We're getting old, folks...

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:02:23 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

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.

That's probably because they don't spend so much time in front of a
Playboy magazine using their imaginations?

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


Matt