I'd imagine that lawyers tend to make obscene amounts of money. If I was just concerned about salary I would not really be going into engineering. I'd probably become a doctor or a lawyer of some sort. If I really want to hedge my bets in life and get rich, I'd look into business, trade, and stock brokerage.
Mansplained, by a white, male.
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?
I'd imagine that lawyers tend to make obscene amounts of money. If I was just concerned about salary I would not really be going into engineering. I'd probably become a doctor or a lawyer of some sort. If I really want to hedge my bets in life and get rich, I'd look into business, trade, and stock brokerage.
You shouldn't be so casual about "settling" for being a doctor or lawyer.
When I studied at Uni I was informed that EE was the third most challenging course. The next up was Law and the top was Medicine.
To be clear: I believe that university education should be multi-dimensional. Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.
To be clear: I believe that university education should be multi-dimensional. Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.
There wasn't enough time in the 12 years of compulsory full time study previously?
If someone pays to go to university of their own free will to specialise in a field of study, why on earth should they be forced to learn all that stuff?
To be clear: I believe that university education should be multi-dimensional. Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.
There wasn't enough time in the 12 years of compulsory full time study previously?
If someone pays to go to university of their own free will to specialise in a field of study, why on earth should they be forced to learn all that stuff?
I agree and disagree. There are some bullshit classes that they make you take (Like history. We've already been lectured on the same boring crap in the mandatory schooling, why do we gotta learn more about the same thing?) however there are examples like writing and different sciences that apply to the field of electronics engineering. It's those topics that will actually come in handy, and should be taught.
"The recently appointed dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley, has an ambitious agenda.
In her words (italics mine): “I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women 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….”
Me think you doth protest too much , Dave. Surely a quick semester course in comparative religion would improve your skills. Somewhat. At least a bit. Maybe.
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?Could it not be due to innate differences between the male and female genders?
Perhaps most women will select nurturing role, such as nursing, over engineering, because that's what interests them most?
If so, then why? Some may call me sexist for saying this, but don't women generally have a more nurturing role in society? Irrespective of what any government does, females will always have a greater role in childcare than males. They're designed to carry the baby for 9 months, plus nurse it for another year. It's hardly surprising they tend to select a nurturing role, over a technical one!
To be clear: I believe that university education should be multi-dimensional. Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.There wasn't enough time in the 12 years of compulsory full time study previously?
If someone pays to go to university of their own free will to specialise in a field of study, why on earth should they be forced to learn all that stuff?
Make no mistake, engineering degrees that go down this path will have a very bleak future.
All that money wasted on the university lunch plan when beans, rice, and cheese would be a perfectly sustaining source of calories.
Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.
How much contextualizing of justice topics can a hormones-raging, not-working, allowance-receiving 15 year-old do?
Can you spot any differences in the picture below?
It's subtle; you might have to look closely.
I'm going to be awful misogynist , male chauvinist and incorrect politically.
1.The medecine, biology , chemist, nursering ,etc all have some on common . The mayor part of the matter have to MEMORIZE. On resume ,the girls and women tend to memorize(like parrot) when they are learning.
2.The girls and women tend to be very obedient and they don't tend to dispute the stuffs. They will tend to be lambs.
3. The girls and women tend to lose the head with the babies and low-age kids and when they can't supply these wishes, they tend to work on place where there are children like kindergardens, schools and pedriatics.
All these afirmations have been recompiled of my own experiences with classroom mates (both sex ).
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?Could it not be due to innate differences between the male and female genders?
Perhaps most women will select nurturing role, such as nursing, over engineering, because that's what interests them most?
If so, then why? Some may call me sexist for saying this, but don't women generally have a more nurturing role in society? Irrespective of what any government does, females will always have a greater role in childcare than males. They're designed to carry the baby for 9 months, plus nurse it for another year. It's hardly surprising they tend to select a nurturing role, over a technical one!
As someone else mentioned before, if you are interested in this stuff then go watch Jordon Petersons videos and lectures on the subject, they are fascinating, he's one of the world's leading researchers in this area. And yes, on average, innate gender differences play a huge role, if not the dominate role in this case, there is a ton of research on the topic.
But that's not the reason a lot of people want to hear.
However, be careful, Peterson has become somewhat of a poster child for this topic, and just the act of posting one of his university lectures can get you branded a misogynist for life
The so called "equal pay" issue isn't specifically a male/female issue. There are many men who make more than other men because they are simply stronger, better, more capable, or simply a better negotiator. Men are not paid the same for the same job! They don't even perform the same from man to man. Yet we hear about how it is a male/female issue. It is not. It is the way capitalism works. Dare I say that capitalism doesn't care what sex you are - those in the most need will be paid the most. Those who have the most to offer a company will be the best paid. Everything else is just whining. Honestly, I think equal pay is just some sort of social back door to socialism or communism.
Shouldn't a harder more specialized job like a technical one be paid more than a nurturing role that might be challenging, but more people can do it effectively? There is that capitalism again.
I'm going to be awful misogynist , male chauvinist and incorrect politically.
1.The medecine, biology , chemist, nursering ,etc all have some on common . The mayor part of the matter have to MEMORIZE. On resume ,the girls and women tend to memorize(like parrot) when they are learning.
2.The girls and women tend to be very obedient and they don't tend to dispute the stuffs. They will tend to be lambs.
3. The girls and women tend to lose the head with the babies and low-age kids and when they can't supply these wishes, they tend to work on place where there are children like kindergardens, schools and pedriatics.
All these afirmations have been recompiled of my own experiences with classroom mates (both sex ).I'll bite.
1) You've obviously not studied medicine, biology and chemistry. They rely on a deep level of understanding, not just memory.
2) Probably true to some extent. Women do tent to be more submissive, than men and this is not a bad thing, just a difference.
3) I wouldn't agree with that. Men tend to loose their temper with the children more often, than women and are more likely to resort to corporal punishment. Women are generally more empathetic, than men, which makes them better suited to caring for younger children.
account, the gap persists. Look at the BBC's top paid list, as an example. They're mostly men, who get paid for doing exactly the same as their female co-stars.