Thinkin' cap. Know what's super? How the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed TWO bills on Tuesday, both of which were very Nice-Nice and all 'bout gettin' some girls all up in science's grill. That's a good thing, yeah? Because everybody knows
My roommate and I were both in engineering. She was told, "You're taking the space that should go to a man. You're just going to get married and have babies." I was shunted off into industrial engineering, the female ghetto of engineering.
Gohmert watched the video for Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me With Science", thought it was a documentary, and hid under his bed, shivering, for the rest of the day.
The issue here is that the "mentorship programs between established scientists and female K-12 students interested in science fields" is translated in the Gomert-translator 3000 as "smarty pants nerds dating our young daughters". You see, Evan, women are property and one does not set up a dating app for forlorn science types, we save that for religious cults.
Dear dipshit: If you really don't know the difference between a study on a possible achievement gap between male and female first-year college students in the general university population and the very real, well-documented gaps between men and women entering STEM fields at the graduate and postdoc levels, then you are the moron. And yes, the sample size, as Land Shark notes, is also a possible problem, but not nearly as much a problem as the fact that it is NOT a study of women in STEM.
Even if the paper you link to is valid (and it may be), any differential in initial college achievement clearly vanishes by the time people choose graduate majors and careers, as multiple studies have shown.
In the most striking example, National Science Foundation research shows that while women make up 47% of the national workforce, they only represent 4.5% of mechanical engineers in the United States. To say that this percentage is higher than it once was is, frankly, not saying much.
The paper you link to has literally nothing to do with women going into STEM fields at higher levels of education, much less women going into STEM careers. If a student in a first-year composition class used this as their sole documentation in a research paper, I'd return it ungraded and tell them to go get some research that's actually about the topic at hand.
As I say above, the sample size is far less of a problem than the fact that it's not a study of women in STEM -- it's looking at a real trend, the higher proportion of women in undergraduate education. Most of which is largely inapplicable to the historic bias against women in STEM.
I've heard this ad nauseam.Corey Booker is a genius! What a future he has!
And the GOP wonders where Trump came from.
rofl yeaaahhh that is sorta a buzz kill XD
Because girls are ew.
Hair would just ruin the fit of his foil hat.
How did t-rex masturbate with those little tiny arms? We know the REAL reason they went extinct. Terminal blue balls.
My roommate and I were both in engineering. She was told, "You're taking the space that should go to a man. You're just going to get married and have babies." I was shunted off into industrial engineering, the female ghetto of engineering.
Steve, I know you are trying very hard to be Captain Obvious, but it isn't working.
Gohmert is simply dogshit incarnate.
He's worried his constituents might think he's 'soft on science'.
Gohmert watched the video for Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me With Science", thought it was a documentary, and hid under his bed, shivering, for the rest of the day.
The issue here is that the "mentorship programs between established scientists and female K-12 students interested in science fields" is translated in the Gomert-translator 3000 as "smarty pants nerds dating our young daughters". You see, Evan, women are property and one does not set up a dating app for forlorn science types, we save that for religious cults.
Dear dipshit: If you really don't know the difference between a study on a possible achievement gap between male and female first-year college students in the general university population and the very real, well-documented gaps between men and women entering STEM fields at the graduate and postdoc levels, then you are the moron. And yes, the sample size, as Land Shark notes, is also a possible problem, but not nearly as much a problem as the fact that it is NOT a study of women in STEM.
Even if the paper you link to is valid (and it may be), any differential in initial college achievement clearly vanishes by the time people choose graduate majors and careers, as multiple studies have shown.
In the most striking example, National Science Foundation research shows that while women make up 47% of the national workforce, they only represent 4.5% of mechanical engineers in the United States. To say that this percentage is higher than it once was is, frankly, not saying much.
The paper you link to has literally nothing to do with women going into STEM fields at higher levels of education, much less women going into STEM careers. If a student in a first-year composition class used this as their sole documentation in a research paper, I'd return it ungraded and tell them to go get some research that's actually about the topic at hand.
What about those of us who don't care for penises near our vaginas? *gives menacing stare, adjusts cargo pants*
(Edit: Technically, I'm more of a "expensive haircut, cheap sexy shoes" type than a "cargo pants" type.)
#AllScientistsMatter
As I say above, the sample size is far less of a problem than the fact that it's not a study of women in STEM -- it's looking at a real trend, the higher proportion of women in undergraduate education. Most of which is largely inapplicable to the historic bias against women in STEM.