Gillibrand pushes STEM education for girls, minorities

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2014-02-25 03:35

Article here. Excerpt:

'Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand met with student robotics enthusiasts at John F. Kennedy High School in Plainview Monday, touting two initiatives to boost interest and participation in science, technology, engineering and math, particularly among girls and minorities.

Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said it would take "a long time" to close the gap between boys and girls in those fields of study, but that it could be narrowed by providing female students and minorities with hands-on learning experiences.
She is lobbying for passage of two pieces of legislation that would promote science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, education, which she introduced last year.
...
Matthew Coleman, 17 and a senior, said he's glad to see the number of girls rise in recent years. "When I was a freshman, there were two female members of our club," said Coleman, the club's president.

When his team competed against other schools, some had all-girl teams or at least 50 percent female membership. POBOTS beefed up its recruitment and has benefited greatly from the addition of young women, he said.

"It seems like a different way of thinking and a different dynamic in the room," he said. "When we are brainstorming and coming up with ideas . . . it's significantly better. There's a different mindset."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Really, not such a bad idea to boost STEM in our schools. It's just that the boosting ought to be gender- and ethnicity-blind, that's all. The undertones (or overt overtones in some cases) of male-bashing aren't fair or warranted. Most of us wouldn't be alive today without men's pursuit of STEM fields. And after all, who do these folks think founded them?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2014-02-25 06:18

All these plans will soon backfire.

There are two tracks in engineering: synthetic and analytic.

We refer to synthetic engineering as DESIGN.
We refer to analytic engineering as APPLIED MATHEMATICS.

Engineers have, more or less, stabilized the flow of traditional engineering DESIGN. There are now standard tools for computer aided design, finite element studies, project planning and so on. But that is the boring stuff. The future is quantum computers, micro-machines, energy extraction, and so on. And that requires the math.

These high school STEM programs being pushed are a waste of time and a dangerous delusion. They focus on DESIGN (build a bridge from sticks, lego-robots, assemble gears, minimize melting). And this requires collaboration, team work, product management and so on. But it is totally bereft of anything remotely mathematical (some arithmetic, yes, but that is not math).

This means that not only will the girls (or boys, for that matter, when the feminists allow them in such programs) not learn any real engineering, they will be given the false delusion that they HAVE studied engineering. Then,in college, they hit the wall of abstract math. Many of the boys will soar, the girls will falter in self-doubt, not realizing that their engineering skills were really built on a false foundation.

Then they get to the engineering clubs. And they find that the boys start to form male-groups. They will assume they are subject to sexism. But this is simplistic. All the boys really want is a male-space.

If the schools allowed the boys a male-space, they would be less likely to exclude the girls from engineering spaces.

So...

In both cases, interventions will not work. And when they do not work, the idiots will continue down the path of vilifying men.

(And all of that, not to mention the fact that we are spending millions helping the girls in engineering and not a dime to help the boys in reading. And why is Gillebrand pushing this? Because she is embarrassed that her bill to alter the military chain of command in ALLEGED rape cases, has faltered due to the wisdom of other senators who DO value the American military and its chain of command. Gillebrand must go.)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Tue, 2014-02-25 06:37

Once in the US Senate, one may reasonably expect to remain indefinitely. It is very hard to get elected vs. an incumbent. It's like a very exclusive country club; you usu. have to wait 'til someone dies before you even get a chance to get into it.

Gillibrand was a former US House of Reps representative from NY. She was appointed by the state governor to fill the vacancy Hillary Clinton created by accepting the Sec'y of State job. (The US Con'n says such vacancies betw. elections can be filled by whatever process the state in question has established, such as appointment by the governor, special election, etc.). From there, it was easy to start making promises and raising $ for running for the office when the term ended. She later ran as an incumbent and won a full term; a US senatorial term lasts 6 yrs., while a term in the House of Reps is only for two. While there's a bit more turnover in the House, once there, as long as you don't totally toast it or get a "better offer", you're also there forever. Why? Money. Those who can raise the most $ to campaign and do the most for their patrons and constituents have a huge advantage over challengers. They almost always get their party's endorsement and more party-raised campaign funds. A 6-yr. stint in the Senate gives one a lot of time to collect up favor chits and trade influence for various kinds of consideration. Same for the House, but they just don't get as much time initially. But the formula's the same.

Why did Gillibrand get the pick when the office was prematurely vacated? Some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

She and Hillary are tight on the feminist front and Gillibrand's loyalty to the party is tested. Really, no one else stood a chance in Hell.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2014-02-25 18:59