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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (129670)	3/9/2001 1:12:33 PM
From: carl a. mehr	Respond to of 186894

OT Well said. I am on the Thomas and Ali team!...humble carl

To: Thomas M. who wrote (129670)	3/9/2001 1:36:03 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Thomas - well, I will, perhaps foolishly, add my 2 cents to this debate. I went to high school in the early 60s. Our school had 9 national merit semifinalists, 6 were girls. Four students had SAT math boards above 790, myself and 3 girls. So I would question the notion that girls have any predisposition away from math, based on personal experience. When I went to engineering school, less than 1/2 of a percent of students were women. In our graduating class of about 400, we had 9 women. 7 were in both of the engineering honor societies, and all 9 were in the top 10% of the class. Admittedly, in the society we had in the early 70s there was probably a pretty rigorous selection process - a woman who actually went to engineering school had probably self-selected based on strong skills and talent in math and science. Still, engineering school is pretty tough - 35% of freshmen dropped out and 30% of sophomores, so by junior year more than half of of the entering class had decided on some other course of study. 10 women entered my freshman class, 9 graduated. If things have really changed to the point where there is a significant proportion of women in engineering, that would probably be a victory for education programs which encourage women to consider a technical track.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (129670)	3/9/2001 2:51:40 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Thomas, <<<Of course, the biochemical differences that make women unique allow them to shine in many aspects life. But, today's materialistic society has deemphasized those aspects of life, and thus makes women feel inadequate.>>> sheesh. Rocket Science can be harmful to one's mental health. As one without a science background, may I ask which branches of science are you citing from and exactly what premises did you draw on to arrive at your conclusions. Do you believe there are teachers in the school systems that you have had experience with that would endorse your "engineering student" views on the place of women? What is really alarming is that they are giving out engineering degrees to people that can not clearly state premises that have some valid basis and then draw conclusions that can be expressed in a written language, preferably in English. Mary

To: Thomas M. who wrote (129670)	3/9/2001 2:55:58 PM
From: Souze	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

That is an invidious expression of bigotry. Bigots have always shown that their self-identified group is genetically superior to their target. Religious, cultural, racial, sexual or gender based, bigotry always couches its bigotry in that logic: we're inherently superior, they are inferior. I didn't mark this OT, since it seems about half the posts on this thread, prior to Intel's warning yesterday, are way off topic. I started reading this thread about a month ago to to pick up ideas about Intel, and found just about everything being discussed, from mores to politics. And the post to which I am responding is one that I am not letting go unchallenged: * OT * From first grade, I recall girls being much less likely to enjoy math than guys. When I went to college as an engineering student, I expected to see chicks galore (yes, I was naive -g-). But, the guy:girl ratio was 3:1, and the girls were generally really lame, academically speaking. Of the 10-15 powerhouse students in my class (out of 200), not one was female. It has been shown that males are genetically more disposed to genius, as well as retardation. It has also been shown that, as infants, females tend to study the facial expressions of those around them, while males tend to study their physical surroundings, especially moving parts such as doors. Of course, the biochemical differences that make women unique allow them to shine in many aspects of life. But, today's materialistic society has deemphasized those aspects of life, and thus makes women feel inadequate. Tom

To: Thomas M. who wrote (129670)	3/9/2001 3:36:41 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 186894

Of the 10-15 powerhouse students in my class (out of 200), not one was female. It has been shown that males are genetically more disposed to genius, as well as retardation. It has also been shown that, as infants, females tend to study the facial expressions of those around them, while males tend to study their physical surroundings, especially moving parts such as doors. Of course, the biochemical differences that make women unique allow them to shine in many aspects of life. But, today's materialistic society has deemphasized those aspects of life, and thus makes women feel inadequate. Tom, Those are some interesting observations; none of which I have heard previously. Do you have links to studies that support your statements? The reason I ask is because a professor at Berkeley reported sometime in the 90's that he had determined conclusively through study that blacks were intellectually inferior to caucasians. However, on closer analysis, it was determined that his research was flawed. I am curious to see if the same thing is happening here. ted