with a reputation for being very good in science and engineering.  I went.  Some of my classmates were also there on scholarships, some had parents well off enough that they just paid the tuition...didn't matter. Small Eastern Technical School was not the type of place that attracted dilettantes and frat boy partiers.  We were all hardcore nerds, geeks, and gearheads.  We called ourselves "tools" and the geekiest among us were "power tools".  We lived and breathed science.  We attended class, filled reams of paper with notes, compared notes after class, and tried to trip up our professor on esoteric points of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, or whatever the subject du jour was. I would wake up thinking about my lab work. I would work in my lab until all hours of the night, which frequently meant until the next day.  Fun was drinking - SETS conveniently had two bars on campus - and "hacking", our word for what would now be called "pranks".  Graffiti in not-easily-accessible places was popular...I'll take credit for "Free the DC-10" in the steam tunnel between Building 54 and Building 10, thank you very much.  Another popular "hack" was pitching a refrigerator off the tallest building on campus onto the courtyard below - I can't say why.  For obvious reasons this was not popular with the school administration and they began escalating security to prevent these hi-jinks.  I became involved in a number of these refrigerator drops as my talent for picking lock proved useful in some cases.

Life at SETS was intense, probably the most intense four years of my life.  There were women and blacks among my classmates.  All there for "diversity" I don't doubt, because even back then it was important.  Some were in the right place. Others were not. Which were which became obvious after a few minutes in a group discussion about a particular problem set.  Those who had something to contribute were included in future study sessions, invited to have beers, and contributing to the next hack.  Those who couldn't contribute were ignored.  Let me point out here that this same decision process was also applied to white male graduate students.  It was an extremely competitive environment, but not in a hostile way.  I made many friends during my time there and still keep in touch with them, but we were all focused on graduating and getting a job and anyone who couldn't help with that was kicked to the curb. Survival of the fittest.

Back to Scalia's statements...if you are a minority - define the word as you like - and are admitted to a "top-tier university", I would advise that you think long and hard about accepting that offer.  Ask yourself, "Am I that good? Can I do this, or am I just being accepted because I am <INSERT MINORITY STATUS HERE>?".  If you truly believe you're that good, go for it.  It will be an experience.  But keep in mind, that "top tier" university will make a big deal about the number of "minority" students they admit to show how "diverse" they are.  They could give a crap whether you graduate or not.  If you step back and attend a "slower track" (Scalia's words, not mine) university, I will throw this out there:  After you graduate, a few years down the road, out in the real world of private enterprise, you will enter the "What have you done for me lately?" zone.  No one will care where your degree came from.  If you are doing your job, being productive, and contributing to "shareholder value"..great.  If not, your degree from a "top-tier" university won't mean shit.

Sex, lies, and nerds

Over on Facebook a few days back, a link to this story in Forbes about sexual harassment in the astronomy community was posted in a private group.  Alison Paige made the following, fairly astute, observation:

Astronomy, physics, computer science, engineering. Is anyone surprised that white males who love science so much that they participated in science fairs willingly and gym class only because it was required and played chess or D&D instead of attending the prom are really bad at communicating with women? These are the men who were bullied by teacher-coaches and fellow classmates repeatedly all through their grade school and HS years. They have no social interaction skills.

As a white male who voluntarily participated in science fairs, hated gym class, and played on my high school chess team - this was pre-Dungeons & Dragons - and then went on to get an advanced degree in materials science, I can affirm that there is a lot of truth to this.  People who go into the hard sciences, in general, don't come equipped with a full set of social graces.  Put these socially inept men on today's college campuses where even complimenting a woman's appearance is construed as an act of overt male aggression tantamount to rape and, well...yeah, sexual harassment charges will fly, regardless of whether the alleged act of harassment was real or committed with the most innocent of intentions.

I'll throw something else into this mix:  Hard science academicians past a certain age, i.e., those that were hired before political correctness and diversity became the driving principles for higher education,  are more likely to be conservative politically than their soft science and liberal arts colleagues.  As a consequence, all of their actions are going to be viewed through a liberal political lens that places them under far more scrutiny than, say, the politically correct English literature professor who may be staging Lolita reenactments in his classroom to bring Nabakov's writing "alive".

Having said all this, the reality of higher education in America is that heterosexual white male professors are indeed dinosaurs and are being replaced by a more "diverse" faculty.  Whether or not these professors are forced out by charges of sexual harassment, real or imagined, or simply retire, the end result is the same:  A faculty selected to be culturally diverse and politically homogeneous. This is not to say that these new faculty are not talented and, in some cases, extremely talented, but when a significant basis for their hiring is their sexual identification and/or race and political views, they are not required to be.

I could go on and on about all the reasons I believe that higher education is dying in America, but I'll save that commentary for another day and end this bit of Saturday morning amusement by making a prediction:  At present, American universities are net importers of foreign graduate students, mostly from China and India.  With ten year - fifteen, at the outside, this trend will reverse and serious American hard science students will be learning Mandarin and heading to China to learn their trade.

The Economics of Blue Nail Polish.

  Did my nails the other day. Now, I don't do that often, but when I do, I lean towards blues, teals and other non traditional colors. I even have a lovely shade of olive drab I picked up a few months ago. I certainly don't need all these colors, ( honestly don't need any..). But isn't it nice that I have all of them to choose from

  That right there, is the beauty of a capitalist system, choice. I stroll along through a store, something shiny and bright catches my eye.  I may see one, two or three different colors I need ( don't), and plop they go in the buggy. To the counter I go with my money, and the deal is done.

  Someone somewhere in the nail polish factory decided to add new and different colors, and people bought them. They sold so well, they kept adding more and more colors. And now we have the wonder that is the cosmetics aisle. The more we buy the more they make. The more they make, the more we buy.  The market dries up, and production stops.

  Socialism is anti-choice. Socialism says you can have too many choices, that other things are more important than choosing nail color, the planet is boiling for Pete's sake. If you don't believe me, ask Bernie Sanders

  "You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."

  Choice is bad, gosh darn it. Everyone should just use the approved scent, flavor, colors. Everyone should drink the prescribed amount of the approved beverage and be happy. Do it for the planet.

  It fascinates me, the people that would vote for Bernie and his anti choice rhetoric  are typically those with rainbow locks, who stand in line at a specialty coffee store for diverse beverages chosen from a varied menu, and ponder seriously over the wide range of free range tofu at the local organic market. People who proudly proclaim their individuality, clamor for forced conformity, in the name of social justice and income equality, never equating equality with sameness.

  Diversity happens when there are choices to be made. The permutations available in our capitalistic American society are limited only by our imaginations. What grand imaginations they are, too! Why anyone would want to limit us to centrally planned choices is beyond my comprehension. Why anyone would willingly vote for someone that proudly proclaims he would limit your choices, even more so.