|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 6, 2019 19:18:24 GMT -5
It's one that you have used in several conversations, all of them implicitly supporting that white males are "the cream". I utilized it once. Nope. You used it in the college application scandal thread to say that it's not a problem that black students are severely underrepresented in "elite school" student populations, and here you used it in this thread to say it's not a problem that women head coaches are severely underrepresented in D1 hiring decisions.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jun 7, 2019 10:14:03 GMT -5
Reading the first and last pages of this topic confirm my hypothesis re: the limited utility of reading all the ones in between. You understand that this is true of almost all threads on VT?
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 7, 2019 11:02:17 GMT -5
................ I don't believe you'll find many reasonable people classifying the magnitude (46.8% women HC's) as severe. Agree
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 7, 2019 12:19:17 GMT -5
155/331= 46.82% are women coach's. @sbvb crying about nothing For anybody arriving late who isn't aware that bigfan is just trolling this thread while adding nothing of value, here are some pertinent stats to balance the cherry-picked stat. Everyone can come to their own conclusions, I just didn't want bigfan's stat to stand alone as the final word. Some perspective: 155 of the 331 head coaches in D1 WVB are women. The problem is hardly "systemic". The cream will rise to the top.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 12:34:54 GMT -5
Here are some of the pertinent numbers: In 1972 when Title IX passed, 90% of college women's teams were coached by women and 99+% of men's teams were coached by men. Today, 41.5% of all women's D1 teams are coached by women and 99+% of men's teams are coached by men. That's twice the diversity in women's sports than we had in 1972. What's the problem, on the women's side, from your perspective? What is your source for this stat about pre-1972 diversity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:35:02 GMT -5
I agree, we shouldn’t overreact. I think it’s possible people are overreacting. Overreaction turning into hysteria.Guess poster would know All About that (see "College Admissions Scandal" - he is the new Jerry Springer/Hedda Hopper of VT (see definition: "ambulance chaser")!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 14:40:19 GMT -5
What is your source for this stat about pre-1972 diversity? Not sure if you meant to quote SBVB or myself. I don't know where he obtained his stats. I was quoting SBVB. Did you mean to suggest in your post that the % of women coaching pre-1972 was less than it is now? Because that's not true.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 15:40:46 GMT -5
Did you mean to suggest in your post that the % of women coaching pre-1972 was less than it is now? Because that's not true. No, not at all. I was pointing out that there wasn't much diversity pre-72. Men where severely under-represented (on the women's side) back then. We have twice the diversity now for those that care about such things. Well, back then, blacks were also severely under-represented at the front of the bus. But your response is consistent with the rest of your simplistic arguments ("the cream rises to the top"; "hire the best person", etc) that ignore realities (like, how does one objectively measure "the best person" for a job).
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 7, 2019 16:22:06 GMT -5
No, not at all. I was pointing out that there wasn't much diversity pre-72. Men where severely under-represented (on the women's side) back then. We have twice the diversity now for those that care about such things. Well, back then, blacks were also severely under-represented at the front of the bus. But your response is consistent with the rest of your simplistic arguments ("the cream rises to the top"; "hire the best person", etc) that ignore realities (like, how does one objectively measure "the best person" for a job). Please tell us how you evaluate "the best person" for a job.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 7, 2019 16:25:12 GMT -5
like, how does one objectively measure "the best person" for a job We know from empirical data that there is a significant bias in hiring managers toward "people like me". Some in the thread already said, "we'll see more women coaches when we see more women ADs", and this is probably true. We'll also see more women ADs when we see more women college presidents, and we'll see more women college presidents when we see more women on collage boards of directors, etc. The simplistic argument against affirmative action ("let's just ignore race/sex/religion/preference/age/etc. and simply hire the best candidate") naively ignores the real world. In the real world, some people have privilege because of who they are. When most ADs are former male coaches, most ADs are more inclined to think that male applicants are "the best person" for a coaching job.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 16:30:53 GMT -5
Well, back then, blacks were also severely under-represented at the front of the bus. But your response is consistent with the rest of your simplistic arguments ("the cream rises to the top"; "hire the best person", etc) that ignore realities (like, how does one objectively measure "the best person" for a job). Please tell us how you evaluate "the best person" for a job. I don't know how. I'm sure you don't either.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 7, 2019 16:32:42 GMT -5
Please tell us how you evaluate "the best person" for a job. I don't know how. I'm sure you don't either. I am asking so I can learn from you.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 16:35:50 GMT -5
I don't know how. I'm sure you don't either. I am asking so I can learn from you. That will cost you money!
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Jun 7, 2019 17:10:25 GMT -5
like, how does one objectively measure "the best person" for a job We know from empirical data that there is a significant bias in hiring managers toward "people like me". Some in the thread already said, "we'll see more women coaches when we see more women ADs", and this is probably true. We'll also see more women ADs when we see more women college presidents, and we'll see more women college presidents when we see more women on collage boards of directors, etc. The simplistic argument against affirmative action ("let's just ignore race/sex/religion/preference/age/etc. and simply hire the best candidate") naively ignores the real world. In the real world, some people have privilege because of who they are. When most ADs are former male coaches, most ADs are more inclined to think that male applicants are "the best person" for a coaching job. I’m not sure most ADs hiring women’s volleyball coaches are former male coaches. My experience has been different, but of course, my experience isn’t universal.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 7, 2019 17:25:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure that there is a universal experience with regards to hiring. Bias towards people like ourselves, or people we identify with, is well-documented as mikegarrison said. But if a particular college is hiring a coach after having fired a coach, then there may be a tendency to look for someone who is specifically strong in the area that was the reason for the previous coach's termination (think Shymansky at Iowa, or the like. This is sometimes referred to as the inverse halo effect.) In some cases, the SWA essentially makes the hire of the coach, and in some cases, the SWA or a committee, does the leg work for the AD, and presents one or more finalists to the AD. Whether the finalist(s) are ranked or unranked, whether the AD interviews the finalist(s) separately, etc. can make a difference in who gets selected. In terms of deciding who the "best" candidate is, it also depends on what criteria is being used to judge the "best". Is the criteria the AD's judgement about how he or she wants the program to be run, or is it purely on sport specific criteria where the AD is willing to accept the potential coach's expertise, and how exactly does that play out? This is why generic answers like "hire the best candidate" aren't that useful.
|
|