There’s been a lot of whining over the past few years about the fact that when they are given a free choice, fewer women choose to study for degrees in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) disciplines. I’ve been inclined to allow women their free choice in the matter, but a recent thought has led me to wonder if we should push more young girls into the study of hard science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). After all, Margaret Thatcher was a chemist with a B.Sc. from Oxford.
hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.
The U.S. military switched from conscription to an all-volunteer military decades ago, and found that the quality of their recruits improved by leaps and bounds once they were taking people who actually wanted to be there. If you want to destroy an institution, fill it with people who were forced to join; that’s a good way of ensuring that the quality of the work produced by that institution turns to mud very quickly.
IOW, if you force a bunch of people into STEM fields who don’t want to be there, you won’t get more Margaret Thatchers, you’ll get more collapsing bridges.
Right on, Mr. Hoge! An educated constituency is a practical constituency.
And no, critical-whatever theory is not an education. It’s a political indoctrination.
I think we can get the feminists on board. The only way to resolve the income inequality problem is to remove choice from women; they must be required to follow the same career paths as men.
Anyone else notice the trend recently to redefine it as STEAM, with the new acronym “Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math?”
Talk about utterly ruining a good idea through dilution…
Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove