Instead Of Going To Work, Young Women Going Back To College
Here's a genius -- the woman mentioned in The New York Times article by Catherine Rampell who's leaving Starbucks to get a master's in strategic communications. My prediction: She'll be back at Starbucks in no time...with a lot of debt.
Rampell writes:
Though young women in their late teens and early 20's view today's economic lull as an opportunity to upgrade their skills, their male counterparts are more likely to take whatever job they can find. The longer-term consequences, economists say, are that the next generation of women may have a significant advantage over their male counterparts, whose career options are already becoming constrained.For now at least, many young women still feel that the deck is stacked against them.
"Almost everyone in my program is female," said Ms. Baker, who hopes a master's degree will help her get a job running communications at a nonprofit group. "That's partly because of the program, but also because as women we feel like we have to be more educated to be able to compete in really any field."
Start with being "more educated" about what fields are hiring -- and paying.
via Kate Coe
Guess what, ladies. The gender wars are over, and you lost.
You decided you needed to have a degree in anything, so you got one. And a shitload of debt.
And you can't understand why your man just won't commit. He must be intimidated or something.
Well, he is. But it's not your brain that scares him, it's that $100,000 hanging over your head like the Sword of Damocles. Because the moment he says "I Do" he becomes just as responsible for that.
And what sane person wants to take on someone else's debt for a useless degree?
brian at December 30, 2011 10:30 AM
200k in debt...wow. Quite the bill just for a little confidence-booster.
carol at December 30, 2011 10:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/30/instead_of_goin.html#comment-2884162">comment from carolThe $200K in debt...for a communications master's is mindblowingly stupid. I have to catch up on some writing today, but if anybody has a few minutes, can you please look at what jobs pay for someone with this degree? (This assumes that there are jobs. I guess she doesn't read the newspapers about all the kids with advanced degrees who consider themselves lucky to get a job at...you guessed it...Starbucks!)
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2011 10:38 AM
I really don't understand these people. I have a lot of friends in grad programs and I don't know any of them who took out loans at all. Even humanities PhD and masters programs are usually free if you are willing to TA. You can get one of these so-called "investment" degrees like an MBA, law degree, "sustainable business management" or whatever for free if you get a job at a university or go abroad.
Melissa at December 30, 2011 10:39 AM
You're right, you're right, you're right. Oh-KAYYY?!?!??!
Butcha know...
As we've circled the drain in recent years, we've all been watching the reasoning by which others navigate their lives, economically and otherwise. And now more than ever, I think the challenging experience of a college education tends to send a meaningful volt of clarity into the wiring of a young person's mind.
Not always! And a whole lot of bad current tends to flow through a typical education, as well.
But there's something to be said for an experience in those years that's competitive, formal, (often) necessary, humbling, rote, costly and generally unpleasant. A lot of people in those years assume they're the smartest thing the planet has ever seen... But even the weakest professors, in their second semester at the lectern, can bitchslap the mouth off a farmboy with an attitude.
People without that experience can be taught things. But when hanging out with people who've been to college, I more often get a sense they're ready to learn, if only through a disused collection of habits.
In the totality of human character, this may be a very small thing. But the difference between the United States of America and the poverty I saw in Papua New Guinea was a short list of these small distinctions.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 10:43 AM
I said this on one of the comments a few weeks ago, about the value of a Bacherlors degree depreciating. The same thing is going to happen to Masters degrees, because so MANY people I know (and have talked to online) think that the answer to their job problems is more education. There was a bit in Annie's Mailbox that was about a woman who was miserable in her life (specifically, career) and almost *ALL* the comments below were about how she should go back to school.
I never noticed it was a gender thing, but most of the people are female, so there's probably some truth to that. However, I'm going to guess it's less of a "we have to compete against the men!" and more of a "I'm good at school, so I'll go back to what I'm good at" thing. Subconscious.
cornerdemon at December 30, 2011 11:23 AM
The longer-term consequences, economists say, are that the next generation of women may have a significant advantage over their male counterparts, whose career options are already becoming constrained.
The Atlantic has had a couple of recent cover stories on this issue. "The End of Men" and "All the Single Ladies". I didn't find either entirely persuasive, but they weren't totally off base with what I've seen, either.
In recent years, women have outpaced men in attainment of college degrees, and the younger generation of college educated women is out-earning their male counterparts. Men have been hit harder than women in the recession, and many of the parts of economy that are recovering slowly or not at all (construction, manufacturing) are male-dominated industries.
Christopher at December 30, 2011 11:23 AM
> "Almost everyone in my program is female," said
> Ms. Baker, who hopes a master's degree will help
> her get a job running communications at a
> nonprofit group.
Everybody got that, right? You don't earn the money for a degree like that at Starbucks. I'd not be at all surprised if she's counting on a federally-guaranteed loan to pay for this degree.
And then she wants to work for an organization that's sustained by public sufferance.
She wants to live and die on the public tit.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:37 AM
You're wel-read, Christopher! Your comments are astute!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:38 AM
I really don't understand these people. I have a lot of friends in grad programs and I don't know any of them who took out loans at all.
Yep! When I applied to grad school, I applied for TA positions and other similar opportunities. I was lucky as hell and got my tuition reduced by half and got a stipend for living expenses, which allowed me to use my savings to pay tuition up front.
Finding scholarships, stipends and the like is a giant pain and makes the application process twice as long. And TA'ing or working while you're in school means you'll have NO spare time. But I really wanted a degree in something I loved (even though it was one of those "useless" degrees people always mock), and I found a way to pay for it.
If I hadn't gotten all that help, I probably would have stayed in the job I hated a bit longer, saved up more, and THEN taken the leap. But I was going to get that degree one way or the other, and I'm glad I did.
sofar at December 30, 2011 11:38 AM
Sooooo.... Who pays for these degrees? Corporations? Do those corporations write off the cost? It's hard to imagine they wouldn't. Most of 'em know a guy. A guy in the United States House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, offtopic psy...
Psy-chosis.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:49 AM
"In recent years, women have outpaced men in attainment of college degrees,..."
That's true, but a lot of them are being fobbed off with degrees that are pretty worthless. How many more sociology majors does the world really need? And worse than that are the number who are in degree programs where they are being mal-educated -- they're being taught a lot of stuff that isn't true. The only employer they can work for is government, because to private sector employers, their XYZ Studies degrees are red flags. Meanwhile, although the percentage of women in the physical sciences, engineering, and math has gone up a bit, the total number of students in those fields has gone down.
"...and the younger generation of college educated women is out-earning their male counterparts. "
I'm pretty well convinced that the main reason for that is two-fold: (1) There are entire industries that are more or less off-limits to men, such as child care, primary school teaching, and real estate. (2) EEO law makes women more valuable employees. Hiring a women helps out with your quotas. Hiring a man, especially a white man, does not.
Cousin Dave at December 30, 2011 11:52 AM
Seriously, sofar... Whence the "stipend"? Who loved you that much? A lot of companies offer scholarships to bright young things from the 'hood... Looks great in press releases, etc. But it's hard to believe the money starts from their profits.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:53 AM
Let's all go sick.
Also, take a moment to admire the graphic art on that web page. Your tax dollars paid someone for that, too.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:56 AM
You're wel-read, Christopher! Your comments are astute!
I know, Crid. But thanks anyway :)
She wants to live and die on the public tit.
She will be in for a rude awakening. The non-profit world is both incredibly competitive and low-paying - a winning combo!
Christopher at December 30, 2011 11:56 AM
So much for my caustic comments.
The spam filter simply will not let it through.
Ah well, not that useful a comment.
Spartee at December 30, 2011 11:58 AM
"Sooooo.... Who pays for these degrees?"
Loans or parents, mostly.
Large corporations used to pay for things like MBAs for employees, but that was increasingly going away even 10-15 years ago. I doubt there are many places still paying for them.
Spartee at December 30, 2011 11:59 AM
Pick a large company, I'll call 'em up and ask if they have a program to grant scholarships to the needy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 12:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/30/instead_of_goin.html#comment-2884245">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Random House.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2011 12:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/30/instead_of_goin.html#comment-2884246">comment from Amy Alkon(That was totally at random, I'll have you know.) Price-Waterhouse, strangely, was another that came immediately to mind.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2011 12:02 PM
Is RH that big? Didn't I read this year that they were acquired?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 12:09 PM
Yeah, Germans. I'll start calling on Tuesday if you want, but I'm not sure a publisher of textbooks is a good choice. They're too education-tinged anyway.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 12:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/30/instead_of_goin.html#comment-2884259">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]They actually ate a lot of other publishing companies. There's also Bertelsmann.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2011 12:12 PM
My master's in a STEM field from a top university in that field only cost about $50,000.
Most all my friends are in or have advanced degrees and are men...but they are also all in the STEM fields.
Everywhere I have worked (too knew at the current employer to really know) minorities & women have had huge advantages over white men - at least till you get real high up in the company. In one I know that women made about 10% more than their mail counterparts. (HR director deleted some files and we had to look at them to verify that they had been recovered correctly.)
The Former Banker at December 30, 2011 12:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/30/instead_of_goin.html#comment-2884261">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Yeah, Germans. I'll start calling on Tuesday if you want, but I'm not sure a publisher of textbooks is a good choice. They're too education-tinged anyway.
Nah. Maybe somebody else can think of a better one. I'm just surrounded by books and Apples so that was all I could think of.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2011 12:13 PM
Y'know, like this.
Anyone doubt it's a writeoff? For a nearly century-old, intellectually-beloved corporation in New York City?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 12:15 PM
Hmmm.
I wonder if it's related to the fact that women initiate more divorces than men do.
Or the fact that so many schools are geared toward girls instead of boys.
Is there some level of general dissatisfaction with "real" life endemic to women?
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2011 12:16 PM
I'm pretty well convinced that the main reason for that is two-fold...
IIRC, the research didn't address the issues you raise. And was limited to single men and women 22-30 living in urban areas. But the big reason for the difference in median income between men and women was education - more women some college or college degrees than their male counterparts. When women had high-school or less, they earned less than men.
Christopher at December 30, 2011 12:30 PM
That's very wel-read of you, Christopher! ☺ (Smiley face!) (Also-- Hugzzz!)
Seriously, did anyone ever look you in the eye and tell you that you were "astute"? What happens in your life to say it in a sentence like that... "I am astute"?
Fuckin' baristas, man.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 12:36 PM
The thing I always want to ask potential grad students is why do you believe that not being able to get a job is a good reason to get a higher degree?
Like: I can't find employment, so I'm going out to buy a new house!
Everyone is still looking at the idea that a M or PhD. is the ticket to much higher earnings, as it used to be. The problem there is equilibrium. When it set you apart from the pack... it was worth more. Now that many in the pack have MS-MA-MBA? Is it going to set you apart? In the last round of layoffs, there were a buncha masters types, that were on the block because they were more expensive.
In how many fields does what you learn in school actually translate to useful work? So the question is about making yourself Valuable, without costing too much.
The whole question of gender? Oi. What MORE does a master of communications KNOW than an undergrad? Sure, if you are going to farm yourself [almost said whor... nevermind] to some company/nonprofit or whatever that only looks at credentials, maybe you need 'em bad. BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE JOBS EVEN EXIST?
If women are getting more college degrees, great! What are they using them for? What percentage get that masters, set the world on fire for 5 years...
and then feel their biological clock tick, and drop out of work to have kids?
Did you REALLY need the masters to do that? Will that masters still be worth anything when you get back in the games, and how much will you have retrain?
Most of the women I know personally on this track have MIS, and MEng degrees, not MA in gender studies or Communications...
And they still end up in the negative territory in terms of money spent. And? There are something like 10X engineers to Communications people in the Corp, potentially a lot more.
Dunno, the whole thing seems like perverse incentives...
SwissArmyD at December 30, 2011 1:13 PM
What happens in your life to say it in a sentence like that... "I am astute"?
It doesn't happen all at once. It's an accumulation of experiences, the sum of which is to make it clear that one perceives truths a little more quickly than others, grasps concepts with greater clarity, and solves complex problems more elegantly. Over time, it becomes clear that there is just one word for it: astute.
Or maybe, just maybe, describing myself thusly was an F-U response to someone else being a dick.
Hard to tell, really.
Christopher at December 30, 2011 1:30 PM
☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 1:44 PM
Seriously, sofar... Whence the "stipend"? Who loved you that much?
@Crid You called it. The money indeed came from a company that had a long history of partnering with my school and offering scholarships to the students. I worked 30 hours a week for them while in school, and they gave me a stipend that covered my rent, books, and food (if I shopped wisely).
I worked my ass off for them, so they got something out of the deal, too (without having to offer me benefits).
The half-off tuition special I got was a separate scholarship I applied for through the school. Actually, between the TAs, research assistants, scholarships/fellowships, and the work program I was in, about half the 30 students in my class were getting some serious $$$ for school. It was a big reason I applied there.
tl;dr: I got super lucky.
sofar at December 30, 2011 1:50 PM
Glad it worked out, sincerely... Good going. Happy Trails, Best Wishes, and Party On, Garth.
Do you suppose they wrote it off?
Offtopic: Hollywood Physics
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 1:55 PM
TYPO: make that "I worked 20 hours a week..." 30, and I would not have slept. Yikes.
@SwissArmyD My experience seems to match with yours. No job interview has EVER asked me about school. They wanted to know about my work experience.
To be fair, sometimes going back to school gives you access to more and better internships (which, often, are only offered to students), which can give you a leg-up. And it can be a good way to change fields. Nobody will hire you with zero experience in a particular field, but you can sneak in by going to school in that field and getting a few internships.
I guess the key is to have a game plan -- which is essentially what you said.
sofar at December 30, 2011 2:04 PM
Thanks, Crid. It was a wild ride.
Do you suppose they wrote it off?
The company? Almost certainly.
sofar at December 30, 2011 2:10 PM
From the article:
"Women still earn significantly less than men. And in the two and a half years since the recovery officially began, men age 16 to 24 have gained 178,000 jobs, while their female counterparts have lost 255,000 positions, according to the Labor Department."
Maybe we should go dig up the articles where these same harpies went on and on about the "mancession" and how the economy was changing and men were unprepared? I remember when we also got to read the anti-middle-aged-white-man crap about being unemployed, useless, and passed by. Even in something where they're trying to make grrrrl-power piece, they manage to bring up the same old tired shibboleths of the professional victim class.
Maybe things have just returned to the historical need to figure out a desperate way to occupy the time of the middle class's daughters? Since they aren't getting married and having kids, the universities have filled the market vacuum with useless degrees.
Add that up with the part where there's a predilection to hire people who have been employed and taking yourself off the job market is only going to hurt your future earning potential... and, remember, since they aren't wives and mothers, women are only valued by the heiresses of the women's movement by the total taxes they pay the government, so these are bad moves for them to go to grad school.
Mr Green Man at December 30, 2011 2:14 PM
> I guess the key is to have a game plan
Yeah. I kinda think that the biggest achievers were going to plow through the world anyway. If a degree makes things more convenient, they do that. Otherwise they do something else.
I'm most of the way through the Jobs book. Last night I broke for a snack, and there was this familiar feeling... About ten years old... Then I recognized it.
Degrees are optional.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 2:24 PM
I haven't read any of the comments yet (which I will) but I felt compelled to write a post. I'm 38 with no degree. I taught myself how to be a programmer and guess what, with no degree, I make 6 figures. Programming is still a male dominated profession, but I've never had a problem getting a job. Usually my contemporaries do have degrees. I just know what I'm doing and carry it accross well in an interview. Even during these "economic hard times" I still was able to get a new job (been there a month) with a 10% increase in pay.
Nina at December 30, 2011 3:11 PM
My daughter is getting paid to get her PhD, and her tuition is paid in full. It's in a scientific field devoid of glamour, but her peers are graduating with jobs.
Lucky? Yes, but she applied herself, worked with her undergrad professors, did all the extra things like proctoring Chem Labs and took the tough courses. It's funny how doing more than the minimum makes you stand out from the herd. She's still doing more than the minimum, and her sponsor likes her research, so it's a good bet she won't even need to move to get a job.
MarkD at December 30, 2011 3:53 PM
Nina, what you are talking about is you got a huge benefit from being female (From your name, I am assuming you are female). In my last job, I don't think we ever didn't hire a female we interviewed for technical position. Certainly a male applying for a tech job without a degree is just going to get his resume filed.
My friend who like yourself does not have a degree (actually some generic 2 year one) but has taught himself to program and is very good at it sent out a bunch of resumes when his employer looked like they were faltering and he did not get a single response.
When our group got shutdown, the 3 females with technical jobs all had new ones within 2 months (maybe even 1) -- one had one lined up before we were officially let go. The 1 generic manager type female took over a year. The 4 tech guys - 1 got a job in about six months -- the rest took a little over a year. The tech manager male took about 1.5 years. I went back to school while continuing to look for work.
The Former Banker at December 30, 2011 4:41 PM
"And you can't understand why your man just won't commit. He must be intimidated or something.
"Well, he is. But it's not your brain that scares him, it's that $100,000 hanging over your head like the Sword of Damocles. Because the moment he says 'I Do' he becomes just as responsible for that."
Not strictly true, at least not here in Colorado. Yes, $100,000 plus interest of your household income will be going to pay for student loans. But as I understand divorce law, the other spouse isn't responsible for debt incurred before the marriage. Debts can get tricky if they're commingled.
Poking around the internet, it looks like the average student loan debt is around $25,000. Plenty of couples spend more than that fighting each other in divorce court.
The debt thing works both ways. Personally, having nothing but a modest mortgage, I'd think long and hard about saying "I do" to a man with child support payments, alimony to an ex-wife or two, and a bunch of discretionary debt.
Lori at December 30, 2011 4:45 PM
Oh yeah, Lori? Well all that stuff may be true, but it only applies to precisely the women a sane man would want to marry anyway...
...Okay, point taken.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 4:53 PM
That's not quite the way it works, Lori... it's not when the debt is from as much as if it's secured or unsecured. I couldn't find a relevant article on student loan debt... it falls into a middle ground, as it's not dischargable in bankruptcy, so I'm not sure how Colorado handles that specifically, I'll post if I figure it out. It varies a lot from state to state.
SwissArmyD at December 30, 2011 6:24 PM
In my work on divorce cases (mind you, I'm no expert), I never saw any mention of whether debt was secured or unsecured. (As an aside, I do know the old chestnut about men surrendering half their assets after a six-month marriage ended is a bunch of baloney--at least in Colorado.)
From the web site of the Harris Law Firm:
"Generally, all debt that a party incurs before the marriage is considered separate debt, and all debt incurred after the marriage is considered marital debt. However, there are exceptions - for example, usually student loans accumulated during the marriage will continue to be the sole responsibility of the individual who obtained the education."
Lori at December 30, 2011 6:49 PM
Besides, how did this get to be about the marriageability of women and the relative sanity of men who marry them, anyway? I thought we were making fun of Starbucks and people who don't take control of their lives.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 7:20 PM
After reading some other sites, Lori is right, although they all seem to say things differently, and I remembered why I had to shell out an insane amount of money to get divorced here... Things that youthink are straightforward, tend not to be legally. [by that point it wasn't who was right or gets what, it was what I had to do to get her to sign the papers... for 10 months I paid for 2 households plus anything she felt like charging. Because marital debt continues after you file, till the dissolution.]
anyhow, we got to all that Crid becuase somebody posited that you could marry someone's student debt. Prolly in some states you can. Wouldn't that take the biscuit? Marrying someone that has several worthless degrees, and taking on their debt, too?
Yet another thing to research before you tie the knot and jump over a cliff.
SwissArmyD at December 30, 2011 8:42 PM
This is because young women have been trained to get approval from authority figure, like teachers and profs, rather than strike out in their own.
an MBA would be a better degree if you want to work for a nonprofit.
KateC at December 30, 2011 9:00 PM
Sheesh. Everytime I start strutting around like Amy's bitterest boy commenter, you guys swoop down like eagles and take me out of the meadow.
Humbling!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 9:16 PM
Well now:
> women have been trained to get approval
Why does so much feminist resentment begin with a presumption that women are but lumps of clay in the hands of history's shabby sculptors?
— Cammy
(sorry about the green)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 9:24 PM
For roughly the last twenty years, financial services has been the largest sector of the economy. Bigger than education, bigger than farming, bigger than transportation, bigger than anything. These people are obviously not all Harvard MBAs... Most of them are probably high school graduates pumping mortgage refis and the like. Whoever these people are, they like Aeron chairs, computer mice, and Excel spreadsheets that don't need to be rewritten too often.
I've often wondered how much of that sector was nourished by a distinctly feminine preference for office work.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 9:30 PM
My 24 year-old nephew just got his first job out of college. His parents paid for his undergrad with an education trust that they bought for about $20k right after he was born. He financed his masters by being a TA and doing paid summer interns.
So here he sits, no debt, with a brand spankin-new job paying $80k per year. Did I mention that his degrees are in computer engineering? It pays to pick a field that is in demand. He claims that maybe 15% of his classmates were female ... tops.
BTW, this is in SE Mich, where you can now buy a 5 year-old 3000 sq ft house for about $150k. He's back living with his folks until July when he'll have saved for the down payment for one of those houses.
AllenS at December 30, 2011 9:32 PM
an MBA would be a better degree if you want to work for a nonprofit.
Yes... but MBA degrees, like law and medical degrees are priced as though you're going to make a crapton of money and can pay off a lot of loans. They are very expensive (while one can get paid (not a lot) to get a Ph.D. Hard to pay off MBA loans on most non-profit salaries. The difference is that you can sell out and get paid when that fails more easily than if your degree is in some bullshit degree the private sector does not care about.
I read this:
So here he sits, no debt, with a brand spankin-new job paying $80k per year.
And I was like "what"? With an effin CS masters? He should be fighting off offers for 120k+equity unless he totally sucks. And then I read:
BTW, this is in SE Mich, where you can now buy a 5 year-old 3000 sq ft house for about $150k. He's back living with his folks until July when he'll have saved for the down payment for one of those houses.
And I'm still like what? SE Mich? When he could be getting paid and basis points in Silicon Valley? Where the sky is the limit for good developers and you never have to shovel snow except when you're skiing in Tahoe.
Kids these days.
Christopher at December 30, 2011 10:00 PM
Allen, punish him.
Seriously, $20K in 1986 was $37K in 2010. I mean, great planning and sincere props to your siblings, but...
Let me put it this way. Could someone do that now? Do schools still offer that? Does anyone think educations are gonna get cheaper? I mean, we might all agree that there might be no choice... But these administrators [Cali, Illinois] aren't gonna surrender their pleasant office jobs quietly.
A couple years ago the USPS started offering 'forever' postage stamps, which I've been wanting since Johnson was in the White House. But are they a good investment when the service itself could conceivably go away in 2012?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 10:16 PM
"Pick a large company, I'll call 'em up and ask if they have a program to grant scholarships to the needy."
Ahem. It's called, "The Army National Guard."
And if you have any actual field experience, URS is looking for technicians all the time, for locations all over the world. They even have a posting for changing tires in Baghdad.
Everyone with a distorted sense of the value of a degree in useless studies takes themselves out of competition for some really useful technical positions.
Radwaste at December 30, 2011 10:25 PM
> It's called, "The Army National Guard."
Doesn't count... We already know that we're their "paying agent"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 30, 2011 11:09 PM
Former Banker - I am female and I did not get a huge benefit from being female. I went through a recruiter, who had me take a test both in programming and Database Administration. I was in the 96th percentile for DBAs and 91st percentile for programmers. I had a phone interview and 2 in person interviews with my current employer and all of them were technical. I got the job because of my knowledge, not my tits and I find it very insulting that you assume the reason I got my job was because of my sex. It's idiots like you that keep the thoughts around that poor women either have it too hard or too easy. Has it ever occurred to you that I got the job on my own merits. Each job I have left, I have been told if I ever want to come back, the door is always open. When I put in my letter of resignation at my last place of employment, the CIO took me aside and asked me what they could do to keep me, again not because of my gender but because I'm intelligent and work hard.
Nina at December 31, 2011 6:55 AM
"Doesn't count... We already know that we're their "paying agent""
No, we're not. That's one of the many things you have completely wrong, having substituted what you thought for what others posted.
The "paying agent", back when I coined the term here (to your offense for no apparent reason), is not you - it is the agency charged with distributing the benefits. Thus, the word, "agent". Recall that I have advocated oversight of these agents from the start. Notice in your earlier posts that you objected to this. Gee. Dissonance. Still.
Well, Wile E. Coyote is articulate and entertaining. You still have a role.
Radwaste at December 31, 2011 7:15 AM
Nina, Much like professional blacks in fields where quotas mandate that black people are hired, your accomplishments are being hidden by that same policy, that's all.
Radwaste at December 31, 2011 7:19 AM
Christopher: I haven't been able to find it, but there was a study about two years ago which found that: In the largest U.S. cities, women make about 8% more then men doing the same work after education, experience, time of service, and family situation are controlled for. The study found that men and women make pretty much the same in the mid-size towns. I think that still supports my theory that women are possibly going to be paid more because EEO law makes them more valuable employees, although at first glance you would expect that if that is true, the gap should be about the same everywhere. My conjecture is that in the large cities, a higher percentage of the women are going to be dedicated career women who will fight for pay and benefits the same as men will. In the mid-size and smaller towns, there are more women who see their future as being family women, and so they don't fight as hard for pay since they figure that they'll be leaving the workforce in a few years anyway.
Cousin Dave at December 31, 2011 7:38 AM
It's idiots like you that keep the thoughts around that poor women either have it too hard or too easy. Has it ever occurred to you that I got the job on my own merits.
Acctually Nina its feminists with their talk of how oppressed women are and therefore how much help they need in order for thing to be 'fair' which is fostering that idea and keeping it alive.
Also we would need to take a look at your tits before would could say with any realitive certainty whether or not they aided you in you job search
lujlp at December 31, 2011 8:03 AM
Cousin Dave: Seems plausible. I definitely think fewer women in places like here are seeking the mommy track; more, if they are planning a family, want to establish a career first (which causes problems, due to biology and availability of men). I don't have firsthand equal employment experience in hiring; we are too small a company for those issues to be on our radar. I will say that the women I've hired have been pretty confident in their negotiations.
Christopher at December 31, 2011 10:02 AM
@nina I've been involved in tech hiring for some larger projects and can confirm that we had lower standards for the female candidates. So while you may be perfectly competent, it's still likely that your sex has been an advantage to your career.
This highlights the basic problem with the Girlz Rule , Boys Drool narrative that's so popular in the media right now. It makes no attempt to account for the pervasive 'positive' discrimination that benefits women. You'll also notice that the evidence supporting this account is very selectively drawn. A few percentage point gap estimated by a single study on a restricted cohort of young adults hardly establishes that all young men are worthless shits. Yet that's exactly how the issue is portrayed.
Mel at December 31, 2011 11:01 AM
> The "paying agent", back when I coined the term
> here
Bunny, bunny, bunny... You're pulling things out of your ass and inviting us to admire their shapes. "Paying agent" is a term of art. You're like a second-grader who designs a new kitchen utensil with his crayons: A tringular frying pan for pizza slices, and you've decided to call it "the microwave".
We all adore you for the brilliance of your economic insight... Science, finance, you do it all, Raddy!
Have you met Amy's new friend, Jwipe?
You guys could hang.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2011 11:38 AM
A few percentage point gap estimated by a single study on a restricted cohort of young adults hardly establishes that all young men are worthless shits.
The important thing is that women feel good about themselves. If that means that men have to be portrayed as inferior, so be it.
lady gaga goo goo at December 31, 2011 3:08 PM
> Posted by: lady gaga goo goo
I gotta ask... All you incredibly bitter guys who think women have pulled some sort of fast trick to make your life miserable while they snicker and thrive...
Did you ever do anything for a woman? Did you ever reach into her life and solve a difficulty, or sustain her through a crisis or anything like that? A genuine effort at kindness, rather than an investment demanding immediate dividend?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2011 4:33 PM
""Paying agent" is a term of art."
No, jackass. Not only did I use the term here first, I even subsequently explained what I meant when you started bleating.
You just ignored that. Your hastily-assumed, self-inflicted offense overwhelmed you. You still have no idea, and are merely pretending.
You should be in politics.
Radwaste at December 31, 2011 5:00 PM
Do you have special meanings for lots of words? If we give you a list, will you translate it into Raddyspeak? That'd be fun!
Carburetor! Hah!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2011 5:39 PM
@Crid did you bother to read that article? I'm guessing that you didn't, because it illustrates my point very well.
lady gaga goo goo at December 31, 2011 7:10 PM
Rampells article is full of baseless and contradictory claims colored with a heathy dose of chauvenism. The NYT's commenters are doing a pretty good job of ripping them apart.
For instance ...
Did you know that the drop in labor force participation is actually just ambitious young women bettering themselves while male losers choose to take worthless jobs?
And that according to some anonymous group of economists, these poor slobs will be totally ineligible for the legions of highly paid young women with no career history and tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
Oh and of course women are never paid market rates, face insurmountable odds in a hostile male dominated work environment, but demonstrate amazing courage and foresight by not working but going to grad school for degrees with no discernable value to employers.
Good to know.
Norm at December 31, 2011 11:16 PM
"Do you have special meanings for lots of words?"
No, and I didn't encroach on anything here except your own inflated sense of worth. Again, it is you assigning the meaning YOU want to what I say. And after I explain the point, you just decided to be an ass.
You're really good at that.
But it makes sense. You have to pretend that I didn't know what I wrote, or somebody reading back would notice you actually opposed the idea of public scrutiny of public pension plans.
Maybe it was a bottle talking, but it was simply wrong then, and it is now.
Radwaste at January 1, 2012 6:24 AM
Riiiiiiiiight... A man would have to be a drunkard to think I'm full of shit....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 1, 2012 1:17 PM
Rampells article is full of baseless and contradictory claims colored with a heathy dose of chauvenism.
Like how male employment is both increasing and flat? Or that women are typically much more qualified than men but are paid less, which is why they can't find husbands who make enough to support a family?
At every turn she's twisting the fact to impugn men and cast women as victims.
lady gaga goo goo at January 1, 2012 1:40 PM
Well, Cridster, here's where you lost your mind and started arguing against public scrutiny of pensions.
Denial - n. - not just a river in Africa.
Pay a visit and borrow some of Amy's Adderall, 'cuz when you can focus, you're a brilliant writer. When you don't, you use fallacies like ad hominem tu quoque and just plain lose it.
I guess it's the price of genius. Despite this argument, I think it's very clear you're smart.
Radwaste at January 1, 2012 11:12 PM
Lupujiltsk has been singing that song for some time as well, and in no better pitch: It's "very clear" that neither of you are musical. Without considering the link, it's a safe bet that my argument was that in times of great hardship, goofshit technocrats with vicegrip job security through federal budgets should pretend to be neither [A] down in the hood with free-market performers nor [B] graduate-level dabblers in economic theory (who crudely misapply the terminology).
But that's just me. If it harshes your mellow, you are again invited (as you've been before, repeatedly) to read someone else's comments. It's a big ol' internet, y'know?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 2, 2012 12:18 AM
You know crid, if you dont want the people smarter than you to comment on your posts - then stop writing such stupid shit
And another thing, where the fuck do you get off telling other people to stop reading and responing to your responses to their posts?
Also, go fuck yourself
lujlp at January 2, 2012 12:03 PM
Annnd that link just features more crowing about yourself, while you make things up about other people, then claim those things as factual.
It doesn't make your posts as I linked disappear.
Fallacies. You employed them, and they defeat your position as thoroughly as is possible.
Crid can be wrong. About handling pensions, Crid was and is wrong.
Which can be demonstrated to any third party. Paste that somewhere you can see it all the time. It's not getting any better.
Heh. Musical? Yet more you do not know. Do your feet taste good to you?
Radwaste at January 2, 2012 2:30 PM
Without me you're nothing
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 2, 2012 6:20 PM
On topic...
Several of them!
Radwaste at January 2, 2012 7:50 PM
Your heart is full of hate!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 2, 2012 10:22 PM
$200 K in debt?!? So, let's make 2 (colossal) assumptions: This girl actually manages to find a job in a not-for-profit...and earns $50 K a year (unlikely)...and manages to set aside 10% a year to pay off her student loans...
She will take 40 YEARS to pay off this debt - oops, I forgot the interest, I guess if she has some kids they can pay off the balance after she dies! This girl doesn't need a Masters, she needs to go back to elementary school to learn math!!
Dick at January 8, 2012 1:01 PM
Please read this article before making any further aggressive and ignorant generalizations about women and/or education. kthxbye.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/postrel-how-art-history-majors-power-the-u-s-.html
stop it angry mob at June 22, 2012 10:01 AM
Leave a comment