Second, I was concerned with equity. For almost 10 years I have been studying inclusive pedagogy, which focuses on ensuring that all students have the resources they need to learn. My studies confirmed my sense that sometimes what I was really grading was a student's background. Students with educational privilege came into my classroom already prepared to write A or B papers, while others often had not had the instruction that would enable them to do so. The 14 weeks they spent in my class could not make up for the years of educational privilege their peers had enjoyed.
Reducing requirements for entry to university results in accepting those who start too far behind other students. They're strapped with debt, the one type of debt that never goes away, think they're dumb and become easier to radicalize. If instead they directed them to a program (such as a community college course) that could help learn the prerequisites they need to actually make use of university, they would do far better.
That is assuming universities still have the ability to actually teach students something worthwhile, instead of just indoctrination.
IQ is a significant part of the problem. I'm willing to accept that some kids got fucked over by a shitty environment or were limited by the system, but the sad truth is that most of these kids who are "behind" simply don't have the intelligence to advance beyond a certain point, and that point is often far below the capabilities of what a high school diploma proports to certify. These kids shouldn't be in college at all. They should be in a vocational program that will teach them skills that don't require book smarts but will make them employable and allow them to earn a decent wage. Allowing an infinite supply of cheap labor to flood across the Rio Grande prevents these people from making a living, and corporate America's addiction to cheap labor plays no small part in ensuring that they favor open borders.
If they don't meet the requirements for a high school diploma, they shouldn't have them. I'm not arguing otherwise. I agree with vocational programs. Some countries used to test grade school students, and if they weren't good at academics, moved them to an education program focused on trades. It worked for these students, but academia has infiltrated everything now and turned it to shit.
Let's give them a pass and unleash them at the next generation, even though they are not fit to fill that role?
I'm referring to smart kids who got fucked by a high school system that rewards compliance over intelligence, or the high IQ kids who couldn't learn because they had the misfortune of going to a "diverse" school. They're capable of university level work. They shouldn't just be given a pass without proving they deserve it, but they shouldn't be locked out of university level programs forever either. In my other comments in this thread I supported the idea of being able to prove capability in alternative ways. All that said a significant portion of the population will never be able to prove capability and they need career options that don't involve university.
So do I. Alas it's hard to filter those out. All I'm saying is, that we can't continue pretending it's all external. But go ahead and propose that we call morons out for what they are and deny them the 'easy' path. I mean, I guess you won't care being called a racist, but incidentially the moment you are called a racist your proposal is worthless and we'll keep putting morons in positions they are not able to fulfill.
At least a few upper-class white women will feel better about themselves, even though they ruined the lives of everyone they pretended to help.
I get you now. I think we largely agree on the problem and why it won't be solved. I'm under no illusions that my ideas are politically feasible. I'm just bringing them up to point out that the solution to this problem would be simple if it weren't for society's unwillingness to face some unpleasant truths.
The fundamental problem is that IQ is largely genetic and that any university program rigorous enough to impart useful skills will have to fail morons in order to retain its value. They'll never be allowed to do that because IQ isn't distributed in a politically correct manner and as you say retards will scream racism if they do.
The solution is to stop accepting individuals who aren't up to the standards.
exactly what I wrote, they don't meet the standards for university, so you direct them to a program so they can gain the standards before they're accepted into university. It might take them a year, but it means if they go on to university, they won't be behind before the first day.
So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
I think you're overestimating the number of people who would benefit from such a program. I'm not saying the opportunity you suggest shouldn't exist, but the reality is that college isn't for everyone and there needs to be a way to filter those people out so they can spend their time and money on more productive pursuits like vocational school. Immigration should be cut off to give them a fighting chance as well. Any college program that's rigorous enough to make someone employable requires a certain level of intelligence that not everyone has. Some people will never get it no matter how much effort they put in. For example algebra will never be comprehensible to the bottom 70% of the IQ distribution. We'd be able to make education work for everyone if we were able to face some unpleasant truths.
I was mainly ranting on university qualification and diversity bullshit. I wouldn't recommend anyone go to university now, unless they really needed to, like to be a doctor, but even that's a sketchy career path in current year's politics.
Degrees need to die, as universities have consistently proven they're worthless as guarantees of competency. Degrees also require teachers to have teaching degrees, which prevents people who work in the industry from teaching, even if they're the ones who actually have relevant skills, and know what is in demand.
I've had enough experience with graduates that don't have basic competency in the field they graduated, and others who can't get over the idea that they can learn things outside of a course, even when a competent person is right there to teach them.
The solution is to stop accepting individuals who aren't up to the standards.
It's worth a shot bringing them up to standards. But we don't do that. We pretend they are up to standard and give them leeway all the way though to graduation.
I'd be A-OK giving underprivileged people a chance. But only if we started accepting that there's a line where we have to accept that these people are not what we thought they'd be. Sadly we can't do that. We pretend that it's an external force holding them down and not their own ineptitude.
this. stanford and UCLA even ran a study on the failure that is affirmative action.
each school begins accepting students who are unqualified when they walk in the door, practically guaranteeing their failure.
and because minorities were unduly elevated, they took the seat of a white/asian kid who was more qualified, who now goes to a lower school, making the gaps between white/asian vs blacks/latinos at the mid and lower schools even bigger.
but because each school at each tier is trying to massively up their minority numbers, each tier down has to dip even further and further into the dregs. by the time you get to lower tier schools, they've dipped so far deeper into the dregs, the qualifications gap has become a chasm.
the white/asian kids don't even come to class and get straight As, while the blacks/latinos are struggling because they shouldn't have been in that school in the first place.
affirmative action has NEVER passed any meaningful means test in history, and has extensively failed means testing. it ALWAYS catches up... blacks receiving affirmative action have such drastically lower bar passage and medical boards passage than blacks who don't that the entire class would have been better off without affirmative action. in the actual means testing, the non-AA class would have only 10 blacks in 200 students and only 4 would pass the bar. the AA class would have have 30 blacks in 200 students and only 2 or 3 would pass the bar.
With big tests like the bar exam or other physical requirements needed to be a firefighter, for example—employers necessarily use a measurement tool to identify applicants to find ones who will be able to do the job well (although they are pressured to not use those anymore). My spouse used to have a brief basic test to see if an applicant can do basic math/bookkeeping. It was amazing to him how people who said they were “bookkeepers” and had experience, could not add a line of numbers or know a debit or credit, or their handwriting was illegible.
But now, it’s not about giving people equal opportunity, it’s about equal outcomes. And that is communism.
the point of AA was always to subvert society to moving closer to communism. once you accept that different demographic outcomes justify AA, it's over. there's an infinite number of ways to cut demographic outcomes to ALWAYS find unequal outcomes. for example, asians in the US make WAAAAYYYY more than latinos in the US on average. is this because a country that's 30%+ latino and climbing hates latinos? or is it because older people consistently make more money than young people, and the latino population distribution is 20 years younger than the asian population distribution?
so long as people have choices, people will make different choices. different groups of people make measurably different choices. the only way to have equal outcome is to eliminate those choices. communism is predicated on eliminating all choice. it's slavery.
Like I said it's all about fucking over competent students from demographics she hates. Concerns that the traditional grading system hinders learning are legitimate, but there are ways to address that without making the final grade a free for all that boils down to whether the instructor likes you or your identity group.
"my studies confirmed my sense that......" that right there is a huge research no-no referred to as confirmation bias. Forcing data to support the hypothesis invalidates the research, wanker.
This is just a formula for arbitrary grading, and given her interest in "equity" you know she's just fucking over demographics she hates. It's also really fucked up that she won't tell her students where they stand in her course. Eventually the withdrawal deadline comes and students deserve to know how they're doing so they can make the best decision. I'm sure she uses this fact to fuck over groups she hates as well.
All that said there are ways modify the system so that the focus on grades doesn't harm learning. My English Composition professor allowed us to revise each assignment as many times as we wanted and he would regrade with no penalty and no possibility of the grade going down. I also took a programming class that was mastery based. The assignments were pass/fail, but failed assignments could be resubmitted as many times as necessary to earn a pass with no penalty. The problem with those ideas from this cunt's perspective is that they take effort on the part of the instructor and there's still an objective basis for evaluating students, so fucking with students' grades for arbitrary reasons isn't feasible.
Of course it's a ******* English teacher. English teachers at my school complain about having to show up during the final exam timeslot and if their schedule makes them come on campus more than 2 days a week.
For some of my students, the exams were mostly a review from content they learned in high school, but for others, the content was so beyond what they could comprehend because they lacked the basic knowledge I assumed they would have had in high school. How on earth is an “objective” exam supposed to measure learning under these conditions?
To answer her question, they objectively understand high school level science or they objectively do not.
No wonder. The things he's giving "equitable" treatment to are completely illiterate anyway, and their only form of speech is some kind of hooting indecipherable orcspeak.
I teach a couple master's level courses as an adjunct one semester a year and I've used ungrading before. The author is so busy virtue signaling that she makes it sound as bad as possible. She also handles it differently than I do.
I usually only use it on one or two of the biggest assignments of the semester. I ask the students to submit what they think their grade should be and their rationale to back it up. students can then resubmit their assignment and I'll take a second look and adjust the grade if they've put in the effort and improved it based on the feedback they've received. Oftentimes I find that students grade themselves harder than I would. There's always a couple jackasses that try to take advantage of the situation, though, but they ultimately get the grade they deserve with an explanation as to why they got that grade, and every assignment is graded and students know what grades they get after the assignment is graded.
Having students grade themselves is essentially an extra assignment, forcing them to reflect on their work and grapple with the concepts.
This works well for me but for the instructor who wrote this article it's a different story--she teaches undergrad English. Most kids in undergrad English are there because they're required to fill an English Lit credit. The students in my courses are working professionals who fork over cash because they genuinely want to be there and further their careers.
The thing that pisses me off the most about this teacher is that she tries to play therapist and decide how peoples backgrounds, which she knows nothing about, should play a role in what grade they get. That's absolute commie bullshit and is sadly par for the course in most of education right now. Ungrading can actually be an effective strategy in the right setting.
What about the time your side said "there are no woman controlled financial institutions" when both the NASDAQ and NYSE are (both of which have instituted gender quotas to favor the sisterhood) as well as major institutional investor Citigroup? (which was the first to introduce non-negotiable vaccine mandates, and doubled down when the likes of JPMorgan backed away.)
Then you've got the likes of Mastercard with a literal radfem sitting as VP and God knows how many led by women by proxy or governmental ties.
I forgot the European Central Bank as well. Christine Lagarde, famously corrupt and famously feminist.
All the noticers blend into one woman-shilling hivemind to me. You're just looking to defend m'lady by blaming anyone else you can for the way they act.
I think that’s why these people are so culturally/politically/demographically suicidal. The differences between the races aren’t going away no matter how far you bend the rules and standards. So the only real and lasting solution is the utter destruction of the more successful demographics.
Of course, they would never attack the tiny hats or the Asians - not directly.
For a fun exercise, get a rudimentary education in casino payout odds, then spend a night people-watching in one. Watch who plays what games.
Then go for a walk through various neighborhoods. Note which ones have graffiti, which lowers the property value and directly harms the long-term success and health of the inhabitants by a significant amount. See who is doing said graffiti, who is harming those people. By contrast, nice gardens or exteriors increase the health, wealth, and success of people in a community. See who is maintaining those.
Go to a college dorm, and take a survey of who is taking part in their "how to Hookup Culture 101" "mandatory" seminar, and who calls in sick to it in order to get ahead on their studies.
It's not just visible in student papers. You can see the reality of IQ, or something close enough to it that we might as well call it IQ, everywhere.
Of fucking course.
Because nothing helps struggling students more than holding them to zero standards
Thomas Sowell talked about this.
Reducing requirements for entry to university results in accepting those who start too far behind other students. They're strapped with debt, the one type of debt that never goes away, think they're dumb and become easier to radicalize. If instead they directed them to a program (such as a community college course) that could help learn the prerequisites they need to actually make use of university, they would do far better.
That is assuming universities still have the ability to actually teach students something worthwhile, instead of just indoctrination.
IQ is a significant part of the problem. I'm willing to accept that some kids got fucked over by a shitty environment or were limited by the system, but the sad truth is that most of these kids who are "behind" simply don't have the intelligence to advance beyond a certain point, and that point is often far below the capabilities of what a high school diploma proports to certify. These kids shouldn't be in college at all. They should be in a vocational program that will teach them skills that don't require book smarts but will make them employable and allow them to earn a decent wage. Allowing an infinite supply of cheap labor to flood across the Rio Grande prevents these people from making a living, and corporate America's addiction to cheap labor plays no small part in ensuring that they favor open borders.
If they don't meet the requirements for a high school diploma, they shouldn't have them. I'm not arguing otherwise. I agree with vocational programs. Some countries used to test grade school students, and if they weren't good at academics, moved them to an education program focused on trades. It worked for these students, but academia has infiltrated everything now and turned it to shit.
So am I. And then? Let's give them a pass and unleash them at the next generation, even though they are not fit to fill that role?
Man, I'm glad that we stopped rewarding people that go above and beyond.
I'm referring to smart kids who got fucked by a high school system that rewards compliance over intelligence, or the high IQ kids who couldn't learn because they had the misfortune of going to a "diverse" school. They're capable of university level work. They shouldn't just be given a pass without proving they deserve it, but they shouldn't be locked out of university level programs forever either. In my other comments in this thread I supported the idea of being able to prove capability in alternative ways. All that said a significant portion of the population will never be able to prove capability and they need career options that don't involve university.
So do I. Alas it's hard to filter those out. All I'm saying is, that we can't continue pretending it's all external. But go ahead and propose that we call morons out for what they are and deny them the 'easy' path. I mean, I guess you won't care being called a racist, but incidentially the moment you are called a racist your proposal is worthless and we'll keep putting morons in positions they are not able to fulfill.
At least a few upper-class white women will feel better about themselves, even though they ruined the lives of everyone they pretended to help.
I get you now. I think we largely agree on the problem and why it won't be solved. I'm under no illusions that my ideas are politically feasible. I'm just bringing them up to point out that the solution to this problem would be simple if it weren't for society's unwillingness to face some unpleasant truths.
The fundamental problem is that IQ is largely genetic and that any university program rigorous enough to impart useful skills will have to fail morons in order to retain its value. They'll never be allowed to do that because IQ isn't distributed in a politically correct manner and as you say retards will scream racism if they do.
Still a problem, still hogging resources.
The solution is to stop accepting individuals who aren't up to the standards.
exactly what I wrote, they don't meet the standards for university, so you direct them to a program so they can gain the standards before they're accepted into university. It might take them a year, but it means if they go on to university, they won't be behind before the first day.
Library cards?
I don't think you really understand my point here. College should not be for everyone.
The people who deserve to be in higher education are the people who give enough of a fuck to be ready for it.
So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
I think you're overestimating the number of people who would benefit from such a program. I'm not saying the opportunity you suggest shouldn't exist, but the reality is that college isn't for everyone and there needs to be a way to filter those people out so they can spend their time and money on more productive pursuits like vocational school. Immigration should be cut off to give them a fighting chance as well. Any college program that's rigorous enough to make someone employable requires a certain level of intelligence that not everyone has. Some people will never get it no matter how much effort they put in. For example algebra will never be comprehensible to the bottom 70% of the IQ distribution. We'd be able to make education work for everyone if we were able to face some unpleasant truths.
I was mainly ranting on university qualification and diversity bullshit. I wouldn't recommend anyone go to university now, unless they really needed to, like to be a doctor, but even that's a sketchy career path in current year's politics.
Degrees need to die, as universities have consistently proven they're worthless as guarantees of competency. Degrees also require teachers to have teaching degrees, which prevents people who work in the industry from teaching, even if they're the ones who actually have relevant skills, and know what is in demand.
I've had enough experience with graduates that don't have basic competency in the field they graduated, and others who can't get over the idea that they can learn things outside of a course, even when a competent person is right there to teach them.
It's worth a shot bringing them up to standards. But we don't do that. We pretend they are up to standard and give them leeway all the way though to graduation.
I'd be A-OK giving underprivileged people a chance. But only if we started accepting that there's a line where we have to accept that these people are not what we thought they'd be. Sadly we can't do that. We pretend that it's an external force holding them down and not their own ineptitude.
this. stanford and UCLA even ran a study on the failure that is affirmative action.
each school begins accepting students who are unqualified when they walk in the door, practically guaranteeing their failure.
and because minorities were unduly elevated, they took the seat of a white/asian kid who was more qualified, who now goes to a lower school, making the gaps between white/asian vs blacks/latinos at the mid and lower schools even bigger.
but because each school at each tier is trying to massively up their minority numbers, each tier down has to dip even further and further into the dregs. by the time you get to lower tier schools, they've dipped so far deeper into the dregs, the qualifications gap has become a chasm.
the white/asian kids don't even come to class and get straight As, while the blacks/latinos are struggling because they shouldn't have been in that school in the first place.
affirmative action has NEVER passed any meaningful means test in history, and has extensively failed means testing. it ALWAYS catches up... blacks receiving affirmative action have such drastically lower bar passage and medical boards passage than blacks who don't that the entire class would have been better off without affirmative action. in the actual means testing, the non-AA class would have only 10 blacks in 200 students and only 4 would pass the bar. the AA class would have have 30 blacks in 200 students and only 2 or 3 would pass the bar.
With big tests like the bar exam or other physical requirements needed to be a firefighter, for example—employers necessarily use a measurement tool to identify applicants to find ones who will be able to do the job well (although they are pressured to not use those anymore). My spouse used to have a brief basic test to see if an applicant can do basic math/bookkeeping. It was amazing to him how people who said they were “bookkeepers” and had experience, could not add a line of numbers or know a debit or credit, or their handwriting was illegible.
But now, it’s not about giving people equal opportunity, it’s about equal outcomes. And that is communism.
the point of AA was always to subvert society to moving closer to communism. once you accept that different demographic outcomes justify AA, it's over. there's an infinite number of ways to cut demographic outcomes to ALWAYS find unequal outcomes. for example, asians in the US make WAAAAYYYY more than latinos in the US on average. is this because a country that's 30%+ latino and climbing hates latinos? or is it because older people consistently make more money than young people, and the latino population distribution is 20 years younger than the asian population distribution?
so long as people have choices, people will make different choices. different groups of people make measurably different choices. the only way to have equal outcome is to eliminate those choices. communism is predicated on eliminating all choice. it's slavery.
Like I said it's all about fucking over competent students from demographics she hates. Concerns that the traditional grading system hinders learning are legitimate, but there are ways to address that without making the final grade a free for all that boils down to whether the instructor likes you or your identity group.
One wonders if the teachers in the, IDK, Spanish department get butthurt they're giving better grades to students who grew up speaking Spanish.
"my studies confirmed my sense that......" that right there is a huge research no-no referred to as confirmation bias. Forcing data to support the hypothesis invalidates the research, wanker.
"I no longer do my job - and I wish I had stopped sooner"
This is just a formula for arbitrary grading, and given her interest in "equity" you know she's just fucking over demographics she hates. It's also really fucked up that she won't tell her students where they stand in her course. Eventually the withdrawal deadline comes and students deserve to know how they're doing so they can make the best decision. I'm sure she uses this fact to fuck over groups she hates as well.
All that said there are ways modify the system so that the focus on grades doesn't harm learning. My English Composition professor allowed us to revise each assignment as many times as we wanted and he would regrade with no penalty and no possibility of the grade going down. I also took a programming class that was mastery based. The assignments were pass/fail, but failed assignments could be resubmitted as many times as necessary to earn a pass with no penalty. The problem with those ideas from this cunt's perspective is that they take effort on the part of the instructor and there's still an objective basis for evaluating students, so fucking with students' grades for arbitrary reasons isn't feasible.
And they expect you to pay for this service? And what lesson are you teaching your students about life in general?
Of course it's a ******* English teacher. English teachers at my school complain about having to show up during the final exam timeslot and if their schedule makes them come on campus more than 2 days a week.
Not just English. The article links to this one about doing it in a general science course. The quote that sums it up:
To answer her question, they objectively understand high school level science or they objectively do not.
The sooner a college degree becomes associated with retardation the better. ACCELERATE!
Just make sure you stockpile a bunch of tech from when the engineers who designed it had their work graded
"I don't want to do anything anymore, but still want the authority, job perks, title, and money. Oh, yes, the money." - This bitch.
Letter grading kind of sucks (We should just use a simple 0..100 numeric system), but not grading at all is just plain stupid.
Again, this is an English professor.
An English teacher.
No wonder. The things he's giving "equitable" treatment to are completely illiterate anyway, and their only form of speech is some kind of hooting indecipherable orcspeak.
"You're fired."
I teach a couple master's level courses as an adjunct one semester a year and I've used ungrading before. The author is so busy virtue signaling that she makes it sound as bad as possible. She also handles it differently than I do.
I usually only use it on one or two of the biggest assignments of the semester. I ask the students to submit what they think their grade should be and their rationale to back it up. students can then resubmit their assignment and I'll take a second look and adjust the grade if they've put in the effort and improved it based on the feedback they've received. Oftentimes I find that students grade themselves harder than I would. There's always a couple jackasses that try to take advantage of the situation, though, but they ultimately get the grade they deserve with an explanation as to why they got that grade, and every assignment is graded and students know what grades they get after the assignment is graded.
Having students grade themselves is essentially an extra assignment, forcing them to reflect on their work and grapple with the concepts.
This works well for me but for the instructor who wrote this article it's a different story--she teaches undergrad English. Most kids in undergrad English are there because they're required to fill an English Lit credit. The students in my courses are working professionals who fork over cash because they genuinely want to be there and further their careers.
The thing that pisses me off the most about this teacher is that she tries to play therapist and decide how peoples backgrounds, which she knows nothing about, should play a role in what grade they get. That's absolute commie bullshit and is sadly par for the course in most of education right now. Ungrading can actually be an effective strategy in the right setting.
No child left behind, meet no child needs a grade. Up next: No child has to try. Except whitey.
In another words, she hid public-facing scores so she could give her fellow women the highest grades and fuck everyone else over.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: This doesn't do that.
You people are exhausting.
Pot, meet kettle.
https://archive.is/7ubBE
Not even with someone else's hand in a glove.
What about the time your side said "there are no woman controlled financial institutions" when both the NASDAQ and NYSE are (both of which have instituted gender quotas to favor the sisterhood) as well as major institutional investor Citigroup? (which was the first to introduce non-negotiable vaccine mandates, and doubled down when the likes of JPMorgan backed away.)
Then you've got the likes of Mastercard with a literal radfem sitting as VP and God knows how many led by women by proxy or governmental ties.
I forgot the European Central Bank as well. Christine Lagarde, famously corrupt and famously feminist.
All the noticers blend into one woman-shilling hivemind to me. You're just looking to defend m'lady by blaming anyone else you can for the way they act.
I think that’s why these people are so culturally/politically/demographically suicidal. The differences between the races aren’t going away no matter how far you bend the rules and standards. So the only real and lasting solution is the utter destruction of the more successful demographics.
Of course, they would never attack the tiny hats or the Asians - not directly.
Why would they attack themselves?
76% female profession. "muh joos" propaganda can fuck off back to c/ConsumeProduct.
For a fun exercise, get a rudimentary education in casino payout odds, then spend a night people-watching in one. Watch who plays what games.
Then go for a walk through various neighborhoods. Note which ones have graffiti, which lowers the property value and directly harms the long-term success and health of the inhabitants by a significant amount. See who is doing said graffiti, who is harming those people. By contrast, nice gardens or exteriors increase the health, wealth, and success of people in a community. See who is maintaining those.
Go to a college dorm, and take a survey of who is taking part in their "how to Hookup Culture 101" "mandatory" seminar, and who calls in sick to it in order to get ahead on their studies.
It's not just visible in student papers. You can see the reality of IQ, or something close enough to it that we might as well call it IQ, everywhere.