Summer 2024 improvements

[Hawk]

I have to agree with Benedict. What he said is not race based. He said " the person in charge of PCMR Operations is just really shitty at her job" He just doesn't like women in charge.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Everyone (except him) knew what he meant.

Really? Awesome.

Spell it out then rather than tap-dancing around it. Be very specific and wordy, as verbose as you like. I'll have more to work with.

 

[djd66]

It amazes me that these guys move out of the northeast to Utah and still frequent this forum.

like why?

THIS! I have always wondered the same thing.

It is kind of comical. Boredom?

 

[BenedictGomez]

I have to agree with Benedict. What he said is not race based. He said " the person in charge of PCMR Operations is just really shitty at her job"

A white woman no less.

He just doesn't like women in charge.

Also not true. This woman? Perhaps. Probably in fact in a, "the buck stops here" fashion if that's your barometer.

What I do know is you dont see this level of.......... facilitatory malaise? At well-run businesses, regardless of the gender of the operator (or race, religion, sexuality,
etc.... lol).

Honest question, do you not walk around your operation on a weekly if not daily basis, see things broken, and then quickly fix them? When they drag on for many months sitting broken or in disrepair what does that say? What is your job exactly? My belief is it's poor management.

Going back to the state of the Cabriolet, for those who havent been there the paint job was so faded it looked akin to when a NELSAP lift sits idle. Clearly it wasn't painted for several years and baked in the sun (It wasnt red, it was pink). Keep in mind this is the very first thing you SEE when you arrive at the resort. I was taught that all initial guest-facing areas must be 100% tip-top, 100% of the time (I only worked at a few resorts, but it's my belief this is pretty common hospitality industry mantra). FWIW none of the cars have been painted in years either, all chipping, rusting in areas (yes, really), and numerous cars have graffiti in/on them that's been there >=1 year without it being removed. Surely some folks here have worked in hospitality and would agree all these sorts of things I've mentioned not being addressed are unusual.

 

[Hawk]

Honetly Bennedit. I was just busting your balls. I think maybe what you were saying was misunderstood or the way you said it was not exactly what you meant. Either way I agree that in the interset of profit, service oriented businesses suffer. Sometimes it is not the people incharge of the day to day but the people above them on the board.

 

[Smellytele]

To me he was saying DEI for business as they are not hiring based on skills but on other criteria that has nothing to do with business. They issue is we don’t know if the person hired was the best person who applied for the job but could have been.

 

[2Planker]

DEIJ is fine for many schools & professions. But it proved to be a problem in Medical Schools.....

Wouldn't you want your doctor/dentist to have earned their way into Med School ?
OR just let in because they had less _______ students.....

Supreme Court decision was a good thing for all of us in Health Care

 

[thetrailboss]

In all seriousness I had pointed out to my wife a few months back that for one of their "premium properties", there's really a ton of sloppiness in terms of keeping the place looking nice and/or just being professionally run, which made me wonder if it's indicative of financial issues, or just poor operational management. Things like:

1) Cabriolet lift being so sun faded the red paint is pink and the "Cabriolet" word was bleeding (this was fixed this weekend as I noted to be fair).
2) Graffiti in numerous Cabriolet cars, which has been there for a long time, yet nobody fixes it
3) Lift base and top terminal clocks broken and not replaced (these are your typical $15 Walmart, round, white, lift clocks)
4) Lift base and top terminal clocks with either the wrong time nobody bothers to fix or nobody's replaced the 10¢ AA battery (I mean for many months).
5) A sink at Canyons side nobody has fixed for months
6) Myriad lift problems this season. No hyperbole, there were problems/stoppages on tons of lifts this year, not just like 1 or 2 problem lifts.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of things, but well-run places that consider themselves high-end dont have any of these problems. Something really simple like the clocks for instance, would literally be fixed the afternoon they occurred, either with a new battery or a new clock. Non-working wall electrical outlets, paint chipped walls, etc... things like that. Perhaps the person in charge of PCMR Operations is just really shitty at her job (PCMR is reknowned for DEI hires afterall), but in my experience when I see many "little things" that are indeed trivial not being attended to, it's often a sign of a much bigger problem, typically financial. It would be interesting to hear if people who ski & summer recreate a lot at other Vail properties nationwide are noticing similar sloppiness.

"Hey you all, I love DEI. Vail loves you all! And I can see that Benedict clearly doesn't appreciate all the sacrifices we make here at Vail to give him and all of you such an EPIC deal on your pass!"

 

[BenedictGomez]

To me he was saying DEI for business as they are not hiring based on skills but on other criteria that has nothing to do with business. They issue is we don’t know if the person hired was the best person who applied for the job but could have been.

That pretty much sums it up. All I know is that what I see with my own eyes is either indicative of very poor leadership, or a leadership's hands that are tied by a purse that is buttoned-up excessively tightly (or both).

 

[FourOhFour]

Wouldn't you want your doctor/dentist to have earned their way into Med School ?

Honestly? I don't give a rat's ass what their scores were going into med school. Far more important that they earned their way out of med school.

 

[Hawk]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that people are insinuating that DEI recipients are somehow far less intelegent than others. Just because they are trying to be more diverse does not mean the accepted are defcient. In fact the differences are probably negligible. They still have to meet the basic criteria to even get them to the selection process and the selected people may have had scores only slighly less than others. People make it sound like they are acepting morons. People need to have a more broad understanding of the process.

 

[Hawk]

FWIW - My niece nearly flunked out of BU med school until she got her shit together. Her first semester she was put on Accidemic probation. From there she worked hard and made it to grad school, did her internship and is now one of the top Doctors at her hopital in Maryland. It's all about how you apply youself and anybody can choose to work hard.

 

[drjeff]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that people are insinuating that DEI recipients are somehow far less intelegent than others. Just because they are trying to be more diverse does not mean the accepted are defcient. In fact the differences are probably negligible. They still have to meet the basic criteria to even get them to the selection process and the selected people may have had scores only slighly less than others. People make it sound like they are acepting morons. People need to have a more broad understanding of the process.

The DEI thing that is definitely an "unintended consequence" type of thing, is lets say you have a candidate for say a job or admission to some school with a fancy name, who on their own merit, long before anyone had ever heard of DEI, would have either gotten that job offer or that admission notification to that school. The chances of them being questioned by some, as to why they are there, would of been minimal to non existant, because of their merit. Now in the era of DEI, you are certainly going to get some people, who will question if that person really has the merit to be there, or are they there because some sought out diversity boxes were checked off, and their merit is a secondary or tertiary factor. If that person would of been selected in the pre DEI era, then they are being judged by some, when they wouldn't have been in the past, and that too is a problem.

Second, especially with respect to "fancy named" colleges and universities. If they are, and some via certain things in the application process, regardless of the SCOTUS ruling, are still looking to have a class matriculate that has certain diversity profiles, regradless of the merits of some (i.e. they can tailor an essay questiion that while not directly asking for ones race/ethnicity, often makes it apparent what the applicants race/ethnicity is) so they may be admiitting a student, who via their prior education experiences just doesn't have the same knowledge skill set as those with a greater merit, and now you have a student, who will likely struggle academically at that "fancy named" school which may very well have a greater degree of academic rigor than some lesser named schools. Is that student really better off at the "fancy named" school where academically they may struggle or at a lesser named school where the academic rigor is more appropriate for their knowledge skill set they arrive with? That is an issue too.

Emotional decision making, which certainly is a component of some aspects of this era of DEI, vs more of a meritocracy, which can and does "expose" some flaws that past societal programs often implemented with the intention of helping, but really doesn't help much, and then often leads to excuses from those who implemented the poorly performing plans designed to help, is a key thing in this current situation, since underneath it all, regardless of what some "leaders" wnat us to believe, were all 99.999% the same on the inside

 

[Hawk]

That is a well thought out response Jeff. I do agree with alot of what you said. Times are different and I think higher education is trying to make up for years of intelectual prejuduce. Just think about all of the wealthy alumni that donated thousands to Fancy Named schools so their legacy kids could get in. Some of those kids were far below the acceptance bar but still got in and no one said anything about that. I am in the camp that our nation was made great by the great diversity of Ideas from all cultures. I have no issue with diversity in acceptance. But that is just my singular opinion.

 

[2Planker]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that people are insinuating that DEI recipients are somehow far less intelegent than others. Just because they are trying to be more diverse does not mean the accepted are defcient. In fact the differences are probably negligible. They still have to meet the basic criteria to even get them to the selection process and the selected people may have had scores only slighly less than others. People make it sound like they are acepting morons. People need to have a more broad understanding of the process.

Correct, But many underachievers are pushed through that should have probably been held back or dismissed entirely.
They're given Unlimited test time, special tutors and even Open book Exams for them... Anything to make them pass.

Our school is supposedly the most diverse in the US w/ 40% Asian, 30% Caucasian, & 30% everyone else.
Those #'s are definitely changing, as everyone now has to earn their way in.

 

[Hawk]

Actually, because our kids are getting increasinly lazy and the Asia and European Schools are pushing thier kids so much harder, those numbers might just hold.

 

[AdironRider]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that people are insinuating that DEI recipients are somehow far less intelegent than others. Just because they are trying to be more diverse does not mean the accepted are defcient. In fact the differences are probably negligible. They still have to meet the basic criteria to even get them to the selection process and the selected people may have had scores only slighly less than others. People make it sound like they are acepting morons. People need to have a more broad understanding of the process.

Dartmouth and several other colleges would disagree with you, bringing back standardized testing for admissions after removing that requirement for several years as part of a DEI initiative.

They weren't accepting morons, but they were accepting students that were not prepared and it had negative effects, primarily for those admitted.

 

[2Planker]

Actually, because our kids are getting increasinly lazy and the Asia and European Schools are pushing thier kids so much harder, those numbers might just hold.

The last 30% is getting less and less each year.... The first 2 #'s are rising

 

[drjeff]

Correct, But many underachievers are pushed through that should have probably been held back or dismissed entirely.
They're given Unlimited test time, special tutors and even Open book Exams for them... Anything to make them pass.

Our school is supposedly the most diverse in the US w/ 40% Asian, 30% Caucasian, & 30% everyone else.
Those #'s are definitely changing, as everyone now has to earn their way in.

There was a person who was part of my 1st year dental school class, who was on their 3rd attempt at 1st year. When I graduated 4 years later, this person, 7 years in, had finally made it past the 2nd year of school and into the much more clinical intense 3rd and 4th years. Not sure if they ever graduated or not. The school sure made every attempt possible via so many remedial opportunities for this person, to get them through school and into practice.

It's almost like the school, or more appropriately the admissions committee of the school, couldn't understand how a candidate they felt would do great at the school, so they offered them admission to the school, in reality shouldn't of been admitted to the school in the 1st place. And this person in todays DEI admissions era, wouldn't of checked off any DEI boxes

 

[ceo]

Really? Awesome.

Spell it out then rather than tap-dancing around it. Be very specific and wordy, as verbose as you like. I'll have more to work with.

OK, I'll bite, somewhat against my better judgement. You remarked that PCMR's head of mountain operations was "really shitty at her job", which she might be, I've no clue. But then you said "PCMR is reknowned [sic] for DEI hires afterall", insinuating that the only reason she was hired was that she's female, and further insinuating that she's incompetent at her job because she's female. Which, to say the least, I find kind of offensive. It's exactly this kind of sexist bullshit that DEI policies are intended to address.