We're getting old, folks...

Roger wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Jim Logajan wrote:


"Tom Conner" wrote:


This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.

[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.


Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
degrees.

Beats me, you'll have to ask Tom. Engineering requires both strong
science and strong visualization skills, especially in 3-D. For reasons
I don't claim to understand, this seems to not appeal to women as much
as men.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Jim Logajan wrote:


"Tom Conner" wrote:


This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.

[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years
and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are
women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science
and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men
earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.


Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
degrees.

Beats me, you'll have to ask Tom. Engineering requires both strong
science and strong visualization skills, especially in 3-D. For reasons
I don't claim to understand, this seems to not appeal to women as much
as men.


Beats me. Maybe because engineers are judged by what they invent and not by
how they are dressed.

Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to get an
engineering degree. This might be one reason why men dominate both
activities. Whether the mindset is cultural, genetic, or a combination is
unknown, but I suspect cultural since China and India produce a large number
of female engineers.

Tom Conner wrote:

Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to get an
engineering degree.

I hope not.

Not being an engineer, my perception of what it would involve might turn
me to the law instead. The flying mindset could be related to both, I
suppose, but I am thankful I never had to find out first-hand.


Jack

Jack wrote:

Tom Conner wrote:

Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to
get an
engineering degree.


I hope not.

Not being an engineer, my perception of what it would involve might turn
me to the law instead. The flying mindset could be related to both, I
suppose, but I am thankful I never had to find out first-hand.

Well, I am an engineer and I don't think it has much to do with learning
to fly. To me learning to fly was more like what I've heard is more
typical with medicine or law - lots of memorization, but little
analytical thinking.

I enjoyed engineering, in particulary math, physics and engineering
mechanics as I only had to memorize a few basic laws and principles and
could derive the rest as needed. When I took chemistry and biology, it
was almost entirely memorization. I found that boring.

Flying was also (other than the manual skills part obviously) all about
memorizing FARS, AIM procedures, etc., and little analytical stuff. The
instrument rating required visualization for situational awareness that
was interesting to me as that was about the closed to engineering that
I've seen during my flying career, but even then much of the instrument
rating was memorizing more FARs, chart symbols, procedures for lost
comm, etc.

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?

Not flying.


Jack

Jack wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?


Not flying.

Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
are engineers than any other field.


Matt

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:04:58 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Jack wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?


Not flying.

Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
are engineers than any other field.

Certainly! Where else can you find so many different toys in one
package?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Jack wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?

Not flying.

Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
are engineers than any other field.

Well then, what you need is the context: military pilot, nine years;
airline pilot, thirty yrs; recreational sailplane pilot, three yrs so far.

I wouldn't have done anything to dilute those professional experiences
and/or the family life during my career. Flying was all I wanted to do,
and engineering would have been somewhat down the list of alternatives.

But that's just me. A very few are able to combine the two careers
fully, as in test-piloting.

We also have airline pilots who are MD's, dentists, lawyers, etc., etc.
but that sounds an awfully lot like work. Combining airline flying with
ANG or military Reserve flying can also lead to a very rigorous schedule.

Recreational flying is not in the same league.


Jack

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?

Not flying.

I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
terror back to the college of liberal arts.

I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off to
those who could.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?

Not flying.


I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
terror back to the college of liberal arts.

I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off to
those who could.

What is so hard about it? Study 80-100 hours a week and it's a piece of
cake! Kind of like running a hotel. :-)


Matt