Girls don’t go into tech because they don’t want to. Huh? That’s the REAL reason? Because that’s what the male author sees where he lives? I give that a Seth & Amy, “REALLLY!?!”
Having a burrito instead of a salad for lunch was my choice. Our daughters choosing to pay the same tuition for an education that will net less pay than a man even if she comes into college with an equal ability and skill set? That would be generations of choice by a patriarchal society deciding that is what our daughters “want” to choose.
My contribution this point may be clouded by the shock that what seems like reasonable people still insist this is no big whoop. So instead of reading about the steam coming out of my ears, please read the excellent rebuttal argument linked in the comment section of the article linked above: https://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/pulse/real-reason-women-dont-go-tech-chris-christine-wolfe
The inconvenient truth is girls don’t study engineering because they’re not interested, just like the MAJORITY OF BOYS don’t study engineering, nor do boys gravitate to dance majors nor early childhood education majors.
@palm715 There are certain words we are apparently encouraged not to use around here, but if you check @StevenToCollege and his posting history you will see a consistency of posting position and a history of popping up in threads where he doesn’t really seem to have a compelling interest.
It seems to amuse him.
There is something fascinating about the professional posters around here. Sad sometimes. But fascinating.
I don’t know what your problem was, but you seemed to be very good at making false accusation of other users on the site. Both @ucbalumnus and @dstark certainly had firsthand experience of that and disengaged from conversation with you in the other post.
“There are certain words we are apparently encouraged not to use around here,”
I didn’t even express a single word of opinion in my previous post. The Real Reason Most Women Don’t Go Into Tech is just the title of the article. Like you have said before, don’t shoot the messenger.
“There is something fascinating about the professional posters around here. Sad sometimes. But fascinating.”
These so called professional posters (I am not one of them as I only have 600+ posts) are what make the site possible and so helpful. There’s no need to insult these people.
On the other hand, when I scanned through your posts, I saw nothing but your venting about how the UCs, especially Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD, were so unfair to your daughter.
They lobbied against 209 (to no avail, obviously). Before 209, they were putting a thumb on the admission scale for URM applicants and female applicants to engineering. But that obviously did not go over well with the voters who voted for 209.
Note for those who do not know: Proposition 209 was a 1996 ballot measure that prohibited California public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity.
@StevenToCollege That remark about professional posters was not about you, hence the paragraph break. But it did bring more professional posters to the conversation.
Nice of you to join us again as well. I just thought it made sense for the poster to know your posting history. I think it speaks volumes.
And, of course, that is all you saw scanning my posts. That is not surprising but is, of course, enlightening.
I assure you I don’t get paid to post as much as I do, though if I did, I’d feel a lot less guilty about wasting so much time trying to help people or getting into interesting debates.
@ucbalumnus But has no effect on the gender balance in the rest of UC admissions.
And, of course, 209 has nothing to do with poor yield rates at UCB COE and UCLA Samueli. That is an institutional problem and speaks to either a lack of seriousness or lack of ability, or both.
In fact, one could wonder if the UCB COE and UCLA Samueli yield differences suggest a difference in recruitment of accepted students based on gender, which would not violate 209, but would be against the spirit of it.
Why, one might ask, can’t UCB COE and UCLA Samueli do a better job or SIRing their accepted female applicants? I might ask that, in fact.
@50N40W Men drop out of STEM at a higher rate. Women stay in school, but change majors out of STEM at a higher rate, from the studies I’ve seen. But it is less for STEM than the “general population” so it may not be as big a problem (at the college level) as we assume. I have not looked at workplace numbers very closely. It may be more true there.
When some other schools of comparable prestige and selectivity do consider gender in admissions, it is likely that female engineering applicants on average receive more admission offers from schools of comparable prestige and selectivity than male engineering applicants who are otherwise comparable. So it should not be surprising that yield is lower among the female admits.
“Why, one might ask, can’t UCB COE and UCLA Samueli do a better job or SIRing their accepted female applicants? I might ask that, in fact.”
Wow, many of your questions have already been addressed by multiple individuals in the other posts, and you are still at it. Your problem is that you tried to engage others to your discussion. When you got emotional because others did not agree with you, you started accusing others of being employees of or having interests in UCs, including me, @ucbalumnus, and probably few others as well. And when you lost traction because others got tired of it, you moved to another forum and started the process again.
If that’s not venting, I don’t know what is.
“And, of course, that is all you saw scanning my posts. That is not surprising but is, of course, enlightening.”
I will leave it to the other posters to be the judge of it.
Oh well, this is a free site. I guess you can do whatever you like.
@ucbalumnus why wouldn’t it be? The need-only schools can’t compete for money, except for lower income students. So an Ivy or even an MIT can’t really compete with the UCB numbers for any middle or upper-middle class student in terms of money. Or location. Stanford can. Maybe USC.
Maybe the poor SIR/Yield results has to do with UCB COE and UCLA Samueli admins not really caring - or even being find with the results the way they are… or maybe to do with this?
The income range where schools like MIT or Stanford offer comparable or lower net price than UCs to California residents probably covers around 70-80% of the population, so most students who get into such schools will not see a net price advantage at UCs (and some of the rest are from wealthy enough families that price will not decide).
“They lobbied against 209 (to no avail, obviously).”
When they lobbied against 209, many of my friends, including me, appealed against it.
“When some other schools of comparable prestige and selectivity do consider gender in admissions, it is likely that female engineering applicants on average receive more admission offers from schools of comparable prestige and selectivity than male engineering applicants who are otherwise comparable.”
This is the reason why many are still in favor of 209 because boys with high stat/EC who get rejected by these private schools due to this preferential treatment still have a chance at the top schools.
