Affirmative Action Explained

Shwa · January 4, 2011

Umm, the child of a white and an Asian is half and half, obviously. How they choose to identify themselves is up to them. Generally, they WOULD qualify for benefiting from affirmative action as a "visible minority", if they chose to do so.

"...if they chose to do so."

Now you're getting it.

charter.rights · January 4, 2011

"...if they chose to do so."

Now you're getting it.

That pretty much says it all...

Bonam · January 4, 2011

"...if they chose to do so."

Now you're getting it.

Which would be fine if the (male) child of two Caucasians had the same choice, which they do not.

charter.rights · January 4, 2011

Which would be fine if the (male) child of two Caucasians had the same choice, which they do not.

But he does have a choice. He gets to compete against others for the other 85% of the jobs.

jbg · January 4, 2011

Interestingly, despite the lack of any affirmative action programs for Jews in Russia to right these past injustices, and in fact a continuation of pervasive antisemitism in Russia, they do better for themselves on average than non-Jewish Russians do.

Of course, with the aid of strapping explosives to their children to murder people at random commit heroic acts.

jbg · January 4, 2011

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

You'll see I rarely follow that advice. My posts are generally obscenity and insult-laced.

charter.rights · January 4, 2011

Of course, with the aid of strapping explosives to their children to murder people at random commit heroic acts.

Right - the bastards - resorting to low tech welfare. Too bad they didn't have the luxury of using American made helicopters with American made missiles to just blast the crap out of them, right?

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2011

Right - the bastards - resorting to low tech welfare. Too bad they didn't have the luxury of using American made helicopters with American made missiles to just blast the crap out of them, right?

Indeed....and don't forget the fine Face Gear transmissions made for those helicopter gunships by Northstar Canada!

http://www.helihub.com/2010/05/05/northstar-aerospace-wins-53m-apache-modernization-contract/

jbg · January 4, 2011

Right - the bastards - resorting to low tech welfare. Too bad they didn't have the luxury of using American made helicopters with American made missiles to just blast the crap out of them, right?

Obviously your eyes didn't read up to the post I was responding to. My point was that the Russian Jews have resorted to work effort, not slaughter, in response to discrimination.

kimmy · January 4, 2011

Not sure if it is representative, but it was pretty easy to find.

What was your honest opinion of it? Did you present it here because you felt like it made a strong case, or because it was the first thing you found?

I think you might be misreading the author - she is saying that their study - among others - contradicts a "widely-held" view. She is not saying that is her view, and in fact her study here contradicts that view:

Her argument is that the "widely-held view" is contradicted by the evidence of her study.

The only evidence that the author presents to support the claim that this contradiction exists, is the fact that a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees than non-visible minorities.

But that piece of evidence is not adequate to substantiate her claim, for reasons I already explained.

I am not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here.

If I told you that 2 of the 5 Smith kids have university degrees, but only 1 of the 5 Johnson kids have university degrees, could you use that information to make reasonable assumptions about the employment rates and average incomes of the Smith kids and the Johnson kids? Ms Tran thinks she can. Using her logic, one would conclude that with a considerable advantage in university degrees, the Smith kids should obviously have a higher employment rate and higher incomes.

But it's ridiculous to make that sort of assumption when we know absolutely nothing about the remaining 70% of people we're talking about. The only way you could proceed is to *assume* that the 70% of the people you don't know anything about are all equal. But if 3 of the Johnson kids have tech-school diplomas or trades tickets, while two of the Smith kids are grade-10 drop-outs, that assumption gives you completely wrong results.

In short, my point is that Ms Tran has drastically overplayed her hand. The statistic about rates of university education doesn't come close to making the points she wishes it did. As a result, the argument she wishes to base on this shaky foundation-- that visible minorities should be doing better than non-visible minorities-- does not stand up.

When you say, "Canadian born white men" you are referring to Canadian born non-visible-minorities right?

Well, the primary thrust of Ms Tran's article is statistics that deal with males, for reasons Ms Tran herself explains. So I did mean "men".

And the small number of non-white people who have been lumped in with "non-visible minorities" leaves the distinction between "non-visibile minority" and "white" to be statistically pretty minimal, and not a big issue as a result.

Notwithstanding that the bar for Canadian born non-visible-minorities includes - I would think - all age groups of that demographic, it also shows that the longer people are here the lower their unemployment rate. However, if you average all the bars for the unemployment rates for foreign born visible minorities, it comes out to 6.26% which is more or less equal to the unemployment rate of Canadian born non-visible minorities.

An observation that appears to further undermine Ms Tran's case, and that of those who argue the necessity of affirmative action (at least in regard to visible minorities).

I have never met a Canadian affirmative action champion refer to race as a factor, have you? If you have, were there enough of them to convince you that all affirmative action processes refer to race as a factor?

I don't actually know. However, the idea that affirmative action is needed to combat racial discrimination is at the heart of Ms Tran's paper, and it's at the heart of many arguments in favor of affirmative action, whether the proponents wish to use the word "race" or whether they choose to to tip-toe around it.

I've never heard a proponent of affirmative action who supported it for women and for the disabled, but opposed its use for "visible minorities".

The author's emphasis is on 'lack of,' not 'absence of' as you saying. So, should previous work experience outside of Canada be discounted?

How would you rate the qualifications of an Indian electrician? Would he know anything about Canadian electrical codes? How would you verify the work experience of a Chinese machinist? It might be pretty tough to speak to his supervisor, or find out anything about his work history or his work habits. How can you determine if a graduate of the Kuala Lampur Institute of Technology electronics technology program has the same qualifications as a graduate of the BC Institute of Technology electronics technology program?

I don't discount it out of hand, but if an employer can't verify it or can't determine its relevance to the job he's looking to fill, I don't expect him to just take it on faith either.

-k

Shwa · January 4, 2011

What was your honest opinion of it? Did you present it here because you felt like it made a strong case, or because it was the first thing you found?

I presented it to the other poster as a sample of something that shows that affirmative action is not 'institutionalized racism' but asked him to point out the racism in the piece. As an overall example, it is typical of Stats Can scholarship I think - commentary from a social science POV. As social science, there is room for discussion. However, it is a piece aimed for an audience of a particular type - the bureaucrat or the casual interest. I don't beleive it isn't a full dissertation of the numbers.

The only evidence that the author presents to support the claim that this contradiction exists, is the fact that a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees than non-visible minorities.
But that piece of evidence is not adequate to substantiate her claim, for reasons I already explained.

"Other studies have made similar observations." She then presents footnotes where you can do further digging if you wish.

If I told you that 2 of the 5 Smith kids have university degrees, but only 1 of the 5 Johnson kids have university degrees, could you use that information to make reasonable assumptions about the employment rates and average incomes of the Smith kids and the Johnson kids? Ms Tran thinks she can. Using her logic, one would conclude that with a considerable advantage in university degrees, the Smith kids should obviously have a higher employment rate and higher incomes.
But it's ridiculous to make that sort of assumption when we know absolutely nothing about the remaining 70% of people we're talking about. The only way you could proceed is to *assume* that the 70% of the people you don't know anything about are all equal. But if 3 of the Johnson kids have tech-school diplomas or trades tickets, while two of the Smith kids are grade-10 drop-outs, that assumption gives you completely wrong results.

In short, my point is that Ms Tran has drastically overplayed her hand. The statistic about rates of university education doesn't come close to making the points she wishes it did. As a result, the argument she wishes to base on this shaky foundation-- that visible minorities should be doing better than non-visible minorities-- does not stand up.

But again, to her is a "widely-held view" that doesn't stand up according to this and "other studies." I don't think it is her personal view that university degrees necessarily confer employment gains so she says that more "...research needs to be done to pinpoint the causes of the gaps in labour market outcomes..."

Well, the primary thrust of Ms Tran's article is statistics that deal with males, for reasons Ms Tran herself explains. So I did mean "men".

"Foreign-born visible minority women go from first to last in employment rates"

And the small number of non-white people who have been lumped in with "non-visible minorities" leaves the distinction between "non-visibile minority" and "white" to be statistically pretty minimal, and not a big issue as a result.

Do you have a source for this "satistically pretty minimal" statement that you conclude is "not a big issue?" Because when we are talking "race" it is a pretty big issue.

An observation that appears to further undermine Ms Tran's case, and that of those who argue the necessity of affirmative action (at least in regard to visible minorities).

Her case appears to be based on the rates of employability for recent immigrants, which she notes shows up as "gaps in labour market outcomes." She says, "The gap in labour market outcomes for foreign-born visible minorities may be related to incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment." But then goes on to say that more research is needed.

I don't actually know. However, the idea that affirmative action is needed to combat racial discrimination is at the heart of Ms Tran's paper, and it's at the heart of many arguments in favor of affirmative action, whether the proponents wish to use the word "race" or whether they choose to to tip-toe around it.
I've never heard a proponent of affirmative action who supported it for women and for the disabled, but opposed its use for "visible minorities".

The quarrel isn't whether affirmative action is designed to combat racial discrimination, there is no need to tip-toe around that fact at all. However, it does not necessarily follow that affirmative action is itself is "institutionalized racism" or is itself, racist.

How would you rate the qualifications of an Indian electrician? Would he know anything about Canadian electrical codes? How would you verify the work experience of a Chinese machinist? It might be pretty tough to speak to his supervisor, or find out anything about his work history or his work habits. How can you determine if a graduate of the Kuala Lampur Institute of Technology electronics technology program has the same qualifications as a graduate of the BC Institute of Technology electronics technology program?
I don't discount it out of hand, but if an employer can't verify it or can't determine its relevance to the job he's looking to fill, I don't expect him to just take it on faith either.

Neither do I. However, there is testing available to verify claims, I would hope. This is a really tough and controversial issue and in some quarters people want to willy-nilly accept foreign education credentials as a one-to-one equal to Canada. I have a problem with that, as I have a problem with work experience outside of Canada being thought of somehow equating to Canadian experience. If there were International Standards and international standards of verificiation, then I suspect that might counteract the requirement for faith.

Shwa · January 4, 2011

There are several aspects to affirmative action: gender-based, race-based, etc. Clearly the main thrust of the discussion in this thread is race-based affirmative action. Of course, gender based discrimination is also wrong, just as race based discrimination is.

You need to stop dodging all over the place and trying to conflate the issue. The fact that whether one qualifies for affirmative action programs depends on one's racial origins cannot be disputed. You are just making the blind man's argument of "there is no race" which is nonsense to anyone who wants to have a serious discussion on this topic.

Me dodging? LOFL! Let's review:

If they do, then so will the inequalities created by the institutionalized racism of affirmative action today.

You're the one that made the claim son and then has continually failed to back it up with proof, evidence, citation, research, common sense or even a modicum of credibility. Heck, you bailed after a few simple questions about terms of reference.

If anyone has been dodging, it is you - and kind of clumsily too, I might add.

Saipan · January 4, 2011

Right - the bastards - resorting to low tech welfare.

Yep, and all the money ended up in Yasar Arafart's personal accounts

kimmy · January 5, 2011

I presented it to the other poster as a sample of something that shows that affirmative action is not 'institutionalized racism' but asked him to point out the racism in the piece. As an overall example, it is typical of Stats Can scholarship I think - commentary from a social science POV. As social science, there is room for discussion. However, it is a piece aimed for an audience of a particular type - the bureaucrat or the casual interest. I don't beleive it isn't a full dissertation of the numbers.

I share your view about the target audience...

"Other studies have made similar observations." She then presents footnotes where you can do further digging if you wish.

I'm not a big-time scholar of scholarly things, but I've always been under the impression that footnotes were intended to substantiate the information you present in your paper, not as an alternative to presenting the information.

But again, to her is a "widely-held view" that doesn't stand up according to this and "other studies." I don't think it is her personal view that university degrees necessarily confer employment gains so she says that more "...research needs to be done to pinpoint the causes of the gaps in labour market outcomes..."

Let's recap what she actually wrote:

The widening gap in labour market

performance occurred even though

visible minorities were more likely to

be university-educated than nonvisible

minorities and the educational

advantage of foreign-born visible

minorities over Canadian-born nonvisible

minorities had increased. This

pattern contradicts the widely-held

view that workers benefit from more

skills, education and experience and

are in greater demand.

This pattern contradicts the widely-held view that workers benefit from more skills, education and experience and are in greater demand.

What pattern? That pattern she had identified in the previous sentence:

The widening gap in labour market performance occurred even though visible minorities were more likely to be university-educated than nonvisible minorities and the educational advantage of foreign-born visible minorities over Canadian-born nonvisible minorities had increased.

Her argument boils down to "conventional wisdom says that skills and experience make you more employable, yet visible minorities have more university degrees and did worse in the job market! what up with that?"

She *then* goes on to mention "other studies": one that shows visible minorities earn less, and another that shows differences in employment, income, and education, and another that she summarizes thusly:

Another study found that
although visible minorities are more

likely to be university-educated than

non-visible minorities, this education

did not necessarily lead to better jobs

or higher income.

She continues to present it as some sort of contradiction that the presence of more university degrees in Group A doesn't translate into higher employment rates and more income for Group A.

And I've already illustrated why she's out to lunch.

"Foreign-born visible minority women go from first to last in employment rates"

Yes, she discusses women later in the story, but the case that makes up the primary thrust of her argument is based on the statistics specific to men. The reasons she doesn't make use of statistics regarding women is that womens' participation in the work force changed dramatically over the span of the statistics she has available, and because immigration sources shifted from countries where female participation is traditionally higher to countries where female participation is traditionally lower.

Do you have a source for this "satistically pretty minimal" statement that you conclude is "not a big issue?" Because when we are talking "race" it is a pretty big issue.

The ratio of the aboriginal population to the white population in this country is very small.

That aboriginals have been lumped in with "not a visible minority" might make the semantic argument that discrimination against "non-visible minorities" is not strictly discrimination against white people, but in practice it's pretty much the case, and aboriginals have their own equity programs and quotas anyway. I think we all recognize that Ms Tran isn't out to compare how "visible minorities" are doing in comparison to natives, and I think we all recognize that affirmative action supporters aren't worried that natives are taking jobs away from visible minorities.

Her case appears to be based on the rates of employability for recent immigrants, which she notes shows up as "gaps in labour market outcomes." She says, "The gap in labour market outcomes for foreign-born visible minorities may be related to incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment." But then goes on to say that more research is needed.

Sure, she says "more research is needed", but it's clear where her whole paper has been trying to lead the reader.

The quarrel isn't whether affirmative action is designed to combat racial discrimination, there is no need to tip-toe around that fact at all. However, it does not necessarily follow that affirmative action is itself is "institutionalized racism" or is itself, racist.

That aspect of things is far more semantics-oriented than I have any interest in pursuing. Personally, my view is that whether it's "racism" or not, it's clearly discrimination, and it's clear who'll be discriminated against in most cases.

Neither do I. However, there is testing available to verify claims, I would hope. This is a really tough and controversial issue and in some quarters people want to willy-nilly accept foreign education credentials as a one-to-one equal to Canada. I have a problem with that, as I have a problem with work experience outside of Canada being thought of somehow equating to Canadian experience. If there were International Standards and international standards of verificiation, then I suspect that might counteract the requirement for faith.

I'd be all in favor of efforts to assist recognition of credentials from overseas. Politicians talk about this sort of thing all the time, but it never seems to happen. It sounds as if professional associations (college of physicians, associations of engineers, etc) may be part of the reason for that.

-k

Bonam · January 5, 2011

That aspect of things is far more semantics-oriented than I have any interest in pursuing.

ditto

Bonam · January 5, 2011

I'd be all in favor of efforts to assist recognition of credentials from overseas. Politicians talk about this sort of thing all the time, but it never seems to happen. It sounds as if professional associations (college of physicians, associations of engineers, etc) may be part of the reason for that.

-k

Professional associations exist for a reason, and a good one at that. They protect the public from misconduct and negligence on the part of professionals, just as they protect their members. Perhaps even more importantly, they are a barrier against misrepresentation. If a self-regulating association of engineers did not exist, you'd have one of two possibilities: you would either need to be a "government certified" engineer, or anyone could claim to be an engineer and there would be no way to quickly discern whether he is really qualified as an engineer by commonly accepted standards.

More easily recognizing credentials from overseas, where they are of comparable quality to their Canadian equivalents, would certainly be a good idea, but it can be done within the existing framework of professional associations.

In any case, the difficulties that first generation immigrants (educated in other countries) face when trying to get jobs in Canada has nothing to do with affirmative action, which is supposed to help people who are disadvantaged due to prior discrimination against their group in Canada. It is not supposed to be a method for new immigrants to supplant Canadians in getting jobs. Or am I mistaken?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Bonam

Shwa · January 5, 2011

I share your view about the target audience...

I'm not a big-time scholar of scholarly things, but I've always been under the impression that footnotes were intended to substantiate the information you present in your paper, not as an alternative to presenting the information.

Note (typography) from Wikipedia

Let's recap what she actually wrote:
What pattern? That pattern she had identified in the previous sentence:

Her argument boils down to "conventional wisdom says that skills and experience make you more employable, yet visible minorities have more university degrees and did worse in the job market! what up with that?"

She *then* goes on to mention "other studies": one that shows visible minorities earn less, and another that shows differences in employment, income, and education, and another that she summarizes thusly:

I don't see it that way. Her argument boils down to "conventional wisdom says that skills and experience make you more employable" but the statistics presented here, and in other studies, do not show this to be true.

She continues to present it as some sort of contradiction that the presence of more university degrees in Group A doesn't translate into higher employment rates and more income for Group A.

She does present it as a contradiction - to the "widely held view."

And I've already illustrated why she's out to lunch.

Everyone should have lunch.

Yes, she discusses women later in the story, but the case that makes up the primary thrust of her argument is based on the statistics specific to men. The reasons she doesn't make use of statistics regarding women is that womens' participation in the work force changed dramatically over the span of the statistics she has available, and because immigration sources shifted from countries where female participation is traditionally higher to countries where female participation is traditionally lower.

Agreed. Plus I am thinking that the gathering of such statistics has also changed too.

The ratio of the aboriginal population to the white population in this country is very small.
That aboriginals have been lumped in with "not a visible minority" might make the semantic argument that discrimination against "non-visible minorities" is not strictly discrimination against white people, but in practice it's pretty much the case, and aboriginals have their own equity programs and quotas anyway. I think we all recognize that Ms Tran isn't out to compare how "visible minorities" are doing in comparison to natives, and I think we all recognize that affirmative action supporters aren't worried that natives are taking jobs away from visible minorities.

Aboriginals is not the only demographic group included in non-visible-minorities. BTW - what race are white people anyways? Does it include very light skinned Chinese-Canadians? How about the child of a Metis and Caucasion? Etc.

Sure, she says "more research is needed", but it's clear where her whole paper has been trying to lead the reader.

And this is relevant how? It's social science kimmy, not math.

That aspect of things is far more semantics-oriented than I have any interest in pursuing. Personally, my view is that whether it's "racism" or not, it's clearly discrimination, and it's clear who'll be discriminated against in most cases.

This is where we disagree and I think it is an important distinction to make with regard to affirmative action, at least in Canada. Discrimination is not always racism even though many people of varying shades find it convenient to say it is. In employment equity terms, there is no racism and I would think that if there were, it would have been successfully challenged in court - where sematics do count - as proof. Now, are you aware of any court challenges that have struck down employment equity programs as racist? I'm not. That isn't to say that indivdual cases haven't been examined, but not employment equity as a whole.

Is affirmative action discriminatory? Sure it is, it even gets a little mention in our constitution. But making the statement that affirmative action is "institutionalized racism" is out to lunch because one has to completely ignore or misunderstand the actual terms and processes of affirmative action.

I'd be all in favor of efforts to assist recognition of credentials from overseas. Politicians talk about this sort of thing all the time, but it never seems to happen. It sounds as if professional associations (college of physicians, associations of engineers, etc) may be part of the reason for that.

Now we're talking. If the associations of engineers may be a part of the reason for that, perhaps it is because associations of engineers are an example of "institutionalized racism." If we ignore their terms of reference and certification processes, I am sure we can easily come to that conclusion. I mean, visible minorities likely make up an insignificant statistic of associations of engineers, so they are mostly white, university educated males. Any argument against that is mere semantics.

Shwa · January 5, 2011

Professional associations exist for a reason, and a good one at that. They protect the public from misconduct and negligence on the part of professionals, just as they protect their members. Perhaps even more importantly, they are a barrier against misrepresentation. If a self-regulating association of engineers did not exist, you'd have one of two possibilities: you would either need to be a "government certified" engineer, or anyone could claim to be an engineer and there would be no way to quickly discern whether he is really qualified as an engineer by commonly accepted standards.

More easily recognizing credentials from overseas, where they are of comparable quality to their Canadian equivalents, would certainly be a good idea, but it can be done within the existing framework of professional associations.

In any case, the difficulties that first generation immigrants (educated in other countries) face when trying to get jobs in Canada has nothing to do with affirmative action, which is supposed to help people who are disadvantaged due to prior discrimination against their group in Canada. It is not supposed to be a method for new immigrants to supplant Canadians in getting jobs. Or am I mistaken?

Your mistaken.

Pliny · January 5, 2011

Yep, and all the money ended up in Yasar Arafart's personal accounts

You spelled his name wrong...."Yasar" has 2 "s"s.

charter.rights · January 5, 2011

Professional associations exist for a reason, and a good one at that. They protect the public from misconduct and negligence on the part of professionals, just as they protect their members.

I stopped the quote short because the rest of your statement falls apart with this correction:

The primary purpose of professional associations (which are mandated by statute) is to provide for a level of qualification and a code of conduct for its members. Education is high on the list of activities they engage in.

However, while they are responsible in many cases for disciplinary proceedings, they are hardly interested in the protection of the public and will often people out to dry in order to protect the reputation of the Association. In doing that they will often white wash or minimize the charges against a member at the risk of making the complainant look silly. They will also go great lengths to prescribe minimum penalties (far less than would have been provided if they were publicly managed) for offending members, giving multiple chances before hard action - like licence revocation - is prescribed. I know a number of lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects that are still practicing today in spite of the fact that that all failed in their duty to the clients. Secrecy is their favorite weapon since the level one hearings / investigations are not open to the public and their actions / recommendations are rarely publish.

That said, the right to practice is prescribed by legislation and the professional associations must adhere to the regulations. I would hesitate at allowing those organizations the power to accept equivalent qualifications from immigrants without a thorough and extensive course of study and examinations of qualification meeting provincial or federal standards. I can tell you that with 50% of Canadian professionals graduating in the lower half of their class, we don't need to muddy the waters by creating a new class of professional that hasn't at least met the same standards, as low as they apparently are.

DogOnPorch · January 5, 2011

You spelled his name wrong...."Yasar" has 2 "s"s.

That's not his real name and the Yasser part has had many English spellings over the decades.

Pliny · January 5, 2011

That's not his real name and the Yasser part has had many English spellings over the decades.

Zinnngggg.

DogOnPorch · January 5, 2011

Zinnngggg.

Don't quit your day job.

Pliny · January 5, 2011

I stopped the quote short because the rest of your statement falls apart with this correction:

The primary purpose of professional associations (which are mandated by statute) is to provide for a level of qualification and a code of conduct for its members. Education is high on the list of activities they engage in.

However, while they are responsible in many cases for disciplinary proceedings, they are hardly interested in the protection of the public and will often people out to dry in order to protect the reputation of the Association. In doing that they will often white wash or minimize the charges against a member at the risk of making the complainant look silly. They will also go great lengths to prescribe minimum penalties (far less than would have been provided if they were publicly managed) for offending members, giving multiple chances before hard action - like licence revocation - is prescribed. I know a number of lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects that are still practicing today in spite of the fact that that all failed in their duty to the clients. Secrecy is their favorite weapon since the level one hearings / investigations are not open to the public and their actions / recommendations are rarely publish.

That said, the right to practice is prescribed by legislation and the professional associations must adhere to the regulations. I would hesitate at allowing those organizations the power to accept equivalent qualifications from immigrants without a thorough and extensive course of study and examinations of qualification meeting provincial or federal standards. I can tell you that with 50% of Canadian professionals graduating in the lower half of their class, we don't need to muddy the waters by creating a new class of professional that hasn't at least met the same standards, as low as they apparently are.

So those associations are sort of like Unions, in essence protecting the worker and his wages and benefits. At least they proclaim to have the public's interest at heart in doing so which Unions don't, they just support the working class and feel they are responsible for setting the standards for wages making them "living" wages.

Governments, unions and associations only set minimal standards to be met and often that is all that is met which makes for general mediocrity and exceptional individuals tend to gravitate away to more exceptional institutions, perhaps in different countries. I would say that quota's are more a concern of professional associations to protect the membership's income level.