Men Underrepresented in 7 of 10 Grad School Fields

Submitted by insdel2005 on Sun, 2009-09-20 03:43

Article here.

'The Council of Graduate Schools just released data on graduate schools... Women represented 58.9% of all graduate students in 2008, meaning that there were 143 women enrolled in graduate school for every 100 men. Further, women were overrepresented in 7 out the 10 fields of graduate study and underrepresented in three fields (business, engineering and physical sciences).

Q: Why does the under representation of women in engineering, math and science get so much more attention than the under representation of men in arts and humanities, biology, education, health sciences, public administration, and social sciences? After all, male graduate students are about as underrepresented in fields like health sciences (20.1% male, and 398 women per 100 men), education (24.8% male) and public administration (25.5% male) as women are underrepresented in engineering (22% female).'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... about the observations (or, I mean, complaints) feminists make re the number of men v. women in undergrad and grad programs. They feed into their own objections to what they say "society" deems important.

Let me clarify... feminists have been saying for decades that overall society views what men do as being more important than what women do, and consequently that fields men "dominate" are viewed as being more valuable or more important than those fields "dominated" by women/wimmin/wymyn/etc. When feminists proclaim how the fact that most students in engineering fields as undergrads and grads are men, but ignore every other field of study that exists in terms of the number or %age of women in them, they just reinforce the very notion they say exists as proof-positive that women/wimmin/wymyn/etc. are oppressed, hated, villified, whatever.

Do certain fields become more or less valuable because men "dominate" them? No. Is janitorial science considered a valuable field? Alas for janitors, no. But yet that field is "dominated" by men. Back when the non-science/applied engineering fields were the typical area of study for PhD candidates, a PhD in those areas (for example, history, English, philosophy, etc.) could expect to max out salary-wise at less than half the salary a PhD in most engineering fields could expect to max out in. And these non-engineering fields also were "male dominated", though I am seeing such is not the case anymore. And yet, feminists never said anything about that. If engineers get paid more to teach the field or to work in it than do people who teach liberal arts subjects, it's because of the economics of supply and demand, not because of what people have in their pants.

Feminism is its own source of misery. It has taken on a life of its own and become institutionalized. Like any institution, the goals it was set up to achieve have become much less important than the implicit goal of self-preservation and the enrichment (financially) of those who drive the institution. Same $hit, different $hitter.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mcc99 on Sun, 2009-09-20 21:14