School Bells

[papayahed]

Science students can also be actually interested in what they learn. Their formulas may look tedious to an artist, but not to many of those involved in formula-based sciences. You see, the same as painters find beauty in what they paint, a mathematician may find beauty in resolving a theorem (though most of them, I admit, don't perceive the concept of "beauty" the same as an artist does, because their field of action is more "objective", and thus they don't express themselves the same as an artist would).

Agreed. Artists aren't the only ones that can be passionate about their work.

[Annamariah]

I know many people who study in Helsinki University of Technology to become Masters of Science and most of them really seem to enjoy their studies. I also studied a lot of mathematics, physics and chemistry in upper secondary school, but even though I liked maths a lot, physics just wasn't really my piece of cake (I did pretty well in my matriculation examinations, but I didn't enjoy it), so I decided to continue my studies in languages rather than in engineering.

I don't know how it is in whicever part of the world you live, but at least here a Master of Science will probably have much larger income than a Master of Arts, because there just isn't enough work for all the Master's of Arts that have got anything to do with what they've studied and so most of them get a job from another field completely.

Here the Faculty of Arts is full of lifestyle students who don't really have any idea what they're going to do once they graduate, but in the meantime they enjoy student life, have some part-time (or sometimes even full-time) job and every now and then take some exam at the university or write a few papers and then finally graduate in twice the time that it would take if they studied full time. I suppose this is partly because they know that once they graduate, they don't really have much of a chance to find a job that has got anything to do with what they've spent all these years studying.

[AmericanEagle]

JBI, didn't you say that you were thinking of majoring in computer science or engineering? If that was the case, then you must have taken a combination of Grade 12 calculus, geometry, data management, chemistry, biology, and physics. Did you not enjoy them?

I remember reading an article in the Toronto Star about how more males were applying to computer science and engineering programs in university than females. The article stated that because those programs require a specific math course (geometry), girls were at a disadvantage. Math is supposedly taught in a competition-based environment, which would appeal more to male students, while female students would prefer courses that were taught in a cooperation-based environment.

[JBI]

JBI, didn't you say that you were thinking of majoring in computer science or engineering? If that was the case, then you must have taken a combination of Grade 12 calculus, geometry, data management, chemistry, biology, and physics. Did you not enjoy them?

I remember reading an article in the Toronto Star about how more males were applying to computer science and engineering programs in university than females. The article stated that because those programs require a specific math course (geometry), girls were at a disadvantage. Math is supposedly taught in a competition-based environment, which would appeal more to male students, while female students would prefer courses that were taught in a cooperation-based environment.

I have all the high school science credits done. It doesn't matter though, I did not enjoy them, and cannot enjoy them - I'm good at them, especially computer science, as it functions kind of like language, and therefore works with the same sort of logic, but even so, it's all so tediously boring - sitting in a room writing lines of code for hours on end isn't my idea of a career - that's why I ended up opting out of it, since I knew I wouldn't be happy doing that for the rest of my life.

That's probably why there are so few women in engineering and computer science, not because women aren't smart enough, or inclined for those subjects (women, in general, seem to be smarter than their male counterparts), but because, quite simply, the people who study these subjects are the most troll-like people, or, at least at U of T, at any rate, all, assuming they can grow them, with beards and socially awkward plaintiffness, and an unrefined sense of self-superior geek-angst - the kind of people who seem to think socializing isn't worth the time, and everybody else is a moron who knows nothing.

When you think about it, someone like me studies languages, studies means of communication for the sake of being able to communicate with more people, in different languages, about different subjects. Somebody who studies computer science studies how to put commands into a machine, in order for the machine to in some way interact with other machines, and a human, as a means of doing something removed - the actual anti-social nature of the subject is excuse enough not to study it - I think the only thing that made me consider it in the first place was the fact that a) I am good at it, and b) I could've made big money and retired early. But even so, I'm of the mind that I can make it in other fields, and the 40 odd years of torture don't seem worth it.


The actual difference between the genders, that is, biological differences, has nothing to do with it. I think it's just that the fringe-sort of geek culture is more prominent amongst men than women - the whole video game sub-culture, and popular science youth-culture is most certainly geared toward men more. When I think about it, generally, if I were thinking from the perspective of what I think a normal person thinks like, I generally would think of a guy obsessed with video games and computers as a tech geek, a nerd, whereas if I were thinking about a girl, it would be completely different - I'd probably think of her as someone who lacks friends and social skills, and is ultimately a complete reject - the subcultures that seem to feed these areas of study seem dominated, at least where I grew up, by uninteresting men who feel more comfortable in front of a screen than in front of people.


As for what I said, I think many of you will think it somewhat rude, and perhaps offensive, but I think, from my cultural background, that is, growing up in Toronto, it seems to make a little bit of sense. There are actually tons of scholarships and work opportunities directly targeted at females as a means of trying to even out the playing field, but, when I think about it, only three girls were in my first year computer science class of about 100, and one of them, a friend of mine, ended up opting out of computer science because she couldn't stand the environment, whereas another didn't do well, and the third, a very, very bright woman in her thirties who had just emigrated from Taiwan (if my memory serves me correctly) seemed to know she didn't fit in there very well (though, she certainly got the right answers).

[papayahed]

I have to go see the space shuttle but when I get back I'll respond.

[AmericanEagle]

As for what I said, I think many of you will think it somewhat rude, and perhaps offensive, but I think, from my cultural background, that is, growing up in Toronto, it seems to make a little bit of sense.

I also grew up in Toronto, and I do see your point about the stereotypes of the engineers and computer scientists. I admit that that's probably why I didn't choose to go into those programs, though I did do well in Grade 12 calculus and data management; I didn't take Grade 12 geometry because of the horror stories surrounding it.

[JBI]

I also grew up in Toronto, and I do see your point about the stereotypes of the engineers and computer scientists. I admit that that's probably why I didn't choose to go into those programs, though I did do well in Grade 12 calculus and data management; I didn't take Grade 12 geometry because of the horror stories surrounding it.

I didn't take Geometry either, since they were discontinuing it anyway.

[AmericanEagle]

^ I have no idea why they had to change the math curriculum in the first place. I think it's because they said that students found MCB4U to be too hard, and so it had to be split up into two courses. I didn't think that it was too hard when I took it.

[papayahed]

I have all the high school science credits done. It doesn't matter though, I did not enjoy them, and cannot enjoy them - I'm good at them, especially computer science, as it functions kind of like language, and therefore works with the same sort of logic, but even so, it's all so tediously boring - sitting in a room writing lines of code for hours on end isn't my idea of a career - that's why I ended up opting out of it, since I knew I wouldn't be happy doing that for the rest of my life.

That's probably why there are so few women in engineering and computer science, not because women aren't smart enough, or inclined for those subjects (women, in general, seem to be smarter than their male counterparts), but because, quite simply, the people who study these subjects are the most troll-like people, or, at least at U of T, at any rate, all, assuming they can grow them, with beards and socially awkward plaintiffness, and an unrefined sense of self-superior geek-angst - the kind of people who seem to think socializing isn't worth the time, and everybody else is a moron who knows nothing.

When you think about it, someone like me studies languages, studies means of communication for the sake of being able to communicate with more people, in different languages, about different subjects. Somebody who studies computer science studies how to put commands into a machine, in order for the machine to in some way interact with other machines, and a human, as a means of doing something removed - the actual anti-social nature of the subject is excuse enough not to study it - I think the only thing that made me consider it in the first place was the fact that a) I am good at it, and b) I could've made big money and retired early. But even so, I'm of the mind that I can make it in other fields, and the 40 odd years of torture don't seem worth it.


The actual difference between the genders, that is, biological differences, has nothing to do with it. I think it's just that the fringe-sort of geek culture is more prominent amongst men than women - the whole video game sub-culture, and popular science youth-culture is most certainly geared toward men more. When I think about it, generally, if I were thinking from the perspective of what I think a normal person thinks like, I generally would think of a guy obsessed with video games and computers as a tech geek, a nerd, whereas if I were thinking about a girl, it would be completely different - I'd probably think of her as someone who lacks friends and social skills, and is ultimately a complete reject - the subcultures that seem to feed these areas of study seem dominated, at least where I grew up, by uninteresting men who feel more comfortable in front of a screen than in front of people.


As for what I said, I think many of you will think it somewhat rude, and perhaps offensive, but I think, from my cultural background, that is, growing up in Toronto, it seems to make a little bit of sense. There are actually tons of scholarships and work opportunities directly targeted at females as a means of trying to even out the playing field, but, when I think about it, only three girls were in my first year computer science class of about 100, and one of them, a friend of mine, ended up opting out of computer science because she couldn't stand the environment, whereas another didn't do well, and the third, a very, very bright woman in her thirties who had just emigrated from Taiwan (if my memory serves me correctly) seemed to know she didn't fit in there very well (though, she certainly got the right answers).

erm, ok. Back from the shuttle landing.

1) You have insulted any woman not in a science field. You are suggesting that women are too shallow to study something they truly like because of the people in that field. As if interests are that easily interchangeable all the while neglecting the fact that for quite a number of years society has suppressed the notion that women didn’t belong in sciences.

2) A lot of what you claim can be said of artists as well - dirty, trollish, socially inept. Who ever heard of a well adjusted, good artist? I’m really surprised that you would tap into such an obvious and played out stereotype, I mean really scientists as nerds. You've let me down.

I also grew up in Toronto, and I do see your point about the stereotypes of the engineers and computer scientists. I admit that that's probably why I didn't choose to go into those programs, though I did do well in Grade 12 calculus and data management; I didn't take Grade 12 geometry because of the horror stories surrounding it.

So, Anti-science stereotypes are ok?

[AmericanEagle]

So, Anti-science stereotypes are ok?

I never said that I was anti-science. I mentioned in my other post that I did take Grade 12 math and science courses, and that I did enjoy them. I loved learning about probability, permutations and combinations, matrices, derivatives, logarithms, and limits.

I was merely agreeing with JBI that stereotypes exist. But stereotypes exist in every area of study. I'm sure that there are stereotypes of arts students as lazy and hard partyers.

As for why I didn't go into computer science or engineering, it's because I didn't take the geometry and physics courses required for admission. If I really wanted to go into the sciences, I totally would have went for it in spite of the stereotypes. But although I do enjoy equations and formulas, it is not something I would want to do for a living.

[Hurricane]

When you think about it, someone like me studies languages, studies means of communication for the sake of being able to communicate with more people, in different languages, about different subjects. Somebody who studies computer science studies how to put commands into a machine, in order for the machine to in some way interact with other machines, and a human, as a means of doing something removed - the actual anti-social nature of the subject is excuse enough not to study it

Conversely, you could say that the computer science student studies how to create something that connects and enables millions of people around the world. Without computer scientists plugging in code all day, I couldn't have this conversation with you guys, check my Russian homework with a translation program, or send pictures from last weekend's football game to my sister across the country instantly. The internet and computer science has probably done more for communications between people of different languages and cultures than any other invention of the last hundred years.

[JBI]

erm, ok. Back from the shuttle landing.

1) You have insulted any woman not in a science field. You are suggesting that women are too shallow to study something they truly like because of the people in that field. As if interests are that easily interchangeable all the while neglecting the fact that for quite a number of years society has suppressed the notion that women didn’t belong in sciences.

2) A lot of what you claim can be said of artists as well - dirty, trollish, socially inept. Who ever heard of a well adjusted, good artist? I’m really surprised that you would tap into such an obvious and played out stereotype, I mean really scientists as nerds. You've let me down.


So, Anti-science stereotypes are ok?

Where did I say women were to shallow to like science? I didn't mention anything about most science, I was merely commenting on applied sciences, like Computers and Engineering, as mentioned above - as, since anyone can tell you, the split in other fields of science are relatively even, if not predominantly female.

I challenge you to take academic courses in computer science (not college level courses, which are more artistic, but the university level ones, where one actually studies things like data structures and algorithms, and implements them into code to make calculations run a minute fraction of a second faster) and tell me what exactly is so thrilling about getting the computational complexity of a function an unnoticeable bit slower.

It's not even that though, the whole environment of such fields is dissuasive of social interaction.

I merely highlighted that the causes of the lack of women in this field then, can mostly be contributed with the growth of a sort of "geek" culture, which has, as of now, been almost exclusively male. It has nothing to do with women being more or less than men, so don't put words in my mouth. The point is, in the fields of Engineering and Computer Science, in Canada, and elsewhere, the vast, vast majority of students are male - there are even bursaries and sponsorships in place in order to encourage women to study these subjects, so I clearly am not making this up - the stereotype of these students as male then, most certainly is true, given that the enrollment demographics attest to this.


If anything, my comments were misandric - I don't think I said anything that was misogynist. Please, enough talking about letting people down, by not reading, or perhaps choosing not to read properly, rather than fester a constructive dialogue, you've let me down.

Conversely, you could say that the computer science student studies how to create something that connects and enables millions of people around the world. Without computer scientists plugging in code all day, I couldn't have this conversation with you guys, check my Russian homework with a translation program, or send pictures from last weekend's football game to my sister across the country instantly. The internet and computer science has probably done more for communications between people of different languages and cultures than any other invention of the last hundred years.

And what is the point of such a statement? Alright, and the workmen who build a bridge allow people to travel over it every day, but what is the point of such a statement? We all know the affect the technological advancements of the computer era have had - we clearly are all using the internet - but, when it comes down to it, that doesn't justify studying it, or writing code as something a) enjoyable, b) interesting, or c) really personal, in the sense that the goal of the writing of code is to be right, not be personal, not to interact, but to be invisible, and work without any human adjustment to the interior (though, they did teach me in a lecture to make my code unreadable to an extent, as to force employers to rehire me if they needed things changed).

[Hurricane]

Because to a lot of people it is enjoyable and interesting. Some of my Computer Science friends love writing code. I may think they're crazy, but it's (to me) a useful thing to study and (to them) a fun and fulfilling thing to study. And if we're going with the workman/bridge analogy, I would hope that he made it correctly and not with personal touches. Besides, I would say that creating or even having a small part in the creation of something--whether a painting or a computer program or the plans for a supersonic jet--leads to a great deal of personal satisfaction. You don't have to leave a "signature" for it to be yours.
Maybe I just enjoy the mundane, but when I took a class last year involving some minor computer programming, it was very satisfying to get my code to work because it was so particular.
I'm kind of curious about your "interaction" thing. Are you saying that since their work necessitates interacting with the computer and not necessarily people it is less appealing?

[Maximilianus]

I don't know how it is in whicever part of the world you live, but at least here a Master of Science will probably have much larger income than a Master of Arts, because there just isn't enough work for all the Master's of Arts that have got anything to do with what they've studied and so most of them get a job from another field completely.

Here the Faculty of Arts is full of lifestyle students who don't really have any idea what they're going to do once they graduate, but in the meantime they enjoy student life, have some part-time (or sometimes even full-time) job and every now and then take some exam at the university or write a few papers and then finally graduate in twice the time that it would take if they studied full time. I suppose this is partly because they know that once they graduate, they don't really have much of a chance to find a job that has got anything to do with what they've spent all these years studying.

In my part of the world there's a very similar situation. I could even dare say an identical situation.

[JBI]

In my part of the world there's a very similar situation. I could even dare say an identical situation.

It makes no difference though, in terms of income, a Bachelors of Science, in general sciences, like life science isn't really going to make all that much more over a Bachelors of Arts. The main appeal, I think, is graduate school, notably medical school, where I wager the bulk of people here at least dream of ending up.

But on the flip side, essentially anyone from the arts could make the same income as a doctor if they really wanted to, by maximizing in the graduate school options available to them, such as Law School, which a strong backing in English wouldn't hurt for. It's also something like 35% of the CEOs in Canada are graduates with degrees in arts, so there is also that door open as well.

The whole idea that what you study determines how well you do in life is a sham, really. There are plenty of Science degree holders working meh jobs. It is all really how you apply yourself, and how well you do that determines anything - it just happens in the arts that there are a lot of meh people, whereas in sciences, at least here, they seem to filter out a lot faster (the difference being, I suspect, that it is easier, financially, to support more arts students than science students).