I often worry that mathematics education is strongly supported on the grounds that it is about "learning how to think", yet the way it is executed rarely prioritizes this goal. What would it look like if math curriculum were redesigned to be super focused on "learning how to think"? Different, for sure.
It is common practice to cite things other than peer-reviewed papers (at least in math). There are even citations for "private communication", usually meaning a personal email or conversation.
As a white guy with a (very mildly) African American sounding name, I have had similar experiences. When I meet people in person after emailing them they sometimes seem surprised, and some later admit they expected me to be black. The worst example was when I was told by someone renting a room on craigslist that they couldn't rent to me because I was a "security threat", even though I had hardly said anything about myself. It must be tough for those who face that kind of attitude constantly and are unable to escape it.
of course they can escape it. they just have to change their name. that's what my family did for me, and what i will do for my kids if i have kids. as far as i'm concerned if you have serious professional ambitions in the US, you're being foolish if you keep an 'ethnic' sounding name.
keeping your disadvantageous name and arrogantly shaking your fist at the world to change to suit your political tastes is insane to me.
I think the point is that the name is disadvantageous because it makes people think that he's black, and black people cannot stop being black. In other words, if you're actually black, then you can't escape racism just by changing your name.
I'm not sure what you mean by "political tastes". I'd have thought pretty much everyone was opposed to e.g. refusing to rent an apartment to someone because of their name, or because you think that they're black.
> In other words, if you're actually black, then you can't escape racism just by changing your name.
no shit sherlock. but changing your name to a neutral sounding one, no matter what your race, will get you in the door at a much higher rate, where you are actually able to present yourself and your abilities instead of having your resume, application, submission, or email summarily tossed in the trash for no reason other than prejudice.
small advantages like this compound over time. small disadvantages also compound.
it's an optimization, and a highly effective one at that, but nothing more, nothing less than that.
Changing your name might help, though it's sad that anyone should have to do this.
I was replying because you (a) seemed to be missing the OP's point and (b) were coming close to blaming victims of racial discrimination for not changing their names.
there's basically two kinds of people in the world.
those that will sit around and mope and moan about how unfair the world is, and invent terms like 'victim blaming'.
and those who take concrete, actionable steps to overcome or work around the problem.
don't fucking fool yourself, nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years. just ask any american who isn't white. they've had to deal with this shit from the very beginning, it's not an abstract textbook concept to them.
>nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years.
Why the pessimism? Race relations have come on a decently long way in the last 50 years.
I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong for someone to change their name to avoid prejudice. The point is that no-one should be expected to change their name for this reason.
that's very noble. but you sound like you're a white guy who has good intentions but very loose grasp of how things work in reality. maybe i'm wrong, but that's just my feeling.
I think you are missing my point. I'm not criticizing individuals for choosing to change their names. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty shitty that they feel the need to do this. If you're fine with the status quo as (I'm guessing) a non-white person, then, well, good for you. But you shouldn't blame people who don't choose to change their names.
no, it's sad that ww2 happened. it's sad that there's still starving people in the world. it's sad that there's human trafficking in 2015.
what's not sad is someone crying over the fact that some people are prejudiced against certain names when the easy solution is to just change your fuckin' name if you deem it to be a problem.
I deem my name to be a competitive advantage overall. I have never wanted to change it. I deem racism to be a problem, particularly because you can't just sign a paper and change your race.
I only said it must be tough to face (non-mistaken) racism. I am curious how this is arrogantly shaking my fist, or is related to my political tastes. And I'm curious what you believe those tastes to be.
EDIT: In my own rereading, my original comment is strictly about the way people treat each other as individuals and could be consistent with any taste in politics from communism to anarchy.
Not that guy, but I've considered changing my name so it sounds more exotic and unique. From what I've seen, people with "generic" or biblical names don't seem to get chosen as often as they used to when it comes to academic and prestigious stuff.
It would be nice if people could use two or three names legally. Like when you use multiple emails.
It caused me a lot of distress because nobody could properly spell or pronounce it. I had electric bills come in with my last name misspelled. My apartment complex had to tear up a lease and reprint it because they misspelled my last name (I caught it before I signed it, fortunately), and I'd been living there for over half a decade when that happened. Edit: it was also a variant form of an ethnic slur (you can thank bigoted Ellis Island officials for sticking my ancestor with the name), which made me really uncomfortable.
I hated it.
Last year, I had it legally changed. I was changing my first and middle names anyway (as part of my gender transition), so I threw in a new last name in as well (where I live, it doesn't cost any more or require any more paperwork to change your whole name than it does to change just the first and middle). My new last name is a monosyllabic word that's in the dictionary, refers to a common household object, and has no variant spellings. I've never been happier with my name.
> It would be nice if people could use two or three names legally. Like when you use multiple emails.
As long as you're not trying to defraud people, you can use as many aliases as you want. Of course, you'll still have to use your official name when dealing with the government, but there are companies who will respect aliases and use your chosen alias for all purposes except tax reporting.
Isn't the blame falling to the pension managers who picked the hedge fund, and the victims are the individual pensioners who each have negligible influence over decisions? Or am I misunderstanding something?
I found the original article but sadly not freely available. This psmag.com article is thin and the graph of the data is so small I can't read much off of it. Google couldn't find any larger versions of the graph.
> Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned.
This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.
It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.
I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking.
Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you.
It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per shop.
Street parking is difficult to find because it cost less to park on the street, so people cruise around for spots instead of heading to a parking deck.
I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting.
The Parking Is Hell Freakonomics episode is pretty good. In it they estimate that there are something like 800 million parking spaces in the country and recounted a study by Donald Shoup that estimates that up to 30% of traffic in cities are people cruising looking for street parking.
Basically, we don't have a real market for parking in most cities, so people will keep their car parked on the street forever instead of using market forces to induce turnover which is better for the city(revenue) and the nearby businesses(more customers).
A counterexample: Las Vegas. All the casinos on the Strip have big parking garages that are free and don't fill up.
Perhaps it's possible only when the margins of a business are as spectacularly high as those of Vegas casinos, so that the parking facility as a loss leader is still net profitable overall. There's also the invisible hand of capitalism, as casinos compete in the market of convenience: a casino without such a facility will lose market share to those that do.
> Perhaps it's possible only when the margins of a business are as spectacularly high as those of Vegas casinos, so that the parking facility as a loss leader is still net profitable overall. There's also the invisible hand of capitalism, as casinos compete in the market of convenience: a casino without such a facility will lose market share to those that do.
Or land is so cheap because you're in the middle of nowhere.
Wouldn't providing superior alternatives be a better way to incentivize people to stop driving? This seems like encouraging people to eat healthy by hitting them with a baseball bat every time they look at McDonalds.
Vancouver in the winter is rainy and cold, but a refusal to cater to motorists (most of whom are from the suburbs anyway) hasn't negatively impacted businesses, and if anything has positively impacted them
Similarly Edinburgh - which is pretty damp, chilly and dark over the winter has had quite a few bars and restaurants invest in outside seating areas in tents on the street - particularly on George Street (where I work).
There's a lot to take issue with in this article. Graduate institutional affiliation is huge because more and more research is being done by undergraduates, so top institutions can more easily pick out the best talent early. It is still true in academia that research>institution, but the latter is becoming more and more correlated with the former. Top PhD graduates come from top schools, with few exceptions (and those exceptions still get jobs). With undergraduate this correlation is weak.
Yes financial privilege is huge for getting that far, but everyone applying for an academic PhD program has spent decent time in academia and has chosen that instead of money. I've never seen or heard of someone turning down an elite academic PhD program because of a low stipend (students do use stipends to choose between similar schools). Any academic adviser would tell you you'd be crazy to do so.
Edit: This might only be true for math. In undergrad I was constantly surprised to find students from elite vs sub-elite institutions differed hugely in privilege and less in ability. In my PhD program, there was a huge difference in ability between our school (arguably #3 in the area) and nearby Harvard/MIT. While this is all anecdotal, elite academia is a small community and I've seen a large chunk of math. Ability here in math is easy to measure (if they can solve my problems and I can't understand theirs). Mathematicians keep mental rankings of other mathematicians. When you apply for graduate school and later jobs, lots of other mathematicians have a really good idea how you compare.
About being correlated, I guess it is simply not true, just check statistical models. What happens is that increasingly what is considered good research are what top schools are researching... Like String theory in Physics...
