timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/30/86)
Cheryl@batcomputer and someone at Stevens Tech seemed to have misinterpreted one of my postings about female|black physicists. This is what I mean: The colleges and universities are more interested in increasing the NUMBER of female|black|etc students than in helping the female|black|etc students themselves. What I was saying applied mainly to public schools which have various governmental agencies counting female|black|etc students. These agencies (such as state legislatures which give out money) measure progress of female|black|etc students by the NUMBER ENROLLED at the school, NOT by how well they do there or how they become eligible for admission. Thus, to please these powers, the schools must admit and enroll FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE as many female|black|etc students out of an applicant pool which contains only a few really qualified female|black|etc students. As I recall, this discussion about "Why aren't there any [female|black] physicists?" started out as a discussion about why there were so few female|black people within the group of people who were interested in science in general and physics in particular, with the result being that so few female|black people entering the applicant pool of physics majors. This is the root of the problem; without improving the female|black|etc's standing within the applicant pool (for whatever, including college admissions), one is just trying to conceal the problem rather than solve it. This means looking at the K-12 schools, at the home environment, and at peer influences (yes, I know about Cheryl's chemistry AP example). I think this takes us back to where we started... what influences are keeping females|blacks|etcs from being interested|good in physics|college(preperation)?
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (08/01/86)
> timlee: > The colleges and universities are more interested in increasing the NUMBER > of female|black|etc students than in helping the female|black|etc students > themselves. What I was saying applied mainly to public schools which have > various governmental agencies counting female|black|etc students. These > agencies (such as state legislatures which give out money) measure progress > of female|black|etc students by the NUMBER ENROLLED at the school, NOT by > how well they do there or how they become eligible for admission. Thus, to > please these powers, the schools must admit and enroll FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE > as many female|black|etc students out of an applicant pool which contains > only a few really qualified female|black|etc students. Could you give some actual references: name of school(s), admissions standards, graduation rates (for minorities, women and the student body in general) and the like? It seems to me that if minorities and women are taking the same courses as everybody else, they will derive similar benefits, or are you arguing that basket-weaving ghettos are created just to keeep them on campus? Don't you think THAT would attract some hostile attention from the funding agencies you speak of? > As I recall, this discussion about "Why aren't there any [female|black] > physicists?" started out as a discussion about why there were so few > female|black people within the group of people who were interested in > science in general and physics in particular, with the result being that > so few female|black people entering the applicant pool of physics majors. > This is the root of the problem; without improving the female|black|etc's > standing within the applicant pool (for whatever, including college > admissions), one is just trying to conceal the problem rather than solve it. > This means looking at the K-12 schools, at the home environment, and at peer > influences (yes, I know about Cheryl's chemistry AP example). But of course, any action taken by a school or university to encourage women or minorities to enter technical fields will attract screams of "UNFAIR!!!!! why are THEY getting all this attention and us white males are not?" So please elaborate on what programs you are suggesting? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs On or about August 1, I will no longer have access to mhuxr and hence the net. If you want to reply, comment, disagree, rebut or flame, do so quickly, or send email to hl3b5b.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/02/86)
> The colleges and universities are more interested in increasing the NUMBER > of female|black|etc students than in helping the female|black|etc students > themselves. What I was saying applied mainly to public schools which have > As I recall, this discussion about "Why aren't there any [female|black] > physicists?" started out as a discussion about why there were so few > female|black people within the group of people who were interested in > science in general and physics in particular, with the result being that > so few female|black people entering the applicant pool of physics majors. > This is the root of the problem; without improving the female|black|etc's > standing within the applicant pool (for whatever, including college In the recent issue of Physics Today, Professor Mildred Dresselhaus of M.I.T. has published an article about women graduate students. While I feel that article whitewashes many issues affecting women students, she did make one point which is relevant to the discussion here: Studies have shown that women fare better after the percentge of women exceeds a certain threshold, i.e., women do better academically in the presence of more of their peers. Therefore, admitting more women could improve the self confidence of the women and, consequently, their performance. The author felt hat admission of more women was the most important factor which would increase women's success. She never felt that the women students were inferior in their knowledge or education.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/04/86)
> [sorry, I dd'ed too much] > [about article in Physics Today about female graduate students] > > Studies have shown that women fare better after the percentge of > women exceeds a certain threshold, i.e., women do better academically > in the presence of more of their peers. Therefore, admitting more > women could improve the self confidence of the women and, consequently, > their performance. The author felt hat admission of more women was the > most important factor which would increase women's success. She > never felt that the women students were inferior in their knowledge > or education. What was the threshold? If it's greater than about 15%, then there's a problem: only 15% of BS degree graduates in science and engineering are female. Those extra women admitted must have been well qualified. Otherwise, the presence of unqualified peers could have a negative effect on academic perfoemance.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/05/86)
> > timlee: > > The colleges and universities are more interested in increasing the NUMBER > > of female|black|etc students than in helping the female|black|etc students > > themselves. What I was saying applied mainly to public schools which have > > various governmental agencies counting female|black|etc students. These > > agencies (such as state legislatures which give out money) measure progress > > of female|black|etc students by the NUMBER ENROLLED at the school, NOT by > > how well they do there or how they become eligible for admission. Thus, to > > please these powers, the schools must admit and enroll FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE > > as many female|black|etc students out of an applicant pool which contains > > only a few really qualified female|black|etc students. > > Could you give some actual references: name of school(s), admissions standards, > graduation rates (for minorities, women and the student body in general) > and the like? It seems to me that if minorities and women are taking the > same courses as everybody else, they will derive similar benefits, > or are you arguing that basket-weaving ghettos are created just to keeep > them on campus? Don't you think THAT would attract some hostile attention > from the funding agencies you speak of? Yes, but the funding agencies don't often hear of that. They only hear of total enrollment figures, which appear in newspapers (college oriented papers anyway) quite frequently. Other figures appear in college oriented papers rarely and not at all in general news. Some preliminaries: Majors and courses which involve math are generally perceived to be hard. These are engineering, the physical sciences, the mathematical sciences (of course), and economics. Stevens Institute of Technology: offers only `hard' majors and courses and has a very structured curriculum. Thus, your `basket-weaving ghettos' cannot exist since everyone MUST take exactly the same courses. The special services are thus forced to help the students succeed, rather than saying `why don't you major in (insert easy major here).' U C Berkeley: offers lots of majors in all areas and few requirements. I took 4 math classes there and saw 0 black and 0 hispanic students. Blacks and hispanics make up 12% (about) of the undergraduate population. I took an intermediate microeconomics course with 119 other students. 1 black. 3 physics courses: 120-200 students/class, no more than 4 blacks in any class. Electrical engineering class: 50 students, 1 black. Blacks are about 7% total of undergrads for those classes which take the courses I am referring to. Where are they? Being told not to take `hard' classes? Blacks also have somewhat lowly aspirations (all but one I know plan for 5 years; the other one had fulfilled many requirements at a junior college prior to attending UCB; none takes more than 15 units (a normal courseload) per semester; most take les). Was that because they were counseled that way because of the reasons I originally stated (above in >> ) ? > > As I recall, this discussion about "Why aren't there any [female|black] > > physicists?" started out as a discussion about why there were so few > > female|black people within the group of people who were interested in > > science in general and physics in particular, with the result being that > > so few female|black people entering the applicant pool of physics majors. > > This is the root of the problem; without improving the female|black|etc's > > standing within the applicant pool (for whatever, including college > > admissions), one is just trying to conceal the problem rather than solve it. > > This means looking at the K-12 schools, at the home environment, and at peer > > influences (yes, I know about Cheryl's chemistry AP example). > > But of course, any action taken by a school or university to encourage > women or minorities to enter technical fields will attract screams of > "UNFAIR!!!!! why are THEY getting all this attention and us white males > are not?" So please elaborate on what programs you are suggesting? One of my points was that remedies at the college level come TOO LATE to help many of those hurt. Special admissions at the college level are only a stop-gap until the real problem is solved (see the last sentence of the >> ), as well as being flame targets for whites (reverse discrimination, et al). > -- > Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs > > On or about August 1, I will no longer have access to mhuxr and hence the net. > If you want to reply, comment, disagree, rebut or flame, do so quickly, or > send email to hl3b5b. But you're still around, and it's the 4th.