We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If I were in charge of hiring for a large -- or even a small -- company, I would definitely not hire a person who majored in "Women's Studies," or in fact any person who majored in an academic area designated as "Studies" [i.e., Women's Studies, Gender Studies, African Studies, etc., etc., etc.] since almost without exception these courses don't contain objective facts and information about the areas designated, but are instead generally a list of grievances which the instructors have against a target group which the "Studies" course is supposed to explain away. We used to call these "pipe courses" in my youth, because all that was necessary to pass the courses with good grades was to parrot back to the instructor his own prejudices and grievances.
Only on Tuesday's and if it was raining.
I would give them some consideration if they knew their multiplication tables, state capitols and could divide longhand.
Hell, who am I kidding. If the babe was hot, I'd give her the job. I'm such a morals slut.
I'd hire somebody in a heartbeat who majored in one of the victim studies programs, primarily as a means of appeasing the quota mongers I work with because, quite frankly, quota mongers are intoxicated with that kind of nonsense the way cats are drunk on catnip.
I'd then make sure to keep them away from the sharp objects and anything of any importance. They tend to be very good at stretching out worthless make work projects into multi-year endeavors. Again, not a good thing but it keeps a whole little sect where I work fully occupied with meaningless foolishness, and out of the way of the people who have to get the work done for the clients.
It's a perverse survival tactic, I guess, but the Romans kept the empire and the Republic alive with bread and circuses, right, so I'm not above this sort of thing.
I've been reading about the New NASA. If I worked there, I guess I'd wanted to hire people with backgrounds in "engineering studies." They could undertake multiyear projects investigating the international justice implications of the white male hegemony in the space program. That's the kind of thing you can really count on getting funding for.
Bolden, of course, is a perfectly empty-headed hack, but some NASA enthusiasts insist that the new Chief Technology Officer, Bobby Braun, is really going to be coming up with some exciting technological initiatives. That could be, but the language he uses in public is disquieting. He wants to "leverage synergies," for instance. "This investment also will allow NASA to participate in the development of technological solutions addressing broader national needs in energy, weather and climate, Earth science, health and wellness, and national security." He'll develop "missions of increasing complexity to understand the Earth, our solar system, and the universe."