I’m sorry… what? It’s the left’s fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
Apart from anything else, isn’t that suggesting that men getting more masters degrees than women is some sort of natural state? I’d like evidence for that one.
I’m sorry… what? It’s the left’s fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
I didn’t say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn’t even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don’t think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don’t feel welcomed by the left.
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn’t to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn’t be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies. (edit: especially in light of the recent graduate data)
Wow that’s not what I wrote - I can see now you’re just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don’t see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren’t interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It’s not a difficult concept - I don’t see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you’d be speculating on alternative explanations.
I don’t speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it’s interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
Supposedly they did. In Norwegian. And then berated me for not accepting their evidence after I told them I don’t understand Norwegian. Of course, for all I know, it could be toaster sale statistics.
Why do people get hung up on academia when it’s statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
‘The thing that gives grades that don’t ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!’ But you’re utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don’t get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn’t even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.
I’m sorry… what? It’s the left’s fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
Apart from anything else, isn’t that suggesting that men getting more masters degrees than women is some sort of natural state? I’d like evidence for that one.
I didn’t say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn’t even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don’t think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don’t feel welcomed by the left.
What? What are “gender bonus points?” What masters degree program is even based on points?
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn’t to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn’t be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies. (edit: especially in light of the recent graduate data)
So you’re saying addressing historical imbalances is a bad thing? Keep the white guys on top where they belong?
Wow that’s not what I wrote - I can see now you’re just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don’t see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren’t interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It’s not a difficult concept - I don’t see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you’d be speculating on alternative explanations.
https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/hoyere-utdanning/statistikk/studiepoeng-og-fullfort-universitets-og-hogskoleutdanning
I don’t speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it’s interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
deleted by creator
Supposedly they did. In Norwegian. And then berated me for not accepting their evidence after I told them I don’t understand Norwegian. Of course, for all I know, it could be toaster sale statistics.
Why do people get hung up on academia when it’s statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
‘The thing that gives grades that don’t ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!’ But you’re utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don’t get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn’t even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.