Jump to content

Barriers to equal opportunity in education


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, MSC said:

No, it does not. The XV amendment was the first to explicitly mention slavery and race in the same amendment, the connection I was referring to. The XIII does not mention race at all.

Good thing I didn’t refer to XIII, then. I replied to what you said about XV, and your claim it mentioned blacks. Which it doesn’t.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia? Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this.

Oh absolutely I'd agree with that. I experienced it myself, except it was my mother that left. I was 5 and she walked out on us and was gone for awhile. That being said; she was still a lot more prese

! Moderator Note Vague generalizations disguised as slurs towards a group of people are against our rules. This sort of thinking has been debunked MANY times over, much like crea

Posted Images

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Good thing I didn’t refer to XIII, then. I replied to what you said about XV, and your claim it mentioned blacks. Which it doesn’t.

 

 

 

It mentioned race and color. Black being a race and a color. You're coming off as pedantic and nitpicky a little. The point is, XIII is the legislation that freed black slaves. Due to the historical fact of the time that only black people were legally kept as slaves in the US, not whites. XV then references race in relation to prior conditions of servitude, because historically at the time, the ex slaves, were black. 

What point are you trying to make to me? That the legislation made all slavery illegal broadly? I know, hence why I said the EP and amendment XIII did not contain explicit language about race. It doesn't change the fact that the only slaves that were freed due to XIII, were black because only black people were legally kept as slaves until that moment, in the US.

The only reason I went off-topic with this was because of misunderstandings in regards to the law as it is written and the historical context they were written in. 

The only thing at this point that could change the legal requirement of some schools to use affirmative action, would be for congress to undo amendments explicitly relating to protected characteristics and/or the bill of rights. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CharonY said:

So again, should we evaluate policies solely based on their mechanisms or shouldn't we take the outcome into account?

I don't know, CharonY.
I thought that is what we were discussing.
I have stated that, in my opinion, the mechanism is flawed.
 and I gave historical evidence of where the mechanism was used for " bad' purposes with resulting disastrous effects ( American slavery ), and even where the mechanism was used for " good' intentions, with negative effects also ( Canadian Residential Schools ).

If you can give me an example of 'racial' discrimination where 'good' intentions resulted in 'good' outcomes, I can be convinced otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VenusPrincess said:

You have implicitly decided. It seems like many "progressives" have decided that morphological differences related to skin color and skull structure, i.e. the outward physical indicators of race, supersede all other others when ensuring equal opportunity.

Your focus on outward morphological differences is wrong headed. The morphological differences which are responsible for differences in achievement are most likely found within the neurological system. If those differences are passed down in conjunction with and therefore correlated with outward morphological differences then the problem is not with the outward differences, but with the neurological system.

Your focus on using difference as a justification for an unfair status quo between peoples, misses the point of what ethics is about. I also don't think you truly understand the idea of neurological diversity. It sounds to me like you're saying, whoever comes out on top must just be neurologically superior, if it happens to be white rich people, they are obviously superior. Not accounting for force, subversion, intimidation or violence at all. Not accounting for neurological differences between every individual and it being constantly evolving and changing based on environment.

Last comment, can't take you seriously princess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MSC said:

It sounds to me like you're saying, whoever comes out on top must just be neurologically superior

It sounds to me like you are ignoring the possibility altogether, in other words you are potentially rejecting reality because you don't like it. How can you deny the relationship between the morphology of an organism's neurological system and success?

From the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease:

Quote

Gaucher's disease or Gaucher disease (/ɡoʊˈʃeɪ/) (GD) is a genetic disorder in which glucocerebroside (a sphingolipid, also known as glucosylceramide) accumulates in cells and certain organs.

From A regulatory role for sphingolipids in neuronal growth. Inhibition of sphingolipid synthesis and degradation have opposite effects on axonal branching:

Quote

We now analyze further the relationship between neuronal growth and sphingolipid metabolism by examining the effect of an inhibitor of glucosylceramide synthesis, D-threo-1-phenyl-2-decanoylamino-3-morpholino-1- propanol (PDMP) and by examining the effects of both FB1 and PDMP at various stages of neuronal development. No effects of FB1 or PDMP were observed during the first 2 days in culture, but by day 3 axonal morphology was significantly altered, irrespective of the time of addition of the inhibitors to the cultures. Cells incubated with FB1 or PDMP had a shorter axon plexus and less axonal branches. FB1 appeared to cause a retraction of axonal branches between days 2 and 3, although long term incubation had no apparent effect on neuronal morphology or on the segregation of axonal or dendritic proteins. In contrast, incubation of neurons with conduritol B-epoxide, an inhibitor of glucosylceramide degradation, caused an increase in the number of axonal branches and a corresponding increase in the length of the axon plexus. A direct correlation was observed between the number of axonal branch points per cell and the extent of inhibition of either sphingolipid synthesis or degradation.

Again from the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease:

Quote

Type I (N370S homozygote), the most common, also called the "non-neuropathic" type occurs mainly in Ashkenazi Jews, at 100 times the occurrence in the general populace. The median age at diagnosis is 28 years of age, and life expectancy is mildly decreased.

I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but welcome to the brutal reality. Life isn't fair. A diagram from the linked article below:

Gaucher.png.f6924f62168902d2b35b678ef061df21.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a thread about educational opportunities and how those relate to skin color. It seems rather a red herring to suggest schools are differentially teaching or accepting/rejecting students for admission based on Gauchers Disease, something that only seems to occur in some Ashkenazi Jews. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

sounds to me like you are ignoring the possibility altogether, in other words you are potentially rejecting reality because you don't like it.

Prove it's a possibility, then prove it's a reality. You've done neither.

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a thread about educational opportunities and how those relate to skin color. It seems rather a red herring to suggest schools are differentially teaching or accepting/rejecting students for admission based on Gauchers Disease, something that only seems to occur in some Ashkenazi Jews. 

That's one of the things it's about at least. 

Not Venus Princesses use of one particular disease to infer a reduction in moral value of Ashkenazi jews, based on their propensity to have a certain disease and then calling that ridiculous claim 'a brutal reality'. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MSC said:

Prove it's a possibility, then prove it's a reality. You've done neither.

That's one of the things it's about at least. 

Not Venus Princesses use of one particular disease to infer a reduction in moral value of Ashkenazi jews, based on their propensity to have a certain disease and then calling that ridiculous claim 'a brutal reality'. 

 

No offense but you should work on your reading comprehension. My post suggests that neurons found in people with type I (N370S homozygote) Gaucher's disease would possibly have an increased number of axonal branches and a corresponding increase in the length of the axon plexus. I used the Ashkenazim as an example since they have a reputation for high academic achievement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

No offense but you should work on your reading comprehension. My post suggests that neurons found in people with type I (N370S homozygote) Gaucher's disease would possibly have an increased number of axonal branches and a corresponding increase in the length of the axon plexus. I used the Ashkenazim as an example since they have a reputation for high academic achievement.

Or you should work on explaining things better. If I misunderstood it was because you were unclear. I'm not an expert in Gauchers disease nor did I claim to be. I don't even know if you are or if you're using the disease to fit some agenda you have.

However you're conflating academic achievement with organism success and making moral conclusions that this must in some ways dictate who even gets to have their academic success measured to begin with in order to determine who academically achieves the most. 

Be clearer, what moral claims are you making here? Judging others on whether or not they understand how an off topic disease works or relates to moral value when you've made no effort to explain your position clearly won't score you points with me. 

So if you've got something to say, say it with clarity instead of beating around the bush and expecting everyone to read your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MSC said:

Or you should work on explaining things better. If I misunderstood it was because you were unclear. I'm not an expert in Gauchers disease nor did I claim to be. I don't even know if you are or if you're using the disease to fit some agenda you have.

However you're conflating academic achievement with organism success and making moral conclusions that this must in some ways dictate who even gets to have their academic success measured to begin with in order to determine who academically achieves the most. 

Be clearer, what moral claims are you making here? Judging others on whether or not they understand how an off topic disease works or relates to moral value when you've made no effort to explain your position clearly won't score you points with me. 

So if you've got something to say, say it with clarity instead of beating around the bush and expecting everyone to read your mind.

I am claiming that the greatest barrier to equal opportunity in education in 21st century Western countries are morphological differences in the neurological system. There are plenty of people in our fine universities, unfortunately most of them are morons and will contribute little to human knowledge. It's not because they didn't eat enough broccoli growing up, and it's not because an evil force is preventing them from reading their books. It's because they don't have the neuroanatomy to succeed. By the way, I think something like 50% of kids today attend some sort of institute of higher education after they graduate from high school. That's way too many. Perhaps 0.5% of people are capable of making meaningful contributions to intellectual fields if they devote themselves to study. Why are we admitting so many genetic morons into our schools? They take up space and make moronic monkey noises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 11:42 PM, studiot said:

Consider this

Which do you prefer equality of opportunity or equality of result ?

You cannot have both, but you can make some adjustment to the balance between them.
How to achieve a fair balance is the ethical dimemma.

 

Your response here indicates that I did not manage to communicate my point.

Sorry.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 1:15 AM, MSC said:

It is an ethical conundrum to be sure, I wouldn't say it is a dilemma as we aren't being forced to choose between two options.

 

I am not saying it is an either - or situation.

I am saying that there is a scale between opportunity and result and the question of where a particular activity or situation falls on that scale is a question of ethics that can be discussed scientifically, particularly in the context of education, as required in this thread.

Here are some examples from real life.

Consider a runing race.

1)

If everyone has the opportunity to run then they will not all reach the finish line at the same time, because they do not all possess the same ability or luck.

'Affirmative action' has lead some educationalists to ban races in some schools and try to ban exams.

Where do you draw the line here and why ?

2)

I have zero or even less than zero talent fo music, no matter how much musical education I am offered or receive.

There are a limited number of stradivarius (and similar) violins in this world.

Should I therfore be offered the opportunity to play such an instrument, therby depriving another player the opportunity or maybe breaking one ?

Should I waste the time of the few people in this world capable of teaching the high standard necessary to obtain the best from such an instrument ?

3)

Would you get into a taxi driven by a blind taxi driver, or should taxi drivers be drawn only from the ranks of well sighted persons? If so how well sighted ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

I am claiming that the greatest barrier to equal opportunity in education in 21st century Western countries are morphological differences in the neurological system. There are plenty of people in our fine universities, unfortunately most of them are morons and will contribute little to human knowledge. It's not because they didn't eat enough broccoli growing up, and it's not because an evil force is preventing them from reading their books. It's because they don't have the neuroanatomy to succeed. By the way, I think something like 50% of kids today attend some sort of institute of higher education after they graduate from high school. That's way too many. Perhaps 0.5% of people are capable of making meaningful contributions to intellectual fields if they devote themselves to study. Why are we admitting so many genetic morons into our schools? They take up space and make moronic monkey noises.

The barrier here is understanding.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Your response here indicates that I did not manage to communicate my point.

You did a fine job, unfortunately we find ourselves in a feedback loop; the more we discriminate the fewer intelligences we have to draw on and the more we fear that future.

One day perhaps, we will listen to the past to inform that future...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the eugenicist has been banned, I'll return and continue these conversations. As it is, I can't take being here anymore.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Your response here indicates that I did not manage to communicate my point.

Sorry.

No you did, but then half of my responses and questions have been blatantly ignored and I really cannot be bothered with tackling your false equivalencies. Nobody has even touched upon proficiency and growth models, nobody wants to discuss school systems other than the US. Therefore this conversation is a waste of my time.

But as always, I'm worse than the eugenics advocate right? Bye.

Thank you to everyone who did take this conversation seriously.

8 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

am claiming that the greatest barrier to equal opportunity in education in 21st century Western countries are morphological differences in the neurological system. There are plenty of people in our fine universities, unfortunately most of them are morons and will contribute little to human knowledge. It's not because they didn't eat enough broccoli growing up, and it's not because an evil force is preventing them from reading their books. It's because they don't have the neuroanatomy to succeed. By the way, I think something like 50% of kids today attend some sort of institute of higher education after they graduate from high school. That's way too many. Perhaps 0.5% of people are capable of making meaningful contributions to intellectual fields if they devote themselves to study. Why are we admitting so many genetic morons into our schools? They take up space and make moronic monkey noises.

Eugenics and racism. So it was an agenda. Bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Perhaps 0.5% of people are capable of making meaningful contributions to intellectual fields if they devote themselves to study. Why are we admitting so many genetic morons into our schools? They take up space and make moronic monkey noises.

!

Moderator Note

Vague generalizations disguised as slurs towards a group of people are against our rules. This sort of thinking has been debunked MANY times over, much like creationism and phlogiston, so we don't waste our time wallowing in such ignorance. If you persist in this, you'll be required to leave. Nobody here is interested in going backwards; discussion should be meaningful, and promote learning. 

IOW, stop making moronic monkey noises.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MSC said:

nobody wants to discuss school systems other than the US

Well if you must come here and promote complete and utter falsehoods,

You introduced Scottish education, and I haven't yet finished discussing it with you or the falsehood you promoted about it.

I tried to discuss the French, German, Dutch and Belgian systems but received no response whatsoever.

 

47 minutes ago, MSC said:

No you did, but then half of my responses and questions have been blatantly ignored and I really cannot be bothered with tackling your false equivalencies.

First time I think perhaps I put too many points into one post so I have tried to cut it down to one point at a time.

And you respond with a slap with a wet fish.

49 minutes ago, MSC said:

Nobody has even touched upon proficiency and growth models,

I can't respond to these as I don't know what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

Vague generalizations disguised as slurs towards a group of people are against our rules. This sort of thinking has been debunked MANY times over, much like creationism and phlogiston, so we don't waste our time wallowing in such ignorance. If you persist in this, you'll be required to leave. Nobody here is interested in going backwards; discussion should be meaningful, and promote learning. 

IOW, stop making moronic monkey noises.

 

Thank you. I'll stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the fact we are discussing barriers to equal opportunity  in education, and not barriers to equal results in education, I really don't see a reason for the neg rep given to Studiot.
All society can do is provide equal opportunity.
Equal outcome is vastly more dependent on the individual.

Let's not confuse the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well if you must come here and promote complete and utter falsehoods,

You introduced Scottish education, and I haven't yet finished discussing it with you or the falsehood you promoted about it.

I tried to discuss the French, German, Dutch and Belgian systems but received no response whatsoever.

 

First time I think perhaps I put too many points into one post so I have tried to cut it down to one point at a time.

And you respond with a slap with a wet fish.

I can't respond to these as I don't know what they are.

What were the alleged falsehoods again? That the scottish education system runs at zero cost for the student? I didn't say it runs at zero cost all in. Someone has to pay for it, it just isn't typically the student. Which was the nuance in my original comments. 

What other falsehoods are you alleging?

As for the slapping you with a wet fish, I'm sorry, I had just read that eugenics comment from another user and it made my blood boil. Not your fault at all. 

Growth and proficiency is a really interesting debate and is key to education. 

Growth Vs Proficiency

This link goes over the basics.

For those who might have been unaware, this was the debate that Betsy Devos got completely railroaded for having no knowledge of during her committee meeting judging her suitability for education secretary. If you want to talk about education, it's best to be aware of the ins and outs of this debate.

 

Edited by MSC
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's a trap we all fall into.
These issues can be emotional for many people.
Nobody makes a good argument from anger.

Agreed. I apologise for those who feel or have felt mine. 

I have a long fuse for ethics but when it blows, it blows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point at a time.

Initially I  granted you the opportunity to expand on your statement

On 11/30/2020 at 3:20 AM, MSC said:

Even where higher education is subsidised or "free" like in Scotland, there are only so many places on every course offered by colleges and universities. Of those courses, not all of them are universally inclusive in setting, format, method, philosophy or individual staffing choices. 

in my short reply

On 12/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, studiot said:

I can't see the relevence of this comment about Scotland, which is so short as to be  misleading about Scottish education.

What exactly did you mean please ?

You replied

On 12/1/2020 at 11:11 PM, MSC said:

You can get an undergrad degree without spending a penny of your own money on your education

And I offered this which is true.

On 12/1/2020 at 11:42 PM, studiot said:

Some folks (mostly Scots) have their fees paid.

And you replied specifically zero costs, repeating your earlier contention.

On 12/2/2020 at 1:15 AM, MSC said:

It would have been disingenuous if my argument and details hadn't been more nuanced than that. I specifically meant zero costs for mostly Scottish applicants. Obviously there is always a cost to be paid by someone for resources and man hours. However there is something to be said with how some colleges spend their funding and manage it.

 

Currently the cost of a single Pharmacy textbook is in the range £35 - £75.
A Pharmacy student wanting to have their own BNF (renewable every year)  could fork out £400
A suitable laptop would cost in the range £500 - £600

Then of course there are living costs.

And travel costs

Not counting the opportunity cost of cost earned income during the time of studying.

Now do you still maintain the zero cost option ?

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

One point at a time.

Initially I  granted you the opportunity to expand on your statement

in my short reply

You replied

And I offered this which is true.

And you replied specifically zero costs, repeating your earlier contention.

 

Currently the cost of a single Pharmacy textbook is in the range £35 - £75.
A Pharmacy student wanting to have their own BNF (renewable every year)  could fork out £400
A suitable laptop would cost in the range £500 - £600

Then of course there are living costs.

And travel costs

Not counting the opportunity cost of cost earned income during the time of studying.

Now do you still maintain the zero cost option ?

Ahhh I see now where our wires have crossed. My poor word choice and lack of expansion. I am really sorry for misinterpreting you. Forgive me, real life intrudes and my effort here suffers for it at times. 

In Scotland, there are means tested grants, bursaries, loans, allowances for disabled people, single mother specific grants etc. Creches and other facilities have also been implemented in some colleges and universities, all the ones in Edinburgh and definitely one in Glasgow that I know of 1st hand.

So for some, but admittedly not all, fees, textbooks, and living costs are paid directly to students in the form of bursaries, allowances and loans. This includes travel costs for those who need it and live further than a mile or so away from the university. These funds go to the people who, upon the conclusion of an income means test, are identified as needing the help in order to have an opportunity to enter into higher education. Also, at 16, EMA, that is educational maintenance allowance is given as a stipend to students who remain in education, as they can leave of their own volition at 16 when they are in the 4th or 5th year of highschool. This was £120 a month when I was sixteen but it's probably went up a little bit with inflation over the years. At 18, you're eligible for a bursary to continue higher education. 

So who are the individuals who are not eligible for these sorts of financial aid? The people who by means testing were found to be from a wealthy enough background that they could pay their own way. 

All of that being said, in the greater context of the thread, you raised interesting points about loss of opportunity for work and personal computer/laptop. Yes, most students who are not living with parents take on part time jobs to pay for these sorts of things. Their Bursaries, are not enough to cover it all. There are probably some good arguments to be made about how much students should be given. Colleges and universities here do have a large amount of onsite computers that are always free for students to reserve or access if they are free. That point is a bit moot under covid though and even if you booked a day off in a computer lab, the school does not cover that travel fair so unless you have college that day, you have to spend your own money.

Now when I was at school, full time students weren't eligible for housing financial aid from the government. I think that might have changed now but I'll need to double check. 

So in conclusion, upon your direction I'll revise and clarify my claims.

In Scotland, if you're a citizen or permanent resident and you can't afford an education, you can get one. However it does not pay for all the costs associated with it unless you're a spartan minimalist with a laptop, or living with parents. Most students have to take on part time jobs. Students in the US do the same, the difference is that students in Scotland won't have massive amounts of debt they can't pay when they are finished, unless they were dumb enough to get a credit card or something? But then their debt isn't to their school.

So I should have expanded when I said cost and I will retract statements where I implied all costs are paid for. 

https://www.mygov.scot/student-bursaries-grants-scholarships-loans/ 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, MSC said:

Ahhh I see now where our wires have crossed. My poor word choice and lack of expansion. I am really sorry for misinterpreting you. Forgive me, real life intrudes and my effort here suffers for it at times. 

Thank you.

Thank you also for providing an accurate statement of the setup in Scotland we can all agree.

:)

So can I ask you to consider the value of accuracy in discussion ?

 

Rather than going over old ground any more can we also discuss your title question ?

On 10/13/2020 at 4:34 PM, MSC said:

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia?

Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this.

It's a shame really, a lot of discouraging and disparaging comments being made about people, who through no fault of their own, simply are not offered the sort of education their disparagers have allegedly had and have no means of getting it.

Only the first line provides a discussion topic,

I would rather not comment on the rest except to ask you  to you consider if this is a good way to address people and open a conversation you hope to have an adult discussion with.

 

So did you wish to discuss barriers to equal opportunity in  'education'.    -  as you state in the title

or

barriers to equal opportunity in 'academia'     -  as you state in your opening post ?

I hope you are not conflating the two.

They are not the same.

 

In any event we need an agreed working definition of 'education' and 'academia' before progress can be made.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now that MSC is taking a vacation, and the Princess went back to Venus, maybe I can get some attention again ...

Learned something interesting while reading up on Affirmative Action in various States.
It seems California is without an AA program, and they've been trying to pass one into law for some time.
Apparently, the Affirmative Action proposition that recently failed in California involved having to remove anti discrimination provisions in the state constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender identity or sexual orientation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/

If affirmative action is intended to help these groups, why do you have to eliminate anti discrimination language to implement it?
I would guess because it is discriminatory.
So which is more beneficial to society, anti discrimination laws or Affirmative Action ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

If affirmative action is intended to help these groups, why do you have to eliminate anti discrimination language to implement it?
I would guess because it is discriminatory.

I am not sure whether you can frame it as that- after all one would need a very specific breakdown of the votes and I am not sure whether we got the data (the article is rather vague in that regard). However, some surveys indicate that those who could theoretically benefit most from affirmative action did vote more in favour than groups that would benefit least. But that aside, there is also the issue that minorities are not monolithic. As we were talking about privilege, there are increasing differences, including a rising proportion of immigrants, who generally are better of and tend to be more critical to measures such as affirmative action.

Specifically with regard to Prop16 (and I have to add that I am not really familiar with it, just happened to skim the odd article), it seems that folks were also rather uncertain what the proposition would do specifically. In a survey of the Latino community foundation showed a narrow majority in favour of it, but 32% of responders actually thought that the proposition would actually mean that it would keep thinks as they are and block race as an criterion. Only 39% understood what the proposition would do (and among those 65% were in favour). So based on that small slice of info I think that there is no simple narrative that can be spun out of that proposition outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.