Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#31

Post by gaius »

zafka wrote: post #21
gaius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the corner of the room is: there is no shortage of scientists. The great universities of the West churn out far, far more PhDs than there are post-doc positions for, let alone tenure-track. This has been true for decades at least. I probably know a few dozen PhD holders personally, and I can count on one hand the number actually working in academia... Maybe what's really happening is that boys are imp…

Strictly from the point of the people who have acquired a STEM degree ( and perhaps have not found a job, or feel they are under-compensated), but only a small percentage of those who spend their career in research will have the skill needed to discover awesome stuff. And the more who go into research the better chance society as a whole has.

And the more who go into research the better chance society as a whole has.

That's very easy to say but where are the jobs for these people? http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html

We would be better off identifying areas where there truly is a shortage of people (if any) and directing talented people there instead (and no, programming is not one of them).

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#32

Post by burkaman »

Kroniker wrote: post #25
jonahrd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a painfully restrictive way to view the world. What's the harm in looking at this problem as a complex system that we can work on until we reach a solution? There are without a doubt societal pressure on women and people of color not to pursue careers in STEM. All you have to do is open your eyes a little bit and it's obvious.

As the stereotypical white-cis-male-scientist, this sort of statement has always bugged me. I was pushed from science at every turn- multiple teachers said I would be no good, wasn't allowed to take advanced courses in HS, was seen as a wannabe by friends and peers, but at every step I also saw a concerted effort to get women and minorities into my field of choice (physics). Support groups, gender or race only clubs…

Stereotypical childhood toys, gender stereotypes that widely persist despite the efforts of the people making those "women in science" banners and starting those clubs, the standard difficulties of entering a group or field where nobody looks like you, very widespread reports from women of discrimination and harassment, several studies where professors are less likely to respond to emails from people with minority-sounding names, etc.

You really don't see any of these stereotypes in your daily life? Why are physics departments 80% men [1]? Just random chance?

[1] https://www.aps.org/programs/women/resources/statistics.cfm

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#33

Post by gaius »

leereeves wrote: post #24
blacksmythe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The great universities of the West churn out far, far more PhDs than there are post-doc positions for, let alone tenure-track. In steady state, each professor, on average, can only produce one student who goes on to be a professor.

And how many more to work in industry or government?

They are not professors... And in many if not most cases are doing work that could be done by anyone with a good Bachelors or Masters degree.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#34

Post by wl »

mattferderer wrote: post #30
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is about whether race influenced police to deny his rights. How does the complexity of his wiring project matter at all?

I believe the people above are arguing that his intent was to create a prank more so than to create a clock by moving a clock from its original case to a suitcase which is how bombs look often on TV. Along with that argument, people would often argue that Steve Wozniak spent a night in jail for building a fake bomb around the same age. They would also often argue that Wozniak is a white male & therefore would argue a…

I can't speak for the others, but I don't care about whether or not his intent was to come up with a hoax device. I saw the pictures, immediately recognized it as something that was commercially produced, and then saw Obama praise his ingenuity, MIT invite him to campus, and all sorts of companies send him free stuff, all based on the lie that he actually built something.

There's nothing wrong with taking things apart to figure out how they work. I did the same thing at his age. But I wasn't pretending I built them. And we shouldn't hold his actions up as something to emulate.

That isn't to say I'm not concerned with the overreaction teachers, administrators and police had to the device. As far as I'm aware, the only reaction that they should have had—hey, that device has exposed mains!—didn't happen.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#35

Post by drbigglesworth »

gaius wrote: post #13
TheGirondin wrote: post #10

Girls didn't want to pursue science because it has had a severe social stigma attached to it. This created a self-fulfilling prophesy that ensured only social outcasts with no social standing to lose would consider being interested in it. Boys have much greater range of higher ceilings and lower floors than girls did in the past (and still today, just less so), so the people at the bottom are overwhelmingly male. The…

The elephant in the corner of the room is: there is no shortage of scientists. The great universities of the West churn out far, far more PhDs than there are post-doc positions for, let alone tenure-track. This has been true for decades at least. I probably know a few dozen PhD holders personally, and I can count on one hand the number actually working in academia... Maybe what's really happening is that boys are imp…

I'm in this boat now: engineering PhD 5 years ago, well-published at the end of my PhD (sufficient for a faculty application) but instead created a startup to commercialize cancer surgery tech I invented, startup folded beginning of this year and I'm still unemployed after sending out several hundred applications. For each 100 targeted applications in industry/gov't I've sent out, I get around 6 responses, and 1 interview. It's soul-crushing. There just aren't many jobs out there that require a PhD, and for the jobs that don't require a PhD there's a stigma associated with having one.

I enjoyed the work leading to my PhD and the time spent at the startup was educational, but I have to conclude that pursuing the PhD was overall a mistake. I like the idea of the diversity of the sciences better reflecting the population at large, but I'm very angry that expensive education for a career with lousy prospects is being advocated. Considering the career outlook, poor pay relative to demands, and the disproportionate burden of child-rearing placed upon them, I see avoiding a career in the sciences as a rational choice for anyone, especially women.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#36

Post by leereeves »

gaius wrote: post #33
leereeves wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many more to work in industry or government?

They are not professors... And in many if not most cases are doing work that could be done by anyone with a good Bachelors or Masters degree.

Any work, including being a professor, could be done by someone with a good Bachelors or Masters degree. Or no degree at all, but self-taught diligently.

The PhD is just one road to learning, which still has value for those who choose to pursue it.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#37

Post by clifanatic »

snowwrestler wrote: post #18
TheGirondin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be completely ignoring the context and the media response that followed. Even President Obama cared enough about it invite him to White House.

Because he got handcuffed. Not because the project itself was worthy of attention from the President. He got invited to the White House to provide counterbalance to the social idea that brown-skinned kids with beeping electronics are criminals that should have the cops called on them. The simplicity of the project makes the reaction of the school worse not better.

> Because he got handcuffed.

He actually asked them to handcuff him and then take his picture because he said it would look cool. Look at the picture, the police officers are smiling in the background. He played them.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#38

Post by snowwrestler »

clifanatic wrote: post #37
snowwrestler wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he got handcuffed. Not because the project itself was worthy of attention from the President. He got invited to the White House to provide counterbalance to the social idea that brown-skinned kids with beeping electronics are criminals that should have the cops called on them. The simplicity of the project makes the reaction of the school worse not better.

> Because he got handcuffed. He actually asked them to handcuff him and then take his picture because he said it would look cool. Look at the picture, the police officers are smiling in the background. He played them.

None of this is true. He didn't ask them to handcuff him and no one is smiling in the picture:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/texas-teen-arreste...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-mus...

He was arrested and taken off school grounds. Next time please do your own research.

The police should not have been there at all, since the device is so obviously not dangerous.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#39

Post by facepalm »

yedava wrote: post #4
facepalm wrote: post #2

People of color didn't become scientists because somebody made a chemistry kit in 1937 featuring an Egyptian slave. Girls didn't become scientists because some companies science competition described them as caring and nurturing during WWII. I've also heard different versions of the clock story. Not saying everybody has an equal start - for sure not everybody is or was encouraged to become a scientist to the same deg…

I think you are strawmanning the article. The point about the Ethiopian (not Egyptian) slave is that it is indicative of the fact that no black would be in a position to purchase that chemistry set. It is a historical fact that blacks were discriminated against and chemistry sets not being marketed to them is just one consequence of it. Don't know why you are so bent on denying history in favor of pushing your victim…

My guess would be that the Egyptian slave thing stems from another time where it was exotic to travel and only adventurers would go to foreign lands and bring back people from there (slave or apprentice - would like to see the original kit). And there was a lot of mysticism around exotic countries, so having such a person on your mystery show (alchemy) would simply increase the effect. Yes, it sounds stupid today, but we are talking about a time before the invention of Google, antibiotics or routine international flights.

I'm sure other than that PoCs generally had less access to chemistry kits, probably mostly because they couldn't afford them. But I don't think that Chemistry kit was the issue.

Re: Who Gets to Be a Science Nerd?

#40

Post by facepalm »

jonahrd wrote: post #6
facepalm wrote: post #2

People of color didn't become scientists because somebody made a chemistry kit in 1937 featuring an Egyptian slave. Girls didn't become scientists because some companies science competition described them as caring and nurturing during WWII. I've also heard different versions of the clock story. Not saying everybody has an equal start - for sure not everybody is or was encouraged to become a scientist to the same deg…

This is a painfully restrictive way to view the world. What's the harm in looking at this problem as a complex system that we can work on until we reach a solution? There are without a doubt societal pressure on women and people of color not to pursue careers in STEM. All you have to do is open your eyes a little bit and it's obvious.

"without a doubt"? Well I have doubts. It all depends on the time, of course - but even in former times it might have not been so much discrimination (a ka the thought "women are too stupid or belong into the kitchen") as the idea being so far fetched as to not be considered. This in turn might be an artifact of times when it really wasn't a sensible choice - for example if women were at high risk of childbirth (or missing out productive years because of maternity) so investing in their education would have a lower return (which became less of an issue with improved economic situation).

I especially doubt the common advertising narrative. I think it is much more likely that companies simply advertised what they thought would sell best (as in maybe boys being more likely to buy Chemistry kits), rather than them having a budget for pushing the patriarchy.

Post reply on HN