Trump's latest aphasia

[JoeWeber 2,871]

20 minutes ago, dogyks said:

DEI sounds noble but is a recipe for decisiveness and mediocrity.  Perhaps you view these qualities as admirable.

I take it you meant to say divisiveness. Given that we are naturally biased, tribal, and generally keen to associate of a kind, in a pluralistic society, short of everyone wearing burkas and speaking through voice scramblers how do we make sure the black guy with a P.E. license doesn't lose out to known idiot billy bob white guy?

[billvon 3,090]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

how do we make sure the black guy with a P.E. license doesn't lose out to known idiot billy bob white guy?

In the real world: DEI (or something just like it)

In the FOX News world: that never happens

[dogyks 10]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I take it you meant to say divisiveness. Given that we are naturally biased, tribal, and generally keen to associate of a kind, in a pluralistic society, short of everyone wearing burkas and speaking through voice scramblers how do we make sure the black guy with a P.E. license doesn't lose out to known idiot billy bob white guy?

Or vice versa?

In petrochemicals a Chemical Engineering degree is de rigueur for those seeking top positions, and a couple of years in the trenches is also necessary.

It is hardly unheard of for someone whose political skills eclipse their technical comprehension to be tasked to run a department staffed with licensed engineers, and race is, if anything, a confounding factor.

[JoeWeber 2,871]

35 minutes ago, dogyks said:

Or vice versa?

In petrochemicals a Chemical Engineering degree is de rigueur for those seeking top positions, and a couple of years in the trenches is also necessary.

It is hardly unheard of for someone whose political skills eclipse their technical comprehension to be tasked to run a department staffed with licensed engineers, and race is, if anything, a confounding factor.

I don't see the problem. Why waste a perfectly good chemical engineer in a management position?

[nigel99 586]

4 hours ago, dogyks said:

Or vice versa?

In petrochemicals a Chemical Engineering degree is de rigueur for those seeking top positions, and a couple of years in the trenches is also necessary.

It is hardly unheard of for someone whose political skills eclipse their technical comprehension to be tasked to run a department staffed with licensed engineers, and race is, if anything, a confounding factor.

In general I’ve found good engineers make very poor managers. Unfortunately all too often the less competent engineers rise into management. This is sometimes worse than having a non technical manager. 

But I agree with you, people should be doing time on the tools before rising into management. Doing an engineering degree and then an MBA to leap frog the process hasn’t ever worked well in my experience 

[jakee 1,571]

12 hours ago, dogyks said:

You're not paying attention.  I oppose discrimination, and DEI is most definitely discriminatory.  The"point" of DEI is clear, and it most certainly is not equality.

Yes, you claim to oppose discrimination in theory but in reality scream and shout and insult anyone who wants to reduce the amount of discrimination that happens.

Why? Because the everyday racist reality of the workplace suits you quite nicely.

Edited May 22 by jakee

[kallend 2,117]

10 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Oh my bad. Merican English can have odd miscommunications. In my world that is a Chartered Engineer (which I am), and PE is physical exercise. 

 

 

I was a C.E. (let it lapse) and then I taught a P.E. review course for many years.

[dogyks 10]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I don't see the problem. Why waste a perfectly good chemical engineer in a management position?

When we had to select a member of the department to handle the paperwork, the choice was the least talented Engineer.

It was amusing when he concluded that being the "boss" gave him the authority to give technical advice to people with advanced degrees in disciplines with which he was entirely unfamiliar.

We did, of course, try to keep a straight face, since nobody wanted to get stuck pushing paper and it made his day.

[wmw999 2,560]

45 minutes ago, dogyks said:

When we had to select a member of the department to handle the paperwork, the choice was the least talented Engineer.

It was amusing when he concluded that being the "boss" gave him the authority to give technical advice to people with advanced degrees in disciplines with which he was entirely unfamiliar.

We did, of course, try to keep a straight face, since nobody wanted to get stuck pushing paper and it made his day.

When I was with IBM this was roundly recognized, and there was actually a very valid non-management senior technical career path, with significantly senior technical positions equivalent in pay to at least two levels of management, and maybe more. Of course, then people could go off to the Research division.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,571]

16 hours ago, dogyks said:

It is hardly unheard of for someone whose political skills eclipse their technical comprehension to be tasked to run a department staffed with licensed engineers, and race is, if anything, a confounding factor.

So you're saying that hiring and promotion in technical fields in results driven industries is not, in fact, done purely on merit? That it is always a subjective process driven by the personal preferences of the person doing the hiring?

It's like you're so close yet still so far away from having a really important revelation.