Does Anyone Think That’s a Good Idea?

More evidence of The Decline on display.

Sometimes the paradoxes of PC are richly entertaining.

One of my favorite journalists, Katherine Timpf, has called my attention to a peer-reviewed paper recently published by Laura Parson “suggesting that we should make Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) courses more ‘inclusive’ of women by making the[m] ‘less competitive.’”

No, it’s not a good idea. In fact it’s stupid. Worse than simply stupid, it’s destructive to society in all its particulars. The injuries inflicted on the United States in the name of “diversity” and “inclusiveness” and all that rot have wrought deep harm, and will take decades of great effort to correct, if in fact it can be corrected.

Years from now, when we’re trying to explain to our children and grandchildren what this country used to be, remember to tell them that it was cultural suicide, deliberately done.

About vmijpp

VMIJPP hails from the star city of the south, Roanoke, Virginia. A 1989 graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, he is a retired artillery officer in the United States Marine Corps, with time in both the active and reserve sides. He served in Iraq in 2004, and in Afghanistan in 2009-2010. He joined the magnificent OPFOR.com as a guest blogger from the now defunct but never uninteresting Rule 308, where he denounced gun control and other aspects of tyranny, and proclaimed the greatness of the United States. When the sun set on OPFOR.com, he migrated here with Keydet1976 and the others.
This entry was posted in Idiocy. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Does Anyone Think That’s a Good Idea?

  1. slater says:

    I thought women were on the aggregate smarter at this stuff? Oh wait…

    Like

  2. burkemblog says:

    I think the various online commentators misstate Parson’s critique, which does not focus on course content or difficulty, but rather on the language used to present the course in the form of a syllabus. As someone who writes at least two syllabi a semester, and who’s been doing that for thirty years, I pay a lot of attention to language. If the point of a course is to educate, not just cull the herd, then the language used in the syllabus should be inclusive and not discourage anyone from taking or remaining in the class. Clearly, some folks will fall out regardless–they find the work is not for them, or some external factor takes them out (very common in community colleges). But the course–any course–should be designed around learning, and we rightly should look at things that get in the way of learning taking place.

    Syllabi should reflect the course objectives and the student learning outcomes, none of which include “make sure just half pass the class.” Most of the engineering professors i know are more concerned with being inclusive and expanding opportunities for students because we don’t have enough engineers.

    It’s interesting, too, that some of those making this critique are not STEM majors themselves, so far as I can tell. They may be making assumptions about such courses from a position of thinking that since STEM courses were too hard for them, they must be the herd-culling exercises they imagine them to be. It’s just one small step to the Talking Barbie of a few years ago that spoke “math is too hard!” I wonder what Timpf majored in at Hillsdale–oh, that most difficult of STEM fields, English. Magna cum laude, too.

    Like

  3. DaveO says:

    The argument isn’t over syllabi or student body attrition. The argument is about sowing division so that a social goal is achieved and a certain group reaps the power, money, and good feelings from folks who found STEM dumbed down. I propose a test: those in favor of the changes walk over a bridge built by these new students with the new standards. Over the Grand Canyon. Without a parachute, safety net, or safety line. In fact, folks in favor of this should be required to do just that. It’s just a stroll, right?

    Like

    • burkemblog says:

      Assuming they pass their PE exams, complete all the other design reviews and other process steps, get their work reviewed by the usual licensing agencies, get Park Service permission to build it, with the usual environmental, cultural, and other such reviews, and find a construction company that can actually build it, sure. My point is that no one course of study leads to much of anything on its own–it is just one small step in a very complex process with a lot of moving parts, whether it’s what I do, teach English, or what (civil) engineers do. Though I think no engineer in the world would consider building a bridge across the Grand Canyon–the Navajo bridge is the only one; it’s located at a low point on the Colorado where such a bridge can actually be built.

      You think there’s another agenda at work here, one that has nothing to do with engineering. I disagree.
      We are making far too much out of this one critique of a particular kind of education. FWIW, I know several women engineers, and i wouldn’t hesitate to walk over anything they’ve built.

      Like

      • keydet1976 says:

        I concur with Misto Burke; this is much ado about nothing. This appears in an academic journal which are notoriously not read and have little impact other than the few who venture to read what was written.
        What Misto Burke had to say about writing syllabus. Having taught both entry level and upper level history courses my for a survey course was very different than an upper level history course. I learned this from a mentor, who taught a course on Germany in the Age of Adolph Hitler. For upper division courses a little syllabus intimidation is not a bad thing. For a survey course, as Joe Friday use to say, “just the facts.”

        Like

  4. DaveO says:

    They will pass their exams — AFTER those exams have been politically vetted and the exams altered to favor the socially mandated outcome. Separate-but-equal meets the highway overpass.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s