Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may well have such an impact, but that goes back to inadequate preparation in school for the content and rigor of the college level material rather the weedout itself. If they are not prepared academically in middle and high school, then it's too late in college. They need to get remedial help elsewhere before attempting college level work.
I don't think we will ever agree when it comes to weedout. If high schools are doing a bad job of teaching STEM, then colleges maybe need to take up the slack, rather than weeding people out. Plus, as I keep saying, but you don't agree, they use the wrong criteria to weed people out. They tend to weed out anybody who doesn't want to be a doormat, and justify it by saying that's how the real world is. For example, a STEM professor gives a 0 to a studentw ho misses an exam for a funeral, justifying it by saying that's how STEM employers operate. And then students decide that if this is the lifestyle of a STEM employee, then it's time to pick a different major, especially since STEM fields only pay modestly, but expect you to give up everything for your job. Maybe it's the employers who need to change.
I had a class with an adjunct professor who owned an engineering firm. Any absence, including a funeral or hospitalization, was 10 points off your average. He justified it saying that we were the equivalent of first year employees who had no vacation time, and said that if you miss work your first year, even for a funeral, you don't get paid, even if you are the best employee in the world, but the employee who shows up to work drunk and refuses to work will still get paid. Obviously, he's free to run his business that way if he chooses to do so. But most employers would find some way to work with an employee who has to go to a funeral but has not yet accrued any vacation time (maybe stay late for a few days, make up time on Saturday or Sunday, carry a negative vacation balance, or at the worst not be paid for that one day), whereas an employee who shows up drunk and refuses to work will likely get fired, even if he/she gets paid for that one day.
I knew a woman in college who was a music major (obviously not STEM), who got a 0 on an exam that she missed for a funeral of a friend who unexpectedly committed suicide, effectively flunking the class. The professor justified it saying that's the reality if you choose a music career, that if you cancel a gig for any reason you don't get paid, and there are no sick days or bereavement days. So she decided that lifestyle is not for her, so she decided against a career in music. It seems that STEM professors are doing the same thing, turning students off from careers in STEM. Again, if STEM employers really are that bad, then maybe employers need to change.
I find it interesting that you clearly support women in STEM at the expense of men, but you also support weed out, even though women seem to be disproportionately weeded out.
He couldn't explain that it'shalf-life is too short to make that determination, because he didn't know. He covered up the blank spot in his knowledge base by yelling at you. Intimidation is a known tactic for a teacher covering up their ignorance. It happens a lot in cults, too.
Yes. He would have just been better off with a line that what I asked is beyond the scope of the class, and there are other things we have to learn first.
Quote:
I can't believe you seriously believe this hearsay. This is such obvious garbage, you should have known better. For one thing, most highschool girls aren't pretty enough to get a good grade just for that. That's ridiculous; just more stereotyping of girls from the whiner brigade. And secondly, the idea that all highschool science teachers use the same strategy to encourage girls in science is absurd. This smacks of the typical incel conspiracy theory. Use your common sense, mitsguy. If science teachers actually used that strategy, it would lead to most of the girls getting poor grades anyway, worse than the guys. Of all the dumbest things I've ever read on C-D, this one rates at the top.
Sorry, but I know you have more brains than to believe this. Please use them.
What I meant was that the lab reports are being graded based on how pretty the lab report is, not based on how pretty the girl is. Your response was completely uncalled for. You were shooting the messenger. The only people here who are being sexist are the teachers who somehow think that is how to attract women. One of my main points is that this turns off STEM-oriented people of both genders (that includes women) who lose points since their lab report isn't pretty enough.
WHAT???!?!!! Even more ridiculous. And outlandish, to boot! And as if someone would grade a report based on its fluff factor! Those girls are in desperate need of a reality check. How they managed to graduate from HS without getting one, I can't fathom.
Since I'm talking about high school, they obviously have not graduated from high school yet. And I find it interesting that you are a feminist, but refer to adults (since you thought I was talking about high school graduate) as "girls".
Quote:
But just because they prettify their documents doesn't mean their teachers were dumb enough to reward them for that with higher grades than they deserved.
The teachers justify it by saying that in the real world, presentation counts, and that they are trying to encourage women to go into STEM. Trouble is, it encourages the wrong women, and then they get weeded out in college when they get a professor who doesn't care what gender you are. Whereas, women (and men) who actually are interested in STEM get turned off.
I'm saying that maybe people should work in their intended field for a few years before going to college, in order to see if the lifestyle is for them or not.
WHAT???!?!!! Even more ridiculous. And outlandish, to boot! And as if someone would grade a report based on its fluff factor! Those girls are in desperate need of a reality check. How they managed to graduate from HS without getting one, I can't fathom. But just because they prettify their documents doesn't mean their teachers were dumb enough to reward them for that with higher grades than they deserved.
4 years of college and they produced "girly" resumes.
Did they receive no guidance ?
It makes you wonder what is really going on in these college classes.
many colleges are switching to pass/fail grades. You really can't tell what the true GPA is.
Since I'm talking about high school, they obviously have not graduated from high school yet. And I find it interesting that you are a feminist, but refer to adults (since you thought I was talking about high school graduate) as "girls".
The teachers justify it by saying that in the real world, presentation counts, and that they are trying to encourage women to go into STEM. Trouble is, it encourages the wrong women, and then they get weeded out in college when they get a professor who doesn't care what gender you are. Whereas, women (and men) who actually are interested in STEM get turned off.
Most though are going the business IT route, not the engineering IT route.
We have posters in this forum who want to tell their children what their career/job choice should be.
And the title of this post suggests that our nation should tell children what their career/job choice should be.
No, kids should chart their own course to go into careers that will be fulfilling to them, and not be unduly influenced by parents or anyone else. It should be fully their choice as to what they are going to be doing for 30-40 years or more. Of course, parents can and should make suggestions, and, as with many students, teachers or other respected non-family adults may set examples that would make them consider certain fields. Even our government might provide incentives to get young people to consider particular fields of study. But it's the kid's ultimate choice what they will do for the rest of their lives.
Entertainer of some sort, like a YouTube influencer. That would be it.
That's probably been an aspiration of most kids at some point in time for the last 100 years at least, since movies, radio, and gramophones became popular. Most used to grow out of it pretty quickly, before they'd squandered their formative years with that aspiration.
Yes, but children do need to learn the full implication of their major and career choices. It’s not just about what will interest them academically for 4 years, but about what lifestyle they can expect. Somebody who chooses to major in art history might not have as secure a lifestyle as some other majors. Some careers will involve long hours. Some will involve the need to travel frequently and at a moment’s notice. Some will require having a certain image. Some will involve the need to frequently relocate. Some will require the need to be unemployed for a while. Some willl require a life of poverty. But people need to learn those realities before choosing a major. That’s one reason why I’ve said maybe people need to work for a few years before going to college. If nothing else, you can decide if the lifestyles of your superiors would be acceptable to you or not.
That's what happens organically when people choose the military route to fund their college education.
When I announced to my mother at age 18 that I was going to double major in Political Science and Journalism, she said, "That's wonderful...but what are you going to do for a living?"
Fairly quickly, I determined the income potential of that education and wound up as a military intelligence analyst...where I did put both of those studies to great use.
Because not everyone can be a scientist or an engineer or a doctor--and some people will need to fill the less desirable, lower paid jobs--I ultimately agree with you. And, ultimately, trying to force your kids to do something that they aren't otherwise interested in is a recipe for disaster in many ways.
Most people will have to fill less desirable, lower paid jobs. The vast majority of the jobs that keep the wheels on the bus of society are less desirable and lower paid. That's how the world has always been and still is.
Quote:
That said, I sit back and look at those who heeded my advice--to include family members--and those who didn't in terms of college degree programs as a means of charting a particular path. I stressed the importance of STEM to one of my cousins numerous times during his college studies. I said even if you don't major in STEM, at least take some core STEM concentration courses and go after certain certs, etc. Didn't listen and decided to do a social science program. He's not one year removed from his BS degree and is working as a waiter in the DC area earning significantly less than his colleagues who did major in STEM.
Contrast this with two other cousins (one who is wrapping up his senior year at Columbia and the other who just started at Northwestern), both of whom are majoring/focusing in STEM. The senior already has lucrative job offers lined up but is considering business school. The other is on the right glide slope that will increase significantly the chance of financial success down the line.
All of this is to say do what you want, but don't come crying to me and others who are more successful that you need student loan relief, that you're struggling to make a living, etc., when you chose a certain education/career path. Decisions have consequences.
You're saying here that a STEM education leads to a more lucrative career without qualification of being "interested." You seem to have disproven the point you made in your first paragraph.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
