Author Topic: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering  (Read 26677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #150 on: September 06, 2017, 05:54:10 pm »
Alank..

Not speaking to what you said but just something you said reminded me of a paper I read a few months ago that goes right to the heart of a certain part of what I am describing, its entitled "HOW TO DESIGN TRADE AGREEMENTS IN SERVICES: TOP DOWN OR BOTTOM UP?" and its WTO document ersd201308_e.pdf  Google should find it.

Just so you can see that I am not speaking out of my ass as they say.

At some point a few decades ago, all these policies and jobs became "tradable" services and everything changed, but people dont realize it AT ALL yet.

And thats a very dangerous situation for democracy. In fact, as it stands right now we almost no longer have democracy. Its hanging by a thread. And people who want deregulation arent getting that either, instead they are going to get more regulation than they ever thought was even possible. And not in a good way.

We all need to wake up and get involved. (Even though we're not supposed to, as the entire system has been designed to COMPLETELY REMOVE HUMAN INPUT FROM THE EQUATION. Only corporations and the countries (many of which they keep as pets) get a voice.)

People are on the table being carved up. We're the meal.

Silence will not serve anybody's interests.

"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #151 on: September 06, 2017, 06:11:55 pm »
Alank,

Which economy? You have to remember its global now. To get the business "we" want, very high margin rich peoples business, we may have to trade sick poor peoples business away to other countries. making them uninsurable helps.. which is easy because we already agreed to freeze insurance regulation to its state on February 26, 1998. the day a certain document was signed. So, in the US, that means a simple WTO procedure could be used to force us to revert any objectionable (unprofitable) changes in our financial services laws (yes, the same ones that regulate banking and there is another terrifying situation!) So, in 1998, no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions (the expensive ones) was required. People who had had some health condition had to negotiate coverage from a position of extreme weakness.

Also, genetic discrimination, so called "genelining" was allowed. As was dumping people like that retroactively (claw back of befits already paid) if they could be shown to have made a "material misrepresentation" to get benefits.. "they were not entitled to" Can you see where this is going?

As well as a zillion other things which are now, not so coincidentally, on the chopping block in the US.

This isnt some little thing I am talking about here.

See "Does Health Insurance Impede Trade In Healthcare Services" by Matoo and Rathindran - World Bank publications


the goal is to force large numbers of people out into the global marketplace and create a fake "emergency" which can be used to suspend common sense thinking.   An "emergency" get it?

Into that void they will step with their arguments.. "Its that pesky lack of health insurance portability across international borders" - and "standards" of professional behavior, in developed countries, where people have certain expectations - that are in the way!

Also, expectations of all kinds held by those in developed countries - some say, have to be lowered or eliminated..
expectations which are absent in the developing world, where people die every day because they don't have enough money for a $5 medication, and 9/10 of all the lives are wasted because nobody can afford an education beyond whats supplied by the state. (Which in India didn't even BEGIN until recently)

In some peoples eyes, giving peple a chance to go to SCHOOL is too MUCH "government regulation". Where does that take us?

As Richard Feynman once said, "There is plenty of room at the bottom".

Since jobs are going away, a lot of people will be joining the poor soon. The road needs to be made clear for the profit making! Other countries banks want in on that action. They are willing to make concessions in other areas so they can all be included.


Its all those social justice expectations that are standing in the way of (in?)equality for all.

 Goodbye middle class. The 99.99% % is about to get even more inclusive!

get the picture?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 10:56:11 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline alank2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1999
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #152 on: September 06, 2017, 06:19:23 pm »
you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #153 on: September 06, 2017, 06:34:12 pm »
What they are really trying to do is prevent real globalization. Which is less and less one where people are needed at all, although the framing now is that the market should determine everything.

But in that world, wages in developed countries fall a lot and wages in developing countries dont go up, they merely get more work for a short time during the transition to automation. careers are cut short because people "make too much".  thats not a good thing because people with technology skills need to keep their skills sharp to maintain them.

In the scenario thats being pushed on us that wont happen, people will just suddenly find themselves excluded from economic life by sudden shifts in the regulatory situation. Dont forget were it not for regulation, there would be no reason to pay people in any country more.

Supply and demand would determine everything. Period. Same with safety. And of course, many people woudl get sick never knowing why, and with no way of ever finding out.  Because chemicals used in everything would be closely guarded trade secrets. Also, doctors main jobs would be preserving state security, not curing anybody.

Under totalitarianism, typically a third of society are informers for the state security apparatus. Even though the Internet simplifies that, we should expect something similar. because the difference between right and wrong is being intentionally blurred to enable the legitimizing of totally profit mad behaviors. We've lost democracy in this global governance layer already. Its been replaced by something much more like the divine right of corporations and those that own them.

This will lead to a total breakdown of the trust which keeps society together. Conservatives today who claim to want deregulation - as you just implied, have limits. You clearly dont want total deregulation, because then basically everything weve gained over the last century and a half would be lost. Only a madman would want that. No, what they are forcing us into is a least common denominator approach which will freeze further progress at the lowest level.  they are doing this because they feel entitled to all the benefits of technology - even when they dont deserve them they are working very hard to make up phony arguments to get them. Because the alternative would lead to reductions in inequality which would be shared across the board. They have successfully reversed that trend now for 22 years. Since the WTO was instantiated basically.

In order to have progress begin anew, we need the world to get the benefits of technology, not the 1%. Thats what this is really all about. Otherwise, as jobs go away, the global standard of living will crash. Businesses of all kinds will fail and a monoculture of megacorporations and a cult of "efficiency" will mop up the remaining pockets of decent quality of life where they exist one by one, using their "shock therapy" of austerity to strip nations and taxpayers of anything that could be said to be a legacy of public interest.

In their version of globalization everybody is enslaved by debt to them. the experiment with having a middle class and innovations like public higher education, rules regulating things like toxic chemicals and drugs and insurance and trying to make products safer are all framed as bad,  depriving people of their rights, and even public primary education that characterized the postwar labor scarcity era will be ended.  After all, people don't need education if there are no jobs for them, right?

Maker culture and tools as well as all uncontrolled knowledge sharing, would be tightly controlled, like in North Korea.

Engineers would likely have to be from the engineer caste which will likely be separated from the rest because of the need for security clearances. (And kept on a very tight leash by the threat of losing it, and likely death or imprisonment. With ones entire family also being locked up for the rest of your short lives, because you all likely know too much.)

Because to maintain the tightest level of control devices of every kind will likely have embedded surveillance. Thats the cost of intentionally dumb people, smart machines.  Think Orwell's 1984, THX-1138, or Terry Glliam's "Brazil" except much worse.

Free simple devices like the ones we have or had in the recent past will be made intentionally unbelievably complicated to add DRM and a million other hooks for various things which are above all of our pay grades to even know about. Thats just one of a million reason why knowledge will become tightly controlled.

Totalitarianism should be understood for what it is. An attempt to take over the entire world and poison its future.

It doesn't tolerate any other systems or even other thoughts co-existing alongside it.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 07:02:44 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline buck converter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Country: us
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #154 on: September 06, 2017, 08:17:58 pm »
The exact same peer group dynamics could also be true for males. One year you might end with a huge robotics group, and the next year you might end up with so few numbers of people interested that they don't bother running it.

Actually - since it is a varsity club sort of things - it is unlikely to undulate too much. Just like high schools and colleges have football and soccer teams - they don't go away when too few jocks sign up...

Like sports varsity, robotics clubs (at least the competing kind) seem to be oversubscribed rather than undulating.... All the school gets behind the team. There is a history with anecdotes, a trophy cabinet and an entire wings of a building dedicated to the club. And they get use of the Gymnasium for robot practice (when the jocks are away).

1 in 30 isn't a problem you say. Surely finishing 26 of 28 teams isn't "optimal"? I think the two are likely to be related.

IMHO, the fact they have 1 gal is indicative of a problem. As you pointed out we don't know what the problem is (and if it is solvable). But 1 in 30? At the very least they are not a very attractive club for female talent. Maybe we should not expect 50% female (no dogma!) - but it can't be that there is nothing of interest in this varsity for all the smart gals (and it is highly likely that the smart guys are avoiding the club as well).

I think it is a problem, but not anyone's fault. The solution is simple on paper, but hard to implement. The solution solves multiple  problems. WHAT IS HE MAGIC CURE FOR MY CLUB?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.

  • My school does not hand over a dime because giving the robotics team money means giving money to all the other clubs. Today, we had a meeting to discuss how to get $2000 in the next 2 weeks (donations accepted hinthintsendmeapm). Other schools give their club unlimited money, and they have girls.
  • The middle school in my district has a FIRST FLL team. They get all the funding they need, a coach who is an engineer, and guess what, their ratio is 1:3, now this club is new, and these female students are now freshmen, hopefully they will join to replace the "1" female I have been talking about who graduated.
  • My club is anything but varsity. We get no professional coach, no money, no busses.

I see a direct correlation between robotics budget and the sex ratio.


There is no other solution without funding a universal program first.

Makeing sure schools have a funded robotics program is the first solution
Just me and my scope.
 

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1638
  • Country: au
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #155 on: September 06, 2017, 10:02:51 pm »
I don't know if a robotics club with money will attract more girls,
but I do think that a robotics club with girls will attract more money.
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1272
  • Country: de
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #156 on: September 06, 2017, 10:06:07 pm »

In her words (Wickman's italics):

'...de-centering Western civilization....'
THOSE other cultures and civilisations that have previously contributed significantly to humanities' technological prowess would have made post-68 garble-talkers like Miss Riley run crying home for mommy.
I doubt very much that the major cultures of Asia would have entrusted her even with driving geese.

'...and uncovering contributions of women...'
This polit-wench has no idea of the astronomical distance, from which the Ladies Hopper, Lamarr, Widnall, Tereshkova, Saenger-Bredt and many others are looking down upon her kind.


'... and other underrepresented groups…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science…."
Now I am too disgusted to follow this thoughts further. Even too disgusted to go into satirical mode, which would be quite easy here.

Fortunately, such problems can be solved by pure engineering.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 10:18:48 pm by Neomys Sapiens »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29985
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #157 on: September 06, 2017, 10:26:46 pm »
I see a direct correlation between robotics budget and the sex ratio.

I think you are wrong.





 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29985
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #158 on: September 06, 2017, 10:31:45 pm »
you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.

Getting back to the root of the topic, is SJW style thinking destroying engineering?
Well, does anyone here agree that what Purdue are doing is a good thing?
i.e. taking degree time away from studying actual engineering (which must be the case) to study this:
Quote
We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

Anyone think that's making an engineering degree better?
 

Offline Corporate666

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2004
  • Country: us
  • Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #159 on: September 06, 2017, 10:45:35 pm »
Isn't that the whole point? Intelligence is not related to gender, social status, financial resources or race

That's completely untrue.  Intelligence is related to ALL of those things.

People often seem to (perhaps willfully?) not understand that the above descriptors do not pigeonhole someone into a specific box that they will never escape from, it simply describes the preponderence of characteristics among the group.

If you look at the bell curve for IQ between genders, you can see the difference.  The curve for males is wider (at the top and bottom), and corrected for other factors, there is still a difference between the two.  That doesn't mean men are smarter (it means that only as much as it means men are dumber).  But there is more clustering around the mean for women.

Ignoring the realities of our DNA is foolish and achieves nothing other than pretending these differences don't exist.  The differences in gender, race, etc should be celebrated and welcomed - not swept under the rug as if they don't exist.
It's not always the most popular person who gets the job done.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #160 on: September 06, 2017, 11:07:45 pm »
Dave,

Historical context is always important but also there needs to be a priority of getting people what they need to know. yes, I do think humanities education is important for any degree granting institution - But four years are also surprisingly short.

She makes a very real point in that the model of what many mean by globalization is badly impacting a lot of people. Its increasing poverty. 

But, bringing that point closer to home, shes saying this to a captive audience. Is it appropriate to teach young would be engineers that? I think it depends on how much time and money they have to spend on it and what they want. It seems as if many people are already over extending themselves financially to go to college, and if that is the case, and they dont want to spend more, no, I dont think they should have to spend their money on non-engineering

If it could be proven that varying the content more made for a better engineering education (and I dont think thats unlikely) then I think sure, do it.. but unless it is proven, I dont think people should have to take that content if they don't want it.

Am I getting across what I am trying to say here, I dont know. We need to stop pretending we're rich or somehow exempted from the world in such a way that we can ignore economics of employment. For many people going to college is an attempt to improve their chances of getting a job in a tight job market. Other people have family money and dont care as much about getting the most education in hard core specifics perhaps. I dont know. Given the economy I think the "default" should be to spend the most time as possible on engineering.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 11:09:35 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline Corporate666

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2004
  • Country: us
  • Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #161 on: September 06, 2017, 11:11:29 pm »
Mansplained, by a white, male.   :palm:

Please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!

No.  Wouldn't one think to ask women *why* they choose nursing over engineering and base one's conclusions at least partly upon a response from the demographic?  Wouldn't *that* be smart?

Your initial response is ridiculous.

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor of Psychology.  The video shown is a clip from a lecture he gave on agreeability, aggression and empathy.  If you think he is unqualified to speak on the topic of gender/personality and career, then you are making that claim for no other reason than the fact that he's a male - which is pure misandry and bigotry.  And if you wanted to be logically and ethically consistent, you would have to discount any teachings from anyone who isn't part of the thing they are teaching about.  So we can discount all political science teaching by anyone who isn't a politician, and any teachings of an economist about the stock/bond market if they aren't an active fund manager or trader, etc, etc.

You can quickly see that such claims are utterly ridiculous and serve no purpose other than to try to silence and shame others when their opinion doesn't match that of the critic.
It's not always the most popular person who gets the job done.
 
The following users thanked this post: george.b

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3511
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #162 on: September 06, 2017, 11:39:58 pm »
you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.

Getting back to the root of the topic, is SJW style thinking destroying engineering?
Well, does anyone here agree that what Purdue are doing is a good thing?
i.e. taking degree time away from studying actual engineering (which must be the case) to study this:
Quote
We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

Anyone think that's making an engineering degree better?

I think something's passed us by here. Dr. Donna Riley, who's quoted above isn't in the Purdue School of Engineering, she's in the Purdue School of Engineering Education.

A quick random sample of the staff of that school shows about half the staff with engineering qualifications and the rest education or social sciences qualifications. So her quote isn't about educating engineers it's about educating people studying engineering education.

To slightly misquote a joke from my late friend Fred Wedlock:
Quote
Those that can, do,
Those that can't do, teach,
Those that can't teach, teach teachers,
Those that can't teach teachers, research education*.

In that context it makes a lot more sense; it may still be as futile (or not, as your opinion wishes) but it's not forcing "Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course" etcetera into the engineering degrees, just the engineering education degrees. That puts a very different complexion on it. I suspect an engineering education degree is as highly sought by the employers of philosophy**, sociology**, and "X** studies" graduates as any other degree. At least if they go to Purdue they will understand the gender implications of asking "Do you want fries with that?".

*The original ended, 'become education officers'.
** Fill in your own bogeymen, sorry bogeypersons. Personally, I've enjoyed many a beer fuelled discussion with graduate philosophers, and I think that only, at most, 50% of sociology majors should be burned at the stake.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1170
  • Country: fo
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #163 on: September 07, 2017, 01:10:10 am »
At the second largest university in CZ - biology, chemistry and medicine has more female students than males. And there are no encouragement campaigns. How it is possible ? :o

Because males have not yet figured out that the ""future"" is not electronics with tinn, silicon and copperclad rather circuits built by genes and DNA sequences. For the lucky Californians you have http://biocurious.org/

Look, most male engineers dont have a female they are to nerdy, just look how Dave had to struggle with all that dating book and stuff, so what could be better then to apply for a session of genes mixing ,loads of chick's there they say!  :)

Besides females are the greatest engineers ever, your mother was the lab that constructed you not even doing a prototype first, serial no1 from start, some of you got buggy software but that's your dads fault!  ;)

https://diybio.org/

Quote
Dave said:
>>Even if you do that you may not see a much greater diversity in gender in a field like engineering, and that I'm lead to believe is what happened in the Nordic countries who are probably as a egalitarian as you can get in this regard.

The most egalitarian experiment was the former sovjets, there you really got 50% female engineers, and just look how it turned out: Lada cars!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39579321
 

Offline John B

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • Country: au
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #164 on: September 07, 2017, 01:20:42 am »
Something that needs to be clarified is the idea that what is being pushed into STEM (and almost everywhere else) is just broadening ones education to include "humanities". We aren't talking about engineers and scientists taking some light course in French literature, glass blowing or nude drawing. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what students are being pushed into (in some cases forced to study in order to complete their degree) is very far left, post-modernist, marxist feminist, thrown in with some american-centric racialist ideology.

If the one promoting this stuff were honest and just admitted that they were essentially religious colleges where you can expect to be preached to, I would still think it's cancerous but they have the right to be cancerous I suppose.

However these are universities that take taxpayer money, and then require students to accept certain political ideas. At least to extent that you do not voice any disagreement, lest you be labelled as transgressive and face the consequences. This feels perilously close to forced political speech and belief with government backing.

Plus, the consequences for disgreement are not just imagined or hypothetical. Termination of employment, expulsion, physical verbal and legal harassment, facing down angry mobs and literal riots with people beaten, buildings and cars smashed and burned are all observed consequences.
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16221
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #165 on: September 07, 2017, 02:00:11 am »
you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.

Getting back to the root of the topic, is SJW style thinking destroying engineering?
Well, does anyone here agree that what Purdue are doing is a good thing?
i.e. taking degree time away from studying actual engineering (which must be the case) to study this:
Quote
We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

Anyone think that's making an engineering degree better?
Certainly not.

Want to influence those that will appreciate that BS, shove it down the throats of those in management and political studies or qualified engineers that for some reason want to go back for a second dose of brainwashing schooling.  ::)

There's an old saying that should also apply to education of the specialized subjects: stick to your knitting !
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29985
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #166 on: September 07, 2017, 04:29:14 am »
Am I getting across what I am trying to say here, I dont know. We need to stop pretending we're rich or somehow exempted from the world in such a way that we can ignore economics of employment. For many people going to college is an attempt to improve their chances of getting a job in a tight job market. Other people have family money and dont care as much about getting the most education in hard core specifics perhaps. I dont know. Given the economy I think the "default" should be to spend the most time as possible on engineering.

We are talking about forcing education about gender/race/colonialism here, not income inequality etc.
Does anyone really believe this is appropriate in an engineer degree?
Quote
Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

Let's not mince words, I think it's a complete load of horse shit to have that in an engineering degree. Purdue are a joke.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2970
  • Country: ca
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #167 on: September 07, 2017, 04:29:55 am »
Apply these Purdue Engineering Head's principles to any other profession, such as aviation, sports. I could do others but any proves how out to lunch this educator's perspective is.

In sports, we will lower the basketball hoop for inclusion's sake. Short people need to play too.
In aviation, we studied how technology influences things, gender, racism, colonialism and... did anyone learn how to land the airplane? Surely the plane will land itself.

In engineering, it's a bunch of bridges and buildings collapsing, some explosions and fires due to a SJW corrupting a profession.

"... applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices."

Dr. Donna Riley at Smiths women's college.
Dr. Donna Riley, Kamyar Haghighi Head of the School of Engineering Education
the same person?

She has no place leading engineering unless this secures more funding and grants for Purdue  ;)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 04:35:38 am by floobydust »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29985
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #168 on: September 07, 2017, 04:33:57 am »
I think something's passed us by here. Dr. Donna Riley, who's quoted above isn't in the Purdue School of Engineering, she's in the Purdue School of Engineering Education.
A quick random sample of the staff of that school shows about half the staff with engineering qualifications and the rest education or social sciences qualifications. So her quote isn't about educating engineers it's about educating people studying engineering education.

In that context it makes a lot more sense; it may still be as futile (or not, as your opinion wishes) but it's not forcing "Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course" etcetera into the engineering degrees, just the engineering education degrees. That puts a very different complexion on it. I suspect an engineering education degree is as highly sought by the employers of philosophy**, sociology**, and "X** studies" graduates as any other degree. At least if they go to Purdue they will understand the gender implications of asking "Do you want fries with that?".

Ah, interesting:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/Academics/Graduate

Quote
PhD in Engineering Education Program

Purdue established the School of Engineering Education (ENE)—the world's first such academic unit—in 2004, and along with it, the world's first engineering education doctoral program, for students who wish to pursue rigorous research in how engineering is best taught, learned, and practiced.

And their strategic plan:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/AboutUs/StratPlan.pdf
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 04:36:50 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline X

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Country: 00
    • This is where you end up when you die...
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #169 on: September 07, 2017, 05:05:40 am »
The way things are going on right now, it may not be long before the Backyard Brainiac, Garage Genius, Basement Scientist, or Midnight Engineer will be selected over a university graduate. This kind of rubbish makes the latest engineering degrees a complete joke. Even if it is "Engineering Education" there will be companies smart enough to avoid Purdue as a result of this inappropriate association.

Sometimes things become a world first because nobody else was stupid enough to bother.
 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 580
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #170 on: September 07, 2017, 07:21:20 am »
Bang bang. Goes the discussion. The bang bang police will force a solution to social problems by skewering the symptoms!

None, or one, woman of thirty men in the robotics club is a symptom of a malady. Money? perhaps. Money will attract talent? perhaps. But my experience has always been that it is far easier to attract money (e.g. sponsors) with talent, than it is to first have money and then attract talent (unless daddy is rich).

The main problem is the lack of talent. NOT the fact that few woman sign up to the club. Perhaps the women realize that the club isn't that good and would rather spend their precious time doing more effective things. Perhaps the club should supplicate for a local figurehead take the club under their sponsorship or do a really tough hackathon. But find away to attract the talent.

The major problem with the bang bang police approach is that they will try to force woman to join the club rather than figure out how to solve the talent problem with the little resources they have.

Now - Most of the best and brightest engineers are multi-disciplinarians. Many have more than one degree. I personally know people with engineering + philosophy, + law, +biology, +literature, +filmmaking, + agriculture, +finance, +physics & math, even psychology! for some reason I do not know any with sociology or anthropology as an additional subject.

Many of the greatest have hobbies we love to read about. Physicist idolize Feynman, engineers love to read Bob Pease's essay about what to do if a Porsche's alternator is falling - do you let it fall or - perhaps - sacrifice your foot? In fact all of the greats have big stories. Everything from pranks, sheep, weird projects they somehow got attracted to - and even - in time of war - build virtually impossible things (like torpedos, nuclear bombs, etc.) for social purposes or ideas.

But the postmodern police will have us believe that if one takes a third class physicist - and teach them to crack safe's (like Feynman loved to do at Los Alamos) - you'll end up with a Feynmen. This is where the seductive power of postmodern thinking invalidates itself as wishful thinking. It is BS and it doesn't work.

A third class engineer will be hard pressed to find solutions to the drift equation or Maxwell's equations. They will also find it hard (if not harder) to explain what tenets of universalism are at odd with postmodern ideas - or how the concepts of common law (obviously British) are implemented in the US - in constitutional as well as the laws of the land (statutes and case made).

In the broader context of thinking - the problem is what Kahneman and Tversky described as Heuristics in Decision Making. That the bang bang police people cannot really make a rational assessment of cause an effect (causality). Feynman had various interests because he was a maverick. He was not a maverick because he had various interests. They confuse cause and effect.

Same goes for woman in a particular field. Assuming you believe that intelligence is omnipresent, having few woman is a symptomatic of a problem What that problem is - and whether solving it is possible - demand a far more nuanced discussion than "affirmative action" or bang bang police - would have us believe.

And yes - the fact that there are few woman on this forum is a problem. What the problem is - and does it have a solution - I do not know. At the very least it will limit the participation on this forum to 1/2 of what it could be. Perhaps all we are is a geeky equivalent of a bike gang comparing the sizes of our - ahem - long range multimeters... Not very attractive...

But forcing women to join - that is not the solution.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4719
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #171 on: September 07, 2017, 11:52:32 am »
And their strategic plan:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/AboutUs/StratPlan.pdf
That plan calls for behaviours which are:
Quote
being inclusive, collegial, and mutually supportive
Inclusive sounds pretty good. Collegial sounds a bit woolly. Mutually supportive? Do these people know what science and engineering are? If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. Mutually supportive sounds warm and fuzzy, but its the path to irrelevance. Perhaps they really mean something like cooperative, and if they did, perhaps they should have said so.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29985
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #172 on: September 07, 2017, 11:58:25 am »
And their strategic plan:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/AboutUs/StratPlan.pdf
That plan calls for behaviours which are:
Quote
being inclusive, collegial, and mutually supportive
Inclusive sounds pretty good. Collegial sounds a bit woolly. Mutually supportive? Do these people know what science and engineering are? If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. Mutually supportive sounds warm and fuzzy, but its the path to irrelevance. Perhaps they really mean something like cooperative, and if they did, perhaps they should have said so.

They mean precisely what they say, at best.
 

Offline alank2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1999
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #173 on: September 07, 2017, 12:06:55 pm »
In sports, we will lower the basketball hoop for inclusion's sake. Short people need to play too.
In aviation, we studied how technology influences things, gender, racism, colonialism and... did anyone learn how to land the airplane? Surely the plane will land itself.
In engineering, it's a bunch of bridges and buildings collapsing, some explosions and fires due to a SJW corrupting a profession.

Yep.  Let's keep lowering the standards for everything until we get to our future...  maybe sooner than the year 2500

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy


« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 12:09:36 pm by alank2 »
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, nugglix

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1225
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #174 on: September 07, 2017, 12:51:08 pm »
This kind of crap has been spreading through universities for years now. It started with all the bullshit degrees (anything ending in "studies") and soft subjects, then into science, and has now reached engineering.

I've given up arguing against it.  I know that the sneering snowflake lefties that look down their noses at me for being a thick, ignorant, uneducated tradesman - will one day need me or one of my ilk when the lights go out or there's water pouring through the ceiling.  Let's see how your gender studies degree compares to my misogynistic, colonial, old fashioned toolbox!
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 12:55:01 pm by Delta »
 
The following users thanked this post: nugglix, Jacon


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf