In her words (Wickman's italics):
'...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…."
I see a direct correlation between robotics budget and the sex ratio.
you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.
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….”
Isn't that the whole point? Intelligence is not related to gender, social status, financial resources or race
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?
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:QuoteWe 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?
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*.
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 ?
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.
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:QuoteWe 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?
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.
Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”
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?".
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
being inclusive, collegial, and mutually supportive
And their strategic plan:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/AboutUs/StratPlan.pdfThat plan calls for behaviours which are:Quotebeing inclusive, collegial, and mutually supportiveInclusive 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.
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.
... If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. ...
... If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. ...
I think you just created a good example of why some people from non-science and engineering backgrounds might think that engineers and scientists need some civilising. Your choice of wording of "aggressively tearing holes" sounds very much like clawing your way to the top over the mangled bodies of your former colleagues. I'm sure that's not what you really mean, I'm sure you really mean rigorously examining each other's work for flaws or opportunities to improve the work (in a mutually supportive fashion, naturally).
Of course I might be wrong, you might be the sort of sociopath whose pre design review meeting ritual involves sharpening knives, but I suspect not; that kind of behaviour is reserved for board meetings.
... If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. ...
I think you just created a good example of why some people from non-science and engineering backgrounds might think that engineers and scientists need some civilising. Your choice of wording of "aggressively tearing holes" sounds very much like clawing your way to the top over the mangled bodies of your former colleagues. I'm sure that's not what you really mean, I'm sure you really mean rigorously examining each other's work for flaws or opportunities to improve the work (in a mutually supportive fashion, naturally).
Of course I might be wrong, you might be the sort of sociopath whose pre design review meeting ritual involves sharpening knives, but I suspect not; that kind of behaviour is reserved for board meetings.Do you think friends playing sports are not taking an aggressive approach as they play? This has nothing to do with how they get along outside the game. Typically when I am in technical discussions where people feel unable to apply a little aggression in finding fault with something proposed, they end up with a rather pear shaped solution.