Slashdot Mirror
The Push For Quotas For Women In Science
mlimber writes "The NYTimes has a story about how Congress has quietly begun to press for an equal number of women in the hard sciences and engineering under Title IX, which is best known for mandating numerical equality for boys' and girls' sports for institutions that accept federal funding. The problem is, the article says, it is not merely that women face discrimination from male colleagues, though that is often true, or that they are discouraged from pursuing these fields. Rather, women with aptitude in these areas often simply have other interests and so pursue their education and careers in other fields like law, education, or biology. Opponents of this plan, including many women in scientific fields, say implementing sex-based quotas will actually be detrimental because it will communicate that the women can't compete on even terms with men and will be 'devastating' to the quality of science 'if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women's level of interest.'"
"does Title IX block men from sports so they can fill those same slots with whatever women they can come up with?"
To some degree it does. If a school has a disproportionate number of men's sports then it's not uncommon for them to eliminate those programs to get the numbers in line with IX requirements. The men's swim team was disbanded at my alma mater for this reason.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
So, if we are going to open the professions to everyone, then we have to deal with the genuine childhood and adolescent issues that exist in many schools. One of these is a balance of male and female in primary education. But a bigger issue is the kind of anecdotal assumptions that litter every discussion, even here on /. where we are supposable educated and logical. In reality much of it has not to do with ability, but social expectations. For example, a girl can go through a pre-engineering program in high school and go to college or get a well paying job right of out school, and, if she likes, open a consultancy a few years later. This does not happen because social exceptions, her peer group, requires her to take cosmetology, or the like, which is seldom rigorous enough to prepare for college classes. Nothing wrong with that. It is her choice, but it seems like the choice is often made on false assumptions. Likewise a guy may blow off all the science classes and graduate with a bad GPA because he just figures he will work construction. Again, nothing wrong with that, except, again that is might be made under false assumptions.
In both these cases what is happening is that kids are closing the doors to future opportunities at a very young age, perhaps 12. In my experience it is much easier to go to college, give up, and become a cosmetologist, that it is to not take college prep classes, work in as a cosmetologist, and then go back to college and become, for instance, a cosmologist. Likewise, during these boom times we think the construction jobs are never going to end. But they will, and how hard is going to be to learn at 30 what should have been learned at 15. Might it have been easier for the guy to, for instance, become a nurse at 22, and start earning nurses salary immediately? We see the same thing with athletes of both genders. The expected average salary of athlete, integrated over all candidates over the average earning lifetime, is likely no more than 15K a year, not much better than minimum wage. Yet the social pressures push kids to these dead end professions.
So, outside of rampant capitalism, why do we care. Because by saying that equality is important, we, in some small way negate the social pressures so that boy might get his science scores high enough so that he may become a nurse, if he can compete with the women. This of course is why so many people are adamantly opposed to such quotas. Because if that girl does get her act together in high school, and completes all her coursework through college, then she will get that engineering job, and the less qualified man will not. And many see that as unfair. It is much easier to funnel most of the talented motivated girls to teaching and nursing, so that we have these protected highly paid occupations like engineering where incompetent men, many who, from my experience, cannot even put a fuse in correctly, can make enough money to fulfill the societal necessary role as head of the household, i.e. wear the pants.
And if you didn't catch my little side remark there, teaching and nursing requires some kick butt above average education, especially nursing, which is why they get paid the bucks.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
While not quotas per se, as a male it is possible to be a subject to affirmative action. The lack of male elementary school teachers is of such grave concern to some people that it is a natural consequence. It is a grave concern because about 1 in 5 elementary school teachers are male, and there are worries that the lack of male role models is disengaging young boys from the education system. That being said, inspite of action through school boards and professional bodies, men often fail to find work at the lower grades. Parents and principals keep them out.
That being said, it is the exception rather than the rule and I have seen feminists argue agressively against it because men have much better opportunities in society and don't deserve a hand up in the parts of society that they have been forced out of due to active discrimination. I wonder if they realise that more qualified men in education means more space for qualified women in other fields.