New $2 million endowed chair in engineering school

[couch 'em]

Nobody is complaining that TI is giving money. Nobody is complaining about the concept of 'gender parity' in general.

I/we are complaining about the potential use of bigotry to create 'gender parity'. Marketing to young girls "you too can be an engineer" and "try in math and science" is one thing - offering scholarships, lowering admission standards, etc etc specifically for one gender and not the other is sexism.

To Terry Webster, I'm sorry that one specific female in your congregation, whom you are told is brilliant in math and science, isn't getting into the schools of her choice. Because the science and engineering fields in education are so male-dominated, they have been investigated again and again by feminists for discrimination. No widespread discrimination against women going into these majors has been found in 30 years. What has been found is that women/girls are interested in, and excel in, math and science at a lower rate then men. Much in the same way, many academic areas are dominated in numbers and success by women.

I do not want to see SMU go down the path of forced gender parity, when such parity might not reflect society. Why? Do I hate women? No.

I simply believe, that if we want to create a society without discrimination based on sex, then we shouldn't discriminate based on sex. Sex, race, etc shouldn't even be on your application to SMU. Let the best candidates be accepted. This is best for the school, this is best for society. Anything else is not equality.

[NavyCrimson]

"... scripture encourages us to be agents of change and fairness."

Sorry minister but I think you've got your scriptures a little confused when discrimination is being equated with change & fairness. I believe one of Dr. King's speeches was addressing this issue.

[perunapower]

What has been found is that women/girls are interested in, and excel in, math and science at a lower rate then men. Much in the same way, many academic areas are dominated in numbers and success by women.

Wrong.

Live Science article

This needs to be addressed, as shown in this article:

Spellings: Encourage girls in math, science

Something happens between 8 and 18 to force girls away from math and science. It's the stereotype that math and science are boys' subjects and girls shouldn't be interested in them.

In 1992, the first talking Barbie came out and said "Math is tough". There may not be direct discrimination, but feeding negative stereotypes can be just as bad.

I'm personally glad that SMU is helping on this front on increasing interest in math, science, and engineering among girls.

Dr. Etter, the woman appointed to the new chair, will be in place to lead the Infinity Project, the Gender Parity Initiative, and Visioneering.

Lowering the admissions standards for girls is NOT what SMU is trying to do with these programs. These programs and their cause is not driven by sexism or anything close.

[Samurai Stang]

What has been found is that women/girls are interested in, and excel in, math and science at a lower rate then men. Much in the same way, many academic areas are dominated in numbers and success by women.

Wrong.

Actually, nothing that he said was in any way controversial. Your issue is that you believe there to be equality. While this very well may be the case (and I have no interest in debating any biological differences that may or may not exist) the fact remains that math and science are dominated by men at this time in history. This may be different if American society was turned upside down, it may not be. What you are left with is the fact that math is always right or wrong. There is one way to do math. If, as you claim, environment is the problem then is not changing the content of courses merely going backwards? If we continue in saying that environment is the problem then your suggestion that the courses should be changed in order to accomodate women is only giving permission for already existing notions to persist because they will in the end not be harmful to women in academics.

This is an argument that cannot go both ways. Either there is something culturally wrong that can never be fixed, or there is not. If there is, then the courses are not the problem but culture is and will in time adjust. If there is no cultural issue and it is some inherent ability of men to outperform women in certain areas, such as the average man would defeat the average woman in weightlifting, then this would not seem an acceptable reason to handicap the intellectual pursuits of others.

Whichever way you see this situation, the direction that SMU is taking its engineering department should be offensive.

That said, I have absolutely no doubt that you will disagree with me.

[Samurai Stang]

I have no problem at all with a college setting up opportunities for girls to get the same kind of educational opportunities that boys have gotten for years.

I believe that is how the system already works. Students are in no way judged on gender, but only on academic ability. That is the most fair system. It makes no sense to blame the institution when all students applying are treated equally.

[jtstang]

The reason most women do not go into engineering is that most women want to meet handsome men with a financial upside.

[smu diamond m]

Isn't that why they have CCPA?

[couch 'em]

What has been found is that women/girls are interested in, and excel in, math and science at a lower rate then men. Much in the same way, many academic areas are dominated in numbers and success by women.

Wrong.

This needs to be addressed, as shown in this article:

Something happens between 8 and 18 to force girls away from math and science. It's the stereotype that math and science are boys' subjects and girls shouldn't be interested in them.

In 1992, the first talking Barbie came out and said "Math is tough". There may not be direct discrimination, but feeding negative stereotypes can be just as bad.

If you go back and read what I actually posted, you'll see that this article doesn't disagree with anything I've said. I said women/girls aren't interested in math and science at the same rate as boys. This article agrees. I said it wasn't a result of discrimination. This article agrees. I said I would be just fine with programs to increase the interest in math and science among girls, and it shouldn't be cultural stereotyping driving girls away if that is what they are really interested in.

I am just not for any sort of special treatment of women coming into the engineering school at SMU. (or in lower schools, or in the workforce) SMU should be going after the best qualified engineering students they can, no matter the gender. I'm attempting to find out exactly what is being done to increase female enrollment. If it is simply advertising, I'm OK with it (although I still don't like the very concept of a gender quota, which is what this is at a fundamental level). If it is special treatment, it is a big problem.

[couch 'em]

What has been found is that women/girls are interested in, and excel in, math and science at a lower rate then men. Much in the same way, many academic areas are dominated in numbers and success by women.

Wrong.

Furthermore, I post this just to point out that this subject is not so cut and dry.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071012/edit12.art.htm

First, dispel all the myths
Girls lag in math and science degrees, but bias isn't the reason.

On America's college campuses, females increasingly outnumber males. Among the students entering next fall, 60% of the bachelor's degrees are expected to go to women.

You can see this as a triumph for women, and to some extent it is. But the gender imbalance skews the social mix and threatens to create a large pool of disaffected, undereducated males. Now there's rising concern it could also endanger the nation's economic competitiveness.

The reason is that while more women are going to college, they remain underrepresented in the sciences and math. Only about two-fifths of science and engineering graduate students are women.

Because engineering skills are a vital competitive edge in the global economy, the need to boost that number is obvious. That leaves two paths: either lure more women into math and science majors or boost the number of men attending college. The answer is to do both, but bringing in more women promises the quicker payoff. Accomplishing that requires dispelling some persistent myths:

•Bias keeps women out of these fields. Feminist organizations assert that discrimination is the root of the disparity. A generation ago, bias was the explanation offered for the shortage of women in medicine and law. Today, more women than men are enrolled in medical schools, and nearly half of law school students are women.

The suggestion of a conspiracy coordinated by engineering department chairmen scattered among hundreds of campuses defies common sense. Some bias no doubt lingers, but it's unlikely that engineering school authorities are more chauvinistic than medical and law school establishments.

•Women lack the aptitude. Of all the science and math aptitude tests given to children, only one appears to favor men (the ability to mentally juggle three-dimensional images). And even that edge is debatable.

The other commonly cited gender difference is that on tests, men's scores cluster at the extreme ends, indicating more male geniuses and more dummies. When Lawrence Summers mused about these "intrinsic" differences, it created an uproar that helped make him the former president of Harvard. Summers had a point, but it's irrelevant unless you're looking for a reason why men dominate the highest awards in the sciences. Graduate students and professors need to be smart; they don't have to be Einsteins.

•Women emerge poorly prepared from high school. Twenty years ago, when boys dominated math and chemistry classes in high school, this theory had some credibility. But much has changed: A review of high school Advanced Placement tests shows girls have nearly caught up in calculus and chemistry and outperform boys in biology.

But how to draw more of these talented, well-prepared high school girls into math and engineering majors? What helps the most are good mentors and role models, female scientists say. In addition, employers must demonstrate that careers in those fields aren't incompatible with having a family. If it happened in medicine and law, careers once considered male preserves, it can in math and engineering as well.

Given the growing gender gaps on college campus, making it happen is a logical national goal and an economic imperative.

[couch 'em]

Also, if 60% of undergraduate degrees go to women,(see previous article) and women are only about 51% of the population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People)

Does that mean that MEN are discriminated against, and need special handouts in many educational fields? Or do you have a double standard?

[friarwolf]

Did the young lady apply to SMU and if so, was she accepted or declined????

For whatever it is worth, the incoming professor chosen for this chair is supposed to be very impressive.................

[OC Mustang]

For whatever it is worth, the incoming professor chosen for this chair is supposed to be very impressive.................

It's worth the most in this discussion, IMHO. The department got both money and a good professor. Next.

[PK]

The reason most women do not go into engineering is that most women want to meet handsome men with a financial upside.

Nice jt. Isn't that rather sexist of you?

[perunapower]

If you go back and read what I actually posted, you'll see that this article doesn't disagree with anything I've said. I said women/girls aren't interested in math and science at the same rate as boys. This article agrees. I said it wasn't a result of discrimination. This article agrees. I said I would be just fine with programs to increase the interest in math and science among girls, and it shouldn't be cultural stereotyping driving girls away if that is what they are really interested in.

If you meant their interest levels over time, then yes, I suppose you are right. It just didn't come across as interest level over time; it read, at least to me, that girls just don't like math and science. This article disagrees because I call 2% not a statistically relevant difference. Also, I would call classroom bias discriminatory. This article specifically addressed that in Myth 3.

What really needs to be addressed here is whether or not this is a biological issue. As of recently, many organizations believe it is not biological, but something happens as girls grow up to drive them away from the sciences.

I am just not for any sort of special treatment of women coming into the engineering school at SMU. (or in lower schools, or in the workforce) SMU should be going after the best qualified engineering students they can, no matter the gender. I'm attempting to find out exactly what is being done to increase female enrollment. If it is simply advertising, I'm OK with it (although I still don't like the very concept of a gender quota, which is what this is at a fundamental level). If it is special treatment, it is a big problem.

I completely agree. SMU doesn't need to water down admission standards for a particular minority, or for anyone. SMU should be trying to admit the best engineering students possible, BUT it is also appealing to do so with a diverse student population.

Read the links I provided on the Infinity Project, the Gender Parity Initiative, and Visioneering to see what SMU is doing to increase the number of women in engineering. You'll see that SMU is trying to recruit girls to the engineering school and retain the ones that are there already. Also, through these programs SMU is preparing not just girls, but boys too, for higher-level math and sciences classes.

I have no problem with the goal of trying to achieve a 50/50 ratio between men and women in the engineering school, as long as the women admitted have to face the same admissions standards as men. I doubt SMU is just going to let any and every woman that applies to the SoE in just because they are female for quick bragging rights. That just doesn't seem like Dean Orsak's style.

Here's the last line from your article:

Given the growing gender gaps on college campus, making it happen is a logical national goal and an economic imperative.

Again, I'm glad SMU is on the forefront on this "logical national goal and economic imperative".

[jtstang]

The reason most women do not go into engineering is that most women want to meet handsome men with a financial upside.

Nice jt. Isn't that rather sexist of you?

No, it just makes me observant. I am an engineer which means I have had my share of small paychecks and rejection by hot chicks.