P.r.o.o.f. of eXistence

A blog about things you avoid at the dinner table

AlfonZoRachel saying everything I want / attempt to say about RacePolitics in one video.

BOOM.

illsevenyournine:

proofofexistence:

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.
Titles:A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.
Companies:A) Oracle Net Income: $10.9BTotal Assets: $81.81BTot. Employees: 120K(2013)B) AppleNet Income: $41BTotal Assets: $176BTot. Employee: 80K(2012)
Lists:AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOsForbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/Why is Tim Cook missing?
Conclusion:One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). Why did I include company information?Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M…putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.Stop.If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

It’s adorable when people miss the point as badly as the person above me.
Or maybe just sad.
I’m not even sure.
Anyway, since this is apparently too hard to wrap your head around, I’ll explain the ol’ problem here.
You see, if there was no such thing as sexism (and a wage gap reflecting the sexist ideals of society), you wouldn’t see such a drastic difference between the highest-paid men and women. If there wasn’t discrimination against women, there wouldn’t be a $327 MILLION wage gap between the highest-paid woman and the highest-paid man. We would see a woman in an equally powerful position, making a comparable amount of money.
But do we see that? No. No we do not.
And this is reflective of the sexist power structure of our society in which men occupy most positions of power. Here’s a fun fact: women account for only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. (HMMM I WONDER WHY THE HIGHEST PAID WOMEN AREN’T MAKING AS MUCH AS THE MEN. PERHAPS IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING BOXED OUT OF THE POSITIONS. HMMMM.)
Now I’ll wait for your comment where you say, “But that person specifically said the wage gap which is what I was responding to so I’m still right hahaha [fart noise].”
The wage gap is a reflection of institutionalized oppression, which women of color experience even more harshly. (You bet your ass I’m getting intersectional because it fucking matters that Black women and Latina women do not make $.82 on a (white) man’s dollar. That figure is what White women make. You wanna know where the $.77 figure comes from? It comes from averaging what women make while taking into account the portion of the work force they make up.
Here, I did the math.

Formula: ($/hour on man’s dollar)*(percentage of female work force); sum these totals to find average woman’s pay per one (white) man’s dollar.
White women: (.82)*(.67) = .5494Black women: (.69)*(.13) = .0897Hispanic women: (.60)*(.13) = .078Asian women: (.87)*(.05) = .0435Other: 2%, pay unaccounted for. [Can we just agree that this is negligible? Kthx.]
Sum total: .7606

OH WOULD YOU LOOKEE THERE. $.77 ON A MAN’S DOLLAR. WOW, IT’S ALMOST LIKE MAGIC.
So do not tell me — you, a man who does not experience the same level of institutionalized sexism and discrimination that women do — that the wage gap is bullshit and this screen cap is stupid. It is very real, and it negatively impacts women.
I will superglue 77 pennies to a baseball bat and BEAT YOU WITH IT.

Hi, so thanks for taking the time to offensively reply, I guess.Just a few things:
1. My issue with the OP was not an issue of “Gender Wage Gap” but one of claiming that it exists based off a really bad argument (see OP). The comparison between the Worlds richest company’s CEO (Apple) and a top (non-CEO) executive in a company with 1/4 the Net Income is a truly pathetic “evidence” for such a claim as the Gender Wage Gap. If it was anything close to being satisfactory, I’d have left it alone.2. I called the notion of using this as evidence “stupid.” I then marched toward the argument of the GWG. I did not direct any language towards a person, so your condescending little fit is uncalled for - though I suppose it is expected from your past remarks towards myself and any other opposition in general. Stay classy.3. Thank you for contributing to greater evidence that the politically minded Left is not only bad at debating but very emotionally inclined and violently “tolerant” when they are questioned. [Want to see a Liberal freak out? Question any notion of their “trinity” minded philosophy of emotion fueled anger in the areas of “gender, race and class.” It’s quite predictable.]——————————-
Now back to the topic at hand.Bad evidence is bad. I proved why bad evidence is bad. I did not even touch the sore subject of the Wage Gap. But since we are here…The wage gap is a farce. Well, I shouldn’t say completely. I mean, men do make more than women on average (controlling for the right things) but it is nothing of the “.77:1” ratio that feminist and leftists claim.Heck, even everyone’s favorite liberal-leaning fact check organization claims it’s “mostly-wrong”

A 2009analysisby the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded that three-fourths of the disparity can be explained by trends common to women:

they tend to choose occupations that have relatively low wages;


they tend to have degrees leading to lower-paying occupations than men;


they tend to have a shorter work history; and


they take more time off from work for childbirth and child care.

The American Association for University Women issued a report this year that offered similar explanations for the pay gap, saying it is partly due to “men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation.”
"For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates," the report said.
Pamela Coukos, a senior program advisor at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a July 2012 blogpostthat “economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination — making about 60 percent explained by differences between workers or their jobs.”

You know, it’s easy to get into a group-think emotion fueled hullabaloo when you think the world is out to get you. Sort of like how Christians believe God exists -  and by this one fact you explain the Universe and everything else - feminists and liberals believe there is this HUGE conspiracy to deplore women and keep them “pregnant and at home in the kitchen” - and by this they find evidence for everything including staying away from even asking for personal responsibility ( i.e., telling a woman not to abort her baby due to finances is unquestionable in their mindset and therefore discrimination, patriarchal, etc.)See, if the gender wage gap of “0.77Cents” were true, then Liberals have to somehow explain the ridiculous notion of why an employer - who has the main concern of sustaining the bottom line and producing efficiently - is willing to pay a man $40,000 a year when he could have a woman do the same job for $30,800?Are employers so anti-Women that they are willing to pay a man $9,200 more a year TO DO THE SAME JOB AS WELL AS A WOMAN?Why would a company concerned with the bottom line (which is 99.9% of companies btw) be so willing to pay an employee more just because they don’t like woman?Now THAT is stupid. You don’t even need to get into the numbers to realize how ridiculous that sounds."No here, we are struggling in this bad economy, but don’t you dare employ that woman! No! I’d rather pay this man $10K more than employ that woman." An employer that is THAT anti-Woman is not only stupid and most likely non-existent, but “he” will likely not have a company IN existence much longer.Now here is another question. The same type of people who throw a fit about this type of thing also claim “women are as capable and or equal with men in every area!” I agree (to a degree) - I would not say it with such conviction nor in “every area.” But if women are in fact just as capable as men in every area, Why aren’t employers saving “.33 cents” on the dollar/per dollar by hiring more women? Surely, more women would be would be filling positions than men to save employers money, right? (Let me guess the answer: discrimination?). Fact is - companies are concerned about the bottom line, so hiring more man just to discriminate on women, is illogical.Fact is - if a company can save money by moving to a different producing source (i.e. see overseas american companies) then they will.Fact is - these 2 questions above do more to prove the myth of the “.77” wage gap claim than any graph you can conjure up, or I can produce.That said, here are the numbers anyway:CONSAD report: See Here From the report: “Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”Truth is, the “.77:1” ratio is a MYTH more then 1 report has shown it as so (CBS). The big flame around the issue is fueled by the similar flames that claim any criticism of Obama is racism. What do I mean by that? Women were oppressed and “placed” in a “set” confine of “roles” in the past (just as blacks were slaves and discriminated against in the past) but does that mean a) they are now or b) any little statistic or socially identified “non-progressive” fact point to “evidence” that they are today? Uh, no. Sorry.This reminds me of 2 things. 1) My fiancèe’s career goals. My Fiancèe was one of the top applicants to her Graduate program. She smashed through a B.A. in Business Administration at CSUN (known for its strong business programs).  She then realized something, money making isn’t her passion. Helping others is! She applied to USC’s MSW program (Master of Social Work). Why is that significant? Because SW’s has been commonly ranked as one of the top professions where YOU WONT make money. Despite her excellent skills in BizAdmin and her Master’s degree, her career field does not yield big bucks. In fact, her MSW program was about 85% female. This is what these reports have proven by “career choices/decisions.”2. This reminds me of the epic UC-Berkeley lawsuit of 1973 that is a key example of the Simpson’s Paradox. For a quick idea of what the paradox is, go to wiki HERE (it also has the Berkeley case).The Berkeley lawsuit was a lawsuit where the claim was made that the Berkeley admission’s office was accused of discrimination BIAS against women in admissions. As a whole (considering all of the numbers - cumulative) there was about a 10% gap on admissions rates (44% men and 35% for women) into Cal programs. It looks like bias… until you break down into departments (see table).What was happening in this situation, men were applying to programs that were easier to get into at higher rates - and similarly women were applying to programs that were harder to get into at high rates. This resulted in a large number of women losing out on spots in the difficult programs, and men getting lots of spots in easier programs.ex. Nuclear Science: 15 Openings. Women Apps: 100 | Accepted 8 = 8% Men Apps 24 | Accepted 7 = 29%. As you can see above. There were actually MORE women that got accepted into the program. Problem was, so many of them applied to this VERY difficult program, that the affect creates a higher acceptance rate for MEN. This wasn’t an issue of discrimination, but actually one where women were just damn ambitious. Different example: Political Science: 125 Openings.Women Apps: 85 | 50 accepted = 58% RateMale Apps: 200 | 75 Accepted = 38%Look here. Women have a higher rate, but there is LESS of them because LESS of them were interested in PoliSci. Men were very interested in this and applied here IN A BUNCH but far less of them were accepted by ratio though they hold a larger amount of people admitted as a whole. See how the stats don’t tell the whole story? Yet somehow, Cal was still charged with discrimination. Why? It became an emotional issue (a liberal tool) rather than one about cold hard facts.Now the simpson’s paradox does not have too much to do with the issue at hand (though some say it does have a minor place: see here). My point of bringing it up has more to do with painting a picture of how an “appeal to emotion” affects an argument.Lastly, you say I can’t make my argument because I am a man?This is a classic fallacy. A ridiculous one a that. Proving a point like this has nothing to do with my gender (or shall I call you sexist for claiming so).You make this unsubstantiated claim that the fact that men hold a vast majority of CEO’ships as proof of discrimination against woman. What proof have you of that other than claims? “They are being boxed out” you say. Well let me spell a few things out for you. 1. The corporate world is cut throat, harsh and difficult. Will women be boxed out for being women? Yes! Men will also be boxed out by other men. This is what happens at that level of the game. Women ARE (whether you agree or not) more inclined to emotions and more inclined to take a softer approach unless coached to do so otherwise. Any show of “softness” will be attacked by a competitor vying for the top, just as it will be identified and attacked by another male competitor by a male competitor. This is the game. Is that a disadvantage to women? I say yes, but if you say yes, then you and other “women are equal in all parts” spouters must then swallow the cold truth that “women are the weaker vessel.” Am I excusing the cut-throat nature of the game to the top? No. But if you are to claim equality, do not cry “discrimination” when you are treated as equally as “one of the guys.”2. Men TOO are victims of institutionalized oppression. Men must be the “bread winners.” Men that are not “bringing home the bacon” are not only ostracized by their competitive same-sex counterparts, but they are also ostracized by women. Women seek to have pay equality with men, but they still want their husbands to make more than them (as Spar said so eloquently HERE). Men are told they have to be the primary bread winners, or else we are failures and “less than” men like our fathers. Though it is a generalization - it is a fact that women seek men with more money (whereas more money means security, stability etc.) just as men are generalized to seek “beauty over personality.” Can it be so that men are simply fighting harder to the top of the pay scale so as to maintain this notion of “being a man” by being the bread winner?Don’t think men can be ‘boxed-in’ into a sexist ideal as you claim women are? Then you are dead wrong and should “check your privilege” as liberals like to say.3. Women make decisions based off their world view. Just as men feel pressured to be the primary bread winner, women feel like being the secondary (or even stay at home) is absolutely satisfactory. Some believe, “hey I do not have to rise to the top if my husband is __________ and [We] are totally fine with that.” This isn’t societal pressure or oppression. In fact, the husband can even throw 100% support behind her “climbing to the top” - but she (and he in support of her) happily says “I am fine with being where I am.” Thus less CEOs/executives.4. And finally, you are forgetting that men, the primary bread winners for millenniums, have and will continue to do what they are doing (trying to be that primary winner and use their wealth to attract women). It’s biological and it’s socially acceptable. Women, be it due to contentment and or oppression, women have JUST come to the game (of working) within the last generation. The 1960s saw the first (very small) wave of women working full time. Was it accepted then? No. But that is not my point. My point is, it has been only 53 years from 1960 to now. Women are still getting used to, learning, and developing themselves in the workforce. The first 20-30 years it was under the scrupulous eye of “you should be at home taking care of the kids” and now it has only been 23 years under a normalized and “accepted” view by employers in the work place. So what then, you are pissed off that women have not moved fast enough to equality at being CEOs of the largest companies when it has only been some estimated 20 years of “normative” and “accepted” working? Meanwhile men have held the socially accepted view as “workers” and “primary” money makers for X,000 years. Well hell, give yourselves a break and allow some time to catch up. Just like Affirmative Action, creating laws that force equal pay against discrimination (where there is none) is not helping the female sex become equal, it is acting as a crutch to force equality.I recently saw an article showing 4 of 8 people picked for the NASA Astronauts program were women. I laughed. I didn’t laugh because I am a misogynistic jerk. I laughed because the artificiality of this acceptance rate is laughable. Go to any top University and you will find an incredible amount of men to women in the sciences and engineering department is a ratio of about 7:1. I am even being conservative here. Now you are to tell me, despite this ratio (which I made up btw I do not know the actual ratio I am just expressing an observation with an arbitrary number) somehow the new astronauts were selected 50% men and women? Do I believe there are 4 women in all the universities who could be astronauts? Absolutely! Of course there are. There are 100s! 1000s! But if there are 1000 women qualified enough to be astronauts, there are 7000 (by the rations standard) MEN who are qualified for the spot. Somehow it’s a perfect 50/50 split? That’s artificial. That what affirmative action does. My friend X (an engineer) whom I lived next to at my fraternity was somewhat frustrated that he was stuck in the apps process for Boeing (I changed the name of the company on purpose) despite his excellent grades (3.9). I then told him that our mutual female friend Y was offered a position with Northrop (having just recently applied). He noted “what!? How!? She has like barely a 3.0…oh, she a woman.” It dawned on him, heck, the government is desperate for female engineers and it will do anything to try and make that happen, including offering MORE contracts to companies that can prove they are more “equal” than their competitors.  Huh, so much for “male privilege” huh?But I digress… (is it too late for that?)

illsevenyournine:

proofofexistence:

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.

Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.

  1. Titles:

    A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.

    B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.

  2. Companies:

    A) Oracle 

    Net Income: $10.9B
    Total Assets: $81.81B
    Tot. Employees: 120K

    (2013)

    B) Apple

    Net Income: $41B
    Total Assets: $176B
    Tot. Employee: 80K

    (2012)

  3. Lists:

    AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

    Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/

    Why is Tim Cook missing?


  4. Conclusion:

    One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.

    I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. 

    Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. 

    Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). 

    Why did I include company information?

    Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.

    Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).
    Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M
    …putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.

    Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.

    In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.

    Stop.

    If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

It’s adorable when people miss the point as badly as the person above me.

Or maybe just sad.

I’m not even sure.

Anyway, since this is apparently too hard to wrap your head around, I’ll explain the ol’ problem here.

You see, if there was no such thing as sexism (and a wage gap reflecting the sexist ideals of society), you wouldn’t see such a drastic difference between the highest-paid men and women. If there wasn’t discrimination against women, there wouldn’t be a $327 MILLION wage gap between the highest-paid woman and the highest-paid man. We would see a woman in an equally powerful position, making a comparable amount of money.

But do we see that? No. No we do not.

And this is reflective of the sexist power structure of our society in which men occupy most positions of power. Here’s a fun fact: women account for only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. (HMMM I WONDER WHY THE HIGHEST PAID WOMEN AREN’T MAKING AS MUCH AS THE MEN. PERHAPS IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING BOXED OUT OF THE POSITIONS. HMMMM.)

Now I’ll wait for your comment where you say, “But that person specifically said the wage gap which is what I was responding to so I’m still right hahaha [fart noise].”

The wage gap is a reflection of institutionalized oppression, which women of color experience even more harshly. (You bet your ass I’m getting intersectional because it fucking matters that Black women and Latina women do not make $.82 on a (white) man’s dollar. That figure is what White women make. You wanna know where the $.77 figure comes from? It comes from averaging what women make while taking into account the portion of the work force they make up.

Here, I did the math.

Formula: ($/hour on man’s dollar)*(percentage of female work force); sum these totals to find average woman’s pay per one (white) man’s dollar.

White women: (.82)*(.67) = .5494
Black women: (.69)*(.13) = .0897
Hispanic women: (.60)*(.13) = .078
Asian women: (.87)*(.05) = .0435
Other: 2%, pay unaccounted for. [Can we just agree that this is negligible? Kthx.]

Sum total: .7606

OH WOULD YOU LOOKEE THERE. $.77 ON A MAN’S DOLLAR. WOW, IT’S ALMOST LIKE MAGIC.

So do not tell me — you, a man who does not experience the same level of institutionalized sexism and discrimination that women do — that the wage gap is bullshit and this screen cap is stupid. It is very real, and it negatively impacts women.

I will superglue 77 pennies to a baseball bat and BEAT YOU WITH IT.

Hi, so thanks for taking the time to offensively reply, I guess.

Just a few things:

1. My issue with the OP was not an issue of “Gender Wage Gap” but one of claiming that it exists based off a really bad argument (see OP). The comparison between the Worlds richest company’s CEO (Apple) and a top (non-CEO) executive in a company with 1/4 the Net Income is a truly pathetic “evidence” for such a claim as the Gender Wage Gap. If it was anything close to being satisfactory, I’d have left it alone.

2. I called the notion of using this as evidence “stupid.” I then marched toward the argument of the GWG. I did not direct any language towards a person, so your condescending little fit is uncalled for - though I suppose it is expected from your past remarks towards myself and any other opposition in general. Stay classy.

3. Thank you for contributing to greater evidence that the politically minded Left is not only bad at debating but very emotionally inclined and violently “tolerant” when they are questioned. 

[Want to see a Liberal freak out? Question any notion of their “trinity” minded philosophy of emotion fueled anger in the areas of “gender, race and class.” It’s quite predictable.]

——————————-

Now back to the topic at hand.

Bad evidence is bad. I proved why bad evidence is bad. I did not even touch the sore subject of the Wage Gap. But since we are here…

The wage gap is a farce. Well, I shouldn’t say completely. I mean, men do make more than women on average (controlling for the right things) but it is nothing of the “.77:1” ratio that feminist and leftists claim.

Heck, even everyone’s favorite liberal-leaning fact check organization claims it’s “mostly-wrong

A 2009analysisby the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded that three-fourths of the disparity can be explained by trends common to women:

  • they tend to choose occupations that have relatively low wages;

  • they tend to have degrees leading to lower-paying occupations than men;

  • they tend to have a shorter work history; and

  • they take more time off from work for childbirth and child care.

The American Association for University Women issued a report this year that offered similar explanations for the pay gap, saying it is partly due to “men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation.”

"For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates," the report said.

Pamela Coukos, a senior program advisor at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a July 2012 blogpostthat “economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination — making about 60 percent explained by differences between workers or their jobs.”

You know, it’s easy to get into a group-think emotion fueled hullabaloo when you think the world is out to get you. Sort of like how Christians believe God exists -  and by this one fact you explain the Universe and everything else - feminists and liberals believe there is this HUGE conspiracy to deplore women and keep them “pregnant and at home in the kitchen” - and by this they find evidence for everything including staying away from even asking for personal responsibility ( i.e., telling a woman not to abort her baby due to finances is unquestionable in their mindset and therefore discrimination, patriarchal, etc.)

See, if the gender wage gap of “0.77Cents” were true, then Liberals have to somehow explain the ridiculous notion of why an employer - who has the main concern of sustaining the bottom line and producing efficiently - is willing to pay a man $40,000 a year when he could have a woman do the same job for $30,800?

Are employers so anti-Women that they are willing to pay a man $9,200 more a year TO DO THE SAME JOB AS WELL AS A WOMAN?

Why would a company concerned with the bottom line (which is 99.9% of companies btw) be so willing to pay an employee more just because they don’t like woman?

Now THAT is stupid. You don’t even need to get into the numbers to realize how ridiculous that sounds.

"No here, we are struggling in this bad economy, but don’t you dare employ that woman! No! I’d rather pay this man $10K more than employ that woman." 

An employer that is THAT anti-Woman is not only stupid and most likely non-existent, but “he” will likely not have a company IN existence much longer.

Now here is another question. The same type of people who throw a fit about this type of thing also claim “women are as capable and or equal with men in every area!” I agree (to a degree) - I would not say it with such conviction nor in “every area.” But if women are in fact just as capable as men in every area, Why aren’t employers saving “.33 cents” on the dollar/per dollar by hiring more women? Surely, more women would be would be filling positions than men to save employers money, right? (Let me guess the answer: discrimination?). 

Fact is - companies are concerned about the bottom line, so hiring more man just to discriminate on women, is illogical.
Fact is - if a company can save money by moving to a different producing source (i.e. see overseas american companies) then they will.
Fact is - these 2 questions above do more to prove the myth of the “.77” wage gap claim than any graph you can conjure up, or I can produce.

That said, here are the numbers anyway:
CONSAD report: See Here
 
From the report: “Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

Truth is, the “.77:1” ratio is a MYTH more then 1 report has shown it as so (CBS). The big flame around the issue is fueled by the similar flames that claim any criticism of Obama is racism. What do I mean by that? Women were oppressed and “placed” in a “set” confine of “roles” in the past (just as blacks were slaves and discriminated against in the past) but does that mean a) they are now or b) any little statistic or socially identified “non-progressive” fact point to “evidence” that they are today? Uh, no. Sorry.

This reminds me of 2 things. 

1) My fiancèe’s career goals. My Fiancèe was one of the top applicants to her Graduate program. She smashed through a B.A. in Business Administration at CSUN (known for its strong business programs).  She then realized something, money making isn’t her passion. Helping others is! She applied to USC’s MSW program (Master of Social Work). Why is that significant? Because SW’s has been commonly ranked as one of the top professions where YOU WONT make money. Despite her excellent skills in BizAdmin and her Master’s degree, her career field does not yield big bucks. In fact, her MSW program was about 85% female. This is what these reports have proven by “career choices/decisions.”

2. This reminds me of the epic UC-Berkeley lawsuit of 1973 that is a key example of the Simpson’s Paradox. For a quick idea of what the paradox is, go to wiki HERE (it also has the Berkeley case).

The Berkeley lawsuit was a lawsuit where the claim was made that the Berkeley admission’s office was accused of discrimination BIAS against women in admissions. As a whole (considering all of the numbers - cumulative) there was about a 10% gap on admissions rates (44% men and 35% for women) into Cal programs. It looks like bias… until you break down into departments (see table).

What was happening in this situation, men were applying to programs that were easier to get into at higher rates - and similarly women were applying to programs that were harder to get into at high rates. This resulted in a large number of women losing out on spots in the difficult programs, and men getting lots of spots in easier programs.

ex. Nuclear Science: 15 Openings. Women Apps: 100 | Accepted 8 = 8% Men Apps 24 | Accepted 7 = 29%. 

As you can see above. There were actually MORE women that got accepted into the program. Problem was, so many of them applied to this VERY difficult program, that the affect creates a higher acceptance rate for MEN. This wasn’t an issue of discrimination, but actually one where women were just damn ambitious. 

Different example: Political Science: 125 Openings.
Women Apps: 85 | 50 accepted = 58% Rate
Male Apps: 200 | 75 Accepted = 38%

Look here. Women have a higher rate, but there is LESS of them because LESS of them were interested in PoliSci. Men were very interested in this and applied here IN A BUNCH but far less of them were accepted by ratio though they hold a larger amount of people admitted as a whole. 

See how the stats don’t tell the whole story? Yet somehow, Cal was still charged with discrimination. Why? It became an emotional issue (a liberal tool) rather than one about cold hard facts.

Now the simpson’s paradox does not have too much to do with the issue at hand (though some say it does have a minor place: see here). My point of bringing it up has more to do with painting a picture of how an “appeal to emotion” affects an argument.

Lastly, you say I can’t make my argument because I am a man?

This is a classic fallacy. A ridiculous one a that. Proving a point like this has nothing to do with my gender (or shall I call you sexist for claiming so).

You make this unsubstantiated claim that the fact that men hold a vast majority of CEO’ships as proof of discrimination against woman. What proof have you of that other than claims? “They are being boxed out” you say. 

Well let me spell a few things out for you. 

1. The corporate world is cut throat, harsh and difficult. Will women be boxed out for being women? Yes! Men will also be boxed out by other men. This is what happens at that level of the game. Women ARE (whether you agree or not) more inclined to emotions and more inclined to take a softer approach unless coached to do so otherwise. Any show of “softness” will be attacked by a competitor vying for the top, just as it will be identified and attacked by another male competitor by a male competitor. This is the game. Is that a disadvantage to women? I say yes, but if you say yes, then you and other “women are equal in all parts” spouters must then swallow the cold truth that “women are the weaker vessel.” Am I excusing the cut-throat nature of the game to the top? No. But if you are to claim equality, do not cry “discrimination” when you are treated as equally as “one of the guys.”

2. Men TOO are victims of institutionalized oppression. Men must be the “bread winners.” Men that are not “bringing home the bacon” are not only ostracized by their competitive same-sex counterparts, but they are also ostracized by women. Women seek to have pay equality with men, but they still want their husbands to make more than them (as Spar said so eloquently HERE). Men are told they have to be the primary bread winners, or else we are failures and “less than” men like our fathers. Though it is a generalization - it is a fact that women seek men with more money (whereas more money means security, stability etc.) just as men are generalized to seek “beauty over personality.” Can it be so that men are simply fighting harder to the top of the pay scale so as to maintain this notion of “being a man” by being the bread winner?

Don’t think men can be ‘boxed-in’ into a sexist ideal as you claim women are? Then you are dead wrong and should “check your privilege” as liberals like to say.

3. Women make decisions based off their world view. Just as men feel pressured to be the primary bread winner, women feel like being the secondary (or even stay at home) is absolutely satisfactory. Some believe, “hey I do not have to rise to the top if my husband is __________ and [We] are totally fine with that.” This isn’t societal pressure or oppression. In fact, the husband can even throw 100% support behind her “climbing to the top” - but she (and he in support of her) happily says “I am fine with being where I am.” Thus less CEOs/executives.

4. And finally, you are forgetting that men, the primary bread winners for millenniums, have and will continue to do what they are doing (trying to be that primary winner and use their wealth to attract women). It’s biological and it’s socially acceptable. Women, be it due to contentment and or oppression, women have JUST come to the game (of working) within the last generation. The 1960s saw the first (very small) wave of women working full time. Was it accepted then? No. But that is not my point. My point is, it has been only 53 years from 1960 to now. Women are still getting used to, learning, and developing themselves in the workforce. The first 20-30 years it was under the scrupulous eye of “you should be at home taking care of the kids” and now it has only been 23 years under a normalized and “accepted” view by employers in the work place. So what then, you are pissed off that women have not moved fast enough to equality at being CEOs of the largest companies when it has only been some estimated 20 years of “normative” and “accepted” working? Meanwhile men have held the socially accepted view as “workers” and “primary” money makers for X,000 years. Well hell, give yourselves a break and allow some time to catch up. Just like Affirmative Action, creating laws that force equal pay against discrimination (where there is none) is not helping the female sex become equal, it is acting as a crutch to force equality.

I recently saw an article showing 4 of 8 people picked for the NASA Astronauts program were women. I laughed. I didn’t laugh because I am a misogynistic jerk. I laughed because the artificiality of this acceptance rate is laughable. Go to any top University and you will find an incredible amount of men to women in the sciences and engineering department is a ratio of about 7:1. I am even being conservative here. Now you are to tell me, despite this ratio (which I made up btw I do not know the actual ratio I am just expressing an observation with an arbitrary number) somehow the new astronauts were selected 50% men and women? Do I believe there are 4 women in all the universities who could be astronauts? Absolutely! Of course there are. There are 100s! 1000s! But if there are 1000 women qualified enough to be astronauts, there are 7000 (by the rations standard) MEN who are qualified for the spot. Somehow it’s a perfect 50/50 split? That’s artificial. That what affirmative action does. 

My friend X (an engineer) whom I lived next to at my fraternity was somewhat frustrated that he was stuck in the apps process for Boeing (I changed the name of the company on purpose) despite his excellent grades (3.9). I then told him that our mutual female friend Y was offered a position with Northrop (having just recently applied). He noted “what!? How!? She has like barely a 3.0…oh, she a woman.” It dawned on him, heck, the government is desperate for female engineers and it will do anything to try and make that happen, including offering MORE contracts to companies that can prove they are more “equal” than their competitors.  Huh, so much for “male privilege” huh?


But I digress… (is it too late for that?)

(Source: ilookincredibeetus, via epicslicee)

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.
Titles:A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.
Companies:A) Oracle Net Income: $10.9BTotal Assets: $81.81BTot. Employees: 120K(2013)B) AppleNet Income: $41BTotal Assets: $176BTot. Employee: 80K(2012)
Lists:AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOsForbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/Why is Tim Cook missing?
Conclusion:One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). Why did I include company information?Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M…putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.Stop.If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.

Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.

  1. Titles:

    A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.

    B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.

  2. Companies:

    A) Oracle 

    Net Income: $10.9B
    Total Assets: $81.81B
    Tot. Employees: 120K

    (2013)

    B) Apple

    Net Income: $41B
    Total Assets: $176B
    Tot. Employee: 80K

    (2012)

  3. Lists:

    AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

    Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/

    Why is Tim Cook missing?


  4. Conclusion:

    One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.

    I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. 

    Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. 

    Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). 

    Why did I include company information?

    Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.

    Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).
    Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M
    …putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.

    Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.

    In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.

    Stop.

    If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

(Source: ilookincredibeetus, via epicslicee)

Anonymous asked: You made a post here back in May saying that you were moving the blog to a new URL, but the link provided in that May post doesn't work. Can you make a new post with the correct link for the new blog please? Thanks.

Hello.

Sorry, I have been on a little hiatus. Well, it’s a bit long. I’ll be back soon, but no I am no longer changing URLs :). 

My Experience: UCLA vs. USC - “What’s Better?”

Intro: I’ve had the pleasure of going to University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for 2 years (active in Alpha Gamma Omega UCLA) to receive a B.A. in Political Science, then going to the University of Southern California (USC) for my Masters of Public Administration and living at USC Alpha Gamma Omega.

After the that initial look (from both sides) that relays "how could go from one to the other" I get the usual "So what do you like better?" or "What’s better?"

It’s hard to answer that question for many reasons, one being the fact that I attended one as a Bachelor and the other as a Masters student but the best way to do it is by breaking it down into categories comparing: Student Life, Academics, Professors, Sports, Culture, etc. So, with that said, here is what I have observed from my experience with Bias’ aside to the best of my abilities.

Background:
UCLA: 2009-2011 
Major: Political Science, B.A. - Minor in Middle East North African Studies
Social: Alpha Gamma Omega Fraternity - pledge president, House Manager, VP, and President

USC: 2011-2013
Major: Master of Public Administration - Certificate in Homeland Security & Public Policy
Social: Lived at Alpha Gamma Omega USC (Inactive). UCLA AGO Chapter Advisor

Categories:
[Grades: A+/A (4), A- (3.7), B+ (3.33), B (3), B- (2.7), C+ (2.3)]

1. Safety: 

UCLA: (A-) My time here at UCLA felt relatively safe. I strolled up Gayley at 2-3AM with no care other than to watch out for crazy drivers and the occasional creepy figure but it was easy to tell who was out of place and who was not. UCLA is a public institution so security on campus is “open” which will get you the occasional transient (whom would be removed if and only if they got out of hand). The worse issues was stealing. You can’t take you bags into dinning halls so this is always an issue. Just off campus its the same thing, especially around fraternity row. Recently, a few students have been involved in large incidents (just off campus) and there have been creepers preying on women (just off campus) some 3 different times of late. That said it tends to be a safe place, and everyone perceives it as so therefore everyone behaves as so.

Craziest thing that happened to me: I woke up at 6:45 AM to get ready for Volunteer day with AGO and as I went around the house to see who was up (knowing I was early), I went to the stairwell and heard a crash of glass. I walked downstairs thinking Triangle (an engineering Fraternity) had blown something up but only found our neighbors working on a computer (I could see through their window). When I turned to go back upstairs, a girl was staring down on me in a UCLA sweatshirt with blood running down her arms. “Who are y…what happened…Are you okay?!” I exclaimed. “I… I was… volunteering…” she replied (making it weirder). Anyway, I had her go to the bathroom and wash up as I called UCPD. Jared, my fraternity brother, said that she punched threw the Active Room window and opened it (right where he was sleeping). He said she said “Hello” as she walked through to the door to exit the room. We never found out what happened after Police and an Ambulance took her away but she looked under the influence and told me that she was in Santa Barbara earlier that morning. 

USC: (B-) The area around SC’ is no bueno and this gives everyone the feeling of lack of safety, despite the high measures taken by the school in order to curve safety issue. Off campus, the school provides CSC Security (yellow jackets) who are at corners 2-3 blocks off campus. DPS also exists (trained Police/private officers). Like LA, many of the crimes on campus are thefts (especially bikes and computers), but there were some notable shootings (one resulting in a killing of 2 international students in a botched robbery at 2AM a 1/2 mile off campus). There was also a crazy shooting on campus (no one badly hurt) in a dumb unsanctioned dorm party. Since then, on campus security has been bumped tremendously, especially at night (much to the hassle of students). SC is safe, especially within 2-3 blocks of campus. The perception of safety is the biggest issue. DPS sends out text ad email notifications nearly every-time something goes down which is great in that we are aware of everything but it can also stir some paranoia. I was close to giving out a C+ but I do feel perception is the biggest issue not so much actuality (USC has received national safety awards).

Craziest thing to happen to me: ADX USC dance party was suddenly stopped and everyone hit the floor as gunshots rang out across the yard (literally) as police open-fired on a suspect (or something like that). We had to stay down for a good 30minutes.

2. Financial Aid:

UCLA: (B) Like any major University, LA offers a good variety of scholarships to supplement the cost of attendance. UCLA costs about $26,000 (in state) if you include Tuition+Room+Board+Supplies. That given, it was hard to access the goodies and it was often buried somewhere in the administrative or counseling offices.

As an undergraduate, I paid somewhere around $1,800 out of pocket, total. Cal & Fed aid were tremendous and I received a $4K transfer scholarship that I renewed in year 2.

USC: (B) SC’ boasts in its Scholarships and Aid, probably because it’s so stinking expensive. Average Tuition+Room+Board+Supplies can put you at $48-52,000, so aid is a must and a large number of students are on it. USC pushes all of its scholarships out on a number of websites and through their administrative services, so if you miss them then thats truly your fault. I’d give them a higher score (B+ or A-) if it weren’t for the cost of attendance.

Master Students don’t get Cal or Fed aid. I was on all loans because I was stupid and applied late to those scholarships. Heck, I graduated from LA in June and was at SC in August. That was tough. I did pick up an outside Scholarship for $3K that was matched by SC. SC costs $1400 p/unit for me.

3. Greek Life:

UCLA: (B-) Greek life thrives at UCLA, but when you get a look at a real greek school, it’s weak. IFC and Panhellenic here at UCLA is very constricting from my general view, and thats not the fault of the student leaders but rather the administrations protocols. It makes it very difficult for Fraternities like mine (a Christian one) to grow, but thankfully we have friends in the administration. The big houses are Beta Theta Pi, ZBT, SigEp, SigNu, and PiKap. For the ladies, rush is hard-core, and the houses are beautiful (and large). The big houses for them are Alpha Phi, KKG, and DG. Greek life is 10% of the school (25K Undergrads, 12K Grads). The Sororities are on the other side of campus, making Friday mornings very awkward and Thursday nights fairly tamed on the regular. 

I loved doing Thursday Night BBQ Ministry with AGO. My Jr. year it was at its peak as was much of Greek Life thursdays. I thoroughly loved my time with Alpha ADX and AGO. I am very biased when it comes to these two as I pledged for and with them at my side and am the Alpha boys Chapter Advisor. I had 2 Lil bros who rocked and 1 lil sis who I adore.

USC: (A+) I honestly think SC can use some strictness on Greek Life though my AGO brothers say it’s already annoyingly strict. Greek life here is huge (20-25% of the population - 16K Undergrads, 18K Grads). It’s a party every night, and Thursdays are loud. Fraternities and Sororities are right next to each other so… yeah. There is tons of USC money flowing through these groups because, my goodness, there are actual stages for raves at these places. Its great and fun, but unfortunately not clean nor safe (for the ladies). I had a window to the street on my last year and have had heard some of the strangest, sad and funniest conversations. Advice, stay away from Kappa Sig (lol) especially as a female.

I love my Pi and Epsilon (AGO and ADX respective chapters). My time with Pi was great! Due to my busy nature, I didn’t get to know them very well but had a few great friends. My ADX sisters at USC were great! Had some awesome times and got to know them well. I now have 3 Lil sisters from the Kappa Class - they sassy.

4. Christian Community:

UCLA: (B-) My time with LA Christian life is limited to AGO truly. I joined Intervarsity early but found it lacking in “solid food.” Everything was milk. Great people, but I wasn’t being fed. I did my growing with my brothers. My brothers were mainly involved in Cru. They found Cru to be exhaustively “clique-y.” If you did not do everything with them, then you were not recognized very well, sadly. Last thing is I didn’t like the inclusive-exclusive nature of the Asian ministries on campus. Many Asian groups looked upon AGO and ADX as something to avoid (ough). I am a big fan of Greek Crossing (Christian Greek ministry). There are 3 great outside Churches just off campus: UBC, Shoreline (name changed) and Lutheran (on Gayley). AGO is growing (At about 22) and ADX is large (40+).

USC: (B+) This is mainly from my time in SLA (South LA) a small church that operates in the USC Community. Great fellowship that is very welcoming and very very community oriented. I love it. As far as IV and Cru are concerned, I am very limited in knowledge but I do know a few. Cru can still be “clique-y” so I hear but they have great people and they operate much like a very inviting Fraternity; running the “Mag-house” off campus. Navigators is big at USC and from what I can tell, has many great people within it. The USC Christian Community is larger (lots of good people from out of state looking for community) and more diverse. USC AGO and ADX are large (40s and 50s respectively).

5. Location:

UCLA: (A) Close to Santa Monica’s Beaches and nestled between Bel Aire, Brentwood, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills; really its just so nice being here. Close enough to DTLA for good internships and right in the hub of Santa Monica’s booming “silicon valley.” The Valley is up the 405, and Hollywood is nearby too! One big minus is the congestion; Sunset is a great road but hard to navigate in traffic. The 405 sucks and prohibits lots of free mobility dependent on timing.

USC: (B-) What? Yeah, it stinks being in South LA in that it’s not as pretty and crime sucks, but truly the location is great for a growing powerful institution like USC. Right near DTLA, internships are abundant and easy to access. The 110 and 10 are very close, providing a means to get mobile in any direction (traffic permitting). While the neighborhood aint great, it has allowed USC students to create amazing programs for the low income residents that focus on academics and tutoring among other things. The Beach still isn’t too far off. In fact, everything seems relatively close being smack dab in the middle of LA. The negative is the safety issue, again.

6. Diversity:

UCLA: (B-) Being a state school, most everyone is from California. There are a lot of asians (by ethnicity), and whites, which is normal for most American universities I suppose.

I knew a total of… 0 black people. Seriously, what the heck? Oh wait, I knew one who lived at AGO as a boarder. Phew!

USC: (A+) USC is America’s top school for international students. Crazy.  Best of all though is the amount of people you get to know from out of state (as undergrads) whereas there is no change in costs for the school as an out of stater (if you aint counting plane tickets). There are also students from every state in the US.

I know at least 9 people from China who are in my program, though mostly as acquaintances. I know 5-7 people from Texas (I love Texas), 3 from Washington, 1 from Oregon, Hawaii… you get the point. These are people I know very well, not just “know of.” I think that is way fun! Plus you have someone you know when you travel.

7. Alumni Network:

UCLA: (B-) When it comes to networking… what? The Alumni network at LA is available, and pretty established but sort of hard to get to. It very much seems like you have to pay your way through it if you do not have a guide. UCLA Alumni do like their fellows in the workforce, that being said, but so do many other schools. 

I was never introduced to networking or at UCLA nor did I find it useful. Some of my good friends did pick it up and it has worked very well for them. AGO Alumni networking outpaces the school from my experience though I am sure its the opposite for those “in” it.

USC: (A+) USC acts as if it invented the networking game. Networking is a very huge part of USC and they very much do take care of their “brethren.” I say this “family” related word as the “Trojan Family” is very much a living thing at USC and they do make you feel a part of it. 

USC Alumni Networks are divided regionally (and by Cities) and often get together for networking. It’s great! Getting involved as an alumni is very easy and free. For my MPA program, business cards were an expectation because networking was too. I have a friend going to grad school at Boston College and the Boston USC Alumni Network will be getting together to watch USC vs. BC when they play next year. 

8. Athletics:

UCLA: (A) LA leads every program in the nation when it comes to overall NCAA Team Championships. That’s incredible! UCLA seems to produce a Champion in some sport almost every year. Basketball is king for UCLA, holding the most NCAA Championships especially under the legend, Coach Wooden. The Gymnastics team has been huge recently among their many talented teams.

I went to 1 Basketball game and 1 Football game (vs. USC). I… I did root for SC…what can I say, My blood ran red since the day I was born. I also attended 1 UCLA track game (to watch a USC long distance runner and Fraternity brother).

USC: (A) SC leads every program in the nation when it comes to Mens Team NCAA Championships and Individual Championships. SC is 3rd in overall Team Championships (to UCLA and Stanford). This bodes well for USC, especially when it comes to Olympic athletes, producing more medalist, gold medals etc than any program in the nation. Of Course, Football is the key sport as it is one of the few universities in the nation to profit from its Football program. SC is king in Baseball (though not recently) boasting 12 College World Series, huge in track and tops in Mens Water Polo (4-peat National Champs) and Women’s Water-Polo.

I went to more USC FB games than I did UCLA FB games, while still a Bruin. I have been a SC fan before I knew what college was, and an USC fan immediately after discovering the college in 4th grade (and visiting it in 7th). I have attended about 20 SC home games, and 3 USC baseball games.

9. People:

UCLA (A-): The minus is only due to the lack of diversity. UCLA people are fun and tend to be studious. They love their basketball team and hope and pray their football team is good. As far as looks are concerned (wasn’t looking of course) they’re largely Californians and so… yeah, Californians are pretty good looking :).

Greek Life tends to be white save for the fair amount of minority and special interest fraternities and sororities. People tend to be a lot more chill and soft in approach.

USC (A-): The minus is due to attitude. There are actually a lot of great people at USC. The diversity rocks though it may take a bite into the “looks” category a bit, it also adds some so it evens out. There are a good amount of wealthy people (as you can imagine) and this is where the attitude I dislike comes from…Thankfully, the fair amount of conservatives and Christians with money levels out the snobs. People tend to dress more professional - probably due to the high number of graduate students and wealthy families.

Greek life IS white. White with money. The minority and special interest groups and fraternities exist but I have no idea where they are. People here are a bit more direct in approach which took me some time to get used to. USC people have a “go get them” attitude that is fostered by their upbringing and bolstered by the schools very strong network and culture.

10. Student Groups:

UCLA: (A-) With only 10% Greek life, LA makes up for it with a huge amount of social groups, interest clubs, and strong presence of university government. In fact, Bruin Walk can get fairly overwhelming. Lots of very liberal groups, lots of small Christian groups. Dorm life is strong, large and centralized away from campus which has its plus and minuses (far walk but easy to get to other colonies of housing).

Walk with headphones and shades on Bruin walk if you do not want to be badgered by flyers. 

USC: (B+) The question is not “what house are you in” but rather “are you an Independent?” Since Greek life rules at USC, it takes a bit away from regular social clubs on campus, but not too much. SC thrives with these groups. There are also quite a number of neighborhood impact groups (that focus on academics and tutoring) to non-SC communities. What it loses in size (quantity) it makes up for in quality. It is also necessary to consider that UCLA has 10K more undergraduates.

Avoid the 3 people on campus holding a clipboard and you’ll be fine :).

11. Student Life:

UCLA: (A) Great food, great amount of undergraduate friends to make and close community. Life “On the hill” is actually desired by those no longer eligible, in some aspects. Student groups are plentiful so pick as you wish; heck even the snow boarding club lives together.

USC: (A) While dorms aren’t as desired at USC like they are at LA, the housing outside USC can range from janky to swanky. There are some incredible housing areas off campus - some with Chic-fil-a and Chipotle on the ground floor or 5-Guys and pools on the roofs. On campus accessibility is so free and easy and there are so many opportunities provided in many ways.

12. Sports Culture:

UCLA: (B) A solid sports culture that revolves mainly around the basketball team. That given, it has been some time since that team has been good and the football team, which has found 1 year of success still did not win a bowl game. This doesn’t get Bruin’s down though, as they continually camp out for basketball tickets. How will next seasons fair, not sure but I expect a solid LA basketball turnout and high hopes in throw ball. UCLA, though, is fairly tame in its fervor for its top sport.

A constant expectation to be good in basketball and constant disappointment. Constant expectation to stink in football and a surprising love when things go well… the crowds come soon after a couple of solid wins. UCLA has a strong tailgating core at the Rosebowl - with a lil’something extra when USC walks into the bowl. There is always a lil’something extra.

USC: (A)The Football team reigns in the land of Troy. The fervor for SC Football is huge and downright cult-like. Though the student section is small compared to many other schools, it’s psychotically passionate. A huge boost to the sports culture is the TMB: Trojan marching band aka (TGMBITHOTU or The Greatest Marching Band in the History of the Universe - their actual nickname). The TMB has an epic following too… doing awesome things like playing in the fountain on a thursday night of finals, or playing up and down fraternity row in preparation for a big game, or playing on stage at coachella, with big bands (like System of a Down) on the field at halftime. These guys rock! The sports culture is also maintained by epic Olympic medaling success - at least 1 Gold since 1912. Lastly, the sports culture also has a huge social-media presence (see Lost Angeles Blog) and a large amount of anti-Trojan sentiment (propelling our own arrogant love for SC sports).

A constant expectation to get better in basketball but a sober reminder that there still is work to be done; going backwards means heads will roll. Football has an expectation of National Championship or bust; putting tons of pressure on the team and instilling a football attitude unseen in the West (outside of Oregon of late). Hopes have been sobered for the Trojans of late with much blame falling on the coach Lane Kiffin. An LSU alumni once said “Ya’ll tailgate as hard as us!” You can take that to the bank! Pre-game tailgating is a gigantic open-air market on campus that is a sea of Cardinal from Jefferson to the gates of the Coliseum; there is nothing like it. One time, we beat LA 50-0. Epic.


13. Volunteer / Leadership Opportunities:

UCLA: (B) As stated before, UCLA tends to bury many of its programs and their notoriety (unintentionally). Great talks, seminars, workshops, are not declared a clearly via email (by program) and one must search out how to go about obtaining internship or volunteer opportunities. Of course it should take effort on the students behalf but it is great to see what is available rather than discover what was available.

I volunteered in the Culver City area housing projects with an UCLA AGO brother and was a part of the huge bus-out volunteer program (one day per year).

USC: (A+) I can not stress enough to enormous amount of programs that are geared toward volunteering and bettering the community. Unlike LA, they tend to be boasted about by the schools administration and are easier to find (though some are more prominent than others). The Leadership Opportunities are incredible at USC. I have found myself sitting in front of people like John McCain, Schwarzennagar, Secretaries, City Managers and Controllers, CEOs and Presidents on many occasions, with the opportunity for face time and involvement. 

I did not volunteer but I did have many opportunities for leadership, even bonding with the California Secretary of Veterans Affairs or shaking hands with General David Petraeus. 


14. Professors: 

UCLA: (A-) Premier Professors. I had a professor working for the CIA. One who was so busy he gave us a tele-conference lecture aboard a ship in Qatar and was later on CNN. Another professor I had fought with Israel in 1948. The Professors at UCLA are top-notch in their field of research and simply brilliant in many ways. What I dislike about these people is how unavailable they are to their students. As research oriented, they are always busy and seems to be burned out by the time office hours come around, if they made themselves available.

Once I had a professor who wanted his TA to write recommendation letters and then have him sign it.

USC: (B+) USC has great professors and seems to be garnering new world leading professors on a weekly basis. That given, they are not all nationally or world-reknown, therefore hurting USC’s overall ranking. That said, I love this about them. Many of the professors I have had are full-time or part-time business owners or leaders in their work field. They give us great insight into the real world and bring in amazing speakers on their behalf. They also happen to be very available in office hours or in meeting for lunch somewhere off-campus near their work. They also happened to be very willing to help for work, references and letters of recommendations. I much prefer an available and helpful professor than one who is merely a nobel prize winner that speaks and disappears.

Once I had a professor who put me on a list to sit at a small table with leaders in the California government for a Q&A, because he thought it would benefit me and my interests.

15. Academics Programs / Administration:

UCLA: (A) UCLA was a great education. Great professors and great knowledge. What keeps me from giving LA the A+ is the lack of availability and interest by too many professors. It is also the seemingly difficult nature of getting into the nitty-gritty and goodies that UCLA like those found in the career offices or counseling services. You have to search these things out rather than be introduced to you or pushed to you. Admin was very “legalistic” and paperwork oriented, much like a pharmacy - it could very much become a “take a number” system of waiting and fighting. Programs were excellent but in many ways limited in comparison to USC.

I attended 1 workshop at the USC Career Center. I also discovered where it was on that same day, near finals of my senior year. Was a very cool workshop mind you.

USC: (A+) SC’s programs were very much customizable. Certain scholarships and programs allowed for one to mix and match their interest, creating specializations and building strong relationships with Administration. Really, a relationship with administration! That is odd for me as I came to SC with the UCLA mindset. Sol Price had its own career center office that was way too willing (seemingly) to give you attention. Undergrads at USC were assigned to Schools (like Marshall or Sol Price) as opposed to the University, giving them a focused interest and area of access (if need be). Working to get items and paperwork done in the offices were often a breeze, not a run around.

My fiancé needed 60 units to graduate (I might be off a bit). She took a course that gave her 1 extra unit more than necessary ($1400 more than you need). In talking with Administration, they simply said “ah! Don’t worry about that… we’ll ignore the 1 extra unit cost.” Things like that don’t happen just anywhere.

16. School Beauty / Facilities:

UCLA: (A+) When it comes to Campus, UCLA’s is gorgeous. Lots of green space and gorgeous buildings (at least on the north side). The green space is key as it allows for…well, greenery. Red brick buildings, especially Royce and Powell are the crown jewels. While UCLA hills suck to walk across, but they are the reason there is so much green space (kind of weird building a building into a hill - see Boelter Hall). I love the Wooden Center - great gym! I hate the awkward set up of the Student Center (dining) and Book Store. 

Love the gym, but the track is akwardly not a 400m oval.

USC: (B+) USC’s red brick buildings are comparable to UCLA’s. Gorgeous but unique. Doheny is the crown jewel of SC’s Campus but the new Film School is one heck of a good looking spot on campus. The new buildings on campus are also looking great too. A lot smaller in acres and lacking hills, USC suffers a lack of green space, therefore it also has a 2nd campus for Health Sciences; with a few other offices like one for Marine Biology on Catalina Island. The new University Village will bump it to an A/A+. The Gym stinks at USC. I feel like they are allowing it to get older as they clear up projects nearby then are looking to renovate it. Consider CSUN’s new gym and you’d never want to go back to the Lyons Center. The Student (Campus) Center/Book Store are very nice. The Campus Center (Ronad Tutor) is very much the place to go on campus, anchored by the old Student Union and sort of awkwardly built bookstore (which is really nice inside).

Very awesome IM fields (Cromwell and the one near the new Athletics building). Hate the Lyon’s Center but it is adequate.


17. Dinning (In & Around Campus):

UCLA: (A+) The Hill has some glorious dinning halls, at least when I was there. Very good dinning hall food rated top among universities. Sometimes, it become too green and asian fusion but very good overall. Off campus, there is good sushi and spots to eat while doing your homework (college town feel). Not too many fast food joints available, which is partly good and bad. Fat Sals is a boss! Chipotle and In-N-Out are the staples.

They’re getting a Chic-fil-A and a Boiling Crab. My lord, this is glorious. Oh and being close to Santa Monica and Hollywood is a bonus.

USC: (A) Off Campus food makes up for what I hear is marginal dinning hall food at best. It depends on what you try and who you hear it from but dinning hall SC food doesn’t get rewards. Off campus, there is no shortage of food. Very few sit down classy places but plenty to eat, indeed. The new Custom burger is a bonus, there is also 5-Guys, Chipotle, Chic, 2 non-chain pizza places, and 4 fast food places not counting 3 subways. Truly, you cannot starve around USC, there is tons of food. What doesn’t get USC the A+ is the lack of awesomeness on campus food. That said, I never tried the dinning hall food.

In-N-out is too far, but at least Fat Sals is planning on making a food truck for SC. Oh wait, I forgot to talk about USC’s epic food truck love. We have 2 on campus spots for food trucks (5 days a week alternating). A classic is Armando’s off McClintock with food items named after athletes. Being close to DTLA is a bonus (Yardhouse and the LA Live area is good). There is also a hidden gem off the 110 2 blocks from the USC Credit Union called Chichen Itza in the Paloma Restaurant. Trust me.

18. Getting around:

UCLA: (B+)Walk! Really, walk. Hills not only make it dangerous to ride bikes (or boards especially down bruin walk) but they become impossible to ride once you hit the stairs (going up especially). You can take a CSO van but its on a set route that is often difficult to get to, and not many people have their numbers. To get out of UCLA, driving is a must, it’s LA! Getting the airport is a breeze if you don’t want to take your car thanks to FlyAway! 405 is a clogged artery and while you can drive to the 10, it will take a bit.

I had some crazy killer calfs walking from Hedrick Summit to Dodd. In fact, calves a vital for bruins.

USC: (A-) Bike! Flat school makes for easy biking and long boarding. Everyone has a bike, just don’t ride it across certain streets; the courteous campaign is beyond annoying (and expensive). if you need to get around, call Campus Cruiser, which serves SC basically 24/7, picking up groups or single persons in cars or vans anywhere in a mile of campus. It’s great especially for the ladies or anyone with expensive equipment walking or riding at night. Quick access to 110 and 10 is great (though the flow or traffic depends on timing).

I noticed big calfs are replaced in favor of Quads: bikes are the method of transportation in these parts. I still walked.

19. School Pride:

UCLA: (A) UCLA is the No. 2 Public School in the United States. Ranked very high on national ranking and world rankings from many different lists, UCLA is prestigious and desirable, netting 100,000 applicants for enrollment last year! Known world-wide, UCLA is a premier first tier university and looks to remain that way for some time… that given, it may be at the expense of state-wide student access as the cost of attendance will ride as the state continues to battle economic issues. School pride is a personal thing.

UCLA is unmistakable anywhere in the world as the great Los Angeles based University of California. I left feeling like UCLA was happy to have me graduate so it can bring in the next batch and the only way it wanted to associate with me is if I offered money soon after (as it requested monthly) or I became a success for which to take credit for.

USC: (A+) Established in 1880. USC very much began before LA was truly a destination city. USC is gaining momentum as premier first tier university, surpassing its rival UCLA on US News and World Reports and No. 1 among international student attendance. USC has continually grown in size, and in academic strength, garnering a world class Lab (from UCLA) and a CalTech and Harvard Professor as of late, not to mention its physical growth with the new University Village project set to be complete in 3 years. USC’s $6B endowment campaign looks to help establish it as an academic power equal to that of Stanford (overall) though it boasts many Top ranked graduate programs already. USC’s Alumni network sustains its pride, alongside its athletics and family-oriented attitude. School pride is a must among Trojans.

"V" sign (or Peace Sign) for Victory and "Fight On" are universally known as USC across the world - boasting alumni in 130 nations. I left USC feeling like USC was waiting for me to become a success it knew it had all along. It expects me to give back because it knows It was an instrumental part of my career, not because I owed it anything.

20. Final Scores: GPA

UCLA: 3.47
USC: 3.69

Final Word: I tell everyone, that knowing what I know now; knowing the people I would run into and the experiences I would have, I would choose to go to UCLA every time, despite my die-hard USC Trojan heart. I met my best friends and brothers at UCLA. My time and faith were moldered there. My experience was phenomenal! I would still root for SC and would still have a strong desire to go to SC for my Masters while there but I would go back to LA to finish my BA 10/10 opportunities knowing what I know now.

I absolutely loved my time at USC. MPA was not exactly what I had in mind, but I know it’s what God had planned for me. This program exceeded my expectation and was just simply an amazing experience. I would do this again as well! My experience at USC was a bit different though; I was not active and was fully devoted to school and my Masters. Yes this could effect some of my scores but I feel like I represented them well.

So there you have it ya’ll.

Keep true Bruins, and Fight on Trojans, Fight on.

NewsWeekly: May 7, 2013

  1. Tolerance: The New American Religion

    A fantastic blog entry from the Christian Post about the usurpation of  Tolerance in American Society. Eddie Williams has classified Tolerance as the new religion of American Society in the same way that Dennis Prager classifies Liberalism (as the most Dynamic religion in the world).

    Key Points: 
    - Christians are recoiling from the faith in exchange for reputation and popularity or money.
    - Homosexuality is not a Chief sin, it is just one of many sexual sins. 
    - The problem is not sin - that has been defeated on the Cross - it is instead Repentance vs. Unrepentance. Tolerance doesn’t teach this.

  2. George Bush is Smarter Than You

    Fun and short read concerning our former President who has been given a very bad reputation. I want to share this one because it is a strong example of how media frames issues and personalities based on stereotype and pure “dislike.” It’s also a insightful.

  3. Imagining how Planned Parenthood would respond to Kermit Gosnell

    A very concise and sarcastic fictional ‘response’ by Planned Parenhood to the current case against abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell. Of course, PP did not write this. The Gosnell story is apparently a non-issue for national media (outside of FOX) as none of the media is covering the story despite this being a national case concerning the murder of 7 infants. Google it.

  4. The ‘new legalism’: Anthony Bradley

    You ever feel like you are ‘not a real Christian” if you were not off in Africa trying to save starving children from diseases like Malaria and Aids? This is what Mr. Bradley is getting at in the idea that as a Christian, you must be extra-Ordinary. This idea, while noble, is false. It emphasizes what you HAVE to do rather than what God HAS done in you already. An interesting look on how the ‘missional’ aspect of Christianity is becoming, in itself, very legalistic.

     ”…the current trend of young Christians leaving the church after age 15 at a rate of 60 percent.”

  5. The Big Same Sex Marriage Lie

    “We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” - President Obama

    This article examines why redefining marriage is an absolute failure, and not to mention, a slippery-slope that even the Left acknowledges will happen when, and if, it is done. Short, simple and to the point.

  6. A Boy’s Life with Unisex Scouts

    "He notes with wry irritation that Luke’s teachers are apt to wag their fingers at perfectly innocent things, like cupcakes in a lunchbox, but will cheer when a boy publicizes his entry into the bizarre and self-destructive."

    The absolutely beautifully written piece by Anthony Esolen, Professor of English at Providence College, Rhode Island. Wax poetic, Anthony discusses the uncontroversial nature of what it is to be a man, and why it matters. He slowly but clearly points to the current issue facing the Boy Scouts of accepting homosexuality and other destructive ideologies into their leadership ranks. He briefly mentions that this was done in Canada, much to the detriment of the Boy Scouts association up north, which has all but completely been destroyed since its opening up and coming out against the moral upon which it was once built. This is a tremendous piece! 

Moving to a new blog.

In Case you missed it. I am moving this blog to a new URL and deleting this one FO’Evah!

This one will be highly organized, 100% originals (no-reblogging), more in-depth and stuff…

So, Follow me there! First post comes out today, and just so you know. It will take about 1 or 2 Months to update the originals on POE and then move them to P4L. 

Peace!