bobmarley1

I've actually seen many many job postings looking for people with a PhD in Data Science which is truly mindblowing because there are only 2-3 such programs in the Country and most of them just started so none of their students are even on the job market yet.

That's rather sad considering the degree isn't going to say Online and Georgia Tech is top 10 in the world in Computer Science and online or not that credential carries real weight for people in the know.

Well not according to the people who constantly talk about Supply and Demand. If there's a massive supply shortage as implied there ought to be a corresponding increase in Compensation no?

Yet it still has a massive first mover advantage.

Or you know maybe investors have smartened up and are unwilling to give money to the 20th "Uber for X" idea from some Stanford bros.

Edit: Seems I hurt the feelings of Silicon Valley brogrammers selling their Uber for Dog Grooming with Blockchain AI startups lol.

>Harvard's legal argument isn't that they are racially discriminating and that it's legal. They know it's not.

Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Sorry but that doesn't really have bearing on the Harvard case, the decision upheld that scoring systems and quotas are unconstitutional.

Of course you seem to be ignoring Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978 that ruled that race could be used as a factor in admissions but struck down quotas.

In fact Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Hmm sounds like Harvard's argument. So the law is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.

It's actually not at all clear if it's legal hence the court battle. In fact AA is literally legalized discrimination that benefits Minorities so you really don't know what you are talking about.

Not sure how this could be downvoted. It's factually accurate. FB, Snap and Insta astroturfers must be out in force.

Yeah totally, the Snap and Facebook short sellers are astroturfing anti social media bias duuuude.

If you don't see how spending all day on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram could be affecting your mental health then obviously you won't understand everyone else's concerns and distaste for Social Media.

The data is pretty clear and teenage anxiety, depression etc are off the charts and can be directly attributed to Social Media. The problems are real.

Seriously? Find me the politicians who haven't accepted campaign donations(bribes) from insurance or healthcare companies. Good Luck.

Lolwat the entire purpose of Arbitration is to give a massive advantage to corporations.

Like in Education the glut of "Administrators" is certainly not helping.

Millions of people no doubt.