The "chilly" climate of higher STEM education

[rRico]

According to this discourse analysis women and minorities are incapable to understand and process scientific facts as taught in university and college-level education.
The author asserts that the teaching practices in STEM education are male-biased and therefore discriminatory towards women and minorities (page 12). The authors seems to be unaware that minorities would also include men. She further asserts that knowledge changes in different contexts (page 6), and critiques the view "of knowledge as one that students acquire" (page 12).

This is a view that is rather sexist towards women and bigoted towards minorities ("the bigotry of lowered expectations").

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's hard to hear what you're saying over the sound of so much ax grinding.

 

[rRico]

It's hard to hear what you're saying over the sound of so much ax grinding.

Then put your axes away.

 

[Finn]

Then put your axes away.

You don't realize who has the axe, do you?

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Maybe he thought he was Axing him a question.

 

[{ Emilia }]

OP did not understand the study he linked.

Which is kind of ironic considering his premise.

 

[1001001]

That study is the exact opposite of how you categorized it.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

 

[M'Sharak]

Just happened to see this a few minutes ago, RT'd on Twitter:

Women & Minorities Don't Apply

It's not a multipage "discourse analysis" and it deals more with employment in STEM fields (the part which is supposed to come after the education) but I'm assured that the obstacles faced by folks from under-represented groups (women, minorities, minority women, etc.) in fields traditionally dominated by men of European descent are essentially the same ones, whether in the working STEM world or in academia.

This isn't an isolated example, either. Talk to people from those under-represented groups who have been (and may still be) there, and you'll keep hearing the same things, over and over. The topic is beginning to be discussed in some quarters, but institutionalized discrimination and resistance from the established boys' club still pervades every corner of every STEM field.

 

[rRico]

Just happened to see this a few minutes ago, RT'd on Twitter:

Women & Minorities Don't Apply

It's not a multipage "discourse analysis" and it deals more with employment in STEM fields (the part which is supposed to come after the education) but I'm assured that the obstacles faced by folks from under-represented groups (women, minorities, minority women, etc.) in fields traditionally dominated by men of European descent are essentially the same ones, whether in the working STEM world or in academia.

This isn't an isolated example, either. Talk to people from those under-represented groups who have been (and may still be) there, and you'll keep hearing the same things, over and over. The topic is beginning to be discussed in some quarters, but institutionalized discrimination and resistance from the established boys' club still pervades every corner of every STEM field.

In that tweetchain it says:

Women won't apply unless they meet WAY more than men.

How is this discrimination?

 

[rRico]

OP did not understand the study he linked.

Which is kind of ironic considering his premise.

That study is the exact opposite of how you categorized it.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

It would be productive if you laid out why that is.

 

[Finn]

In that tweetchain it says:

How is this discrimination?

It's not the author doing the discriminating. Minorities and Women often have to work much harder than white males to approaching equal recognition, etc. Discrimination often exists in subtle ways, even in ways offenders don't realize it.

Look at Hillary Clinton. If she was a man, Republicans wouldn't be so fixated on the emails and Benghazi.

Girls are often too unmotivated to participate in STEM activities due to subtle discriminatory cues and lack of support and encouragement instilled into them early in life. Same goes for minorities.

Alright, I'm a white guy yes, but I'm still technically a minority- Deaf. Too often, the Deaf folks have to adapt to the hearing world to earn recognition or succeed, especially with some ability to speak. Why should we? Marlle Matlin wouldn't be as famous if she didn't have some speaking ability, because too many hearing folks wouldn't respond to her as easily as if Matlin had no speaking skills. No appearences in Picket Fences, The West Wing, and probably no Switched at Birth.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It would be productive if you laid out why that is.

Why should anyone do that, when you opened this thread with a bad faith post saying the author of a feminist study was sexist and racist?

Are you familiar with the term "poisoning the well"?

 

[M'Sharak]

In that tweetchain it says:

How is this discrimination?

Perhaps you should try reading it in context, rather than cherry-picking a single statement. One tweet is necessarily brief, and only a small slice of the whole, but when taken as one part of a larger stream can be informative and even enlightening.

Again, don't just look at the comments by one person from under-represented groups. Read commentary by as many as you can, from as many different STEM fields as you can, and you'll find a number of common themes emerging — themes which ought to be cause for concern.

 

[publiusr]

Dumbth is to be found on all sides: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/watch-leftist-students-say-science-is-ra
It isn't just rednecks who think the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever. Anti-science--and anti-engineering sentiments can be found everywhere>

 

[Doom Shepherd]

According to this discourse analysis women and minorities are incapable to understand and process scientific facts as taught in university and college-level education.

^According to this sentence, people who have trouble understanding discourse analysis, and problems with gender and racial equality, also have significant problems with basic grammar.

*incapable to understand - incapable of understanding.

 

[rRico]

Why should anyone do that, when you opened this thread with a bad faith post saying the author of a feminist study was sexist and racist?

Are you familiar with the term "poisoning the well"?

To quote you from another thread

"This portrayal is racist" is not the same as "you are a racist." I have noticed that people confuse the two constantly, and it seems Shriver has made the same mistake.

The views she expressed, to me, seem sexist and bigoted. I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she herself is not that, but unintentionally framed her analysis in such a way.

Dumbth is to be found on all sides: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/watch-leftist-students-say-science-is-ra
It isn't just rednecks who think the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever. Anti-science--and anti-engineering sentiments can be found everywhere>

Here are two responses to this science-denying, "knowledge is constructed", science as a power-dynamic nonesense. One is rather polemic and the other one puts it in a historical context.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[rRico]

Alright, I'm a white guy yes, but I'm still technically a minority- Deaf. Too often, the Deaf folks have to adapt to the hearing world to earn recognition or succeed, especially with some ability to speak. Why should we? Marlle Matlin wouldn't be as famous if she didn't have some speaking ability, because too many hearing folks wouldn't respond to her as easily as if Matlin had no speaking skills. No appearences in Picket Fences, The West Wing, and probably no Switched at Birth.

You have to adapt to the hearing world because that is the "normal" state of a human being, to be able to hear - and speak.

 

[Finn]

You have to adapt to the hearing world because that is the "normal" state of a human being, to be able to hear - and speak.

No. Women are expected to....appear "manly" to succeed. People of color have to act "white" to succeed.


I feel sorry for you in many different levels.

 

[ihno]

^According to this sentence, people who have trouble understanding discourse analysis, and problems with gender and racial equality, also have significant problems with basic grammar.

*incapable to understand - incapable of understanding.

Not everybody here has english as a native language.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

To quote you from another thread

The views she expressed, to me, seem sexist and bigoted. I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she herself is not that, but unintentionally framed her analysis in such a way.

Then you didn't understand what she wrote.

Here are two responses to this science-denying, "knowledge is constructed", science as a power-dynamic nonesense. One is rather polemic and the other one puts it in a historical context.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Knowledge is constructed. That's a pretty basic tenet of today's research environment. It's not difficult to understand if you study it a bit, either.

Not gonna waste my time with YouTube videos.

You have to adapt to the hearing world because that is the "normal" state of a human being, to be able to hear - and speak.

How far should that "adaptation" go?