/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4873989]

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/07/15/title-ix-stem-disparity-proves-discrimination-dogma-s
elective-concern-for-gender-imbalances/

http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/documents/TITLE_IX_STEM_Self-Evaluation.pdf

Why can they just not leave us alone ;_;.
what are the implications for this gentlemen? Will there be easy STEM majors now? Like history of mathematics. Will there now be two girls that drop the class first week instead of one?

>tl;dr title IX, same thing that made funding for sport equal for men and women, now is effecting STEM majors

[Anonymous No.4873991]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/usa-whitehouse-titleix-idINL1E8HKJNC20120620

better article

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4873995]

>>4873991
ooh! i know this one!
its pikachu, right?

[Anonymous No.4873998]

really nobody fucking cares?
you do realize some C student girls are going to get into graduate programs over you just because they are women

this is basically affirmative action

[Anonymous No.4874003]

>>4873998
>you do realize some C student girls are going to get into graduate programs over you just because they are women
>[Citation needed]
And I know male C students in graduate programs.

[Anonymous No.4874006]

The fault lies with women alone. They can't rid themselves of the mindset of wanting to be trophy wives. If they're going to top institutions they're going to be associating with the future bankers, scientists, politicians and doctors of the world. Knowing that they can cruise through university and marry someone that will provide for them constantly is a lot more tempting than studying something yourself properly and making a difference in it.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874007]

>>4873998
yeh, it sucks and it aint fair, but then most things in life aint fair anyway
deal with it?

yeh, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4874010]

>>4874007

He might be a whinging nerd but it's still a sad day indeed when someone gets admission down to their gender, not their ability.

[Anonymous No.4874012]

>>4874010
but they don't gave any evidence it's happening.

[Anonymous No.4874015]

>>4874012

It's obvious and happens all over the western world.

If universities took people solely on ability they'd be 85 percent male. Not because women are naturally less intelligent, they just have no real reason to be arsed because they can get everything on a plate.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874017]

>>4874006
>They can't rid themselves of the mindset of wanting to be trophy wives.
[sarcasm] uhuh, which is why their putting lots of time and money into persuing their education. makes perfect sense [/sarcasm]

>If they're going to top institutions they're going to be associating with the future bankers, scientists, politicians and doctors of the world.
no, they're going to BE the future bankers, scientists, politicians and doctors of the world!
sexist cunt!

>Knowing that they can cruise through university and marry someone that will provide for them constantly is a lot more tempting than studying something yourself properly and making a difference in it.
[sarcasm] yes, because sponging off some rich-fag and not doing anything for ourselves is definitely a satisfying way to live our lives [/sarcasm]

[Anonymous No.4874021]

>>4874017

>uhuh, which is why their putting lots of time and money into persuing their education. makes perfect sense

You don't need to include the tags. I can tell from reading this that you're being sarcastic.

>no, they're going to BE the future bankers, scientists, politicians and doctors of the world!
sexist cunt!

The evidence is massively in my favor, sorry. The glass ceiling has been removed due to government legislation, but the blockade still remains. It's been put up by women themselves.

>yes, because sponging off some rich-fag and not doing anything for ourselves is definitely a satisfying way to live our lives

For most women it is. If you're different, congratulations to you. But surely you must realise that most women go to university for the social side of things and have no career aspirations whatsoever?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874023]

>>4874010
yes, and its still fucking infuriating when people get hired for shit reasons like that as well. like, a company needs stats showing they arnt racist, so they'll hire a few black people just for being black, even if they arnt as qualified as some white applicants.

shit like that still happens, people are always gonna be racist and sexist (even against their own, when the situation calls for it) and their aint really much we can do about it.

>>4874015
> they just have no real reason to be arsed because they can get everything on a plate.
50 years ago, maybe. not now.
women are required to work and put effort into a career just as much as men.
feminism works both ways, we get equality, but also equal responsibility in education and work-life as well.

[Anonymous No.4874025]

>>4874021
Don't feed EK, it encourages it.

[Anonymous No.4874027]

>>4874015
>It's obvious and happens all over the western world.
baseless statement
>If universities took people solely on ability they'd be 85 percent male.
baseless statement

Find some facts or piss off.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874030]

>>4874021
>But surely you must realise that most women go to university for the social side of things and have no career aspirations whatsoever?
thats simply not true.
most people go to uni partly for the social side, sure, but you dont honestly think we'd funnel thousands of pounds into just having a 3 year social holiday, where zero fucks are given, do you?

[Anonymous No.4874032]

>>4874021
> The evidence is massively in my favor, sorry. The glass ceiling has been removed due to government legislation, but the blockade still remains. It's been put up by women themselves.

Then you won't mind providing some of this evidence then will you?

[Anonymous No.4874035]

>>4874023

I'm basing this off personal experience. Neither of my parents went to university and I was the first one in my family to go. When my sister finished her GCSEs I'd started my MSc and she wanted to look around my university and a few others. I took her around Cambridge, Leeds, UCL, Lancaster and Newcastle.

4 years later when she was in her second year at Sidney Sussex (see, you lot can be smart after all), she phoned my parents to proudly announce that she was getting married and was dropping out of university because he had inherited a load of cash and land from his parents. Then she called to thank me for taking her to Cambridge for a tour, because that persuaded her to go and she'd have never met Mr Cuntychops. Forget the hours of prep work I did with her, the exam material I helped her study for and the people at the university I introduced her to - all she cared about was the fact that she met a member of the minor nobility.

I personally didn't see much wrong with this, but I found it very fucking rich when she tried to give me a lecture on how women are discriminated against in the education system and viewed as gold diggers.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874038]

>>4874032
hes just a sexist, he has no evidence.
his type is far too common on /sci
>hurr durr, butches and whores, man! hurr, gold diggers, skanks,stupid lazy wimennz!

grow up.

[Anonymous No.4874042]

>>4874032
>>4874027

Yawn

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/11183

[Anonymous No.4874044]

THANK YOU BIG GOVERNMENT AND THANK YOU OBONGO FOR ALL OF YOUR GRACIOUS OFFERINGS SUCH AS:

THIS BULLSHIT
NDAA
SOPA
PIPA
ACTA
THE PATRIOT ACT
ECT

I SURE WILL BE GLAD TO VOTE FOR YOU AND ALL THE DEMOCRATS I CAN BECAUSE NONE OF YOU ARE DISGUSTING CROOKS WHO NEED A BULLET TO THE BRAIN

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874046]

>>4874035
>she phoned my parents to proudly announce that she was getting married and was dropping out of university because he had inherited a load of cash and land from his parents.
i hope you realise how fucking rare that is, it obviously aint the life-path of most women, and certainly is nothing like my own.

>all she cared about was the fact that she met a member of the minor nobility.
yeh, she got lucky, she got a free ride to riches, comfort, and security.
obviously she doesnt HAVE to work now, so she doesnt NEEd a career, and can basically just do whatever the fuck she lieks
but only because she got REALLY lucky
also
>anecdotal evidence.

but yeh, i do believe you.

>I found it very fucking rich when she tried to give me a lecture on how women are discriminated against in the education system and viewed as gold diggers.
fine, but was she even actually a gold digger? perhaps the guy she fell for just happens to be insanely wealthy, and she didnt hook him just because she wanted a piece of that lifestyle, it was just a happy coincidence.

[Anonymous No.4874047]

>>4874038

There's the evidence in the OP link for starters

[Anonymous No.4874048]

EK is mad an incapable of a reasonable discussion. This thread is fucked.

[Anonymous No.4874051]

>>4874035
>My sister is a lazy bitch.
>So all women are lazy bitches.

Well somewhere in here there may be a logical error, I just can't see it though.

But since your fine with judging an entire gender may I introduce Jocelyn Bell and pastor Fred Phelps. By your standard I have conclusively proven that men should stay out of science and education.

[Anonymous No.4874053]

>>4873991
>In 1972, when Title IX was passed, 43 percent of students enrolling in degree-granting institutions were women, compared to 57 percent of new students in 2010. (Reporting by Lauren French)

>"14% more men than women in college! Sexism! We must end this!"
>"14% more women than men in college! Progress!"
>you could hear a pin drop

[Anonymous No.4874058]

>>4874046

>but was she even actually a gold digger?

I don't know, I didn't go round and ask. I just find it sad that she was so desperate to start having coffee mornings and go to golf clubs all the time that she kicked a world class education into touch.

It's society. It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to be a housewife, a mother and a socialite. She doesn't have to work. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

You could quite easily have all the cash you wanted if you hung around bars in the city, waiting for a young shy investment banker or corporate lawyer to stumble your way. Plenty of women do it.

[Anonymous No.4874060]

>>4874051

I never said women were. I put forward the reasons why it's acceptable for a woman to be like that.

[Anonymous No.4874066]

So, they are doing nothing to solve the gender gap in female-dominated fields? That's fucking sexist.

[Anonymous No.4874069]

>>4874066

I'm struggling to think of female dominated fields other than midwifery and interior design.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874071]

>>4874058
>I just find it sad that she was so desperate to start having coffee mornings and go to golf clubs all the time that she kicked a world class education into touch.
can you really blame her? its a means to an end
good education >> good job >> good money >> wealthy = endgame
for her: go out with guy >> happens to be very wealthy >> now she is very wealthy >> endgame

she doesnt need a good job or a good education, when the desired end point was always gonna be huge wealth.

>It's society. It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to be a housewife, a mother and a socialite. She doesn't have to work. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.
its also acceptable the other way around. never heard of house hubbys for high flying women?

sure, people get jelly of the easy life, just like they get jelly when people win the lottery and get an easy life that way, also with no effort.
and landing a rich partner is kinda like winning a lottery, on a totally different playing field.

money aint everything, obviously, but i'd still far rather land a rich guy than a guy who is thousands of pounds in debt with no prospects, with all other factors being equal.

>You could quite easily have all the cash you wanted if you hung around bars in the city, waiting for a young shy investment banker or corporate lawyer to stumble your way. Plenty of women do it.
some do, but thats not me.
seems pretty slutty/whorey

i dont need to rely on guys for money, i'll earn my own.

[Anonymous No.4874073]

>>4874066
Why aren't we fighting to get more men into Ph.D programs for Women's Studies! It's one of the most essential academic disciplines known to modern mankind! It focuses on gender inequality yet there's a huge inequality in the enrollment between men and women! What a scandal!

[Anonymous No.4874074]

>>4874042
>One university
>The evidence is massively in my favor
Not quite adding up.

http://www.economicissues.org.uk/Files/204Leslie.pdf

>Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show that over the period 1996-2001, 78.42 percent of male applicants were accepted into UK Higher Education (HE) in contrast to 76.77 percent of female applicants. Given the large number of applicants (2.3 million), this is a significant difference. Furthermore, women applicants were generally better qualified. So this provides a prima facie case for discrimination at the entry level.

One university versus all UK admissions.

[Anonymous No.4874076]

>>4874069
>I didn't read the article

>The gender imbalance favoring women was especially significant at the master’s level, where 152 women earned master’s degrees in 2010 for every 100 men.
>a. Health Professions (85.1% female at the undergraduate level and 81.4% at the master’s level),
>b. Public Administration and Social Services (82% female at the undergraduate level and 75.2% at the master’s level),
>c. Psychology (more than 70% female at all three levels)
>d. Biology (53% or higher at all three levels, 58.5% for bachelor’s degrees – isn’t Biology a STEM field?)
>e. Education (79.5% for bachelor’s degrees and 77% for master’s degrees)

[Anonymous No.4874078]

>>4874060
You did.


>It's obvious and happens all over the western world.
>Not because women are naturally less intelligent, they just have no real reason to be arsed because they can get everything on a plate.

[Anonymous No.4874088]

>>4874073
>what a scandal

[Anonymous No.4874091]

>>4874003
>And I know male C students in graduate programs.

Are you seriously this stereotypically liberal?

[Anonymous No.4874093]

>fine, but was she even actually a gold digger?
>perhaps the guy she fell for just happens to be insanely wealthy
What the fuck am I re--
Oh wait, it's EK. Never mind.

[Anonymous No.4874094]

>>4874017
>[sarcasm] yes, because sponging off some rich-fag and not doing anything for ourselves is definitely a satisfying way to live our lives [/sarcasm]

>hurr i believe that i feel what all other women in the world feels and so i am perfectly representative of all women in the world

And what's with the sarcasm tags? You autistic or something?

[Anonymous No.4874099]

so what do you guys think this will mean?
>men will have to be more competitive to get jobs
>nothing because offering scholarships are not going to suddenly spike interest in the hardest fields for women
>men will be offered less seats because there need to be an equal number of women or ratio of women to men

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874102]

>>4874093
oh come on, how the fuck is she magically gonna know if they guy is wealthy, until shit like that actually happens? its a bit of a personal question to ask, if she's all like
"so, how much money do you earn per year"
then she'd just be showing her self up to definitely be a gold digger.

its not something ive ever discussed with any of my guys, because im not a gold digger, and it doest matter anyway.

by the time she actually gets her windfall, and has a shit load of cash and land, you can be pretty confident that shes been dating the guy for a significant amount of time, all the while, not knowing if he's rich or not. or not knowing for sure anyway, she'll have some indication based on what he wears and what he drives and where he lives, etc.

>>4874094
im not saying that no gold diggers exist, but i am saying they're very rare, compared to all the women who arnt gold diggers.

[Anonymous No.4874112]

>>4874102
Oh god, are you ten years old, or just socially retarded?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4874116]

>>4874112
neither
and since when was 'how much do you earn' ever acceptable discussion?

[Anonymous No.4874128]

Whether it's /co/, /g/, /v/, or /sci/, you fucking nerds are always thinking women are out to get you, holy shit. It's not even the fact women will get more opportunity in areas where gender discrimination is normal, it's the fact that you don't think they CAN do whatever field it is or have ulterior motives.

What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.4874146]

>>4874128
OP here, I am worried about what this means for me. I dont give a shit about anybody else. Is this going to make it harder, or stay the same?

[Anonymous No.4874155]

>>4874128

Why are you so ridiculously fucking stupid? Affirmative action is discrimination and immoral. Get the fuck out.


Fuck Obama.

[Anonymous No.4874433]

>>4874155

I love you with the Passion of 1000 suns!