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.
At 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.
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 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.)
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.
“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 need the liberal arts side of an education. The lack of a balanced education hurts engineers.
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.
Mansplained, by a white, male.
Why does it have to be "solved"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mansplained, by a white, male.
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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