-
1
- #1
moltenmetal
Chemical
Read the article, THEN discuss...
CLEONIKI KESIDIS said:
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Girls in STEM is failing both girls and STEM? 99
- Thread starter moltenmetal
- Start date
- Status
Read the article, THEN discuss...
"but for much of the last 15 to 20 years, most companies of any size or worth, have promoted a platform of gender inclusivity. "
What companies promote and what they actually do are often two different things. That's been proven in real life as well as in controlled studies. The word "companies" sort of implies some sort of anthropomorphic entity that is the "company," but "companies" are actually assemblages of random humans, and they are the ones that actually implement policies, or not implement them, as the case may be. Volkswagen presumably has policies about adhering to the "highest standards," or some-such, yet, a group of engineers managed to conspire to falsify test data. This is clearly something that was both illegal and reputation-damaging, and they did it anyway.
Studies have been shown that inspite whatever company policies there might be concerning gender bias, it existed, although more recent studies seem to indicate a more complex landscape: where gender bias exists for socioeconomically advantaged females, but the reverse happened for socioeconomically disadvantaged females. These and other studies also need to be viewed in the light of automated resume screeners that might be used in larger companies that might have de-biased the results, as these resume studies don't necessarily get to an actual human reviewer.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
What companies promote and what they actually do are often two different things. That's been proven in real life as well as in controlled studies. The word "companies" sort of implies some sort of anthropomorphic entity that is the "company," but "companies" are actually assemblages of random humans, and they are the ones that actually implement policies, or not implement them, as the case may be. Volkswagen presumably has policies about adhering to the "highest standards," or some-such, yet, a group of engineers managed to conspire to falsify test data. This is clearly something that was both illegal and reputation-damaging, and they did it anyway.
Studies have been shown that inspite whatever company policies there might be concerning gender bias, it existed, although more recent studies seem to indicate a more complex landscape: where gender bias exists for socioeconomically advantaged females, but the reverse happened for socioeconomically disadvantaged females. These and other studies also need to be viewed in the light of automated resume screeners that might be used in larger companies that might have de-biased the results, as these resume studies don't necessarily get to an actual human reviewer.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
That's true about VW. And when they got caught, the did an about face. Which is what you'd expect to see from any company of that calibre. Just like you'll see any company distance itself from, and punish, employees who break the corporate stance on social issues.
But then we have the curious case of Google, which started this whole discussion. (more or less) They seem to be bent on achieving a gender balance that is above parity with industry standards. Even if they do achieve this, it will set a standard that nobody else can hold. (for purely mathematical reasons, if nothing else) And again, we still haven't gotten to the heart of the matter of why this is - or if it's actually wrong, to begin with.
Is it really wrong to see a gender disparity in any given profession, where one does not intentionally exist? (where one cannot be proven to intentionally exist)
But then we have the curious case of Google, which started this whole discussion. (more or less) They seem to be bent on achieving a gender balance that is above parity with industry standards. Even if they do achieve this, it will set a standard that nobody else can hold. (for purely mathematical reasons, if nothing else) And again, we still haven't gotten to the heart of the matter of why this is - or if it's actually wrong, to begin with.
Is it really wrong to see a gender disparity in any given profession, where one does not intentionally exist? (where one cannot be proven to intentionally exist)
" gender disparity in any given profession, where one does not intentionally exist? (where one cannot be proven to intentionally exist)"
That's a tricky wording usage, "intentionally," implying that subconscious bias is OK or can be ignored? Given that there's no obvious "conspiracy" to exclude females and non-whites, and there's no company whose policy is to do so, we can certainly conclude that there's little "intentional" exclusion, but studies show that exclusion clearly occurs, and the number one preference is for a tall, white, male, even if it's not "intentional."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
That's a tricky wording usage, "intentionally," implying that subconscious bias is OK or can be ignored? Given that there's no obvious "conspiracy" to exclude females and non-whites, and there's no company whose policy is to do so, we can certainly conclude that there's little "intentional" exclusion, but studies show that exclusion clearly occurs, and the number one preference is for a tall, white, male, even if it's not "intentional."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
The best you can do with an unconscious bias, is to attempt educate it away. A conscious bias is actionable, immediately. What else do you really suggest that we can do with a subconscious bias? I'm being realistic, here. And yes, it is possible to acknowledge that biases are everywhere, without actually condoning them. I don't feel that I have to get into a fight with someone, or shout my righteous indignation the loudest, just to prove that I agree that people are mistreated. So how about we curb the insinuations, from here forward?
You seem to want to paint me as the antagonist. The truth is, I can't even get those around me to work smarter, not harder - even when I can convince them of the merits of my methods, and that it's in their best interests. If I were their boss, they'd do what I say, whether they approved or not. So, short of having someone dictate their will, what is the solution? (please tell me) I keep hearing the problem, and I keep incurring your wrath for being "part of the problem" - but like I keep telling my kids, when something goes wrong... how about we focus on offering up good solutions, instead of just harping on each other, and everyone else, about how they're wrong?
You seem to want to paint me as the antagonist. The truth is, I can't even get those around me to work smarter, not harder - even when I can convince them of the merits of my methods, and that it's in their best interests. If I were their boss, they'd do what I say, whether they approved or not. So, short of having someone dictate their will, what is the solution? (please tell me) I keep hearing the problem, and I keep incurring your wrath for being "part of the problem" - but like I keep telling my kids, when something goes wrong... how about we focus on offering up good solutions, instead of just harping on each other, and everyone else, about how they're wrong?
No, I have no beef with you.
You just happen to be repeating the words that others have been using to claim that we don't need to do anything else, because policies and laws are in place, and that no one could be intentionally discriminatory. This was the type of rationale that was used to eliminate race-based preferences in the US system, and by golly, it seems that people of color are oddly disinterested in higher education, or intellectually unable to pursue higher education. That can't possibly be because of bias, since we've had laws and policies against that sort of thing in place for over 50 years. And yet, we know now, since the election, that white supremacist currents run much deeper and wider in the US than we might have hoped for. And, as shown in the video cited above, the most "equal" country in the world has people thinking, "that's always been a woman's role to..."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
You just happen to be repeating the words that others have been using to claim that we don't need to do anything else, because policies and laws are in place, and that no one could be intentionally discriminatory. This was the type of rationale that was used to eliminate race-based preferences in the US system, and by golly, it seems that people of color are oddly disinterested in higher education, or intellectually unable to pursue higher education. That can't possibly be because of bias, since we've had laws and policies against that sort of thing in place for over 50 years. And yet, we know now, since the election, that white supremacist currents run much deeper and wider in the US than we might have hoped for. And, as shown in the video cited above, the most "equal" country in the world has people thinking, "that's always been a woman's role to..."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
I am not so naive, as to believe that people are not still people. However, I've seen a lot of progress, and as time goes on, it becomes clear that many things, if not most, are headed in the right direction, when it comes to social issues. We have a historical record to show this. (where we are vs where we've been) It's not perfect, but where something CAN be done, it should. But at the same time, we have to also remember that we hire ignorant and simple-minded people from the same pool that we hire white men, women with STEM degrees, etc, etc, etc. You don't know what you're getting, until you've got it. Every company has weeds that need to be pulled. You address problems where they pop up, educate your workforce to the issues, and raise your children as you'd have them go. I can't control who was elected president, or what some man or woman on the other side of the country is doing. In fact, I can pretty much only make sure that I'm not contributing to the problem.
But again... how does any of this relate to STEM educated women entering the workforce?
But again... how does any of this relate to STEM educated women entering the workforce?
moltenmetal, I didn't mean to imply that you were defending poor behavior. Sorry for instilling that in you. You do not strike me as that type.
I tried to resolve the problems by working with HR, Plant Managers, Directors, and Diversity Leaders. When that didn't work, I ran the problems up the flag poll to a VP of HR. No progress. In some cases, I've run the problems up to Vice Presidents, Presidents, and CEOs. Presidents and CEOs launched investigations but gave everyone a clean bill of health. But, they made some big changes, after the investigations. I know some aspects of the law, I've read it and used it, and they were clearly wrong. So, whereas some view management as guiltless, I do not. What people consider moral cuts a wider path than for others.
solid7, re: the VW emissions scandal, a company of high caliber would not have done something so dishonest to begin with. There shouldn't have been an offense to catch. Once caught in something of that nature, it's hard not to change. Since Porsche and Audi models were guilty of the same offense, a poor culture was afoot and gaining ground.
I am well aware that my life experiences do not paint the whole picture just as others' do not. With reading and talking, I began to see greater numbers experiencing the same behaviors I have. Therefore, to say that this is not a prevalent problem because some women do not experience these problems diminishes, minimizes, dismisses, stops discussion and sharing, etc. the women who do. I, and others like me, find it hard to respect people who do that and to not view them as part of the problem.
I am not going to take the time to find all of the documentation I have read over my 28 year career about women not entering/leaving engineering. I know what I have read and heard. You judge it as irrelevant because that's not your experience or of those you know.
I try to not summarize lives by what I read in this forum. I also try to attribute a lot of intellect, good common sense, recognition of the obvious, etc. to those here because they are highly educated and highly functioning. They don't need my platitudes or clichés because they know them already. I give everyone here a great deal of respect and giftedness simply for being engineers.
There are cultural problems, which the OP's article alludes to without going into any depth, and that encapsulates quite a bit.
To begin with, "Now one more time..." is condescending. Point 2 w/ subpoints: We can use it as a reason some women do not pursue STEM degrees. Point 3: I don't care if you disagree with me. End of discussion.
IRstuff, I agree with you on the "intentional" stuff. I heard a woman say, don't remember who or where, that one woman is a token. Two women is a minority. Three women, you're starting to get somewhere. That applies to all minorities. Companies will use policies and "tokens" to placate others. The definition of tokenism sums it up: the practice or policy of making no more than a minimal effort to offer opportunities to minorities equal to those of the majority. I didn't think you had a beef with solid7 either.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
I tried to resolve the problems by working with HR, Plant Managers, Directors, and Diversity Leaders. When that didn't work, I ran the problems up the flag poll to a VP of HR. No progress. In some cases, I've run the problems up to Vice Presidents, Presidents, and CEOs. Presidents and CEOs launched investigations but gave everyone a clean bill of health. But, they made some big changes, after the investigations. I know some aspects of the law, I've read it and used it, and they were clearly wrong. So, whereas some view management as guiltless, I do not. What people consider moral cuts a wider path than for others.
solid7, re: the VW emissions scandal, a company of high caliber would not have done something so dishonest to begin with. There shouldn't have been an offense to catch. Once caught in something of that nature, it's hard not to change. Since Porsche and Audi models were guilty of the same offense, a poor culture was afoot and gaining ground.
I am well aware that my life experiences do not paint the whole picture just as others' do not. With reading and talking, I began to see greater numbers experiencing the same behaviors I have. Therefore, to say that this is not a prevalent problem because some women do not experience these problems diminishes, minimizes, dismisses, stops discussion and sharing, etc. the women who do. I, and others like me, find it hard to respect people who do that and to not view them as part of the problem.
I am not going to take the time to find all of the documentation I have read over my 28 year career about women not entering/leaving engineering. I know what I have read and heard. You judge it as irrelevant because that's not your experience or of those you know.
I try to not summarize lives by what I read in this forum. I also try to attribute a lot of intellect, good common sense, recognition of the obvious, etc. to those here because they are highly educated and highly functioning. They don't need my platitudes or clichés because they know them already. I give everyone here a great deal of respect and giftedness simply for being engineers.
There are cultural problems, which the OP's article alludes to without going into any depth, and that encapsulates quite a bit.
solid7 said:
To begin with, "Now one more time..." is condescending. Point 2 w/ subpoints: We can use it as a reason some women do not pursue STEM degrees. Point 3: I don't care if you disagree with me. End of discussion.
IRstuff, I agree with you on the "intentional" stuff. I heard a woman say, don't remember who or where, that one woman is a token. Two women is a minority. Three women, you're starting to get somewhere. That applies to all minorities. Companies will use policies and "tokens" to placate others. The definition of tokenism sums it up: the practice or policy of making no more than a minimal effort to offer opportunities to minorities equal to those of the majority. I didn't think you had a beef with solid7 either.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
lacajun - I can't help how you, or anyone else interpret my points - but certainly I'm not being condescending when I reiterate my points, which I've done simply because others want to keep telling me what I'm saying or not saying, trying, or not trying to say. (as opposed to just asking for clarification if there's doubt) "Now one more time" is a nice way of saying, "Please stop glossing over my points, and attempting to twist my words, simply because you want to write your own narrative of what you think I'm saying to/about you".
I don't doubt your experiences. Never for a second did I doubt it, because I've seen those things happen. If this was a topic about sexual harassment, and attitudes towards women in the workplace, then STEM is irrelevant. It affects all women, in every sector. And this is just how it affects them:
Saying that doesn't mean that I don't care, or find it justifiable. It means that I think it would be wrong to leave women everywhere else out of the discussion, just because this is the sector that you are employed in. It isn't that narrow of a topic.
If you still think that I'm propping up old ways of thinking, then OK. We'll not discuss this, any further. However, in the event that you see that isn't my intention, at all, then I've taken issue with the same thing that the author of the article has - which is what you've reiterated in your last lines, regarding, "tokenism". I believe the biggest injustice, is luring anyone into a job, simply to claim their "status", or to comply with some sort of a mandate. (or even worse, to create a false image of caring) This is why I've asked the question, multiple times... what if the number of women going into STEM careers is just what it's supposed to be? Is it really wrong for people to follow their passions, even if the numbers don't compose a microcosm of society? Why are we working so hard for gender inclusivity, if it's not what the numbers say should be happening? Why not just let people do what drives them, instead of incentivizing them to pursue careers that they wouldn't have necessarily chosen, otherwise?
If we were the collective society who had the highest standards for social justice and equality, and we still had a discrepancy in gender based hiring, would we still be having this discussion? That is, if women and minorities could do anything that they wanted, without any interference or obstruction from white males - and employment demographics still showed similar results - would it be a problem?
I don't doubt your experiences. Never for a second did I doubt it, because I've seen those things happen. If this was a topic about sexual harassment, and attitudes towards women in the workplace, then STEM is irrelevant. It affects all women, in every sector. And this is just how it affects them:
Saying that doesn't mean that I don't care, or find it justifiable. It means that I think it would be wrong to leave women everywhere else out of the discussion, just because this is the sector that you are employed in. It isn't that narrow of a topic.
If you still think that I'm propping up old ways of thinking, then OK. We'll not discuss this, any further. However, in the event that you see that isn't my intention, at all, then I've taken issue with the same thing that the author of the article has - which is what you've reiterated in your last lines, regarding, "tokenism". I believe the biggest injustice, is luring anyone into a job, simply to claim their "status", or to comply with some sort of a mandate. (or even worse, to create a false image of caring) This is why I've asked the question, multiple times... what if the number of women going into STEM careers is just what it's supposed to be? Is it really wrong for people to follow their passions, even if the numbers don't compose a microcosm of society? Why are we working so hard for gender inclusivity, if it's not what the numbers say should be happening? Why not just let people do what drives them, instead of incentivizing them to pursue careers that they wouldn't have necessarily chosen, otherwise?
If we were the collective society who had the highest standards for social justice and equality, and we still had a discrepancy in gender based hiring, would we still be having this discussion? That is, if women and minorities could do anything that they wanted, without any interference or obstruction from white males - and employment demographics still showed similar results - would it be a problem?
-
1
- #109
drummingEng
Structural
It's apparent to me that this author is pushing an agenda of "women leave STEM mainly due to anti-woman culture and policies". I do not see how STEM careers would be any different than other fields of employment (ie: Accounting, Finance, Sales, etc.).
This was apparent in her listed range of reasons MOST women leave: "Unlike me, most of these women truly do want STEM careers but quit for reasons ranging from discrimination to maternity leave policy."
More appropriate would be to include the most noted reason that anyone leaves a career: They simply don't like the work.
This is not to say that discrimination and harassment DOES NOT exist in STEM careers, but I don't believe one should make the assumption that it exists at a greater rate than any other career field.
If the author's true purpose of the article was to stress that children should not be pushed into careers they are "good at" rather than careers that they enjoy, I agree with that sentiment.
This was apparent in her listed range of reasons MOST women leave: "Unlike me, most of these women truly do want STEM careers but quit for reasons ranging from discrimination to maternity leave policy."
More appropriate would be to include the most noted reason that anyone leaves a career: They simply don't like the work.
This is not to say that discrimination and harassment DOES NOT exist in STEM careers, but I don't believe one should make the assumption that it exists at a greater rate than any other career field.
If the author's true purpose of the article was to stress that children should not be pushed into careers they are "good at" rather than careers that they enjoy, I agree with that sentiment.
-
1
- #110
That was your second post on this thread in response to SLTA. That is condescending. I realize tone and context are hard for many people but there are others who usually get it. You've been condescending in other threads, too, so you're consistent.solid7 said:
I don't see anyone but you twisting your words.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
OK, if you want to label me, then let me have my fair turn.
If people were able to keep this discussion at an intellectual level, rather than an emotional one, then there would be no need for "condescending" statements. However, when people let their statements be driven by their frustration, or inability to counter a point in context, then I think it's fair game to call them out. Just as some like to villainize others as being "bullies" or "condescending". (which is really a bit of a cheap shot) Stating in a discussion that "I'm so angry that I'm shaking" clearly displays a lack of emotional control. Would that statement fly in a staff meeting? Since you like labeling people, how would YOU label that person? (if we're being fair with the labeling, here) My comments were either not understood, or were misconstrued, and yet an (overly) emotional response was produced, based on them.
Let me just point out that your last reply was just about me, personally, and none of the points that I made. Honestly, I'm not running for any office, so there's no need to vet my character. Either my comments were in line with the discussion, or they weren't. Whether my personality is appealing or not, it strikes me odd that there are some who are looking to pick a fight where none needs to be picked - seeing that I'm not against you. I'm just in favor of limiting the topic to what's most relevant!
If people were able to keep this discussion at an intellectual level, rather than an emotional one, then there would be no need for "condescending" statements. However, when people let their statements be driven by their frustration, or inability to counter a point in context, then I think it's fair game to call them out. Just as some like to villainize others as being "bullies" or "condescending". (which is really a bit of a cheap shot) Stating in a discussion that "I'm so angry that I'm shaking" clearly displays a lack of emotional control. Would that statement fly in a staff meeting? Since you like labeling people, how would YOU label that person? (if we're being fair with the labeling, here) My comments were either not understood, or were misconstrued, and yet an (overly) emotional response was produced, based on them.
Let me just point out that your last reply was just about me, personally, and none of the points that I made. Honestly, I'm not running for any office, so there's no need to vet my character. Either my comments were in line with the discussion, or they weren't. Whether my personality is appealing or not, it strikes me odd that there are some who are looking to pick a fight where none needs to be picked - seeing that I'm not against you. I'm just in favor of limiting the topic to what's most relevant!
Women in the Labor Force: A Databook From the BLS and loaded with information.
I compare engineering with other rigorous, regulated professions such as accounting, physicians and surgeons, judges, lawyers, and pharmacists. The numbers are not on parity nor would I expect them to be. But they have higher participation rates of women than engineering. Pharmacy is, I think, more rigorous than engineering and women outnumber men in that field. Women outnumber men in accounting. It is not our inability to do mathematics and science.
From a previous post of mine on this thread, I do not believe that any young person, from any walk of life, should be sold on a STEM degree/career or any other degree/career. Young people need to follow their own inclinations and interests. They need to be taught the truth of each profession to make an informed decision.
My heritage is comprised of 400+ years of purely Southern US families but I've not lived in the South in 19 years. I have multiple slave owners in my ancestry. If I wanted, I could join the United Daughters of the Confederacy through multiple gx-grandfathers. I know and understand cultural, gender, racial, regional, etc. biases. I've seen discrimination and harassment outside of the South, too. Biases don't have boundaries and no one can assume they are perfect.
I've had to work out my own biases over my lifetime so I know what bias is as well as the work to overcome it. Other women do, too.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
I compare engineering with other rigorous, regulated professions such as accounting, physicians and surgeons, judges, lawyers, and pharmacists. The numbers are not on parity nor would I expect them to be. But they have higher participation rates of women than engineering. Pharmacy is, I think, more rigorous than engineering and women outnumber men in that field. Women outnumber men in accounting. It is not our inability to do mathematics and science.
From a previous post of mine on this thread, I do not believe that any young person, from any walk of life, should be sold on a STEM degree/career or any other degree/career. Young people need to follow their own inclinations and interests. They need to be taught the truth of each profession to make an informed decision.
My heritage is comprised of 400+ years of purely Southern US families but I've not lived in the South in 19 years. I have multiple slave owners in my ancestry. If I wanted, I could join the United Daughters of the Confederacy through multiple gx-grandfathers. I know and understand cultural, gender, racial, regional, etc. biases. I've seen discrimination and harassment outside of the South, too. Biases don't have boundaries and no one can assume they are perfect.
I've had to work out my own biases over my lifetime so I know what bias is as well as the work to overcome it. Other women do, too.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
-
1
- Thread starter
- #113
moltenmetal
Chemical
lacajun said:
That's exactly what I believe, and what I believe was the main lesson to be learned from the article which originated this post. Thanks for putting it so succinctly!
-
1
- #114
HollyMartin
Civil/Environmental
As a woman with an engineering degree (environmental), who is "no longer in the field," I really appreciate having had engineering training for many reasons, not the least of which is that my engineering degree has opened many doors. I was the beneficiary of a corporate program which would have fully paid for me to get a master's degree in engineering - JUST BECAUSE I WAS A WOMAN! Note that this was in the late 1970s, so the benefits of being a woman in engineering were already apparent, even back in the dark ages, as it were (I started my master's while at that company, but then switched careers mid-stream).
Secondly, though I am not a practicing engineer, as a freelance technical copywriter I use my engineering training daily, writing about engineering products and processes, as well as about engineers themselves, for articles in trade publications and for white papers, blogs and pages on engineering websites. So though I might be counted in the number of women who quit engineering, my experience in engineering enables me to do a job that I could not do as well otherwise.
Finally, engineering to me is a way of thinking, a mindset to understand physical phenomena and to solve problems using that understanding. This type of training, which I received in engineering school, is invaluable to anyone in any field. For example, our family physician worked first as an engineer, then went back to med school and became a doctor. If more politicians and lawyers worked as engineers first, think how better off we might be as a country. And any school district would be delighted to hire someone with an engineering degree who wants to make the switch to teaching math, science and technology!
Holly B. Martin
Freelance Technical Copywriter
Secondly, though I am not a practicing engineer, as a freelance technical copywriter I use my engineering training daily, writing about engineering products and processes, as well as about engineers themselves, for articles in trade publications and for white papers, blogs and pages on engineering websites. So though I might be counted in the number of women who quit engineering, my experience in engineering enables me to do a job that I could not do as well otherwise.
Finally, engineering to me is a way of thinking, a mindset to understand physical phenomena and to solve problems using that understanding. This type of training, which I received in engineering school, is invaluable to anyone in any field. For example, our family physician worked first as an engineer, then went back to med school and became a doctor. If more politicians and lawyers worked as engineers first, think how better off we might be as a country. And any school district would be delighted to hire someone with an engineering degree who wants to make the switch to teaching math, science and technology!
Holly B. Martin
Freelance Technical Copywriter
"I do not believe that any young person, from any walk of life, should be sold on a STEM degree/career or any other degree/career. Young people need to follow their own inclinations and interests. They need to be taught the truth of each profession to make an informed decision."
That's certainly an ideal, but the reality is that most high school graduates are at least 7 yrs from having a fully operational pre-frontal cortex and they don't necessarily have any clue what they even want out of life. I had a friend who was 40 when I met her, and she still didn't know what she wanted to be when she grew up. Males and females additionally have cultural, gender, and societal expectations, on top of whatever parental and familial expectations there might be. I certainly had a lot of pressure from my father to get a doctorate, as that was the only thing that he thought would be and adequately respected accomplishment. We're a multi-generational college family, and there was high expectations that our kids would go to college, and would major in STEM, be it engineering or medicine (CS-2, Med-0 ;-) )
I think that there is almost too much free rein on college major choices, which is probably why few of the popular majors involve STEM. And part of that is due to the fact that their parents don't understand or know STEM, making it difficult for them to be convincing and proper proponents of STEM to their children. I think that STEM should be pushed much harder and at much younger ages to ensure that those budding minds get sufficient exposure that they could come close to making a rational and thoughtful decision at the start of the college admissions cycle. I knew I wanted to major in EE in 7th grade, and if everyone could at least contemplate what their majors might be at that same age, there would be much less attrition in the engineering fields, for both men and women.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
That's certainly an ideal, but the reality is that most high school graduates are at least 7 yrs from having a fully operational pre-frontal cortex and they don't necessarily have any clue what they even want out of life. I had a friend who was 40 when I met her, and she still didn't know what she wanted to be when she grew up. Males and females additionally have cultural, gender, and societal expectations, on top of whatever parental and familial expectations there might be. I certainly had a lot of pressure from my father to get a doctorate, as that was the only thing that he thought would be and adequately respected accomplishment. We're a multi-generational college family, and there was high expectations that our kids would go to college, and would major in STEM, be it engineering or medicine (CS-2, Med-0 ;-) )
I think that there is almost too much free rein on college major choices, which is probably why few of the popular majors involve STEM. And part of that is due to the fact that their parents don't understand or know STEM, making it difficult for them to be convincing and proper proponents of STEM to their children. I think that STEM should be pushed much harder and at much younger ages to ensure that those budding minds get sufficient exposure that they could come close to making a rational and thoughtful decision at the start of the college admissions cycle. I knew I wanted to major in EE in 7th grade, and if everyone could at least contemplate what their majors might be at that same age, there would be much less attrition in the engineering fields, for both men and women.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
The US labor statistics in lacajun's link are interesting, but I don't see anything unexpected or abnormal there. Maybe it is just stereotyping, but 90% of registered nurses being female is not surprising. The only statistic which I think is problematic, as moltenmetal alluded to above, is that 80% of primary and secondary teachers are female.
Schools nowadays tend to be more focused on standardized tests, and making sure that they get their government money. There really isn't much thought (so it would seem) given to their end product. However, some school systems have the right idea, and have magnet schools that are meant to place children early into a path, by identifying their core competencies.
That being said... Education should still always be a gateway to pursue passions, not just a means by which to order, people like hardware on a shelf. What one is good at, and what one wants to do, are sometimes mutually exclusive. For many people - and I count myself in this - what I'm good at is great, until it becomes a job, or like work. Then, I hate it, and want nothing to do with it.
That being said... Education should still always be a gateway to pursue passions, not just a means by which to order, people like hardware on a shelf. What one is good at, and what one wants to do, are sometimes mutually exclusive. For many people - and I count myself in this - what I'm good at is great, until it becomes a job, or like work. Then, I hate it, and want nothing to do with it.
"Maybe it is just stereotyping, but 90% of registered nurses being female is not surprising. "
Or, what's surprising is the we're not surprised. If it is stereotyping, then that is an big issue.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Or, what's surprising is the we're not surprised. If it is stereotyping, then that is an big issue.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
-
4
- #119
Why is that a big issue? Nursing is open to men as well as women, but it seems most men choose other fields.
Anyway, the main point of my post is about teachers. In just about every other field of employment, the end product as seen by the population as a whole is the same, no matter whether produced by males or females. But in teaching, it is my belief that gender balance affects the end product, and gross gender imbalance is harmful.
I know this is not the subject at hand, which seems to be just women in engineering. Maybe another thread is needed.
Anyway, the main point of my post is about teachers. In just about every other field of employment, the end product as seen by the population as a whole is the same, no matter whether produced by males or females. But in teaching, it is my belief that gender balance affects the end product, and gross gender imbalance is harmful.
I know this is not the subject at hand, which seems to be just women in engineering. Maybe another thread is needed.
HamburgerHelper
Electrical
My brother was in nursing. He claimed that they wanted male nurses just because moving people is really physically intensive. Back injuries are pretty common. In Japan, they have robots that are being used to help move people. Anyone who has moved a mattress knows moving dead weight without something good to grip is really hard.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
