|
|
|
|
|
|
by mturmon
2768 days ago
|
|
|
> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions... I have an 8th grader in California public schools, and this is just not at all the case here. There is a general STEM push that is sweeping many of the kids up. There is occasional special note of girls who are good at these subjects, but it doesn't seem to be at the expense of boys. The notion of "following the right religions" is even more out of touch with reality. At least in California. Are you seriously suggesting that, say, Muslim children are being specifically encouraged to go into science, and (say) Catholic kids are discouraged? |
|
|
This is awful for science though. It is much better for it to be thought of a "nerdy" thing so people who aren't really interested in it stay away.
EDIT:
I'd like to hear from a downvoter who has tried to convince someone who actually doesnt care too much about science that they should test their own hypothesis rather than a strawman hypothesis when the latter gets them more rewards. It is infuriating, and you do not want them informing doctors/etc on how to advise you:
"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort." Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review. 2: 261–274. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf