The Kind Of "Equality" That Requires Grade Inflation For The Ladies
I'm skilled now as a mediator, but when I was still in the stage where I had a good bit to improve on, I had an evaluation by two of my supervisors.
They wanted my opinion about how I was doing. I asked them whether the evaluation "mattered," meaning whether the purpose was to help me improve or whether there would be some demerits for honest. "Because," I said, "I can grub for a good grade if that's the deal, but I'd rather not do that."
Improvement, it turns out, was the goal. So I was honest about what I thought I was doing well on and what I needed to work on, and that allowed my supervisors to put the right supervising mediators with me until I improved enough to be on my own -- which I soon did.
Bullshit grading -- giving people grades they don't deserve -- doesn't help and can really be harmful if the person getting assessed has any meaningful responsibility for others' welfare, like if they're, oh, engineers building bridges.
And that's the problem with the latest infantilizing effort to bring more women into STEM -- Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.
Atilla Sulker writes in the WashEx:
The National Bureau of Economic Research recently published a study which concluded that the grading policies for STEM classes contribute to the gender gap in the STEM field.The study finds that STEM classes, on average, assign lower grades compared to non-STEM classes and that this tends to deter women enrolling. Women -- who value higher grades more than men -- are apparently put off by the lower average grades in STEM subjects. This is despite the fact that "women have higher grades in both STEM and non-STEM classes," according to the study.
The study also shows that women are more likely to switch out of STEM than men. To increase female participation, the authors propose curving all courses to around a B. They estimate that this would increase female enrollment by 11.3%.
This may seem like a noble endeavor, but it is based on a faulty premise, and it will have adverse effects.
The authors aim to solve the problem of the gender gap in STEM, but they never explain why this should be a goal. Individuals have distinct abilities, and efforts to "equalize" their abilities and interests based on gender goes against this.
That men have lower attrition rates in STEM should not necessarily be seen as an advantage. For example, another study by Karen Clark, a doctoral candidate at Liberty University, shows that women are, on average, more persistent than men in staying in college. This may be, in part, because they are more likely to avoid high-attrition courses of study like STEM.
...The authors' view presents yet another dilemma. If we are to close the gender gap in STEM, why not also do so in other areas? What if the history, philosophy, and business departments also have this disparity? Why not intervene in every department, every class, and so on? This would create an endless continuum of administrative oversight and indifference to merit.
Also, imagine the hilarity of trying to get even numbers in areas like women's studies. The faculty would basically become like college sports recruiters, making wild pledges to bring in the boys.
Straight dudes...what kind of university graft would it take for you to major in women's studies? (I'm picturing a Camaro with VAGINA1 plates. You?)
Here’s the problem Amy, and I wonder why these studies all ignore the elephant in the room.
These days all federal grants loans, and scholarships are tied to maintaining a certain grade average.
People don’t want to lose this overpriced pablum so they pick easy majors.
Colleges have a huge incentive to keep this money flowing in, but if you can’t actually *do math* it is horribly difficult to actually pass the subject matter exams that you need to be an engineer.
No biggie if you dumb down a gender studies major or an elementary Ed major which are already barely high school level work anyway.
But you aren’t going to pass the Math GRE or the PE or the Actuary exam or the MCAT without being able to walk the walk. Ergo the problem, with not just women but certain minorities in STEM.
The whole college education system is broken. And until we get rid of most of the garbage majors, federal free money and start advancing to higher levels of Ed only thru double blind exams, the system will remain broken.
Isab at January 10, 2020 12:39 AM
Physical Promotions were a disaster in elementary, middle and high schools, turning out graduates with diplomas who lack basic skills and competence for the work place. This is merely extending a program for failure to the college and graduate school level. The same result can be expected.
Because the degrees will be of suspect quality among the groups who receive favorable treatment due to identity factors, businesses will not hire such persons - although this harms those in the groups who worked and met the same standards as persons from non-favored groups. It’s too expensive to hire a professional in order to learn whether that person has the basic knowledge and skills. And, when a person from a favored group is hired, it’s frequently an example of tokenism, and that person is shunted off to unimportant tasks and so held back in career progression. These are key reasons that affirmative action programs usually harm their supposed beneficiaries.
Wfjag at January 10, 2020 2:00 AM
Does that major even have a use?
Patrick at January 10, 2020 4:23 AM
Do the authors also volunteer to be the crash test dummies for the cars, planes, bridges, etc. designed by these socially-promoted STEM enrollees. STEM is not the social sciences where, if there is a miscalculation, someone gets their panties in bunch. This kind of crap is why people argue the social sciences are not real sciences.
Conan the Grammarian at January 10, 2020 4:29 AM
Yes. Having students in that major keeps a professor employed and a department funded. It brings in minority professors to "balance" the diversity of the faculty.
Does it have a use in the "real world?" No. A grievance studies student's worth is in being a butt in a chair in a class; being counted so the school can claim diversity and get federal funds.
Conan the Grammarian at January 10, 2020 4:33 AM
From my experiences most schools already offer grade inflation to women in most stem classes. Chemistry and biology do not. After all they are already near 50/50 enrollment. But electrical engineering and mechanical engineering definitely do. After all they are at 90/10 and 98/2 respectively. Civil engineering largely did not. As I recall they were around 60/40.
That said I am not worried about women engineers (or minority ones for that matter). As Isab points out there are objective tests that help eliminate unqualified people. Beyond that the real world is very effective at eliminating people who can't follow the laws of physics. Employers are relatively heartless when it comes to engineers. Can you do the job or not? Good looking, gender, politics, etc; it all pretty much falls away under 'can you solve my problem?'.
As for the effects of further curving grades up, it won't have any effect. And after it is shown the authors are completely wrong it won't matter. Things will not be returned to where they were. The authors will not suffer despite being completely incorrect. They will probably still be referenced and quoted as if they were correct.
"This kind of crap is why people argue the social sciences are not real sciences." ~Conan
This isn't science. It is just a fancy opinion. When an author has a failure to replicate in the hard sciences then that author has a problem. When a field has a failure to replicate then that field has a problem. Psychology and medicine have a 70% failure to replicate. Would you drive a car that didn't work 70% of the time? Would you take advice from someone who is wrong 70% of the time?
Ben at January 10, 2020 5:47 AM
Over the course of my long career (which is to say: I'm old) in engineering, I have never once had an employer ask me about my grades. Nobody cares. They care about your degree and what school you went to. If you're a new graduate, they might care, slightly, about whether you graduated cum laude or belonged to an honor society or some such. Once you have a few years in, that won't matter anymore. What they really care about is your skills, specialties and accomplishments. In aerospace, a lot of jobs are too specialized to be taught in school -- the only way to learn is on the job.
Cousin Dave at January 10, 2020 6:52 AM
I'll add one thing: For new graduated, employers do care, a lot, if you had some exposure to the field while you were in school. An internship is worth a lot more than a letter grade. Allocate your time accordingly.
Cousin Dave at January 10, 2020 7:17 AM
I've had one employer (customer really) care about my master's thesis. His business has not gone well. It is like you say Cousin Dave. All employers want out of an engineer is 'What can you do for me?'. They care about skills. The rest doesn't really matter.
On the bridge thing, 'To err is human. To forgive divine.' Even good engineers make mistakes. That is why we test things. You design a great new airframe. Wonderful. Now we test it. New bridge, it's testing time. I don't care what you do it gets tested. Most of that testing is invisible to the general public, but it has to be done. That testing is what keeps people safe and keeps the lights working. Compared to that grades just don't matter.
Ben at January 10, 2020 10:21 AM
If you count biology (a prereq for Med school, nursing, vet) women already dominate STEM graduates. If you count psychology as a science, they really dominate. Selective counting.
cc at January 10, 2020 10:47 AM
if you can’t actually *do math* it is horribly difficult to actually pass the subject matter exams that you need to be an engineer.
In truth, it can still be horribly difficult to pass muster to be an engineer even if you can do math. I've taken most of the engineer math core, and a thermodynamics course, let's just say it wasn't easy, pretty or enjoyable.
Most of us were happy to get a passing grade.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 10, 2020 11:25 AM
Once again, the dreaded pay-tree-ark-eee at work!
Jay R at January 10, 2020 12:22 PM
"Would you drive a car that didn't work 70% of the time?"
I've owned several Volkswagens.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 10, 2020 4:35 PM
I stand corrected Gog. So, psychology is the Volkswagen of science?
Ben at January 11, 2020 8:09 AM
Correlation does not equate with causation.
I love how they assert that the lower grades keep women out because there are lower grades and fewer women, without mentioning any evidence (such as interviews). Maybe there is causation in that there are fewer women which causes the grades to be lower. Not saying this is the case, there could be no causality at all, but it is a legitimate option that wasn't even considered, which clearly demonstrates that this is not any actual analysis but evidence supporting a preconceived notion.
Anon at January 13, 2020 9:11 PM
Leave a comment