The Push For Quotas For Women In Science

mlimber writes "The NYTimes has a story about how Congress has quietly begun to press for an equal number of women in the hard sciences and engineering under Title IX, which is best known for mandating numerical equality for boys' and girls' sports for institutions that accept federal funding. The problem is, the article says, it is not merely that women face discrimination from male colleagues, though that is often true, or that they are discouraged from pursuing these fields. Rather, women with aptitude in these areas often simply have other interests and so pursue their education and careers in other fields like law, education, or biology. Opponents of this plan, including many women in scientific fields, say implementing sex-based quotas will actually be detrimental because it will communicate that the women can't compete on even terms with men and will be 'devastating' to the quality of science 'if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women's level of interest.'"

How about the reverse quotas?

Law, psychology, education, journalism, etc. are dominated by women. Should we expect to see male quotas there?

Re:How about the reverse quotas?

What about racial equality? Is that one just not cool anymore? Because I know there white/non-white ratio of people in my field (locally, at least) is about three times higher than the white/non-white ratio of the general population (locally, at least).

THAT'S IT!!! No more white people allowed to become architects until we fix these numbers!

Re:How about the reverse quotas?

What about racial equality? Is that one just not cool anymore?
What about LGBT equality, I demand an EQUAL number of Lesbians, an equal number of Queers, an equal number of Bi-Sexuals and an EQUAL number of trannys to be a requirement of labs which accept govt. funding!! What about straight people? To hell with them!!

In other news I actually DO have an African-American friend who applied for an African American scholarship who was later turned down because he's not black... Oh, what, you say that African-American is actually a racist term too, but don't tell the bleeding hearts...

Re:How about the reverse quotas?

Same with nursing and secretarial jobs. However, you'll never see male quotas (a good thing) because that would be favourable to men (a bad thing these days). Equality, as far as I'm concerned, means equal pay for equal jobs. I sincerely hope that a quota system never goes through, because quotas are ultimately detrimental to the system and insulting to the people who get this advantage. Give people a boost when they need it, such as scholarships for people in a miserable financial situation. Hiring should only be done on the grounds that they'll do a good job. I don't care what's in between your legs, just do your fucking job and do a good job of it.

That being said, I would love to see more XX-chromosome carrying members of our society in my physics classes. But it has to be their choice and not at the expense of more qualified people. And for the record, the two best physics professors I've lacked a penis.

Re:How about the reverse quotas?

More chicks? Sounds like an excellent idea.

Currently any woman can get(or give) a-head simply by batting an eyelash to the boss while her male peers toil long hours unnoticed.

Mandatory female quotas would be a godsend -- they'd have to compete not only against ugly fat guys, but against themselves! It'd be a most entertaining fight for the hottest, most attention-gettingest queen of them all. The males would win either way as they could heed the Middle East exit strategy that never was(that is, to stand back and let the others kill each other).

Endless, entertaining gossip and ever-shrinking outfits would load a volatile powder keg whose explosion would culminate in a sweaty break-room battle with girl-on-girl action, strategically torn clothing, perhaps some spare jello from the fridge, and only one victor - the men!

Re:How about the reverse quotas?

Yeh, Like Law and Medicine.

It's all geeks idea

Now they will actually see some girls.

Why do we care anyway?

Why do we want women in sciences and engineering?

Why is there not so strong a push to get more male nurses and primary school teachers? Or even publishing?

Is it because these are seen as female professions and therefore less worthy?

Note the contradiction...

Opponents of this plan, including many women in scientific fields, say implementing sex-based quotas will actually be detrimental because it will communicate that the women can't compete on even terms with men and will be 'devastating' to the quality of science 'if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women's level of interest.'"

So they object because a) It will make it seem that women need a leg up, and b) they'll have to dumb down science to give women a leg up. I don't particularly believe the second, but if it is true, that would mean the first is just an accurate appraisal of reality.

This is ridiculous

The scientific process is unbiased towards either gender. Requesting change in that for the sake of statistics is actually negative to equality.

The only way to achieve true equality between genders is to treat them the same.

How about

How about putting those in positions who have earned them, regardless of age, sex or race, instead of mandating a certain ratio. If anything, the mandated ratio will foster more discrimination because of the perceived view that they "didn't earn it".

Except...

Since the interest isn't equal, this could conceivably deny young men education in science simply because there weren't enough women to match. Oh well, not like much of our lawmakers care about science education anyway...

The solution is obvious.

We must force women to enter careers in hard sciences and engineering.

As a female

As a woman looking to go into a science/engineering field I have to say that this is just a stupid idea. To be honest a quota would have the chance of making me NOT want to go into the field because I would have to deal with people thinking that I couldn't have gotten in if there had been no quota to fill. And yes I really am a woman. I really am.

Bad Idea

Quotas are never a good idea. They spawn resentment from those being left out and imply that those in need of a quota wouldn't be good enough to get in without it. Equality is giving everyone a fair and equal opportunity. Besides, this does nothing to fix the fundamental problem: there are fewer women because they are less interested. If the government wants to start a program to get more women into science and engineering fields, it should be aimed at young kids. Get elementary, middle and high school girls excited about going into these fields and the numbers will grow.

Re:Bad Idea

If the government wants to start a program to get more women into science and engineering fields, it should be aimed at young kids.

Okay, but why should it do that? How about presenting kids with a wide range of options for what to do with their lives, and let them decide what's interesting?

I think that's pretty close to what we're doing now, and if that means there aren't many women in engineering, then that's the way it is.

What's the ratio in congress?

50% women; 50% men?

Every asinine idea gets recycled.

Quotas are just discrimination by another name. Requiring employers to hire based on any criteria other than an applicant's qualifications is a terrible thing to do to anyone already in that profession, especially the members of whatever group is getting the preferential treatment. Any woman employed in the sciences will suddenly come under suspicion as to wether she can actually do the work, or just got the job because of the quota.

-jcr

One problem with women in chemistry

Guys can have a child while doing research, but it is much more difficult for women. Pregnancy can mean that you have to stop doing certain types of research or it may just interfere with your ability to be competitive in your field. Putting off childbearing until after getting a PhD and postdoc will put most women firmly into their thirties when they have children, at which time birth defects and complications become more prevalent.

Some professors don't like women in their labs for this very reason. By the time a woman has completed her research, if she has had a child in that time frame, someone else may have already published it.

Science is competitive, and women are often at a disadvantage.

So

So where do I go to demand that there are equal numbers of male and female babysitters, maids, nurses, and elementary school teachers? And can someone remind me what the ratio of men to women in congress is?

In short: stupid idea. If women don't *want* to be scientists and engineers, fix it in schools by encouraging them to try it and doing your best to encourage the removal of the societal bias against it. Allowing minorities and women who are *less* qualified then white males to get jobs just to fulfill a quota is one thing that *will* reduce the quality of our science and engineering.

If you want to remove bias in hiring scientists and engineers, at require that the person who makes the decision to grant interviews not see any information that could identify a person's sex or race, including the name. Then, if you must, require that the interviewer match the interviewee in sex and race and if the interviewer isn't given the authority to decide who gets hired, again remove any identifying information from the report before it goes to the person who does make the decision.

That's a nice, scientific way to reduce (not eliminate... women and minorities can still be biased against other women and minorities) bias without hurting the final product. I mean, what would you do in the proposed bill if you only got 10 female and 90 male applications to fill 30 spots? Pick women off the street and try to make them do someone else's job?

Re:Title 9

You realize that it's the lycra they're advertising, not the chicks, right?

Re:men and women have different interests

Why is this so terrible to admit? It's obvious to everyone, yet all these PC jerks want to deny it.

Trouble is, you are confusing the end result with the root cause.

What these "PC jerks" believe is that women and men are socially conditioned to have different interests -- in other words, it just ain't natural. The concern is that the social conditioning is detrimental. That stereotypical "women's interests" are less valued and thus less rewarding than stereotypical "men's interests."

Re:men and women have different interests

So? That still means they have different interests. If the reason for that is that women are encouraged to be interested in non-scientific fields, fine, you can address that issue all you want. Forcing women into science if they are not interested, or keeping men out because of a need to meet quotas for female enrollment, doesn't suddenly cause women to be interested in those fields.

Honestly, why is that so hard to admit?

Re:men and women have different interests

Agreed. There are fewer women in science and technology not because they lack the ability, but because they lack the interest. This is not a bad thing, but too often it gets interpreted as an issue of perceived inferiority.

Re:men and women have different interests

The best article written about this was by Philip Greenspun (MIT Prof) at http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science [greenspun.com]

The best quote from the article was this: "I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory."