Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (36581)	9/13/2000 7:17:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

1) I provided anectdotal information and I already told you that I don't find this type of evidence to be reliable enough to generalize across the population. 2) I didn't say it proves anything. I simply encouraged you to look again as my observations should cause reason to doubt the validity of your conclusions. 3) The data you provided on U of K and Northwestern is evidence that it aint that simple. 4) Completion of college programs says nothing about intelligence. If it did then the 1940s and 50s would be evidence that the women of your mother's/grandmother's generation were really dumb. tsk tsk ..it proves.. nothing 5) Recent data shows a lot of 30 something adults with masters degrees and above have moved back in with their parents because they are too stupid to find a way to apply the skills/knowledge they acquired at Ms U.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (36581)	9/13/2000 7:18:39 PM
From: phyxter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Hail to Purple! Hail to White! I've read in a number of places that, indeed, more women than men attend college. Moreover, that the trend is that soon (if not already - wish I could find that article...) more women than men will populate graduate programs. On the flip side, engineering, and, especially, physics programs are very male dominated. <<But if I am right, it proves that women are smarter than men>> Uh, no, it doesn't. Don't need that statistic to prove it.