-
The solution is to ensure that women and minorities have a fair and accessible path forward into STEM.
How exactly is it currently "unfair"?
It is largely unfair in the sense that a minority in the US will attend a vastly inferior set of schools that her or his white counterpart. The racial disparity in education in the US is caused by how education is funded: property taxes. Rich neighborhoods have great schools. Poor neighborhoods have correspondingly poorer schools The poor are trapped in an underfunded educational system and end up at a huge disadvantage if they are accepted to college at all.
Right, so it has absolutely nothing to do with equality of access to STEM education and is simply one of broader socio-economic issues in society.
That's not what's being discussed here.QuoteAt least in the US, minorities are still at a substantial disadvantage for college attendance. The solution is to fix primary and secondary education, not dumb down the college curriculum.
You'll get no argument there. -
It is a thought often why to bother preaching to the choir, but it's something that I am passionate about changing. My anger comes from the people who are also passionate about changing it, but refuse to listen to any sort of reason or suggestions as to the right way of changing it.
Equality is a two way road. It's impossible to reach true equality from one side of it. It will only take a true, reasoned, egalitarian approach to reach it.
I agree and may not have been clear. I do not oppose the desire to have more women in technical fields. I oppose the ideology that looks at the disparity, points the finger at a particular group and spouts off subversive and hateful rhetoric while making sweeping changes without understanding or even trying to understand the underlying reasons. The end result of the OP would be either a engineering program in which male candidates numbers are reduced, thereby increasing the female to male ratio within the group, but without actually increasing female participation, or a strong push within other technical and/or non-technical programs to get women to change majors to an engineering field. In either scenario the professors would, out of necessity, be required to pass a certain number of female students, possibly under penalty of loss of job or tenure, thereby flooding the market with potentially uninterested and unqualified engineers.
The question no one wants to ask or tackle, one that will result in an immediate charge or sexism, "patriarchy" and bigotry, is why more women have no interest in engineering. The false assumption is that women are being excluded, and given the left leaning nature of the vast majority of universities, I seriously doubt that. They are actively choosing another degree path on their own volition. -
(I can tell this anecdotally, when there were only one or two women in my high school physics class comprised almost entirely of males. Similarly for chemistry and mathematics. I don't think this was statistically representative of the abilities across the student intake.)
Ability shouldn't be the driver, interest should be the driver.
You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.
-
The solution is to ensure that women and minorities have a fair and accessible path forward into STEM.
How exactly is it currently "unfair"?
It is largely unfair in the sense that a minority in the US will attend a vastly inferior set of schools that her or his white counterpart. The racial disparity in education in the US is caused by how education is funded: property taxes. Rich neighborhoods have great schools. Poor neighborhoods have correspondingly poorer schools The poor are trapped in an underfunded educational system and end up at a huge disadvantage if they are accepted to college at all.
Right, so it has absolutely nothing to do with equality of access to STEM education and is simply one of broader socio-economic issues in society.
That's not what's being discussed here.
Yes it is. From the OP:Quote“The door to engineering is open to everyone, just as the floor of the basketball court is open to everyone, or applying to the [Navy] SEALS is open to everyone,” he said. “The question then is, are you good enough?”
“Nobody wants to see an uncoordinated doofus on the NBA basketball court simply to add ‘diversity,’ ” Mr. Wichman said. “We pay to see top-notch talent compete for victory.
We should apply the same standards to engineering and stop pretending that we can ‘game’ our wonderful profession so that anyone can succeed.”
You're not going to see diversity in very difficult fields unless that diversity is properly prepared to succeed in college.
As for the matter of "interest," that's a separate issue that is much more challenging to solve than the challenging problem of equal access to a quality education. -
-
You need the liberal arts side of an education. The lack of a balanced education hurts engineers.
Having read similar comments in another recent thread I find this curious (the expectation that engineers should be required to take arts courses).
I consider myself fortunate that I did not come through a liberal arts system. When I studied engineering, every module required was directly related to the degree. However, my institution had a very broad extra-curricular program in the arts, music, sports and many other activities, provided for enrichment. The degree program was compulsory, the arts program voluntary.
Therefore, I find the comparison between the systems in the USA and Europe slightly ironic. The American system is akin to socialism: you will study the arts whether you like it or not. The European system is more like capitalism: you can choose to broaden your education, but the "government" doesn't force you to.
(And lest anyone question it, I would say writing, researching, communication and presentation skills are a core part of an engineering education. However, in Europe I think they are integrated within the core curriculum and not split off as separate modules.)
-
You're not going to see diversity in very difficult fields unless that diversity is properly prepared to succeed in college.
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.
Anyone who thinks we are going to see a natural 50/50 male/female in engineering will be dead wrong. As wrong as expecting to see a 50/50 split in child care and nursing.QuoteAs for the matter of "interest," that's a separate issue that is much more challenging to solve than the challenging problem of equal access to a quality education.
Why does it have to be "solved"? -
Mansplained, by a white, male.
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!Why does it have to be "solved"?
Because "equality", at least in the U.S., isn't about equal rights for all, a noble goal. It is about making everyone "equal". We are all different, and therefore, diverse. However, those differences are being singled out, one by one, as something to be eradicated and are being demonized and vilified at every turn. It is "sexist" and "bigoted" and "wrong" that more women are not interested in certain fields. It cannot be an internal desire; it MUST be an external force. So the finger pointing and demonizing and fear mongering begins. -
Ability shouldn't be the driver, interest should be the driver.
You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.
While I would agree with the importance of interest, I would suggest a latent interest in a subject can be suppressed and prevented from developing by external factors like peer pressure and lack of encouragement. This is particularly important in the early years of a child's education.
-
The solution is to ensure that women and minorities have a fair and accessible path forward into STEM.
How exactly is it currently "unfair"?
It is largely unfair in the sense that a minority in the US will attend a vastly inferior set of schools that her or his white counterpart. The racial disparity in education in the US is caused by how education is funded: property taxes. Rich neighborhoods have great schools. Poor neighborhoods have correspondingly poorer schools The poor are trapped in an underfunded educational system and end up at a huge disadvantage if they are accepted to college at all.
Right, so it has absolutely nothing to do with equality of access to STEM education and is simply one of broader socio-economic issues in society.
That's not what's being discussed here.
Yes it is. From the OP:Quote“The door to engineering is open to everyone, just as the floor of the basketball court is open to everyone, or applying to the [Navy] SEALS is open to everyone,” he said. “The question then is, are you good enough?”
“Nobody wants to see an uncoordinated doofus on the NBA basketball court simply to add ‘diversity,’ ” Mr. Wichman said. “We pay to see top-notch talent compete for victory.
We should apply the same standards to engineering and stop pretending that we can ‘game’ our wonderful profession so that anyone can succeed.”
You're not going to see diversity in very difficult fields unless that diversity is properly prepared to succeed in college.
As for the matter of "interest," that's a separate issue that is much more challenging to solve than the challenging problem of equal access to a quality education.
I'll take the bait. Why do you think parents spend money to buy houses in good school zones? Why do you think parents spend $$$ to send kids to study out of state/prince or even abroad? They want their social wealth, status and power to be continued by their next generation. This has nothing to do with eugenics nor unfair, it's simple human nature.
Fairness is never Just, and Justice won't be Fair.
Want to use policies to guarantee everyone to get equal chance to study? Then that's the SCA5 shit. Because a race is more inferior in academic sense they can get lower enroll threshold? That's bullshit.
Remember the Indian guy disguised himself as black and got enrolled? That's the consequence.
First off. Look up the word "eugenics" and understand its meaning.
Second, the issue of buying into "good school zones" would not happen if money was equally distributed among all schools, as it damned well should be. Poor children do not deserve to be damned into an eternal cycle of poverty through enforced ignorance.
Third, what you're describing is a caste system, which I will admit the US is all too close to having. And it is complete, utter bullshit. I need direct you no further than current events to illustrate the problems that forcing a large segment of society into an underclass of ignorance can create.
There will never be complete fairness. But we can do a MUCH better job of equality of opportunity. Just because the outcome won't be perfect does not justify inaction. -
STEM students should be taught STEM only, and the SJ rubbishes don't mix with scientific and engineering mind.
No. This is not vector addition. Extremism in the opposite direction is not an antidote to extremism in first.
You need the liberal arts side of an education. The lack of a balanced education hurts engineers.
Ok, so what subject do you propose they take out of the engineering degree in order to study your "liberal arts"?
Because something has to give. EE is now (always has been maybe?) so ridiculously broad it's literally impossible to cover even close to everything expected of a modern engineer. And this of course is a much complained about problem with graduates.
And you want to take away some engineering classes in order to study some "liberal arts" stuff? (what exactly BTW, please be specific) -
Ability shouldn't be the driver, interest should be the driver.
You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.
While I would agree with the importance of interest, I would suggest a latent interest in a subject can be suppressed and prevented from developing by external factors like peer pressure and lack of encouragement. This is particularly important in the early years of a child's education.
Indeed.
What I was really getting at is that many kids get pushed into professions they have little or no interest in, and that's bad. -
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? -
It is a thought often why to bother preaching to the choir, but it's something that I am passionate about changing. My anger comes from the people who are also passionate about changing it, but refuse to listen to any sort of reason or suggestions as to the right way of changing it.
Equality is a two way road. It's impossible to reach true equality from one side of it. It will only take a true, reasoned, egalitarian approach to reach it.
I agree and may not have been clear. I do not oppose the desire to have more women in technical fields. I oppose the ideology that looks at the disparity, points the finger at a particular group and spouts off subversive and hateful rhetoric while making sweeping changes without understanding or even trying to understand the underlying reasons. The end result of the OP would be either a engineering program in which male candidates numbers are reduced, thereby increasing the female to male ratio within the group, but without actually increasing female participation, or a strong push within other technical and/or non-technical programs to get women to change majors to an engineering field. In either scenario the professors would, out of necessity, be required to pass a certain number of female students, possibly under penalty of loss of job or tenure, thereby flooding the market with potentially uninterested and unqualified engineers.
The question no one wants to ask or tackle, one that will result in an immediate charge or sexism, "patriarchy" and bigotry, is why more women have no interest in engineering. The false assumption is that women are being excluded, and given the left leaning nature of the vast majority of universities, I seriously doubt that. They are actively choosing another degree path on their own volition.
My opinion is this:
We can at least try to do it. Try to get female middle and high school students interested and introduce it to each sex equally. If at the end of the day we still don't have diversity, and we have made sure that we aren't steering women away intentionally, then that is all we should do.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?
There are so many levels of bait and stupidity here it's making me remember exactly why this shit normally doesn't fly on this forum.
I just wish to remind everybody that just because thinks other than you, doesn't mean you have to go nuts on them. Civil discussions are all that are needed here. While we talk about SJWs, we need to be careful that we do not become them ourselves.
Now to add my opinion, I hate the word mansplaining. It is a sexist word, and one that is only used when one has run out of arguments, and can only resort to suggesting the entire discussion is invalid because the guy in the conversation is making a statement.
I have a new suggestion: Whenever we use a word like mansplaining, use it in the opposite way and see if it sounds fine.
Womensplaining, when women derisively talk back to men as if they know everything and are simply talking down to them.
That sounds terrible, but it's just a mirror of what mansplaining is. -
STEM students should be taught STEM only, and the SJ rubbishes don't mix with scientific and engineering mind.
No. This is not vector addition. Extremism in the opposite direction is not an antidote to extremism in first.
You need the liberal arts side of an education. The lack of a balanced education hurts engineers.
Ok, so what subject do you propose they take out of the engineering degree in order to study your "liberal arts"?
Because something has to give. EE is now (always has been maybe?) so ridiculously broad it's literally impossible to cover even close to everything expected of a modern engineer. And this of course is a much complained about problem with graduates.
And you want to take away some engineering classes in order to study some "liberal arts" stuff? (what exactly BTW, please be specific)
I didn't suggest removing anything. You're making a false statement regarding something I never wrote. I do suggest adding summer school or an additional year to the degree program. Yes, you read that right.
I meet too many STEM grads who can't write, can't spell, have no knowledge of philosophy, religion (as taught academically as opposed to church), history, art, psychology, music, logic as it pertains to making arguments, etc. to not admit that there's a problem.
Engineers build the world, but there's also more to the world. They should get a little taste of the other side of college before leaving. -
If you want a real mind-bender ask a SJW why height and skin color are heritable, but personality and intelligence are not. I tried it many years ago (when we were still allowed to ask that question) and did not enjoy the experience. These days I'd probably just be fired.
Eugenics went out of fashion in 1945. Give it a rest.
I don't think that a put down of eugenics is the response to this.
Dear God. I really just read this ^^^^. Go read history and come back to me on this one.
OK. I give. What is wrong with what I said? I did not endorse eugenics. I did not endorse any kind of genetic sorting for preference.
I don't know if the original commenter was a proponent of genetic superiority in any form, although the way he put the question it would be easy to imply this. What I suggested was that if you disagreed with his point, saying that the idea went out of fashion in 1945 was not a powerful argument.
I then gave a short summary of what I thought was a better argument for why eugenics or other concerns about genetic heritage are not important.
Perhaps you have better way of saying this, or perhaps you have some nascent SJW in you. I would suggest a better way of saying it would be more powerful. -
Great post TwoOfFive, spot on in every regard.
-
Because "equality", at least in the U.S., isn't about equal rights for all, a noble goal. It is about making everyone "equal". We are all different, and therefore, diverse. However, those differences are being singled out, one by one, as something to be eradicated and are being demonized and vilified at every turn. It is "sexist" and "bigoted" and "wrong" that more women are not interested in certain fields. It cannot be an internal desire; it MUST be an external force. So the finger pointing and demonizing and fear mongering begins.
But there IS an external force. If you actually take the time to listen, any number of women could tell you about any number of times they've been discouraged--sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly--from pursuing STEM education. Sometimes it's peers, sometimes it's teachers. I've heard it directly from a number of women I know. The same goes for people of racial minorities. It doesn't matter if certain cohorts on the whole are less interested in STEM, the fact of the matter is that there are women and minorities who ARE interested and ARE discouraged. As far as race, there are whole schools full of children who could have the interest and the drive to get into STEM and succeed, but they're never exposed to the curriculum or given the support that their peers in more affluent (which in the US, means more white) schools are.
So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture. -
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?
Strangely enough, psychologists have indeed done surveys to determine personality traits and tendencies amongst populations.
Jordan Peterson has released quite a wealth of knowledge onto the internet for those who are curious. Of particular interest is the idea of distilling essential psychological traits from large volumes of survey data and analysing the co-variance of answers to see if they measure a singular trait. Cultural, socio-economic, sex influences etc can all be factored for. As difficult as it is to ascertain comprehensive truths in a softer science like psychology, people like Dr Peterson are making an honest effort to apply the scientific method.
Or, we could entertain the "alternative science" that he's just a big meany mansplainer. -
Because "equality", at least in the U.S., isn't about equal rights for all, a noble goal. It is about making everyone "equal". We are all different, and therefore, diverse. However, those differences are being singled out, one by one, as something to be eradicated and are being demonized and vilified at every turn. It is "sexist" and "bigoted" and "wrong" that more women are not interested in certain fields. It cannot be an internal desire; it MUST be an external force. So the finger pointing and demonizing and fear mongering begins.
But there IS an external force. If you actually take the time to listen, any number of women could tell you about any number of times they've been discouraged--sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly--from pursuing STEM education. Sometimes it's peers, sometimes it's teachers. I've heard it directly from a number of women I know. The same goes for people of racial minorities. It doesn't matter if certain cohorts on the whole are less interested in STEM, the fact of the matter is that there are women and minorities who ARE interested and ARE discouraged. As far as race, there are whole schools full of children who could have the interest and the drive to get into STEM and succeed, but they're never exposed to the curriculum or given the support that their peers in more affluent (which in the US, means more white) schools are.
So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture.
This is similar to my statement. We can't prove that women are or are not naturally more or less interested. We don't have the climate to test that, and there are too many variables to try and control. I do not think this matters, however. We can give as much encouragement to women as we do men, or maybe even a bit more, We will most definitely get more women into STEM fields, but if it ends in a 50/50 split is not something to get hung up on. It would be nice, but it will either happen or it won't happen. There is nothing reasonable that we can do to change that.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?
Strangely enough, psychologists have indeed done surveys to determine personality traits and tendencies amongst populations.
Jordan Peterson has released quite a wealth of knowledge onto the internet for those who are curious. Of particular interest is the idea of distilling essential psychological traits from large volumes of survey data and analysing the co-variance of answers to see if they measure a singular trait. Cultural, socio-economic, sex influences etc can all be factored for. As difficult as it is to ascertain comprehensive truths in a softer science like psychology, people like Dr Peterson are making an honest effort to apply the scientific method.
Or, we could entertain the "alternative science" that he's just a big meany mansplainer.
I like this. -
SJW nonsense cannot be expressed in numbers, so as far as engineering is concerned it is an idea of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.
-
So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture.
Listen to Jorden Peterson above (who BTW, has spent his career researching such things) and follow the Nordic case studies.
Apparently they have tried to level the playing field in almost every respect, and did isolate the variable, bringing it back to inherent interest differences in men and women, and the result was that there was still that large split.
I did go look into the references for this once but didn't get far, but I'm sure it's out there for those interested. -
This is similar to my statement. We can't prove that women are or are not naturally more or less interested. We don't have the climate to test that, and there are too many variables to try and control. I do not think this matters, however. We can give as much encouragement to women as we do men, or maybe even a bit more
I've seen a huge push in this in the last decade or so. In fact courses and programs encouraging girls into STEM seem to be prolific.
There are even startup programs for females only, like this aussie one:
https://www.shestarts.com
-
"SheStarts is powered by Australia's leaders in diversity & innovation"
Diversity for women only.