Girls in STEM is failing both girls and STEM? 99

[moltenmetal]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...m-culture-is-failing-both-girls-and-stem.html

Read the article, THEN discuss...

Growing up, I increasingly saw my good grades as a trap locking me into a single career: STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). It felt like a dystopian YA novel, and my high school report card was The Choosing. A’s in math and science? Here are your jeans and sweatshirt.

Well-meaning people lied to me. They said computer science was a great work-from-home career if I wanted children (when in fact a majority of women quit STEM because the culture of poor work-life balance makes it too difficult to raise a family), that STEM careers are secure (actually the industry has frequent layoffs and is very competitive), and more....

 

[ImminentCollapse]

IRStuff/John Baker I imagine your neighborhood block party photos may be of a similar homogenous makeup, regardless of the ethnicity. As is the cast for most folks I do concede.

Regarding girls access to opportunities in STEM or life in general, I suggest white-male-Christianity deserves some credit.

Girls STEM programs abundant throughout Persia/Asia?
Girls on the Run enrollment robust in Mogadishu?
Girl Scouts strong in Abbottabad?
NOW thriving in Riyadh?
YWCA surging in Jakarta?
Planned Parenthood firmly rooted in Pyongyang?
There is a reason LBGTQ parades are not well attended in Tehran.

We do have a long way to go, that is certain, but the simple fact that this discussion does not even take place where several billion people reside means something, does it not?

IC

 

[IRstuff]

That's a bit like my mom saying, "if the other kids jump off a bridge, are you going to do the same?"

One would hope that the "American Way" would mean more than just talking about the problem. And, as some have mentioned, certain Scandinavian countries are supposedly further along than the US.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[solid7]

And as others have mentioned, certain Scandanavian countries also have the "problem", even though they've supposedly risen above it all. So that begs the question - are we just trying to get maximum mileage out of an issue? Are we creating problems where they either don't exist, or are in the process of being phased out naturally?

 

[ImminentCollapse]

The organizations I mentioned actually exist. There is not talk of Girls Scouts in the US, it exists. Merkel, Thatcher, Clinton, Pelosi, Palin, Rice, Rometty, Winfrey, Maddow, Coulter etc. all exist. They have overcome, accomplished, achieved. That’s not talking about the problem, those are results of action. Certainly those results fall short, but be it in spite of, or because of, the “American Way” ignores the fact that they cannot exist in many parts of the world’s societies. Those societies have zero results. For reference, zero < some results

The “American Way” should not escape scrutiny and constant improvement. No one can argue otherwise, it has flaws, but I thank God my daughters are growing up in it. They at least have a chance.

Besides, I don’t want to move to Scandinavia.

IC

 

[nonplussed]

Has anyone actually taken 5 minutes to look at real statistical data? Or is referencing Huffington Post the way to go? Bearing in mind that Huffington Post have publicly stated that their goal is to discriminate against white people.

Personally, I find it not surprising that a majority white country would also have majority white in the workforce. This is simple logic. Taking into account that the white population only constitutes about 11.5% of the global population, but English speaking media focuses only on English speaking countries so it may seem as though the whole world is white. Anyway, I have spent the last hour browsing statistics in "

https://datausa.io"

and I cannot find any definitive correlation between engineering and white bias. Actually, there is definitively a bias towards Asians (I have nothing against Asians, this is simply an observation). For example Electrical Engineering: 55% White, 18% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 6% Black. There is actually an under-representation of white within EE and 3 times over-representation of Asian. Software engineering: 54% white, 21% Asian. 10% unknown etc. ME: 69% white so about 1.1 times over-representation, 11% Hispanic, 9% Asian. Biomedical engineering: 57% white, an amazing 23% Asian which constitutes 3.8 times over-representation. Other engineering is more aligned with population statistics. Math & Statistics: 62% white which aligns with population data, 13% Asian which is 2.1 times over-rep, 12% Hispanic, 4.4% Black.

However, the interesting point comes when you look at female dominated industries. Veterinary science is 76% white, over 1.2 times over-representation. Registered nursing is also 76% white. Accounting (I didn't even realise this was female dominated) is 76% white also, although this particular statistic includes Hispanic whites. There is actually equal, if not more, racial bias towards white within female dominated industries than with male. So it just goes to show that any opinion can be spun in any way when data is cherry picked. And I agree with ornerynorsk; I have many friends from SE-Asian countries and have traveled to many countries, and anyone who thinks bias in Western countries is in any way significant is just having a laugh.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for keeping the discussion in context with STEM failing girls, I provided evidence of the gender equality paradox in my post dated 7 Sept 2017. This is a global trend showing the inverse relationship between gender equality and female participation in STEM. As far as I can see no one has provided evidence to disprove this (I apologise if I did not see it). Disproving the paradox is simple: provide global trending evidence showing that an increase in gender equality leads to increased female STEM participation. It should be simple to do if it is true. Until the paradox is disproven, using statistical evidence, then it is meaningless to continue this thread.

Girls STEM programs abundant throughout Persia/Asia?
Girls on the Run enrollment robust in Mogadishu?

Actually, of all the OECD countries, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have the highest female STEM participation rate, which supports the gender equality paradox theory. (

http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/gender-gap-in-educ...)

 

[solid7]

I just hate it when somebody in an engineering forum actually starts acting like an engineer.

 

[JohnRBaker]

...that Huffington Post have publicly stated that their goal is to discriminate against white people.

Can you provide something to backup your statement?

I admit that they're a bit more to the Left than say the 'Drudge Report', but to make that claim...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[IRstuff]

"Personally, I find it not surprising that a majority white country would also have majority white in the workforce. "

No one is claiming that there shouldn't be a majority of whites, per se. By your logic, women should be in the majority of positions because there's a slight majority of women. The issue is that the percentages do not reflect the demographic percentages, i.e., unemployment of blacks is substantially higher than that of whites, resulting in a larger than demographic representation of whites in the workforce. Likewise, in STEM, there is a significant under-representation of women in the STEM workforce. Several people have pointed out that the Scandinavian countries that supposedly are more egalitarian relative to women have even fewer women in STEM, despite have higher than US percentages in other arenas, such as politics.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[nonplussed]

Can you provide something to backup your statement?

Chloe Angyal, one of the editors, tweeted "Our goals for this month were: less than 50% white authors (check!), Asian representation that matches or exceeds the US population (check!), more trans and non-binary authors (check, but I want to do better)."

https://twitter.com/chloeangyal/status/974031492727832576?lang=en

 

[solid7]

No one is claiming that there shouldn't be a majority of whites, per se. By your logic, women should be in the majority of positions because there's a slight majority of women.

Stop being obtuse. By his logic, if rain is falling out of the sky over a 5 mile radius, It's likely that the majority of the ground in a 5 mile radius is going to be wet. Logic doesn't get too much simpler than that. And where logic fails, data takes over. Do we know of any country on earth, where an ethnic majority doesn't hold majority status in things like jobs, housing, etc?

There are many jobs where women are the overwhelming majority. And that's neither right nor wrong. You're mixing issues. There is whether or not one is employed, vs how they choose to be employed. 2 completely different streams of logic.

Likewise, in STEM, there is a significant under-representation of women in the STEM workforce.

The problem that I see that is quickly becoming apparent, is that this is more of a socio-political agenda, than an actual problem. Without being able to prove any points, we have seen the repeated:

A) failure to qualify the term, "under-represented" in a meaningful way
B) failure to correlate full gender equality with hiring demographics (i.e., the Scandinavian example)
C) failure to prove a conspiracy against young girls from entering certain segments of academia
D) failure to explain how groups of people who aren't graduating into fields can be demographically represented within them - outside of 1 or 2 mega corporations (who would take the candidates from smaller companies, thus exacerbating the problem, elsewhere)
E) failure to address the original issue, without trying to introduce 100 more for the sake of righteous indignation.

 

[moltenmetal]

Let's be clear: there is NO SHORTAGE of candidates for STEM employment. There is certainly no shortage of engineering grads relative to engineering employment, and I highly doubt that there's any shortage of candidates in the physical sciences either.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Recruiting candidates of either sex into a field of study where the labour market is over-supplied is of questionable social/economic utility, if not questionable ethics- bringing us back to the original post in this thread- the opinion piece by a young woman who felt that she's been both recruited AND misled by well-meaning but ignorant people. And whereas efforts to educate kids as to what their options are, and to promote the benefits of a particular profession or field of study to society might be are both natural and beneficial, it is entirely another matter to extend those efforts to the active RECRUITING of candidates, especially when that recruiting is done on the basis of a misapprehension of the ACTUAL labour market outcomes for the graduates from a particular program. This goes every bit as much for girls as it does for boys, and extends to fields far beyond engineering.

 

[nonplussed]

mostly white, mostly male, who, in the best case, are simply unknowingly biased, and the worst case, actively desiring to keep the status quo.

IRstuff, I am not denying that there is unequal female participation in STEM fields, in the same way I am not denying there is unequal male participation in humanities. I am also not denying that unemployment within blacks is higher than whites, in the same way I am not denying unemployment within whites is higher than Asians. My point is that correlation does not equal causation. As far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong), your point seems to be that there are more males in STEM, therefore it must be male oppression causing this. Well where is the statistical evidence? If this was the case then surely an increase in 'male oppression' would correlate to reduced female STEM participation? Therefore, you must be also arguing that Saudi Arabia is less oppressive toward women than the US because they have higher female participation? In locations of higher 'male oppression' there is also higher female STEM participation, so your argument is evidently erroneous, unless you can back it up with statistical based evidence.

And how does your argument work with the Asian population? Why do Asians have lower unemployment rates than whites if whites actively desire to keep the status quo? Why do Asians have disproportionately higher STEM participation if whites are pressuring anyone who isn't white to leave STEM? Are hispanics oppressing blacks if hispanics have lower unemployment than blacks? Your argument has no basis in evidence. This would be like Galileo saying that the Earth is round, but only in the Northern hemisphere.

To be clear, my opinions relating to this subject are fluid. If evidence shows that low female STEM participation statistically correlates with gender inequality then I will accept that. I have not formed my argument based on my personal experiences. I have merely looked at the actual data. I want someone to provide statistical evidence disproving the gender equality paradox. I care only about what is true. If my argument is proven to be false then I will gladly accept that.

 

[solid7]

To be clear, my opinions relating to this subject are fluid. If evidence shows that low female STEM participation statistically correlates with gender inequality then I will accept that. I have not formed my argument based on my personal experiences. I have merely looked at the actual data. I want someone to provide statistical evidence disproving the gender equality paradox. I care only about what is true. If my argument is proven to be false then I will gladly accept that.

I strongly second this.

Too many times, people miss valuable opportunities to gain allies or change minds, because they choose to argue for the sake of argument, rather than for the truth of the matter.

If what is being said is true, then the evidence will support it.

 

[JohnRBaker]

To nonplussed, how is it that an expressed desire by one person (on Twitter), to have the authorship of articles, and even then it seems that this was only going to be for a month, reflect the demographics of the nation, and therefore their expected readership, is the same as The Huffington Post "discriminating against white people"?

Besides, Chloe Angyal is but a single employee working on the editorial staff for the 'opinion' section, which would seem to imply that she probably had no say in the item that I referenced since it appears to have been a pure 'news' item. Of course, the real irony here is that Chloe Angyal and David Moye, the author of the 'news' item I previously referenced from the "Black Voices" section of The Huffington Post, are both white. Looks to me like the status quo is safe...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[solid7]

See, John, that's what happens when you don't stay on topic. You bring up things that don't belong, and the whole thing goes pear-shaped on you...

Now you have to defend yet ANOTHER tangent!

 

[IRstuff]

Data is nice, but doesn't show causation, and that cuts both ways. The Scandinavian countries oft cited in this question have extremely high participation rates in politics still have extremely strong views about traditional gender roles in family, to the point where I might even consider them to be actually regressive, relative to the US. So, given that tiny bit, is their data any more, or less, meaningful?

If data can't prove causation, and/or there isn't data, does that mean we shouldn't do anything? I like data, but I don't automatically trust data, because data can often be erroneously collected, and survey data is notoriously easy to pre-manipulate simply by manipulating the questions.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[solid7]

I like data, but I don't automatically trust data, because data can often be erroneously collected, and survey data is notoriously easy to pre-manipulate simply by manipulating the questions.

But data can be analyzed. It can be cut apart, scrutinized, questions asked. Nobody every solved any problem by saying, "to hell with statistics - they're just used to put a slant on things!"

Of course statistics and data can be, and are, manipulated. But there are proven methods of determining correlation to data. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about emotion-based argument - which really, is the alternative.

 

[IRstuff]

But, the data we collect cannot explicitly show causality, only correlation, as we do not have, yet, the ability to manipulate different societies with different starting points and biases.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[lacajun]

JohnRBaker, I align with your thinking.

There is an art to conversation as it meanders around topics related to the original one.



Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php

 

[MJB315]

Is it possible that STEM education programs are just horrible?

I'm purposely poking the bear a bit, but I'm curious what you all think. Try this storyline on for size:

[ul]
[li]How much of a STEM education does a student actually remember? Learning something is useless if you can't recall it later, so how much of a STEM education can a student actually recall? 90%? 10%? It's been my experience that the number is on the lower end of the spectrum. Sitting in a job meeting and saying that "Uh, I think I learned that but I'd need to go back and review my notes." is not having expertise in STEM. [/li]

[li]So comparing STEM graduates to STEM vacancies isn't compelling to me.Saying that there are 200,000+ positions open that require expertise but there are 500,000+ graduates from STEM doesn't really mean anything. Having 500,000 graduates that can kind of sort of size a beam doesn't mean that the country's infrastructures challenges are solved. A STEM degree does not mean you have expertise in STEM.[/li]
[li]"You really have to work several years before you get the hang of it." I know that's the case, but its a pretty crummy setup. Spending ten years (fourish in university, sixish years in practice before you really have usable expertise) of a short life is a pretty inefficient expertise-transfer model for a society. Maybe people leave STEM early in their careers not because a life in a different profession is compelling...but because our model is so convoluted.[/li]
[li]STEM doesn't need more people in the existing expertise-transfer system...STEM needs a better system.If you graduated from an university, if you remembered 90% of what you learned, and you could actively and creatively deploy that information in the first year of the job...then people would enjoy their first steps in the STEM career all that much more. STEM retention would be higher, others may be attracted to it, and society's problems and projects would get addressed better and by more people. [/li]
[li]The key is memory. Education programs need to be judged on how well knowledge is remembered over time - not how it is initially conveyed. Google can convey information. Higher-Ed's role has to be creating expertise - and expertise is essentially memory. If higher-ed can't do that...I'm not sure what role it will play in the coming years. Yes, it helps presort candidates. Yes, it does research. But spending $200k to being exposed to information that is quickly forgotten? I don't see it. [/li]
[li]If STEM Education improved, more people would likely stay in the profession during their early years. The world would probably have less MBAs and lawyers, two likely career-switch locations for the STEM exodus. No opinion on this is offered. [/li]
[/ul]

I'm a structural engineer. I grew up in a construction family, have two degrees from higher education institutions, worked for four firms, have 12 years of experience and am licensed to practice civil and structural engineering. I work hard. I've got the hang of it now.

But in my experience, the road up is too hit and miss for our profession. I don't blame people for leaving it early in their career.

Does anyone disagree? Are STEM education programs just wonderful?

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC