Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kind of like, how I have noticed, that most of the time if there is a person in a group who constantly interrupts and talks over other people, it is usually a man. I am not saying that all or most men do this. Only that women are more commonly socialized to wait for others to finish, and not to interrupt, and not to be rude or demanding, and boys are more commonly forgiven this behavior and allowed or even encouraged to be more socially assertive.
You've never met my wife.
I cannot watch "The View" on TV -- the women are constantly talking over each other and I can't follow.
Nope. They are the study of the discipline. Let's take a few examples.
Differential geometry is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Econometrics is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Solid State Physics is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Supply chain management is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Bioengineering is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Electrical engineering is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Chemical engineering is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Chemistry is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Photolithography processes are in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
Ceramics engineering is in no way, shape or form influenced by gender (male or female).
I could go on, but I suspect it isn't worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
Separately there should be more gender studies to really dive into how gender is constructed and how it shapes out society, culture and history.
Oh my...considering all the rigorous statistical analysis being done every single day in every single large company and yet the very company YOU worked for somehow got their numbers out of whack? Tres interesant...at least they had the very best of intentions.
Slightly over half the US population is female. Women earn north of 57% of all college degrees, yet the percentage of women who are physicists, engineers, chemists, and other technical disciplines is small by comparison.
Moreover, the data show that practicing women physicists, chemists, engineers etc of all flavors leave their professions at a rate substantially higher than do men. Some decide to go to Law School so they can earn more money with less effort. Some decide to go to Business School and then go on to Hedge Funds, Private Equity Funds & Quant Funds. There is lots of demand for smart people.
Then you get to geographic distribution. It turns out there are many highly qualified female ceramics engineers in New York, for example, but only a tiny population in Silicon Valley.
Sooo... what is the yardstick by which you are measured? How much variance is acceptable?
The above demographics issues are just the tip of the iceberg, of course. Try explaining the above complexities -- and many more -- to a jury of blue collar workers who hate their bosses & who were not smart enough to get out of from Jury Duty.
There is always risk if you end up in litigation or threatened litigation, even if your attorneys and statisticians say you have an excellent case. No one wants to incur that risk if you can avoid it.
What of the other part of the equation which is the GPA? There's also the obvious fact that many Physics, Math and Engineering majors may not even consider taking a career in law.
Admission to law school tends to be closer to 70% LSAT score.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
You've missed the point of my previous posts. Not everyone can excel at Science and Engineering no matter how hard they try.
No, I didn't miss your point. Not everyone is capable of earning a degree with a major in a rigorous, objective technical discipline. Those of us who have such degrees understand this very well - better than most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
As much as you have this contempt towards gender studies and ethnic studies, trying to major in STEM with poor and mediocre grades just because that's where the money is simply going to result in the same dead end outcome you claim awaits them in social science.
Not all social science is fluffy & subjective. Some of it is very, very rigorous. Max Planck, the brilliant Nobel-prize winning physicist (see Planck's Law and Planck's Constant in quantum mechanics) wanted to study Economics -- but found the field overwhelming, so he instead switched to Physics.
I decided to put my personal preconceptions about this topic aside & educate myself as to what a Major in “Women’s Studies” would require.
I read all 9 pages of curriculum course descriptions for a college in my area: Colorado College. Considered a "most selective school" by U.S. News & World Report who also ranked it as No. 2 among "the most innovative national liberal arts colleges". It has an acceptance rate of 15.8% for the Class of 2020 (9th lowest in the nation) & it was ranked as the "best private college in Colorado" by Forbes.
Apparently; “Women’s Studies” is synonymous with “Feminist & Gender Studies”, which is fine; as the de facto position of Feminism is to be supportive of ALL women & their chosen roles. We start with:
"Introduction to Feminist and Gender Studies: An interdisciplinary critique and historical examination of the origins of patriarchy in Western culture."
There are many "history of" options & a great deal of options that explore the context of race & ethnicity, such as Black, Latina, Indian & Asian. There are some intresting course titles, such as:
"Women of the Negritude" & "Critical Whiteness Studies". Social/Culural contexts include:
"Where My Girls At?: Gender & Sexuality in Hip Hop". "Ecofeminism" & "Introduction to ***** (starts with q & ends in r) Studies".
And there actually are some options that explore "Men's Studies" (or studies of); such as "Masculinities" & "Holy Men, Manly Men: Gods, Buddhas, and Gurus in South Asia".
What was NOT offered were courses that served to educate about & validate the contributions & economic, cultural & societal impact of the woman who was most representative of multiple centuries of the female existence. I wish I would have seen 1 or 2 courses that explored the contributions of mothers but I didn’t expect it, really. It just would be nice to be validated by an “honorable mention” of some sort by a program dedicated to Women’s Studies.
I did find two courses that initially seemed to have come close (until you read the descriptions):
"Sociology of Family: An exploration of the social history of the American family from its extended kinship form through the development of the nuclear family ideal, to the more valid forms existing in contemporary society".
"Women, Children & Men: Families in Historical Perspective: This course treats gender roles and family life throughout the European past, with comparative attention to families of other historical cultures and to relationships within non-human primate communities".
Well; at least the monkey housewives get a shout.
In a way; I've reconsidered my initial position of “I would never pay for a course in Women’s Studies” because some of the course titles are irresistible. For instance;
"The Psychology of Women: Women and Madness: What does it mean to be 'mad'? Is madness in the eyes of the beholder? This course examines the concept of madness as it has been applied to women from historical, psychological, social and feminist perspectives".
Maybe I would finally get an answer to my question "Why is the surgical removal of a Uterus not called a Uterectomy?"
Certainly no one who is technical misses it. Science & engineering are rigorous, difficult objective disciplines -- they are hard. That is in stark contrast to subjective (that is, decidedly non-objective), squishy "disciplines" such as gender studies and sociology which objectively lack academic rigor. I argue they do not belong in the academy in the first place and their genesis has little to do with the advancement of the body of human knowledge.
It is decidedly disingenuous, don't you think, for people to take the easy path of non-objective, squishy Gender Studies or African American Studies and then complain that 20 years hence their compensation is less than that of CPU Architect?
I don;t think they do complain, anymore than Social Workers or Parole officers or drug counselors complain. People who go into service fields generally feel a call to help people, and know upfront they're never going to get rich doing it.
No one is deciding between physics and social work, that is ridiculous. Aside from that, only people with inborn math talent are going to be able to succeed in a field like that, you can't just take Physics or Engineering or Math for the money if you got B's and C's in Calculus in high school.
I would never in a million years be able to pass any of those courses, in fact I withdrew from Introduction to Physics in my first year because I was totally lost, but I still graduated Magna C um Laude in my OT program.
To me it's like telling someone they should major in piano if they don't have natural musical talent because pianists make good money.
Certainly no one who is technical misses it. Science & engineering are rigorous, difficult objective disciplines -- they are hard. That is in stark contrast to subjective (that is, decidedly non-objective), squishy "disciplines" such as gender studies and sociology which objectively lack academic rigor. I argue they do not belong in the academy in the first place and their genesis has little to do with the advancement of the body of human knowledge.
It is decidedly disingenuous, don't you think, for people to take the easy path of non-objective, squishy Gender Studies or African American Studies and then complain that 20 years hence their compensation is less than that of CPU Architect?
A very poor example you've provided here, especially given your background in statistics. This is from a single university...perhaps explaining such a narrow range of scores that may be more reflective simply of the population of those applying to that university than those majors if examined across the U.S. Also, this is the LSAT - taken primarily by those seeking to get into law school - again, a very narrow slice.
Then entire range from top to bottom is only about 12 points - and that is out of a possible range from 120 - 180. These are averages of subgroups, of course, but I would like to see what differences among these are actually statistically significant.
Also, a close examination of the majors' rankings show some "anomalies": Philosophy/Religion as #2, Government/Service #4, Anthropology/Geography #6, International Relations #7....Finance barely beats out Psychology and it just doesn't get any softer than that! You actually might be surprised at how rigorous research techniques have to be when dealing with squishy people-related concepts and how much simpler research is with the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry.
Sure, some subjects are more rigorous than others....but the smartest people don't always pick the "toughest" majors and some people are "over achievers". Things are just not quite as cut and dried as you present.
If colleges and universities are going to have women's studies, they need to have men's studies also or they need to do away with gender specific studies altogether. Sadly, we are being forced into segregation again by gender orientation, sexual orientation, and the ethnicity of our predecessors.
Men can take women's studies.... It's not segregation.
That the people who control the majority of capital in this society are white males. Not all white males but you don't see a lot of women being the major decision makers of our most influential institutions and they have hardly ever been.
Let's not overlook the Powers Behind The Thrones/PBT's.
Any number of these highly successful white males perhaps had a red hot poker stuck in them from their PBT, who wanted more wealth, more financial security, a larger mansion, and who passed on money-making ideas to them?
No different with Politicians! Governor Perry even stated it to the press: my wife forced me to run!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
