Colorado Going Color Blind

[Felch]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
Ever heard of something termed a "glass ceiling"? How many female presidents have there been?

None of that has anything to do with college admissions. Women are more likely to enter and finish college than men. If, after college, it turns out that women can't compete in the real world, so what?

Ben might as well complain about how Christians are persecuted in Saudi Arabia for all the relevance of women presidents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben might as well complain about how Christians are persecuted in Saudi Arabia

Um... but he does anyway.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lorizael

3. A culture shift so that poor people can focus more on educating themselves enough to get well-paying jobs than on having children and raising families.

If the poor were really focused on having children and raising families, they would be a lot better off. Unfortunately, the raising families they are not so good at. The emotional status of the home plays a vital role in the education of the child, if the home life is screwed up then no matter how much money you throw at the school the education won't improve much.

This isn't random guesses by me, there is scientific evidence for this.

JM

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If the poor were really focused on having children and raising families, they would be a lot better off. Unfortunately, the raising families they are not so good at. The emotional status of the home plays a vital role in the education of the child, if the home life is screwed up then no matter how much money you throw at the school the education won't improve much.

This isn't random guesses by me, there is scientific evidence for this.

JM

You misunderstand - I don't think poor people should have children. At least, not until they're not poor anymore. I'm definitely of the opinion that we need to focus on good family lives, but I believe we're not going to get there until we solve other problems first.

If it were up to me - which it is thankfully not - no one would have any children until a lot of other issues were taken care of.

[Jon Miller]

We would run into demographic problems. Also, poor people can raise families well, they just often don't.

JM

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We would run into demographic problems.

Which is why it is good that such things are not up to me.

Also, poor people can raise families well, they just often don't.

JM

I'm not really fond of playing odds games with lives.

[Theben]

*sigh* I can't recall how many times I've had this argument, each time to no avail. The moderators should just close this thread, and any more like it as soon as they appear.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I'm not really fond of playing odds games with lives.

They don't do it poorly because they are poor. They do it poorly sometimes for the reasons they are poor, but it isn't a direct cause/effect.

An example is drug use.

JM

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
They don't do it poorly because they are poor. They do it poorly sometimes for the reasons they are poor, but it isn't a direct cause/effect.

An example is drug use.

JM

This is a good point.

The answer: No one should raise children unless they can support their children and know how to raise them.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
50/50.

My sources disagree with your source(s).

What does that have to do with the fact that universities disproportionately admit women? Are you saying it's good to discriminate against men, just because they are men? Can't you see how that can be turned around against your own argument?

Originally posted by Felch
None of that has anything to do with college admissions. Women are more likely to enter and finish college than men.

I was defining "minority". Go ask a sociologist.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was defining "minority". Go ask a sociologist.

It's still a piss-poor definition. Whomever taught you that needs to have their ass kicked.

Sources that I'm seeing show that for under 40's there really is no appreciable difference between the men and the women wrt to the phD's given out.

[Ben Kenobi]

The presence of women among doctorate recipients has increased markedly since the 1960s. In 1966, men earned 88 percent of all PhDs awarded to U.S. citizens. By 2000, the gender gap in overall PhDs awarded had nearly vanished, with men and women each earning roughly half of all PhDs. The share of PhDs awarded to women has increased continuously over the period in each of five broad fields (table 2). In science fields, the share of PhDs awarded to women increased from 6 percent in 1966 to 37 percent in 2000. While the gender gap has disappeared in the aggregate, women are still relatively more represented in social sciences and education, and less represented in the sciences.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp48.pdf.

It may have been true 10 years ago that there was a gap, there isn't one now.

People may say there is a problem with the women in sciences (despite the fact they are at 37 percent or so, but in Psychology they are up to 70 percent now of all PhD's.

Now if you believe in gender equality, that's an issue. Isn't it a bad thing that 70 percent of all PhD's in Psychology go to women?

Women now earn 57 percent of bachelors degrees and 59 percent of masters degrees. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2006 was the fifth year in a row in which the majority of research Ph.D.’s awarded to U.S. citizens went to women. Women earn more Ph.D.’s than men in the humanities, social sciences, education, and life sciences.

So where's the glass ceiling? I'm not seeing it.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ben might as well complain about how Christians are persecuted in Saudi Arabia

Um... but he does anyway.

Not yet in this thread.

[Felch]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
I was defining "minority". Go ask a sociologist.

Sociologist? Why not a computational linguist?

Minorities never make up more than 50% of the population. Women do. They may not have achieved as much as men, but it's not because they're outnumbered.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So where's the glass ceiling? I'm not seeing it.

Women were most likely to head two-year colleges, where 29 percent of presidents were women in 2006 compared with 8 percent in 1986.
Women were least likely to be the president of doctorate-granting institutions despite a number of recent appointments at high profile institutions. The percentage of women presidents at doctorate-granting institutions was 13.8 percent in 2006, up slightly from 13.3 percent in 2001 and 13.2 percent in 1998.
One-quarter of all recently hired presidents were women, compared with 23 percent of all presidents. The percentage of women among newly hired presidents has not changed appreciably since these data were first collected in 1998.

Source: American Council of Education.

Originally posted by Felch
Sociologist? Why not a computational linguist?

Minorities never make up more than 50% of the population. Women do. They may not have achieved as much as men, but it's not because they're outnumbered.

If you look closely, one of my previous quotes to Ben Kenobi is out of a dictionary. Why not ask a sociologist for sociocultural topics?. But you can go with your computational linguist or even a astrophysicist if you prefer.