nerdgirl 0
Recommended Posts
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOne of my personal hypotheses -- pure speculation -- is that part of the reason for the apparent decline in public education is that many of the 'best and brightest' women who used to have very few choices for careers (nurse, secretary, teacher) now become doctors, lawyers, etc.
Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field.
Unless you're suggesting that teaching is somehow a "lower" career (?), it doesn't. I don't think that. And just to be explicit: it also doesn't discredit the women who have chosen that field because they really want to be teach.
I wasn't in any way stating it was a "lower" career. I was just wondering if your theory did a disservice to the males in the career by saying now that the "best and brightest women" are gone that the quality has declined.
Not that your theory might not have merit... but just wondering about the implications of that statement.
As I explicitly noted, it's a hypothesis not a theory.
There's everything right with asking the question of how does that hypothesis account for the role of male teachers. (And the role of the "best and brightest" women who elect to pursue teaching too.)
You made/implied the assumption about "discrediting" one group or another.
Marg
Obviously my question with respect to your hypothesis has offended. We are not communicating well. I'm done discussing this topic with you.
Quote
I wasn't in any way stating it was a "lower" career. I was just wondering if your theory did a disservice to the males in the career by saying now that the "best and brightest women" are gone that the quality has declined.
It's hardly a disservice. It would be surprising if her guess is not correct. With the playing field much closer to equal, I expect women to follow the money much the way that men always did.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteNeither of these groups is going to do as well in any other endeavor...
I totally disagree. Our system tends to select the best, brightest, hardest working and most motivated to be doctors. You really think those people aren't going to succeed in some other line of work?
On the whole I'd like at least some of the best and brightest to become designers of airplanes, bridges, etc.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteMedicine is a very tough course. You need top grades from school to get in . You need to work incredibly hard for 5 years in Uni plus 2 years in hospital and you keep working hard all your life.
Have you done any comparisons to the US?
US doctors need 4 years in Uni, 4 years in medical school, and 4 (or more) years in the hospital. That's 12 years of training (compared with 7 in the UK).
In the US, the closest equivalent to the UK "doctor" is a Nurse Practitioner (4 years of Uni plus a Master's degree taking 1 or 2 years).
Comparing apples to oranges?
We (in common with pretty much every other US university) find that incoming 18 year olds from Europe and the UK are generally AT LEAST one year ahead of their US counterparts, particularly in math and science. We also find that starting graduate students from Europe and UK universities are well ahead of their US counterparts.
So just comparing years of study is rather meaningless.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteOn the whole I'd like at least some of the best and brightest to become designers of airplanes, bridges, etc.
It would be nice to be able to force some of them into those career fields, wouldn't it? Couldn't we get superior bridges and airplanes declared rights of the people? Yes comrade.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteOn the whole I'd like at least some of the best and brightest to become designers of airplanes, bridges, etc.
It would be nice to be able to force some of them into those career fields, wouldn't it? Couldn't we get superior bridges and airplanes declared rights of the people? Yes comrade.
You DO have the right to be safe on a bridge or airplane, and can sue if a defective design caused injury. Very capitalist, in fact.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
champu 1
QuoteYou DO have the right to be safe on a bridge or airplane, and can sue if a defective design caused injury. Very capitalist, in fact.
And then someone comes along and starts offering malspanery insurance to engineers...
...
...you see "span" works for both the bridges and the airpl- ah, forget it.
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMedicine is a very tough course. You need top grades from school to get in . You need to work incredibly hard for 5 years in Uni plus 2 years in hospital and you keep working hard all your life.
Have you done any comparisons to the US?
US doctors need 4 years in Uni, 4 years in medical school, and 4 (or more) years in the hospital. That's 12 years of training (compared with 7 in the UK).
In the US, the closest equivalent to the UK "doctor" is a Nurse Practitioner (4 years of Uni plus a Master's degree taking 1 or 2 years).
No offense but you're talking out of your arse.
In the UK its 6 years just to pass the MBBS/BSc/MBChB. Then you have to get on to a foundation course for 2 more years. Following that there is specialist training which is typically another 5 years but depending on speciality can be upto 10years if a PhD is required (Neuro for example).
Nurse practitioners are exactly that and whilst they maybe good in their role they are Nurses and not Doctors. To start working in a UK hospital a Dr has therefore had two years more medical training than their US counterpart.
If we want to continue this discussion lets talk apples to apples instead of "ours have more" or "ours are better."
GENERALLY -
US System.
13 years basic schooling. (K through 12)
4 years undergraduate
4 years Medical School
Residency (Family Practice/Internal Medicine 3 yrs + fellowship; OB/Gyn 4 yrs; Surgery 5 years +)
GENERALLY -
UK System?
(I'm not being snotty. I really don't know.)
Its not a matter of more being better but 'the closest equivalent to the UK "doctor" is a Nurse Practitioner' is a stupid and uninformed statement.
As you ask, in the UK the education system is Primary school, secondary school (until 18/19) UK students start school one year earlier than US students do. (Thus, by the time they reach uni, they've had an extra year of school. But by the time a US or a UK student gets their bachelors degree, they've had the same number of total years of school.)
Then on to med school (The degree system seems to be different to the US system.) Candidates for Med school in the UK have to have A levels usually A grades in certain subjects to get in to Med school. In most Med schools they can also do a BSC Hons during the course in Biomedical science or related medical discipline before going on to complete medicine.
As we both know there are good bad and average doctors, regardless of where they trained.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
QuoteQuoteQuoteOn the whole I'd like at least some of the best and brightest to become designers of airplanes, bridges, etc.
It would be nice to be able to force some of them into those career fields, wouldn't it? Couldn't we get superior bridges and airplanes declared rights of the people? Yes comrade.
You DO have the right to be safe on a bridge or airplane, and can sue if a defective design caused injury. Very capitalist, in fact.
I believe you are using the wrong words here, and words ARE important, according to our new CIC. I have reasonable expectation of safety on the bridge and in the aircraft, but it's not a right, in the context of human rights and the Constitution. If I sue, its not for a violation of civil rights.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
As I explicitly noted, it's a hypothesis not a theory.
There's everything right with asking the question of how does that hypothesis account for the role of male teachers. (And the role of the "best and brightest" women who elect to pursue teaching too.)
You made/implied the assumption about "discrediting" one group or another.
True to some extent - that what are the independent and dependent variables are not known, hence why it's a hypothesis. Also can't necessarily apply same cause or effect.
As [Andy9o8] explained magnitude of effect matters. I.e., one also would need to factor the significance of the change. If a pool of 10 previous high quality candidates was reduced to 9 that magnitude of that effect is likely to be less than if the a pool of 40 is reduced to 4. 10:40 ratio reflecting the average ratio of male to female teachers. 10% reflecting the reduced number of male teachers as an overall percent. And 90% of women choosing other careers as a back of the envelope calculation of alternative career path for women. (Suspect it's actually higher than that.)
Although the reasons for decline are not necessarily the same. Particularly given prior tacit limitations on one sex w/r/t choice of careers versus the other.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites