STEM courses gender bias Watch

C.W23
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
So I was recommended a program for a residential trip to a 'top university' by a teacher. As I want to study Chemical Engineering at uni, I thought that this might make my application stand out and show interest in my subject.
However...
The courses were organised into 'Boys-only' and 'Girls-only'. Why they needed to be split, beats me. But the thing that annoyed me was that there were 14 courses overall - 13 for girls and 1 for boys.
This wouldn't be an issue if the 1 course available wasn't on something irrelevant to me ... and it's 7 hours drive away. But seriously?? We are told everyday about men having the majority of STEM and I support getting girls into STEM, as long as you don't leave us behind.
Last edited by C.W23; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Routeri
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
do you mean 13 for boys and 1 for girls?
0
reply
Asclepius.
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
I'm inclined to agree, it seems the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and as a result girls are being favoured over boys.

Personally, I think we should be encouraging everyone equally to engage in STEM and when it comes to deciding on applicants merit should be favoured over anything else.

Scientific advancement is far more important than gender politics, the sooner this is realised the better
4
reply
Obolinda
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
This is a shame. Unfortunately there isn't much TSR can do.
0
reply
Asclepius.
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Obolinda)
This is a shame. Unfortunately there isn't much TSR can do.
Maybe, maybe not.

Ideas can spread like wildfire and even a small interaction can vastly influence a person who will go on to have countless interactions

I remain hopeful that scientific progress will not become fundamentally restricted by political agendas
0
reply
Chioru'
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Asclepius.)
I'm inclined to agree, it seems the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and as a result girls are being favoured over boys.

Personally, I think we should be encouraging everyone equally to engage in STEM and when it comes to deciding on applicants merit should be favoured over anything else.

Scientific advancement is far more important than gender politics, the sooner this is realised the better
Very good answer and i'd like to add that any kind of advancement is far more important than gender politics
0
reply
Routeri
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Maybe you're all digging a bit too deep into the matter. I'm pretty sure the OP meant there are more boys courses than girls which clearly just reflects the current event of boys having more interest in STEM than girls so what's the point in offering more courses to girls when they are likely to not be able to get enough applications. Therefore they would be wasting money on preparation on a course not many would want or apply for. Also boys only course and girls only courses especially residential is more inclusive than mixed residential courses. Some strictly religious parents could make their children miss out on a good opportunity because of the mixing of the genders or even the students themselves may feel uncomfortable with mixing of genders.
0
reply
ALevelCompSci
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by C.W23)
So I was recommended a program for a residential trip to a 'top university' by a teacher. As I want to study Chemical Engineering at uni, I thought that this might make my application stand out and show interest in my subject.
However...
The courses were organised into 'Boys-only' and 'Girls-only'. Why they needed to be split, beats me. But the thing that annoyed me was that there were 14 courses overall - 13 for girls and 1 for boys.
This wouldn't be an issue if the 1 course available wasn't on something irrelevant to me ... and it's 7 hours drive away. But seriously?? We are told everyday about men having the majority of STEM and I support getting girls into STEM, as long as you don't leave us behind.
Sorry to hear that! We do want more girls in STEM but only to balance the field, not make it overly female.
0
reply
Asclepius.
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Routeri)
Maybe you're all digging a bit too deep into the matter. I'm pretty sure the OP meant there are more boys courses than girls which clearly just reflects the current event of boys having more interest in STEM than girls so what's the point in offering more courses to girls when they are likely to not be able to get enough applications. Therefore they would be wasting money on preparation on a course not many would want or apply for. Also boys only course and girls only courses especially residential is more inclusive than mixed residential courses. Some strictly religious parents could make their children miss out on a good opportunity because of the mixing of the genders or even the students themselves may feel uncomfortable with mixing of genders.
I think the original post states that there were far more courses for girls not boys

(Original post by ALevelCompSci)
Sorry to hear that! We do want more girls in STEM but only to balance the field, not make it overly female.
The crux of the issue is that we should not be balancing fields, just because a discipline favours a certain gender does not mean we need to balance the scales.

We should have the best suited individuals move into whatever field they excel at, gender is a non-issue as biased discrimination seems to no longer be a deciding factor in who gets what position (if anything women are now favoured over men which has serious implications for scientific advancement.
0
reply
Routeri
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Asclepius.)
I think the original post states that there were far more courses for girls not boys



The crux of the issue is that we should not be balancing fields, just because a discipline favours a certain gender does not mean we need to balance the scales.

We should have the best suited individuals move into whatever field they excel at, gender is a non-issue as biased discrimination seems to no longer be a deciding factor in who gets what position (if anything women are now favoured over men which has serious implications for scientific advancement.
(Original post by C.W23)
So I was recommended a program for a residential trip to a 'top university' by a teacher. As I want to study Chemical Engineering at uni, I thought that this might make my application stand out and show interest in my subject.
However...
The courses were organised into 'Boys-only' and 'Girls-only'. Why they needed to be split, beats me. But the thing that annoyed me was that there were 14 courses overall - 13 for girls and 1 for boys.
This wouldn't be an issue if the 1 course available wasn't on something irrelevant to me ... and it's 7 hours drive away. But seriously?? We are told everyday about men having the majority of STEM and I support getting girls into STEM, as long as you don't leave us behind.
Nevermind... I assumed the OP was a girl but I realise I am wrong. It doesn't make any sense for there to be more girl courses than boy. It makes me wonder what university would do this. This discrimination towards boys is probably due to the idea that they techically have a head start just because they are male whilst girls have to try even harder than them to get into STEM hence have more course for them. This could potential lead to more females persuing STEM degrees. I guess they feel like they have to overcompensate so eventually balance will come after that. Maybe it's necessary to favour women for a while since there is still lack of women interested in STEM. It seems like just a tactic to increase equality within STEM. There are plenty of capable women who are missing out on the STEM field, trying to balance the scales doesn't me the new people are unskilled.
1
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Asclepius.)
We should have the best suited individuals move into whatever field they excel at, gender is a non-issue as biased discrimination seems to no longer be a deciding factor in who gets what position (if anything women are now favoured over men which has serious implications for scientific advancement.
most people think like this it's just the academics and virtue signalling corporates who think it's a good idea to introduce gender quotas.
0
reply
C.W23
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Routeri)
do you mean 13 for boys and 1 for girls?
No I meant 13 for girls and 1 course for boys.
0
reply
Routeri
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by C.W23)
No I meant 13 for girls and 1 course for boys.
What's the university in question?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (44)
9.21%
I used to but I don't now (13)
2.72%
No, but I want to start (171)
35.77%
No, I am unable to (112)
23.43%
No, I chose not to (138)
28.87%

Watched Threads

View All