CDZ Do schools fail on girls?

[anotherlife]

Writing laws is fun. There are more laws coming out every day than what even a supercomputer can scan. The best fun begins when one law puts you away for making a step in the same time as another law puts you away for not making that step. We have plenty of these already, and we need to grow them to bring the up in the light. This is however independent of the question of girls in STEM.

Wrong!

Obama and the federal government has taught us two things, there are only two ways to deal with problems in society. Pass a law or throw money at the problem, preferably doing both at the same time.

I know an even better solution. Pass two laws, and print the money for it. You can't let the beltway industry go under, now do you?

That's more like it! After all, it's monopoly money. Just print as much money till your hearts content and give it to government where you will never see it again and have zero accountability for the effectiveness of how successful the taxpayers money was spent.

This is true for many countries outside the USA too. But, still, the only tool we have in a totalitarian centralized power structure, like the western democracies, that we write more laws, pay more lawyers, and keep fingers crossed. After all the girls numbers are increasing, as per posters on this thread, only not sufficiently, outside government employment.

So what have we learned so far?

1. Print more money
2. Pass more laws
3. Sexualize our children.

What could possibly go wrong?

The goal is to increase the quality of the work environment in the fields of science, engineering, and technology. For example in Japan, software engineering is traditionally considered a female work line. Like textile used to be in Europe. On the other hand, western IT services, whilst well gender balanced. At the turn of the century, have now drifted into almost total male only occupancy. The number of females in any profession is a good measure and check about the quality and stress level of that profession. So, having girls doing the same job as guys in the offices is even more important than the bottom line business competition, the future of the profession depends on them.

 

[OldLady]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

Nonsense. All girls need to know in school is how to put a rubber on a banana and that gay sex is cool. It is also beneficial for them to know that socialism and being just like Finland is the answer to all our problems and will cause us to live in utopia. That's why we send them to public schools.

It's really not that hard.

What does any of that have to do with the OP? Can't you find another place to make that point, Votto?

But I thought that all problems were solved by the federal government, so it does not really matter what it is you are discussing.

Okay. Enter a discussion and begin agitating about something entirely different and insist that's perfectly logical. Turn this into another of the mindless, endless threads in Politics or Current Events that bore me to tears. I'll check back another day, when you've moved on.

 

[Votto]

Wrong!

Obama and the federal government has taught us two things, there are only two ways to deal with problems in society. Pass a law or throw money at the problem, preferably doing both at the same time.

I know an even better solution. Pass two laws, and print the money for it. You can't let the beltway industry go under, now do you?

That's more like it! After all, it's monopoly money. Just print as much money till your hearts content and give it to government where you will never see it again and have zero accountability for the effectiveness of how successful the taxpayers money was spent.

This is true for many countries outside the USA too. But, still, the only tool we have in a totalitarian centralized power structure, like the western democracies, that we write more laws, pay more lawyers, and keep fingers crossed. After all the girls numbers are increasing, as per posters on this thread, only not sufficiently, outside government employment.

So what have we learned so far?

1. Print more money
2. Pass more laws
3. Sexualize our children.

What could possibly go wrong?

The goal is to increase the quality of the work environment in the fields of science, engineering, and technology. For example in Japan, software engineering is traditionally considered a female work line. Like textile used to be in Europe. On the other hand, western IT services, whilst well gender balanced. At the turn of the century, have now drifted into almost total male only occupancy. The number of females in any profession is a good measure and check about the quality and stress level of that profession. So, having girls doing the same job as guys in the offices is even more important than the bottom line business competition, the future of the profession depends on them.

But I thought Common Core would solve all our problems or was that No Child Left Behind?

 

[anotherlife]

I know an even better solution. Pass two laws, and print the money for it. You can't let the beltway industry go under, now do you?

That's more like it! After all, it's monopoly money. Just print as much money till your hearts content and give it to government where you will never see it again and have zero accountability for the effectiveness of how successful the taxpayers money was spent.

This is true for many countries outside the USA too. But, still, the only tool we have in a totalitarian centralized power structure, like the western democracies, that we write more laws, pay more lawyers, and keep fingers crossed. After all the girls numbers are increasing, as per posters on this thread, only not sufficiently, outside government employment.

So what have we learned so far?

1. Print more money
2. Pass more laws
3. Sexualize our children.

What could possibly go wrong?

The goal is to increase the quality of the work environment in the fields of science, engineering, and technology. For example in Japan, software engineering is traditionally considered a female work line. Like textile used to be in Europe. On the other hand, western IT services, whilst well gender balanced. At the turn of the century, have now drifted into almost total male only occupancy. The number of females in any profession is a good measure and check about the quality and stress level of that profession. So, having girls doing the same job as guys in the offices is even more important than the bottom line business competition, the future of the profession depends on them.

But I thought Common Core would solve all our problems or was that No Child Left Behind?

I don't know what these code names are, but okay, I think your point is that it is not possible to achieve a gender balance between stem graduates and stem employees at least outside the government employment sector. This may be the reality, and this will cause more males to leave these professions too, for the lack of working conditions, and will make it even more expensive to hire in these fields, so in the near future, only Asia will have expertise in science and engineering, and the USA will do nothing but sell hot dog and international loan packages.

 

[Holos]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

Sex and gender are two widely different concepts.

Sex is biological and it can vary in any sexually reproducing species by gene assemblage of the individual through more than just binary phenotypical variations (female and male, for example, are just two possible sexes).
Some genes may be inherited and inheritable, but sex is especially formed by chromossomes that may happen to have their own degrees of natural mutation from species to species. In general, because the individual is made of more genes than chromossomes, there is less sex variation than phenotypical variation within species.

Gender is the further cultural application of phenotypical sexual (or non-sexual) variation by the individual, always relative to the environment, in contrast to biological phenotypical sex that is independent.

Majoritarily genealogical phenotypical gender cannot be fully expressed for healthy individual survival and efficient cultural maintenance in adaptation to the environment if minoritarily chromossomial phenotypical sex isn't majoritarily recognized.

Gender is biologically relative (it pertains to various groups of individuals) and culturally absolute (it pertains to individual groups). Sex is biologically absolute and not at all culturally relevant (it pertains only to single individuals).

 

[Asclepias]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

 

[Holos]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

Your claim has no concrete empirical evidence, therefore it must first be assumed as correction inclined delusion (which has no fault or guilt involved and must therefore be kindly addressed and appropriately reformed by actual concrete empirical evidence). I am not writing this as a scientist, but as a teacher.

Read your own words.
"Look at the test scores, see that girls are behind."

There is nothing concretely empirical about that claim. If the test scores are indeed in the form of sheets, and we indeed look at the scores within the sheets we should first be able to pay full attention to it without paying attention to whatever is physically, concretely, empirically behind. Even if we had the ability to look at the scores within the sheets and still pay equal attention to what is behind, the probability is that immediately behind there would be the hand holding the sheet or a desk of some material or another, never forgetting about the sheets themselves and the scores.

As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science or any teacher whatsoever you lose the capacity to absorb and effectively learn the topics to be studied in their own appropriate way to be fully comprehended and cooperated with.

The material world, rocks and cement included, also have to be cooperated with, and are not in our realities only to cooperate with us for other aspects within our realities, although they do in fact cooperate. So must you and everyone cooperate with yourself and everyone else. That's how the world works, only by first understanding the world can anyone first engage in actual science.

Scientific and educational access are free and have always been, but can only been truly engaged with if first the rules that regiment the material world in so many ways are understood, otherwise debt and complete loss of freedom may follow in effect to any ignorant or eager transgression.

 

[Asclepias]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

Your claim has no concrete empirical evidence, therefore it must first be assumed as correction inclined delusion (which has no fault or guilt involved and must therefore be kindly addressed and appropriately reformed by actual concrete empirical evidence). I am not writing this as a scientist, but as a teacher.

Read your own words.
"Look at the test scores, see that girls are behind."

There is nothing concretely empirical about that claim. If the test scores are indeed in the form of sheets, and we indeed look at the scores within the sheets we should first be able to pay full attention to it without paying attention to whatever is physically, concretely, empirically behind. Even if we had the ability to look at the scores within the sheets and still pay equal attention to what is behind, the probability is that immediately behind there would be the hand holding the sheet or a desk of some material or another, never forgetting about the sheets themselves and the scores.

As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science or any teacher whatsoever you lose the capacity to absorb and effectively learn the topics to be studied in their own appropriate way to be fully comprehended and cooperated with.

The material world, rocks and cement included, also have to be cooperated with, and are not in our realities only to cooperate with us for other aspects within our realities, although they do in fact cooperate. So must you and everyone cooperate with yourself and everyone else. That's how the world works, only by first understanding the world can anyone first engage in actual science.

Scientific and educational access are free and have always been.

You lost my respect as a serious interlocutor when you claimed I said science was unconscious. I said the teachers consciously or unconsciously steer girls away because they believe women should not be or cannot be in those fields.

 

[Holos]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

Your claim has no concrete empirical evidence, therefore it must first be assumed as correction inclined delusion (which has no fault or guilt involved and must therefore be kindly addressed and appropriately reformed by actual concrete empirical evidence). I am not writing this as a scientist, but as a teacher.

Read your own words.
"Look at the test scores, see that girls are behind."

There is nothing concretely empirical about that claim. If the test scores are indeed in the form of sheets, and we indeed look at the scores within the sheets we should first be able to pay full attention to it without paying attention to whatever is physically, concretely, empirically behind. Even if we had the ability to look at the scores within the sheets and still pay equal attention to what is behind, the probability is that immediately behind there would be the hand holding the sheet or a desk of some material or another, never forgetting about the sheets themselves and the scores.

As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science or any teacher whatsoever you lose the capacity to absorb and effectively learn the topics to be studied in their own appropriate way to be fully comprehended and cooperated with.

The material world, rocks and cement included, also have to be cooperated with, and are not in our realities only to cooperate with us for other aspects within our realities, although they do in fact cooperate. So must you and everyone cooperate with yourself and everyone else. That's how the world works, only by first understanding the world can anyone first engage in actual science.

Scientific and educational access are free and have always been.

You lost my respect as a serious interlocutor when you claimed I said science was unconscious. I said the teachers consciously or unconsciously steer girls away because they believe women should not be or cannot be in those fields.

I made no claims.
Pay attention.

 

[Asclepias]

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

Your claim has no concrete empirical evidence, therefore it must first be assumed as correction inclined delusion (which has no fault or guilt involved and must therefore be kindly addressed and appropriately reformed by actual concrete empirical evidence). I am not writing this as a scientist, but as a teacher.

Read your own words.
"Look at the test scores, see that girls are behind."

There is nothing concretely empirical about that claim. If the test scores are indeed in the form of sheets, and we indeed look at the scores within the sheets we should first be able to pay full attention to it without paying attention to whatever is physically, concretely, empirically behind. Even if we had the ability to look at the scores within the sheets and still pay equal attention to what is behind, the probability is that immediately behind there would be the hand holding the sheet or a desk of some material or another, never forgetting about the sheets themselves and the scores.

As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science or any teacher whatsoever you lose the capacity to absorb and effectively learn the topics to be studied in their own appropriate way to be fully comprehended and cooperated with.

The material world, rocks and cement included, also have to be cooperated with, and are not in our realities only to cooperate with us for other aspects within our realities, although they do in fact cooperate. So must you and everyone cooperate with yourself and everyone else. That's how the world works, only by first understanding the world can anyone first engage in actual science.

Scientific and educational access are free and have always been.

You lost my respect as a serious interlocutor when you claimed I said science was unconscious. I said the teachers consciously or unconsciously steer girls away because they believe women should not be or cannot be in those fields.

I made no claims.
Pay attention.

Of course you did. Do you frequently forget you said things? Did you forget you said this?

"As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science ..."

 

[Holos]

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

Your claim has no concrete empirical evidence, therefore it must first be assumed as correction inclined delusion (which has no fault or guilt involved and must therefore be kindly addressed and appropriately reformed by actual concrete empirical evidence). I am not writing this as a scientist, but as a teacher.

Read your own words.
"Look at the test scores, see that girls are behind."

There is nothing concretely empirical about that claim. If the test scores are indeed in the form of sheets, and we indeed look at the scores within the sheets we should first be able to pay full attention to it without paying attention to whatever is physically, concretely, empirically behind. Even if we had the ability to look at the scores within the sheets and still pay equal attention to what is behind, the probability is that immediately behind there would be the hand holding the sheet or a desk of some material or another, never forgetting about the sheets themselves and the scores.

As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science or any teacher whatsoever you lose the capacity to absorb and effectively learn the topics to be studied in their own appropriate way to be fully comprehended and cooperated with.

The material world, rocks and cement included, also have to be cooperated with, and are not in our realities only to cooperate with us for other aspects within our realities, although they do in fact cooperate. So must you and everyone cooperate with yourself and everyone else. That's how the world works, only by first understanding the world can anyone first engage in actual science.

Scientific and educational access are free and have always been.

You lost my respect as a serious interlocutor when you claimed I said science was unconscious. I said the teachers consciously or unconsciously steer girls away because they believe women should not be or cannot be in those fields.

I made no claims.
Pay attention.

Of course you did. Do you frequently forget you said things? Did you forget you said this?

"As soon as you mention there is anything unconscious about science ..."

It's called literary chronology.

 

[OldLady]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

That's interesting. Do you have a good link on that?

 

[there4eyeM]

Schools fail to teach what is necessary, both to male and female students.

 

[Holos]

Schools fail to teach what is necessary, both to male and female students.

What do male and female students require to be taught at this point?

 

[there4eyeM]

Everyone needs to understand:
- the basics of how linguistics work
- how thinking is affected by the above
- how the brain functions
- that perception is the only avenue into the mind, and that perceptions are 100% subjective
- that giving oneself to nation, ideology, religion, etc., is a choice, not fate or merely the result of where one is born
- that consciousness is a special condition of the universe
- that there is nothing more precious than human life

 

[Holos]

Everyone needs to understand:
- the basics of how linguistics work
- how thinking is affected by the above
- how the brain functions
- that perception is the only avenue into the mind, and that perceptions are 100% subjective
- that giving oneself to nation, ideology, religion, etc., is a choice, not fate or merely the result of where one is born
- that consciousness is a special condition of the universe
- that there is nothing more precious than human life

I felt slightly obstructed by the two last requirements you proposed, and especially by the last one.

Could you explain to me, based on every other requirement discerned, how the last must also be understood as a fundamental educational need?

Why is human life more precious than anything else? Humans are no less fragile or no less powerful than any other life. Is all life then to be classified as fundamentally human? Please clarify so that I can agree, instead of advocating for general animal rights or ideological independence.

The proposal about consciousness is also no less missive in my uninformed opinion just now engaged by the prospect, and I feel capable of comprehending it alone, but only because the word "special" is so vague.

 

[there4eyeM]

All creativity, all value, all judgment, all beauty are human creations. Humans bring meaning to the universe. Without humans, none of this would exist.
Consciousness is special because nothing in the physical universe indicates or implies it. Yet, consciousness is the only thing that we can not question exists.

 

[Asclepias]

Schools are not sexist; they fail both genders.

They are inherently sexist. At least the ones here in the US.

It used to be, back in the dark ages when I went to school, that girls were not encouraged in the STEM fields. This has definitely improved as women have pushed their way into many places once deemed inappropriate or impossible for women, and they proved their worth. There are very few teachers left today who have the bias that only males can excel in math, science and technology. The sciences, especially, have many more women than 50 years ago. Technology, not so much, yet.
I disagree that the schools are inherently sexist. No more than the underlying sexist biases of our culture generally.
So you have particular examples?

If you look at the test scores you still see that girls are behind. They may not be open about it but there are teachers that consciously or unconsciously steer girls away from the sciences. I

That's interesting. Do you have a good link on that?

Girls Still Lag Behind Boys at Math, Study Finds

This one talks about girls outperform guys in grades but are worse when it comes to achievement testing.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

 

[Holos]

All creativity, all value, all judgment, all beauty are human creations. Humans bring meaning to the universe. Without humans, none of this would exist.
Consciousness is special because nothing in the physical universe indicates or implies it. Yet, consciousness is the only thing that we can not question exists.

I disagree that all creations are human or that nothing but humans can bring or convey meaning. I actually very gravely disagree that a certain tree, bush, grass, or moss, for example, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a certain or a random human being. That's a ridiculous and incriminating statement, for which humans end up punished by death, as I am sure many already have.

It is clear now to me that your understanding of consciousness is not only false but internally vexing, ultimately leading to its own absence even as it essentially guides you temporarily forward. I would suggest you be better educated before impelling yourself in so strenuous a manner.

Agreeadly, I am still on the fence for conceding that consciousness is indeed special, and would be interested in continuing our discussion from that proposition. However, I am already determinate about my position on the nature of human beings if we are to proceed in having mutual consent towards the preciousness of human lives - especially because I prize my own life as a human and would rather not have to defend or lose it by rendering it more valuable than anything and everything else.

 

[FA_Q2]

I actually very gravely disagree that a certain tree, bush, grass, or moss, for example, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a certain or a random human being.

Who said that?

I think his point is that such has no real meaning or beauty without consciousness.- it simply exists.

Simple existence has no real purpose without consciousness to give it meaning.