Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
loh might talk of majority of degrees, but then there is stephanie coontz(of the "There are lots of people or trends we might want to blame for our economic stresses. But women and the women’s movement should not be included in that list, and most men know it." fame) talking of how they don't earn as much money and how her plaintive cry runs up against one of her feminists sisters. http://endofwomen.blogspot.in/2012/10/women-are-victims-either-way-in-more.html
Oh, the feminism machine just gets "better" and "better".New term: "Microaggression"http://www.microaggressions.com/There is no freedom of expression in a feminist society.
Son is in the equivalent of Grade 11. Thank you for allowing me to further his education about appropriate majors.The average total increase in income, lifelong, on getting a Bachelors, in NZ, is 38 000 for women and 68 000 for men. Folks, if you can't do a real degree, get a job and go party... it is cheaper to fly to Ibiza than attend one semester at college.Link http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2012/09/education-bubble-deflating/
The lack of women in the STEM fields has been noted for some time and armies of social "scientists" have been studying the issue and recommending policy to FedGov for decades - in my pre-mommy, pre-teacher days I worked as a research assistant on such a project, and it is coming to a head with the proposed Title IX for STEM.Among the many issues I take with such a policy is that it will force women into fields they may not necessarily want to be in, and fields for which they have no talent or aptitude. More quotas will be filled but the overall quality of the programs will suffer as the curriculum loses rigor in order to accommodate lower student performance and still keep them graduating.Love him or hate him, Larry Summers was right on with his comments about women and their lack of participation in STEM fields. They have different abilities and aptitudes that do not lend themselves well to studying STEM. Of course, people are quick to cry "But I know a woman who..." and forget that discussions of this sort talk DEMOGRAPHICS, not individuals.As to the preponderance of so many -ology and hyphenated-studies degrees, one need only look at the "diversity requirements" in any major, STEM or otherwise. Someone needs to employ humanities PhDs, and forcing students to take Islamic, African, women's or what-have-you studies ensures that someone, somewhere, has a job. Take away those requirements for graduation, and overnight, one-third of college profs and grad students are out of a job. It's a closed system rigged to guarantee jobs for those with the right connections.
Love the content, but for the love of god, what is so fascinating off to your left? Seems like every other word has you turning your head to look in that direction. Very distracting!
Amy Haines: "...Someone needs to employ humanities PhDs, and forcing students to take Islamic, African, women's or what-have-you studies ensures that someone, somewhere, has a job."Just as long as as that 'someone' is female, or a member of a government-approved 'minority' group.Men are wising up that the phrases "an EEOC employer" or "we follow EEOC guidelines in hiring", is actually government-speak for "white males need not apply".
I am a woman who likes math and hard sciences. I just don't want to work without tangible, visible daily evidence that I'm helping people. So I'm in the helping professions. I made that decision consciously and I understand the financial downside of it. I'm not blaming anyone. Every line of work has its downside. I see men on the street because they decided they wanted to make lots of money logging or mining or whatever but they failed to save enough to retire young, lost a finger or a spinal disc or something and now they can't do the only work they trained for. But they took their chances with the work they wanted. There are regrets no matter what I guess.But yeah, you're very right about the angry baristas with three master's degrees in gender studies, animal rights studies and basket weaving, who blame capitalism and the patriarchy for their outstanding student debt. I came so close to going that way, with my initial idea of being an artist or something. But fortunately I took Econ 201 midway through and realized I should try to meet a proven demand.
This is part of an article posted Friday on our internal web page of an interview from a high level Society of Women Engineer officer. Since they can't seem to cut it in the open market, they are advocating "Title IX" or "affirmative action" for engineering schools."To encourage more girls to pursue an engineering career, SWE’s efforts range from classroom visits to advocating public policy. For the 40th anniversary of Title IX, which was the education amendment of 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding, SWE members participated in caucuses in Washington, D.C., to increase awareness of educational obligations under the law. “It would be great to achieve gains similar to athletics in academic programs still dominated by male students, such as engineering. SWE promotes ways that Title IX and other affirmative action legislation can be applied to STEM fields,” Alyse said."
My good man, this is in no sense a problem. We just have more government programs in social services to sop up the cake. In another ten years or so, half the country will be helping the other half get off of drugs or boost self-esteem.Just because college is a joke does not mean we cannot sinecurize the graduates.Everyone has won and all must have prizes.
Post a Comment