based on the posting here, hell no

If you give girls and boys at primary school different tests there are clear differences. Boys can draw bicycles better than girls who in turn are more fluent with words. Boys are better at mathematical reasoning, dart throwing and mentally finds geometric forms in complex patterns and rotating objects.

You and Drake Larieta really bring down the curve.

So are Caller Bobfan and leash.

So much for equality in STEM.

Yeah man equality sucks!

I think it stands to reason that forcing an arbitrary 50/50 equality of result when half the population tends to be better at the core mechanics of something (like math and engineering) is going to result in a generally poorer collection of mathematicians and engineers than could have been. Is that unreasonable?

I think it stands to reason that forcing an arbitrary 50/50 equality of result when half the population tends to be better at the core mechanics of something (like math and engineering) is going to result in a generally poorer collection of mathematicians and engineers than could have been. Is that unreasonable?

Where is that happening?

I'm not playing that game.

It would be unreasonable to kill all men to even the playing field too. It doesn't mean it is a relevant example when it isn't happening.

Seeking a more diverse population in STEM fields is a good thing.

Seeking more diverse input to the maw of engineering schools, sure (but even then, not universally so). However looking at the resultant product and finding any lacking diversity as evidence of a flawed or biased process--and then wishing to "rectify" the results of that process--is poor reasoning, and seeks to deny that some people might just tend to be better at certain things than others, like the inherent differences between the sexes in cognitive abilities used in some areas of STEM.

It's also poor reasoning to think the outcomes are a result of relatively minor differences in natural abilities based on sex.

Tests of spatial perception, defined as the ability to determine spatial relations despite distracting information, yielded a mean effect size of d = 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.84, p < 0.05). Tests of mental rotation, defined as the ability to rotate quickly and accurately 2- or 3-dimensional figures in imagination, showed a mean test effect size of d = 0.73 (95% CI 0.50–0.96, p < 0.05). Tests of spatial visualization, defined as the ability to manipulate complex spatial information when several stages are needed to produce the correct solution, yielded a mean effect size of d = 0.13 (95% CI –0.24 to 0.50, p > 0.05). A subsequent meta-analysis of 286 studies of sex differences on spatial abilities showed that males outperformed females with an overall mean weighted d = 0.37 (z = 2.61, p < 0.01).22 With use of the same criteria to differentiate tests, results by age showed that effect sizes increased with the age of the study participants sampled in all 3 categories of spatial abilities. In particular, sex differences in children under 13 years of age had the smallest effect sizes and those over 18 years old had the largest effect sizes for spatial perception ([d = 0.33, p > 0.05; d = 0.48, p < 0.05], mental rotation [d = 0.33, p < 0.05; d = 0.66, p < 0.05] and spatial visualization [d = 0.02, p > 0.05; d = 0.23, p < 0.05]).

Now you're just talking out of your ass.



The "d" there refers to "Cohen's d", a measure of effect size. It is the measure of the differences of the mean of two groups, expressed as the number of standard deviations the experimental group is above or below the mean of the control group. A positive value for d indicates that the mean of the experimental group is "d"-amount of standard deviations above the mean of the control group.

So, at its smallest magnitude of difference, the mean ability of males in spatial visualization is 0.13 standard deviations above the mean of females, which results in the mean male ability in spatial visualization being better than that of 55% of females. At its largest magnitude of difference, the mean ability of males in mental rotation is .73 standard deviations above that of females, which results in the mean male ability in mental rotation being better than that of 77% of females.

You have to do a-LOT of bullshitting to turn that into "relatively minor differences".

The problem is you act like this is definitive proof of something and it isn't.

Women are smarter. They get us to pay for everything