Gender Gap Persists in Academia - Abysmal in Philosophy, Economics, and Math
80 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Vasili;41577629]Can someone explain to me what you guys mean by toxic environment? Are you complaining about the male aggression and competitiveness of these environments?[/QUOTE]
Okay imagine you're a black person, and you work in an office that only really hired white people until recently, and most of the other workers display varying levels of overt and covert racism and don't really appreciate your presence.
It should give you a comparable picture of why women find these environments toxic and uncomfortable.
Wow so many bad stories about Comp Sci, both me and my gf are studying Comp Sci in a quite good University and although it's still more men than women there doesn't seem to be many issues like those you are talking about.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41577763]Okay imagine you're a black person, and you work in an office that only really hired white people until recently, and most of the other workers display varying levels of overt and covert racism and don't really appreciate your presence.
It should give you a comparable picture of why women find these environments toxic and uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]
Or, even worse, are part of a "Whites' Rights" group and actively suggest that people of color should be segregated and beaten based on their skin color. And then proceed to make racist jokes and racial slurs around your presence.
And then when you try to explain, "This is discrimination," your company's bureaucracy tries to explain it as "competition" or "friendly workplace banter."
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bunguer;41577783]Wow so many bad stories about Comp Sci, both me and my gf are studying Comp Sci in a quite good University and although it's still more men than women there doesn't seem to be many issues like those you are talking about.[/QUOTE]
I think the environment is very different here in the United States. There are some very regressive mindsets spurred by a conservative and psuedo-left presence within the country.
is this the same with junior colleges or is this just a university thing or what
i'm enrolled in CS courses at a junior college that start in like 2 weeks
Studying is to get somewhere in life. You don't go to university, wasting your money on something worthless. You can easily research a subject at home, and find out anything you want. EG; you study an IT subject to get a job in IT. If you're interested in it, you can just stay at home and pick up a project and look online, easy. As far as qualifications goes, sure, educational facilities. But otherwise, no point.
[QUOTE=voltlight;41577854]Studying is to get somewhere in life. You don't go to university, wasting your money on something worthless. You can easily research a subject at home, and find out anything you want. EG; you study an IT subject to get a job in IT. If you're interested in it, you can just stay at home and pick up a project and look online, easy.[/QUOTE]
"So Mr Voltlight why do you think you're appropriate for this position?"
"Well I spent a weekend reading wikipedia and shit"
"Do you have any actually credible qualifications, peer reviews and references?"
"Well ... no"
"get the fuck out m8"
[QUOTE=voltlight;41577854]Studying is to get somewhere in life. You don't go to university, wasting your money on something worthless. You can easily research a subject at home, and find out anything you want. EG; you study an IT subject to get a job in IT. If you're interested in it, you can just stay at home and pick up a project and look online, easy.[/QUOTE]
This isn't necessarily true. Part of the reason why Universities are so invaluable is because of the connections they create.
You're not just paying for a top-rate education. You're also paying for access to some of academia's finest minds. If you're a good communicator, they can open up opportunities and connections for years. From internships to jobs, it's very easy to build connections if you get to know your professors off the bat.
Essentially, you're paying for networking. Not just education.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41577885]"So Mr Voltlight why do you think you're appropriate for this position?"
"Well I spent a weekend reading wikipedia and shit"
"Do you have any actually credible qualifications, peer reviews and references?"
"Well ... no"
"get the fuck out m8"[/QUOTE]
I think his point was that you don't go to University because you're interested, you go because you want a job in that field.
If you're merely interested you can look at wikipedia.
dunno what you guys are on about, all the history units i do at my university are 90% girls, and i hate it so much oh my god there are no boys
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41577885]"So Mr Voltlight why do you think you're appropriate for this position?"
"Well I spent a weekend reading wikipedia and shit"
"Do you have any actually credible qualifications, peer reviews and references?"
"Well ... no"
"get the fuck out m8"[/QUOTE]
That's actually what happened with Christopher Langan, a modern genius with an IQ of 195. He dropped out of University when he was young because he felt like the institutional mindset was at odds with his own personality. He's written and created strong academic dissertations, but, without the institutional boost of a University behind his name, no one cares what he has to say.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41577923][I]IQ of 195[/I][/QUOTE]
remember kids IQ doesn't mean anything
[QUOTE=Pelican;41577985]remember kids IQ doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE]
[quote]He says he developed a "double-life strategy": on one side a regular guy, doing his job and exchanging pleasantries, and on the other side coming home to perform equations in his head, working in isolation on his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.[8][/quote]
[quote] In addition to his writings at the Foundation, Langan's media exposure at the end of the 1990s invariably included some discussion of his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (often referred to by Langan as "CTMU"), and he was reported by Popular Science in 2001 to be writing a book about his work called Design for a Universe.[9] He has been quoted as saying that "you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you're willing to admit that it's both physical and mental in nature"[11] and that his CTMU "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[14] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology."[8] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[6][/quote]
[quote]Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24][/quote]
[quote]Langan has said elsewhere that he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma."[14] He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere."[14]
He was profiled in Malcolm Gladwell's 2008 book Outliers: The Story of Success,[26] where Gladwell looks at the reasons behind why Langan was unable to flourish in a university environment. Gladwell writes that although Langan "read deeply in philosophy, mathematics, and physics" as he worked on the CTMU, "without academic credentials, he despairs of ever getting published in a scholarly journal".[27] Gladwell's profile of Langan mainly portrayed him as an example of an individual who failed to realize his potential in part because of poor social skills resulting from, in Gladwell's speculation, being raised in poverty.[28][/quote]
This dude is one smart cookie. And not just on an IQ level. He could've been an amazing academic.
[QUOTE=Pelican;41577985]remember kids IQ doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE]
I think it does when you start reaching nearly 200
Plus, if you can perform complex scientific equations in your head, you are probably a smart guy.
Just sayin'
[QUOTE=Pelican;41577985]remember kids IQ doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE]
IQ denialism is bollocks.
People can be real assholes, I can feel for females trying to make something out of themselves only to be put in a room of dickheads because I've seen it first hand.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41578086]IQ denialism is bollocks.[/QUOTE]
it isnt the be-all end-all of intelligence
[QUOTE=person11;41577557]She was one of the best students in the class, but every time she made a mistake, one of the students or the teacher would be like "obviously YOU'D make this mistake". More examples include tons of micro-aggressions like that. She could not learn without being reminded of who she was and why she should not be there.[/QUOTE]
From spending 3 years in a class of 20 girls and 3 guys, I can confirm that the experience was highly similar. I don't think too much of any gender is a good thing really, and though it's more common with discrimination against women, women sure as hell aren't always saints when the tables are turned.
[QUOTE=Simski;41578133]From spending 3 years in a class of 20 girls and 3 guys, I can confirm that the experience was highly similar. I don't think too much of any gender is a good thing really, and though it's more common with discrimination against women, women sure as hell aren't always saints when the tables are turned.[/QUOTE]
Well I was one of the few guys in my class at uni and I didn't notice anything.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41578022]This dude is one smart cookie. And not just on an IQ level. He could've been an amazing academic.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID),[20] [B]a professional society which promotes intelligent design[/B],[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, [B]Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent[/B], [B]a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design[/B], edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent [B]William Dembski[/B].[24][/QUOTE]
All of my nope.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;41578123]it isnt the be-all end-all of intelligence[/QUOTE]
It's been around for over a century and works quite well. If there are any other measurements of intelligence which are superior yet also are as easily quantifiable then please tell me them.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;41578153]All of my nope.[/QUOTE]
IQ isn't the definitive guide to intelligence because intelligence can't be put on a linear number scale. you can perform complex equations in your head on one hand, and reject the foundation for several fields of science on the other.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41578170]It's been around for over a century and works quite well. If there are any other measurements of intelligence which are superior yet also are as easily quantifiable then please tell me them.[/QUOTE]
IQ tests are a reliable measure for nothing but how good you are at IQ tests. Sure they give a rough estimation of intelligence, but the only reason it has stuck around for so long is because intelligence is basically unquantifiable.
The lack of a better alternative does not suggest that the current system is good. Merely hard to improve upon.
[QUOTE=JXZ;41578258]IQ isn't the definitive guide to intelligence because intelligence can't be put on a linear number scale. you can perform complex equations in your head on one hand, and reject the foundation for several fields of science on the other.[/QUOTE]
There was one neckbeard in my sisters group who was adamant he was going to disprove thermodynamics.
I mean, he's obviously smart enough to get into a PhD, but god damn what a brainwrong of a one off man mental
i have an IQ of 200 due to autism reasons and I got 2 scholarships! girls please get on my level!
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41577479]What do you mean by toxic? I'm interested to know.
Also "Sociology of the Family – 50.1%" Female dominated, by .1 percent.[/QUOTE]
I took that class, a real eye opener
I'm rather surprised at the difference in Math.
[QUOTE=JXZ;41578258]IQ isn't the definitive guide to intelligence because intelligence can't be put on a linear number scale. you can perform complex equations in your head on one hand, and reject the foundation for several fields of science on the other.[/QUOTE]
I might be a little biased considering he's challenging my field of study when its pretty obvious he isn't very well versed in it.
Also, it gets rather tiring dealing with IDers and creationists on a fairly routine basis.
ISCID isn't exactly a reputable organization within academia either given their approach to peer review.
The guy is probably quite smart, probably even smarter than I am, but not finishing off a degree, working with a "scientific" organization of ill-repute, and telling people that their field is wrong without any real understanding of the field to begin with tends to put him out of favor.
A degree would help some of his problems, but I think there are some other issues going on that might lead people to believe he isn't someone to take seriously.
As for the IQ bit, I can't really comment. I'm rather partial to the system since I too scored quite high.
I tend to agree with you when you say its hard to put intelligence on a linear scale though.
Actually, rereading your post, I'm not quite sure how it was intended to come off.
No matter, my post really should have been expanded anyway.
[QUOTE=person11;41577557]She was one of the best students in the class, but every time she made a mistake, one of the students or the teacher would be like "obviously YOU'D make this mistake". More examples include tons of micro-aggressions like that. She could not learn without being reminded of who she was and why she should not be there.[/QUOTE]
Was it subconcious or concious behaviour?
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577906]I think his point was that you don't go to University because you're interested, you go because you want a job in that field.
If you're merely interested you can look at wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
you can still study things yourself without actually going to college.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.