... so Im on my bed pondering on my recent decision to halt my 7 year working experience to go back to school and take M.ARch 2 (postprofessional ) degree specializing in Urban Design.
I am an architect and had been working on architecture the past years.
so im thinking, does anyone have any data of which ones gets preferred by employers: categorized by school, experience, specialization, skills, learning curve etc etc.... ?
it should be cool if someone has these kind of info to share.
those of us who call are called "urban designers" are, for the most part, either functioning as architects or physical urban planners or a combination of both. Urban design really isn't its own discipline.
well at my last firm if you were a man, and if you had leadership qualities, you were fired, if you were a young good looking woman that enhanced the architecture decoration you did not get fired. although for a while there was one manager who did not like women and a few "GQ" lookalikes were hired for him.
well lets think about it from the employers perspective, who would you rather have? a person you can control and if they look sexy those old perverts can fantasize about being with them all day atleast 8 hours a day, or would you rather have a man who is a leader and no nonsense kind of guy who is young and handsome, but is not gay, a leader, can make people feel ignorant,(im talking about myself as an example) and on top of that is ex military and looks like if you piss him off he can snap your neck at will? id take the lovely looking intern women any day of the week.
Disclaimer note to any potential employer: Just because I'm a chick and I look okay, don't think I'm a pushover and you can "control" me. You will be unpleasantly surprised.
People are more than the some of their resume points. Good employers see this and hire accordingly.
You could probably find some less-than-reliable numbers somewhere out there, but I really don’t think you could develop consistent, scientific data about this. There is too much subjectivity in the hiring process for this to be possible.
If I had a nickel for every job I lost to a woman... Admittedly that was early on in my career where I didn't have any experience. That said, I have always seen a huge preference for hiring women at all levels of this profession. Looking around the office it's a close 50/50 men to women ratio. Throw out gay men and the women clearly outnumber.
Meanwhile, my wife "hates" working for women managers. Says they suck, at least in her field, and says she would prefer to hire men.
I debate whether or not to out my old NYC firm, where this hiring practice has become a standard.
I have seen good quality people let go. Not due to salary because they weren't making much anyway..the firm low balls. And not due to experience....these same people had 7 years exp with the firm.
I recently found out that toward the end of my time there a girl was hired right out of college with hardly any experience and a guy was hired right out of the same school with the same experience. She was given $3000 MORE! I also found out , even though they are "not hiring", they HIRED a contract employee, when they could have brought back one of their own at contract. Want to take a guess at what gender this person is?
I'll give you a hint.... she's probably got a nice rack
Nothing against gay men. Just saying that the hetrosexual male is the minority at most firms I've worked for.
firms with ACTUAL human resource departments, I'd venture to say, hire with more equality, less bias, etc.
I've primarly worked in larger firms with HR Depts. Still the ultimate decision on who to hire is the management within the hiring studio. I wouldn't say I've noticed any bias towards office "eye candy." Just seems if we have two equally qualified candidates, the offer has historically gone to the woman. Then when layoffs happened, the men got the axe more than women.
although this study doesn't address gender, it does address the inherent racial bias in hiring (granted, in 2003!, when people actually may have gotten responses after submitting resumes)
i'd say that people's experiences here, with women getting preference are probably more the exception rather than the rule (at least for architecture firms). most of the offices with which i am familiar are by far, mostly men. of course, this is less so with younger employees, which indicates things *might* be changing.
a recent study of law firms indicates that jobs that require more stereotypically "masculine" qualities lead to men getting hired more for those positions:
Laboratory studies have shown that stereotypes and in-group favoritism influence people's perceptions and evaluations of others, but empirical research has not yet linked these processes to gender disparities in real workplace outcomes. This study proposes that the gender stereotypicality of selection criteria and decision makers 'same-gender preferences operate to intensify gender inequality in hiring. These arguments are tested with data on large U.S. law firms in the mid-1990s. The findings show that when selection criteria include a greater number of stereotypically masculine characteristics, women constitute a smaller proportion of new hires, and that, conversely, when criteria include more stereotypically feminine traits, women are better represented among new hires. Female decision makers also fill more vacancies with women than do male decision makers, but among entry-level hires, this effect diminishes as women 's share of high-ranking positions increases toward gender balance.
here's the citation (if you're interested):
Elizabeth H. Gorman. "Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women." American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Aug., 2005), pp. 702-728
still, as for preferences to choose women over men given "equal" qualifications? maybe they're not so equal after all as it's entirely possible the female candidate may have been more articulate, more personable, have a better portfolio, and have worked harder to get to where they are. obviously, these characteristics should become clear in a job interview (or if it's time to make decisions about who to not lay off). to relegate this choice to whether or not one of the candidates has "a nice rack" or constitutes office "eye candy" is infantile and sexist, and frankly, a stupid move.
remember, even still, in 2008, women earned about 80% of what men earn.
another interesting sounding article about promotions/restructuring:
Women have made significant inroads into management in recent decades, yet remain underrepresented in leadership positions in large firms. In this article, I assess the critical but seldom analyzed role that widespread corporate restructuring may play in generating these inequalities. I build on social-cognitive research and the opportunity structure for discrimination framework to develop contrasting predictions of the effects from two forms of restructuring—reductions in force and reorganization of human resource management systems—on sex differences in managerial promotion. Analyses of longitudinal personnel records from a Fortune 500 manufacturing firm—a firm that restructured multiple times over the period examined—are consistent with the opportunity structure for discrimination framework and suggest that the firm responded to gender equity pressures to promote women when afforded the opportunity to do so. Women's promotion rates were higher than men's during restructuring, relative to previous years, with a greater difference at higher-status job levels. Importantly, however, few women transitioned into upper management positions in the firm during the restructuring period because (1) reductions in force slowed promotion rates for all managers, (2) women began their careers in lower-status jobs to begin with, relative to men, and (3) women's promotion advantages were often short-lived. I conclude by discussing implications of my findings for research on organizational dynamics and gender inequality.
John Dencker, "Corporate Restructuring and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotion " American Sociological Review, 2008
I also wouldn't say I've noticed a preference for eye candy (well, one case...) Seems to be more of a desire for diversity that drives things.
When I was interviewing for my last job, they actually came out and said that while they really liked me, I'd only be offered the job if they couldn't find a woman / minority who had the skills they were looking for.
I got the job.
While there, when discussions about hiring would arise (shortly before work started to dry up), the bosses had a running slogan: "no more white guys"
I sort of understand the sentiment - there are a hell of a lot of nerdy white guys in architecture, and having other types of folks around has certainly been a benefit to the projects and firms I've worked on/for. But at the same time, my skills and background are pretty different than most people in architecture, and I feel like I've lost many, many opportunities to put that to good use simply because I'm a white guy. It's the appearance of reducing candidates to "white guy" and "not white guy" that I find unpleasant.
Sucks, but that's life and I doubt it'll change anytime soon.
you may have lost alot of opportunities for mediocre entry-level positions, however you will easily benefit from being a "white guy" in almost every other aspect of life"
you will pay less on your mortgage
you will get better health care treatment
you will live in a predominately white neighborhood with stable real estate values
you will pay less for your car loan
you will be a magnet for the attractive women of any race
you will be on the inside track for management positions ..
you will have plenty of white male mentors in the profession willing to groom you to replace them at the executive level.
you will have fun on st. patty's day, columbus day, kashmir polaski day, oktober fest, and many of other cultural events..
when you go to the bank for a loan to start your business you will be greeted by smiles and opportunity
those opportunities you "lost" are nothing compared to the advantages you have...
First thing is you should report your last office.
I'm not white. You know what the result of my last interview was?
I was more qualified than the people who interviewed me. I was told I was overqualified.
While I was working I ate nerdy white guys for breakfast.(other races too but mostly Caucasian because that's what I've seen mostly so far). Lets just say that they were so intimidated by my knowledge at one office that they re-framed from asking questions around me, so I wouldn't think they were stupid. I never call anyone stupid though. It wasn't my goal to be better than any other people, it is my goal to challenge myself to be good at what I do.
PS. I hope you don't think actually ate people, its just an old saying.
definutly gays. my boss told me he likes to hire gays because they have much time to spend at office and ideas of office romance keep them longer and also competition between them there makes work more and longer. basicly you can get alot more producton from gays.
Oh really let me see those details Yorke, I'll sharpen my red pencil for you. Was it solid timber framing? or did you use those tacky metal connections?
I was avoiding addressing larger cultural issues with the intent of keeping things on topic, but re-reading my post I can see how it would look like silly self pity. I'm sorry about that.
I'm aware (to the extent one can be) of where being a middle class white guy places me in regards to other things in life. I'll point out that nowhere did I compare the disadvantages of architectural white guys with other social inequalities (which yes, do make me uncomfortable or worse). Should have clarified that somewhere.
As far as reporting the office goes, while I could compile a mile long list of things that were technically inappropriate, very little of it was severe enough to cause any great concern. In a way it was nice that everybody was relaxed and friendly enough to joke about uncomfortable topics, even when it regarded themselves. Though I do keep a few emails in the "if I ever need blackmail" folder.
if that were the case you would say "they re-framed questions around me" not "they re-framed from asking questions around me" But even that wouldn't make a great deal of sense in the context of your sentence.
What I find particularly humorous was that not even two years ago... this very same board had many, numerous threads about the lack of minorities (asians of all types, african/african-american, women, LGBT et cetera).
In fact, the role of homosexuals in architecture was highly contentious.
Now, it seems like everyone but them [minorities was fired. That's kind of mildly ironic.
Could it be the reason these people are now making up more and more of the office space is that their worldview is no longer contentious to market demands?
A lot of white men have this fantasyland image of what their lives should be-- married, with kids and in a home of their own.
Unfortunately... the government welfare machine that has propped that up is slowly starting to disappear. There's no more creative loan schemes, homestead exemptions (all over the US) are under fire and the use of federal funds in "enterprise zones" has proven to be ineffective at best.
Without insane tax breaks or robbing money from commercial tax coffers, the ability to finance the white dream is disappearing.
What makes minorities different is the constant societal and political isolation has made many of them dependent on cash economies. Simply put, many of them exist outside of the system.
Credit scores, Nasdaq or the London Exchange really have no bearing on their lives. And while many of them are poor, there's a substantial amount of monied minorities who still prefer a life inside the cash economy.
Furthermore, the concept of "whiteness" is pretty much dead. There really wasn't ever a white to begin with.
But the amount of cultural white minorities is increasing and with that, whiteness itself is splintering and shattering into various white minority groups.
"White people" have been ineffective over the last 100 years of forming a solid and commonly accepted majority. And the whole 1900s to 1970s of using direct and indirect violence to punish non-comformist whites have alienated whites as a whole.
You know, if your trying to enforce solidarity... murdering people because they don't want to go to church every Sunday or perhaps accepting there's a iota of 'good idea' in communism doesn't exactly make white people want to stick around with other white people.
Call it white guilt, call it sissy liberalism or call it "being too college," I certainly don't like to associate with predominate white culture... especially Anglo-Saxon American white culture.
This was kind of the reason modernism (and all of extensions was started) outside of architecture was started. You know, to absolve whiteness of sins by rejecting all white culture.
My office has layed off:
4 white guys, 1 asian female, 1 african american femal, 1 hot chic (the one that modeled in all the firm's project photos)
We have hired:
5 white guys (all senior level), 1 asian guy (fresh out of shcool), 1 asian chic (fresh out of school), 1 white chic with 3 yr experience, and 1 white chic at upper but not senior level.
At a time like this, firms are hiring based on ability and willingness to work hard long hours, not necessary race, gender or sexual orientation. They are probably too preoccupied about survival to worry about filling some kind of diversity quota.
P.S. Although it doesn't seem that hiring and firing are based on race, gender, etc. It does tend to agree with previous post's conclusion that there are more white guys on the senior level.
Maybe in the stats the hotness of hired and fired men should also be evaluated. And perhaps, ratios of men to women at firms before the hiring and firing.
The assumption that some of you have been making that looks are the reason a woman would be hired or not fired is disconcerting at the least.
I can't believe some of the comments in this thread. The gross over-generalization of gender, race and age is like a bad Southpark episode.
A lot of the success of south park is they make satire about things that are reality, however the political correctness of our society normally doesn't allow it to be talked about. Would anyone watch that show if they didn't expose things that at least had a basis in reality?
In historically male dominated fields such as Architecture, Engineering, Construction, etc. there has been a trend towards hiring more women. Part of this could be due to the fact that more women are pursuing these careers. Which makes me wonder if more men are going into traditionally female dominated fields such as nursing or elementary ed. Maybe so.
I know that any well run business is going to hire the most qualified people, however, qualified can be subjective. I wouldn't put it past a firm to increase their "diversity" in a bid to get international work. Given some of the hires I've seen in the current "down" economy I'm a bit cynical. What I consider best qualified is different than my managers. However, they are pursuing work, while I'm punching it out (so to speak). Maybe these new qualified hires really are dragging in new work. We shall see.
aquapura,
I'm curious about this, "Meanwhile, my wife "hates" working for women managers. Says they suck, at least in her field, and says she would prefer to hire men."
So, does your wife suck to work with/for?
Jul 13, 10 7:41 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
stats on who usually gets preferred by employers... anyone?
... so Im on my bed pondering on my recent decision to halt my 7 year working experience to go back to school and take M.ARch 2 (postprofessional ) degree specializing in Urban Design.
I am an architect and had been working on architecture the past years.
so im thinking, does anyone have any data of which ones gets preferred by employers: categorized by school, experience, specialization, skills, learning curve etc etc.... ?
it should be cool if someone has these kind of info to share.
thanks in advance.
Which ones? What ones? Who? What?
those of us who call are called "urban designers" are, for the most part, either functioning as architects or physical urban planners or a combination of both. Urban design really isn't its own discipline.
Q: who gets preferred by employers?
A: women
^^ what about fags and lesbos?
so long as they are hot
well at my last firm if you were a man, and if you had leadership qualities, you were fired, if you were a young good looking woman that enhanced the architecture decoration you did not get fired. although for a while there was one manager who did not like women and a few "GQ" lookalikes were hired for him.
ok let me put on my boxing gloves here it comes.
.. in short, the gay-er you look , the better your chances are<?> hahaha
well lets think about it from the employers perspective, who would you rather have? a person you can control and if they look sexy those old perverts can fantasize about being with them all day atleast 8 hours a day, or would you rather have a man who is a leader and no nonsense kind of guy who is young and handsome, but is not gay, a leader, can make people feel ignorant,(im talking about myself as an example) and on top of that is ex military and looks like if you piss him off he can snap your neck at will? id take the lovely looking intern women any day of the week.
disclaimer note: to any potential employer i haven't snapped anyone neck. So any of you young interns out there do not snap any employers necks.
Disclaimer note to any potential employer: Just because I'm a chick and I look okay, don't think I'm a pushover and you can "control" me. You will be unpleasantly surprised.
People are more than the some of their resume points. Good employers see this and hire accordingly.
You could probably find some less-than-reliable numbers somewhere out there, but I really don’t think you could develop consistent, scientific data about this. There is too much subjectivity in the hiring process for this to be possible.
A: women
If I had a nickel for every job I lost to a woman... Admittedly that was early on in my career where I didn't have any experience. That said, I have always seen a huge preference for hiring women at all levels of this profession. Looking around the office it's a close 50/50 men to women ratio. Throw out gay men and the women clearly outnumber.
Meanwhile, my wife "hates" working for women managers. Says they suck, at least in her field, and says she would prefer to hire men.
"Throw out gay men"
Why do gay men not count?
I second Medusa.
I second Aquapura's wife.
Thanks aquapura for backing me up.
I debate whether or not to out my old NYC firm, where this hiring practice has become a standard.
I have seen good quality people let go. Not due to salary because they weren't making much anyway..the firm low balls. And not due to experience....these same people had 7 years exp with the firm.
I recently found out that toward the end of my time there a girl was hired right out of college with hardly any experience and a guy was hired right out of the same school with the same experience. She was given $3000 MORE! I also found out , even though they are "not hiring", they HIRED a contract employee, when they could have brought back one of their own at contract. Want to take a guess at what gender this person is?
I'll give you a hint.... she's probably got a nice rack
firms with ACTUAL human resource departments, I'd venture to say, hire with more equality, less bias, etc.
We had an ACTUAL HR dept.
ACTUALLY, my firm prefers to not hire.
Nothing against gay men. Just saying that the hetrosexual male is the minority at most firms I've worked for.
firms with ACTUAL human resource departments, I'd venture to say, hire with more equality, less bias, etc.
I've primarly worked in larger firms with HR Depts. Still the ultimate decision on who to hire is the management within the hiring studio. I wouldn't say I've noticed any bias towards office "eye candy." Just seems if we have two equally qualified candidates, the offer has historically gone to the woman. Then when layoffs happened, the men got the axe more than women.
although this study doesn't address gender, it does address the inherent racial bias in hiring (granted, in 2003!, when people actually may have gotten responses after submitting resumes)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml
i'd say that people's experiences here, with women getting preference are probably more the exception rather than the rule (at least for architecture firms). most of the offices with which i am familiar are by far, mostly men. of course, this is less so with younger employees, which indicates things *might* be changing.
a recent study of law firms indicates that jobs that require more stereotypically "masculine" qualities lead to men getting hired more for those positions:
Laboratory studies have shown that stereotypes and in-group favoritism influence people's perceptions and evaluations of others, but empirical research has not yet linked these processes to gender disparities in real workplace outcomes. This study proposes that the gender stereotypicality of selection criteria and decision makers 'same-gender preferences operate to intensify gender inequality in hiring. These arguments are tested with data on large U.S. law firms in the mid-1990s. The findings show that when selection criteria include a greater number of stereotypically masculine characteristics, women constitute a smaller proportion of new hires, and that, conversely, when criteria include more stereotypically feminine traits, women are better represented among new hires. Female decision makers also fill more vacancies with women than do male decision makers, but among entry-level hires, this effect diminishes as women 's share of high-ranking positions increases toward gender balance.
here's the citation (if you're interested):
Elizabeth H. Gorman. "Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women." American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Aug., 2005), pp. 702-728
still, as for preferences to choose women over men given "equal" qualifications? maybe they're not so equal after all as it's entirely possible the female candidate may have been more articulate, more personable, have a better portfolio, and have worked harder to get to where they are. obviously, these characteristics should become clear in a job interview (or if it's time to make decisions about who to not lay off). to relegate this choice to whether or not one of the candidates has "a nice rack" or constitutes office "eye candy" is infantile and sexist, and frankly, a stupid move.
remember, even still, in 2008, women earned about 80% of what men earn.
another interesting sounding article about promotions/restructuring:
Women have made significant inroads into management in recent decades, yet remain underrepresented in leadership positions in large firms. In this article, I assess the critical but seldom analyzed role that widespread corporate restructuring may play in generating these inequalities. I build on social-cognitive research and the opportunity structure for discrimination framework to develop contrasting predictions of the effects from two forms of restructuring—reductions in force and reorganization of human resource management systems—on sex differences in managerial promotion. Analyses of longitudinal personnel records from a Fortune 500 manufacturing firm—a firm that restructured multiple times over the period examined—are consistent with the opportunity structure for discrimination framework and suggest that the firm responded to gender equity pressures to promote women when afforded the opportunity to do so. Women's promotion rates were higher than men's during restructuring, relative to previous years, with a greater difference at higher-status job levels. Importantly, however, few women transitioned into upper management positions in the firm during the restructuring period because (1) reductions in force slowed promotion rates for all managers, (2) women began their careers in lower-status jobs to begin with, relative to men, and (3) women's promotion advantages were often short-lived. I conclude by discussing implications of my findings for research on organizational dynamics and gender inequality.
John Dencker, "Corporate Restructuring and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotion " American Sociological Review, 2008
I also wouldn't say I've noticed a preference for eye candy (well, one case...) Seems to be more of a desire for diversity that drives things.
When I was interviewing for my last job, they actually came out and said that while they really liked me, I'd only be offered the job if they couldn't find a woman / minority who had the skills they were looking for.
I got the job.
While there, when discussions about hiring would arise (shortly before work started to dry up), the bosses had a running slogan: "no more white guys"
I sort of understand the sentiment - there are a hell of a lot of nerdy white guys in architecture, and having other types of folks around has certainly been a benefit to the projects and firms I've worked on/for. But at the same time, my skills and background are pretty different than most people in architecture, and I feel like I've lost many, many opportunities to put that to good use simply because I'm a white guy. It's the appearance of reducing candidates to "white guy" and "not white guy" that I find unpleasant.
Sucks, but that's life and I doubt it'll change anytime soon.
I just have to say that the last office I worked for was clearly the exception to the rule here...not a hot person in sight.
manamana,
you may have lost alot of opportunities for mediocre entry-level positions, however you will easily benefit from being a "white guy" in almost every other aspect of life"
you will pay less on your mortgage
you will get better health care treatment
you will live in a predominately white neighborhood with stable real estate values
you will pay less for your car loan
you will be a magnet for the attractive women of any race
you will be on the inside track for management positions ..
you will have plenty of white male mentors in the profession willing to groom you to replace them at the executive level.
you will have fun on st. patty's day, columbus day, kashmir polaski day, oktober fest, and many of other cultural events..
when you go to the bank for a loan to start your business you will be greeted by smiles and opportunity
those opportunities you "lost" are nothing compared to the advantages you have...
Manamana,
First thing is you should report your last office.
I'm not white. You know what the result of my last interview was?
I was more qualified than the people who interviewed me. I was told I was overqualified.
While I was working I ate nerdy white guys for breakfast.(other races too but mostly Caucasian because that's what I've seen mostly so far). Lets just say that they were so intimidated by my knowledge at one office that they re-framed from asking questions around me, so I wouldn't think they were stupid. I never call anyone stupid though. It wasn't my goal to be better than any other people, it is my goal to challenge myself to be good at what I do.
PS. I hope you don't think actually ate people, its just an old saying.
"Lets just say that they were so intimidated by my knowledge at one office that they re-framed from asking questions around me"
i once re-framed a barn!
definutly gays. my boss told me he likes to hire gays because they have much time to spend at office and ideas of office romance keep them longer and also competition between them there makes work more and longer. basicly you can get alot more producton from gays.
Oh really let me see those details Yorke, I'll sharpen my red pencil for you. Was it solid timber framing? or did you use those tacky metal connections?
you a college educated architect designer crazy guy, re-framing a barn?
ill repeat a quote someone else said on here,
"All aboard the bullshit train! Pooooh! Poooh!
ps. jsus fan you really tore manamana a new one. hope he is recovering well at the self esteem clinic.
Jus -
I was avoiding addressing larger cultural issues with the intent of keeping things on topic, but re-reading my post I can see how it would look like silly self pity. I'm sorry about that.
I'm aware (to the extent one can be) of where being a middle class white guy places me in regards to other things in life. I'll point out that nowhere did I compare the disadvantages of architectural white guys with other social inequalities (which yes, do make me uncomfortable or worse). Should have clarified that somewhere.
As far as reporting the office goes, while I could compile a mile long list of things that were technically inappropriate, very little of it was severe enough to cause any great concern. In a way it was nice that everybody was relaxed and friendly enough to joke about uncomfortable topics, even when it regarded themselves. Though I do keep a few emails in the "if I ever need blackmail" folder.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refrained
I prefer to say Re-framed, as in Re-Constructed, or Re-considered building their thoughts.
if that were the case you would say "they re-framed questions around me" not "they re-framed from asking questions around me" But even that wouldn't make a great deal of sense in the context of your sentence.
it's a funny mis-type, relax.
sounds to me like you might be framing yourself up for a membership into the good ol boys club. You better keep that Blackmail folder around.
What? don't you know that we architects make up words all the time?
i will use re-frame as many times as i like whenever I like.
Don't even think about replying, or else ill ask Jsus, to unleash his wrath upon you again.
look, do you want to piss in my mouth?
What I find particularly humorous was that not even two years ago... this very same board had many, numerous threads about the lack of minorities (asians of all types, african/african-american, women, LGBT et cetera).
In fact, the role of homosexuals in architecture was highly contentious.
Now, it seems like everyone but them [minorities was fired. That's kind of mildly ironic.
Could it be the reason these people are now making up more and more of the office space is that their worldview is no longer contentious to market demands?
A lot of white men have this fantasyland image of what their lives should be-- married, with kids and in a home of their own.
Unfortunately... the government welfare machine that has propped that up is slowly starting to disappear. There's no more creative loan schemes, homestead exemptions (all over the US) are under fire and the use of federal funds in "enterprise zones" has proven to be ineffective at best.
Without insane tax breaks or robbing money from commercial tax coffers, the ability to finance the white dream is disappearing.
What makes minorities different is the constant societal and political isolation has made many of them dependent on cash economies. Simply put, many of them exist outside of the system.
Credit scores, Nasdaq or the London Exchange really have no bearing on their lives. And while many of them are poor, there's a substantial amount of monied minorities who still prefer a life inside the cash economy.
Furthermore, the concept of "whiteness" is pretty much dead. There really wasn't ever a white to begin with.
But the amount of cultural white minorities is increasing and with that, whiteness itself is splintering and shattering into various white minority groups.
"White people" have been ineffective over the last 100 years of forming a solid and commonly accepted majority. And the whole 1900s to 1970s of using direct and indirect violence to punish non-comformist whites have alienated whites as a whole.
You know, if your trying to enforce solidarity... murdering people because they don't want to go to church every Sunday or perhaps accepting there's a iota of 'good idea' in communism doesn't exactly make white people want to stick around with other white people.
Call it white guilt, call it sissy liberalism or call it "being too college," I certainly don't like to associate with predominate white culture... especially Anglo-Saxon American white culture.
This was kind of the reason modernism (and all of extensions was started) outside of architecture was started. You know, to absolve whiteness of sins by rejecting all white culture.
manamana,
you should be thankful you have a job.
ps. go see a psychologist asap
Before your time, I suppose.
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=27017_0_42_0_C
p.s. - I was laid off a few months ago.
Since this post was originally about stats....
My office has layed off:
4 white guys, 1 asian female, 1 african american femal, 1 hot chic (the one that modeled in all the firm's project photos)
We have hired:
5 white guys (all senior level), 1 asian guy (fresh out of shcool), 1 asian chic (fresh out of school), 1 white chic with 3 yr experience, and 1 white chic at upper but not senior level.
At a time like this, firms are hiring based on ability and willingness to work hard long hours, not necessary race, gender or sexual orientation. They are probably too preoccupied about survival to worry about filling some kind of diversity quota.
P.S. Although it doesn't seem that hiring and firing are based on race, gender, etc. It does tend to agree with previous post's conclusion that there are more white guys on the senior level.
I really don't care that one office I worked at was firing all the men and keeping a lot of good looking ladies. Here is what happened.
at this firm they had well over 100 people before they started to fire.
first round: a bunch of men, and maybe 3 or 4 women.
second round: a bunch of men, and 1 woman
third round : a bunch of men, and 2 or 3 women
fourth round : a bunch of men, and 0 woman
fifth round: a bunch of men, and 1 woman
Maybe in the stats the hotness of hired and fired men should also be evaluated. And perhaps, ratios of men to women at firms before the hiring and firing.
The assumption that some of you have been making that looks are the reason a woman would be hired or not fired is disconcerting at the least.
I can't believe some of the comments in this thread. The gross over-generalization of gender, race and age is like a bad Southpark episode.
Are you guys serious?
^ amirite?
A lot of the success of south park is they make satire about things that are reality, however the political correctness of our society normally doesn't allow it to be talked about. Would anyone watch that show if they didn't expose things that at least had a basis in reality?
In historically male dominated fields such as Architecture, Engineering, Construction, etc. there has been a trend towards hiring more women. Part of this could be due to the fact that more women are pursuing these careers. Which makes me wonder if more men are going into traditionally female dominated fields such as nursing or elementary ed. Maybe so.
I know that any well run business is going to hire the most qualified people, however, qualified can be subjective. I wouldn't put it past a firm to increase their "diversity" in a bid to get international work. Given some of the hires I've seen in the current "down" economy I'm a bit cynical. What I consider best qualified is different than my managers. However, they are pursuing work, while I'm punching it out (so to speak). Maybe these new qualified hires really are dragging in new work. We shall see.
aquapura,
I'm curious about this, "Meanwhile, my wife "hates" working for women managers. Says they suck, at least in her field, and says she would prefer to hire men."
So, does your wife suck to work with/for?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.