ADVERTISEMENT

Place to put my Nonsense Thread.

A singular class by itself is inconsequential, sure. Wokeism/identity politics infiltrated the humanities a long, long time ago. There are many fake disciplines that are truly worthless; most of them evolved from Critical Race Theory, actually (i.e. Gender & Queer Theory). It's just startling to see it reach the STEM disciplines. Heck, in that same article, Mac Donald mentions that the engineering department at Cornell has slightly more female students than male students, even though there are twice as many males that apply for admission. Why the need for a forced quota? We might see more and more schools like that in the future that try to get a 50-50 split, ultimately watering down the talent and productivity.

I've spoken with three STEM instructors in the past month that are convinced that the participation gap between men and women is simply because of our social conditioning. In other words, they believe there aren't really differences between the genders, only so much as we artificially construct them (i.e. men and women are both equally interested in engineering). They dismiss the reality that there are biological elements which easily account for the differences between men and women. Yes, there is overlap, but there are also significant differences in some fields. Just a matter of time before identity politics shows up with regularity in STEM courses.

There isn’t harm in discussing racial influences in any field of study. There isn’t harm in offering more choice.

As for admissions to STEM majors, I see a problem if under qualified females are being selected over qualified, or more qualified, males. I doubt that is what is happening. It’s more likely that after the most qualified students are selected, female students are winning the ‘tie- breakers’ at a higher rate among the remaining candidates (maybe/probably by virtue of being female). I understand somebody having an issue with that but I don’t take issue with it. It doesn’t dilute the talent level because we’re talking about the last group of kids admitted (the comparatively dumber ones) where this comes into play, and we’re talking about ties. Dumb girls vs. dumb boys, rather than smart boys vs. dumb girls. Girls were historically discouraged from pursuing STEM careers, so we’ve seen a push to encourage females in STEM. There are still plenty of STEM opportunities for males.
 
There isn’t harm in discussing racial influences in any field of study. There isn’t harm in offering more choice.

As for admissions to STEM majors, I see a problem if under qualified females are being selected over qualified, or more qualified, males. I doubt that is what is happening. It’s more likely that after the most qualified students are selected, female students are winning the ‘tie- breakers’ at a higher rate among the remaining candidates (maybe/probably by virtue of being female). I understand somebody having an issue with that but I don’t take issue with it. It doesn’t dilute the talent level because we’re talking about the last group of kids admitted (the comparatively dumber ones) where this comes into play, and we’re talking about ties. Dumb girls vs. dumb boys, rather than smart boys vs. dumb girls. Girls were historically discouraged from pursuing STEM careers, so we’ve seen a push to encourage females in STEM. There are still plenty of STEM opportunities for males.

This study analyzes over 80,000 people from 76 countries around the world. The individuals participated in a survey, and they gave answers based on their own preferences. Turns out, as countries become more developed/egalitarian, the differences between men and women maximize. The whole social construct argument is woke garbage. Let people pursue what they want, without any influence, and you'll naturally see there will always be differences in every single field. There can never be identical numbers due to differences in ability, interest, and upbringing.

And if we're being honest about who's being selected for the engineering department, men collectively have higher test scores than women in the math portion of the SAT and ACTs. So, even if there were a distribution of 50-50 male/female applicants, you'd still have more males admitted, if it's based on merit. Given that there twice as many males, this shouldn't even be close. A closer representation would be around 70% males, provided there are twice as many male applicants. So, 20% of the males are unfairly denied... and 20% of the females are unfairly accepted. Your department just effed up on 40% of the applicant pool. Yes, that absolutely is watering down the product. But, nice to know that you're committed to the equity movement.
 
This study analyzes over 80,000 people from 76 countries around the world. The individuals participated in a survey, and they gave answers based on their own preferences. Turns out, as countries become more developed/egalitarian, the differences between men and women maximize. The whole social construct argument is woke garbage. Let people pursue what they want, without any influence, and you'll naturally see there will always be differences in every single field. There can never be identical numbers due to differences in ability, interest, and upbringing.

And if we're being honest about who's being selected for the engineering department, men collectively have higher test scores than women in the math portion of the SAT and ACTs. So, even if there were a distribution of 50-50 male/female applicants, you'd still have more males admitted, if it's based on merit. Given that there twice as many males, this shouldn't even be close. A closer representation would be around 70% males, provided there are twice as many male applicants. So, 20% of the males are unfairly denied... and 20% of the females are unfairly accepted. Your department just effed up on 40% of the applicant pool. Yes, that absolutely is watering down the product. But, nice to know that you're committed to the equity movement.

We do not have enough info on the test scores of the males applicants being passed up for female applicants. We don’t even know if what the professors you spoke to said is even true. Maybe “twice as many” isn’t actually twice as many. If you have more info on those points, feel free to add them.

It’s impossible to extrapolate ‘boys are better at math’ to the admissions rates of the boys and girls applying to STEM majors. Furthermore, colleges have more to their admissions criteria than SAT/ACT test scores. Girls tend to outperform boys in gpa, which is always a factor.

To your ‘social construct’ point, females were historically discouraged from STEM careers independent of their interest in STEM. Is there a higher proportion of males interested in STEM naturally? Sure.
 
We do not have enough info on the test scores of the males applicants being passed up for female applicants. We don’t even know if what the professors you spoke to said is even true. Maybe “twice as many” isn’t actually twice as many. If you have more info on those points, feel free to add them.

It’s impossible to extrapolate ‘boys are better at math’ to the admissions rates of the boys and girls applying to STEM majors. Furthermore, colleges have more to their admissions criteria than SAT/ACT test scores. Girls tend to outperform boys in gpa, which is always a factor.

To your ‘social construct’ point, females were historically discouraged from STEM careers independent of their interest in STEM. Is there a higher proportion of males interested in STEM naturally? Sure.

Find me any other engineering department in the U.S. that has more females than males. Better yet, how about any where in the world? The only way you arrive at those numbers is by implementing quotas. Sweden is arguably the most egalitarian country in the world and there's a 20:1 ratio of male to female engineers. There's also a ratio of roughly 20:1 female to male nurses. Men and women aren't the same. We don't need to force equality. It's a horrible precedent.
 
Find me any other engineering department in the U.S. that has more females than males. Better yet, how about any where in the world? The only way you arrive at those numbers is by implementing quotas. Sweden is arguably the most egalitarian country in the world and there's a 20:1 ratio of male to female engineers. There's also a ratio of roughly 20:1 female to male nurses. Men and women aren't the same. We don't need to force equality. It's a horrible precedent.

Like I was saying, we would need a lot more information. I don't doubt the school made a push to admit more female students. The question is whether they were just picking girls over equally talented boys or picking girls over more talented boys. Then there's the question of what counts as a big enough difference to matter. Is picking a girl with a 740 SAT score in math and a 3.8 gpa bad if the boy she was picked over had a 750 SAT math score and a 3.9 gpa? Maybe she had more extracurriculars or wrote a better essay or has huge tits. Who knows.

What is the school? How many open engineering spots do they usually have? How many girls and boys applied for engineering majors?

From my very thorough 4 minute Google search, it seems that boys have a very marginal advantage in math. And yes, boys make up about 65% of engineering majors. With a small enough sample size (one college) it is definitely within the statistical range of possibilities that girls make up close to 50% of the most qualified engineering applicants.

Of course, it's also possible the school has a quota and unfairly disadvantaged male applicants. I don't think the difference in admission rate relative to the national average gives us that answer.
 
Additionally, because boys show more interest in engineering, there are going to be more dumb ones applying. They're the ones who apply because the just really like engineering despite not being phenomenal. Whereas, I'd put money on it being more likely that the female applicants are both interested and good at STEM stuff. The proportion of dumb female applicants to total female applicants is probably lower.
 
Like I was saying, we would need a lot more information. I don't doubt the school made a push to admit more female students. The question is whether they were just picking girls over equally talented boys or picking girls over more talented boys. Then there's the question of what counts as a big enough difference to matter. Is picking a girl with a 740 SAT score in math and a 3.8 gpa bad if the boy she was picked over had a 750 SAT math score and a 3.9 gpa? Maybe she had more extracurriculars or wrote a better essay or has huge tits. Who knows.

What is the school? How many open engineering spots do they usually have? How many girls and boys applied for engineering majors?

From my very thorough 4 minute Google search, it seems that boys have a very marginal advantage in math. And yes, boys make up about 65% of engineering majors. With a small enough sample size (one college) it is definitely within the statistical range of possibilities that girls make up close to 50% of the most qualified engineering applicants.

Of course, it's also possible the school has a quota and unfairly disadvantaged male applicants. I don't think the difference in admission rate relative to the national average gives us that answer.

You can find the numbers here.

9,758 men applied. 619 were accepted. That's a 6.3% acceptance rate.
4,205 women applied. 668 were accepted. That's a 15.9% acceptance rate.
Men had 69.9% of the applications and only 47.4% of the acceptances.

If you don't conclude that men have a HUGE disadvantage, you are either Woke AF - or dumb AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
You can find the numbers here.

9,758 men applied. 619 were accepted. That's a 6.3% acceptance rate.
4,205 women applied. 668 were accepted. That's a 15.9% acceptance rate.
Men had 69.9% of the applications and only 47.4% of the acceptances.

If you don't conclude that men have a HUGE disadvantage, you are either Woke AF - or dumb AF.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I don’t have a problem with women getting the nod over equally qualified men. I don’t know if that is what is happening or not. Those numbers don’t indicate if women are being selected over more, less, or equally qualified men.
 
At the risk of sounding redundant, I don’t have a problem with women getting the nod over equally qualified men. I don’t know if that is what is happening or not. Those numbers don’t indicate if women are being selected over more, less, or equally qualified men.

30% of the female applicants are getting 52.6% of the acceptances. That's a freakishly large variance. It's 75% higher than their proportion. I'll put you down for woke AF.


If you don't conclude that men have a HUGE disadvantage, you are either Woke AF - or dumb AF.
 
30% of the female applicants are getting 52.6% of the acceptances. That's a freakishly large variance. It's 75% higher than their proportion. I'll put you down for woke AF.

There is no variance in the average gpa and graduation rate of women and men in Cornell’s engineering program. You are implying Cornell is admitting less qualified women because they are women. If that is the case, why are they not performing worse than the men?
 
Women are not good at sales. You'd think they'd be, but just not cut of for working in a hostile environment from the customers alone. I get offered bj's all the time. about twice a month. Women don't know how to deal with that.

Nevermind the constant dick and fart jokes from coworkers and managers.
 
Women are not good at sales. You'd think they'd be, but just not cut of for working in a hostile environment from the customers alone. I get offered bj's all the time. about twice a month. Women don't know how to deal with that.

Nevermind the constant dick and fart jokes from coworkers and managers.

Tell that to the female pharmaceutical drug reps pushing opioids.
 
Tell that to the female pharmaceutical drug reps pushing opioids.
yeah they suck, although those shithead keep my wife in work with recovery from opioids.

My wife has 75 clients a week, can go up to 120' with controlled methadone doses. Her faciality alone has 609 patients...and it's just one of 4 in Memphis.


*facility. there's many other facilities that are larger and have more clients.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, wait....It says---An estimated 38,680 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes....

Then.............

Black people tend to be overrepresented as walkers in this country,” Garrick said. “This is not by choice. In many cases, Black folks cannot afford motor vehicles. And people that walk in this country tend to experience a much, much higher rate of traffic fatality...

SO which is it? Car wrecks---are getting hit by a car? Or does this writer consider getting hit by a car, as being involve in a car wreck?
 
yeah they suck, although those shithead keep my wife in work with recovery from opioids.

My wife has 75 clients a week, can go up to 120' with controlled methadone doses. Her faciality alone has 609 patients...and it's just one of 4 in Memphis.


*facility. there's many other facilities that are larger and have more clients.
Some of those clinics make the patients take their methadone or suboxin right there in front of a nurse/doc so they know they wont go sell them, then once they take their meds, they send them out the door to drive home.

Been thinking bout posting up outside one and pull out in front of one of those high patients and sue the clinic lol. Crazy they do that. I get the making ppl cone everyday for a while instead of just giving them a months worth to go and sell, but they shouldnt let em drive after that. Thats how it is at the one in paris, dover, (Tenn) and hopkinsville, and madisonville (KY) i know, bc i know ppl who have done it after battling opioid addiction.
 
And without those worthless gen-eds, colleges couldnt charge that extra two years of tuition. I got an osha degree and had to take a jazz class my senior year to fill out my pre requisites smdh.
 
There is no variance in the average gpa and graduation rate of women and men in Cornell’s engineering program. You are implying Cornell is admitting less qualified women because they are women. If that is the case, why are they not performing worse than the men?

In hindsight, Cornell probably isn't the best example, as their average SAT is 1480. So, probably not a big difference between say someone denied with a 1520, and someone accepted with a 1440. They're both likely to be highly intelligent and driven. The person being denied is being short-changed, however. And the national average of 23% of female engineering students is telling. It's funny looking at the Cornell engineering numbers over time. This is what happens when 70% of the applicants are getting 47% of the openings. The female/male trends in engineering acceptances/entering are clearly going in opposite directions.

WOMEN

cornell-engineering-women.png

MEN
cornell-engineering-men.png


Also, the averages that Cornell is pulling from are over a 5-year period that ended in 2018. Those classes were 60% men, so not indicative of the 52-53% incoming classes that are female. And
grade inflation is a real phenomenon, even more so at the elite universities. That GPA figure would carry more weight if the grades weren't so inflated (and if there were a 50-50 representation). Cornell was around a 2.7 GPA 50 years ago. That's quite a jump.

gpa-average-by-school.png


Just think this is an unhealthy precedent. I think more universities follow this pattern. Just two years ago the Department of Education was coming down on several universities for potential discriminatory practices (Title IX violations) in the the STEM disciplines. Would be interesting to see the ramifications of a few lawsuits.
 
Politics went to shit when women were allowed to vote. What do you think is going to happen to engineering now? Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT