12 ms·

It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had

It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no options boosted our educational system to great heights for little cost. Once they had choices, many women spread out into other better paying fields. It's not surprising that a business could succeed by following the same blueprint.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  The United States is about 5% of the World's population, and produces about 25% of the World's economic output. This has been true for about the last 60 years. The USA and Western Europe have had the most expensive labor, focusing on high-quality products and services that require more education, but justify the higher labor cost.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - thelabyrinth 16y ago
    I'd say that the educational system is uneven: elementary and high schools are just "good enough" to not completely screw the country. The university system, though, is really good: http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp . Think "good enough."
- jtbigwoo 16y ago
  I think it's generally agreed that the U.S. was the world's foremost economy and the home of many of the major innovations of the 20th century. I'm contending that our public education system was a major enabler of that creativity and productivity.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    But many of the major and minor innovations were developed by people who didn't attend our public education system. This remains true even today.
    - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
      Simply because not everyone who innovated went to college doesn't negate the value of our public education system. Nearly everyone in the United States after World War Two went to public school for some time.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I wasn't saying college negated the value of public education at all. I was pointing out that a huge number of the people who contributed to US prosperity did not attend US public schools. Einstein didn't attend the American public school system, nor did Dyson, or many of the other great scientists of the early 20'th century. In the present day, Sergei Brin only spent 4 years in US public schools. Elon Musk didn't, nor did Max Levchin (Thiel's wikipedia page is ambiguous). Zuckerberg didn't go to a public high school either (don't know what he did before that). You can't point to a country with massive contributions from immigrants, and then declare that services those immigrants didn't use (or used minimally) are the cause of prosperity. The logic just doesn't work.
        Retric 16y ago
        You also can't just look at the owners of major company's and think their background was the only thing that mattered. Drawing from a large, stable, educated workforce is a requirement for any large technology company to succeed. PS: China and India both have huge public education systems.
xentronium 16y ago
Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching. All the best chefs are men, best professors I know are men too. And military requires more endurance that women normally have.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I know of many female chefs of great repute and talent - and I know some very good female professors. I don't see the link between "most good chefs are men" and "women should not be chefs". It's a bit like "no Black people ride at the front of the bus" and "Black people should not ride at the front of the bus" - you've conveniently assumed a level playing field where there likely is none, and you've also erroneously linked the current state of things to the ideal state of things. As for the military - not being a military man I'm not sure I am qualified to comment... but are there not many more roles in the military that do not require the massive amounts of brawn that "only men" can provide?
- jtbigwoo 16y ago
  Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching. Lawrence Summers? Is that you?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Clearly not - Larry Summers never made any gender-based value judgements, nor did he even draw conclusions. He got into trouble for asking questions people didn't want the answer to.
    - pjscott 16y ago
      And yet, to this day, people remember what they thought he said, rather than what he actually said. Weird, isn't it?
- orangecat 16y ago
  I don't see how that follows. Most chess grandmasters are men; should women not play? If you accept the hypothesis that males have greater genetic variability than females, it shouldn't be surprising to see men overrepresented at the very top (and bottom) of just about everything. And military requires more endurance that women normally have. It also requires more endurance than most men have. But if an individual woman can legitimately meet that standard, why deny her the opportunity?
thelabyrinth 16y ago
If you haven't read SuperFreakonomics and you're interested in this comment, get a copy of the book: the first chapter is about how the "decline" of the education system is linked to rising professional opportunities for women. It used to be that highly competent women often became teachers because that was the only thing available to them. Now women can be professors, work in business, etc. Note: this is not an argument for restricting female choice or anything else. It's about diagnosing how one (good) thing can lead to unintended consequences.
- code_duck 16y ago
  What this really indicates is that teachers need to be paid more, and the working environment improved. Then the profession will become more attractive to talented who are currently choosing other careers.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?

CapitalistCartr 16y ago
The United States is about 5% of the World's population, and produces about 25% of the World's economic output. This has been true for about the last 60 years. The USA and Western Europe have had the most expensive labor, focusing on high-quality products and services that require more education, but justify the higher labor cost.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- thelabyrinth 16y ago
  I'd say that the educational system is uneven: elementary and high schools are just "good enough" to not completely screw the country. The university system, though, is really good: http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp . Think "good enough."
jtbigwoo 16y ago
I think it's generally agreed that the U.S. was the world's foremost economy and the home of many of the major innovations of the 20th century. I'm contending that our public education system was a major enabler of that creativity and productivity.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  But many of the major and minor innovations were developed by people who didn't attend our public education system. This remains true even today.
  - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
    Simply because not everyone who innovated went to college doesn't negate the value of our public education system. Nearly everyone in the United States after World War Two went to public school for some time.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I wasn't saying college negated the value of public education at all. I was pointing out that a huge number of the people who contributed to US prosperity did not attend US public schools. Einstein didn't attend the American public school system, nor did Dyson, or many of the other great scientists of the early 20'th century. In the present day, Sergei Brin only spent 4 years in US public schools. Elon Musk didn't, nor did Max Levchin (Thiel's wikipedia page is ambiguous). Zuckerberg didn't go to a public high school either (don't know what he did before that). You can't point to a country with massive contributions from immigrants, and then declare that services those immigrants didn't use (or used minimally) are the cause of prosperity. The logic just doesn't work.
      - Retric 16y ago
        You also can't just look at the owners of major company's and think their background was the only thing that mattered. Drawing from a large, stable, educated workforce is a requirement for any large technology company to succeed. PS: China and India both have huge public education systems.

xentronium 16y ago

Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching. All the best chefs are men, best professors I know are men too. And military requires more endurance that women normally have.

potatolicious 16y ago
I know of many female chefs of great repute and talent - and I know some very good female professors. I don't see the link between "most good chefs are men" and "women should not be chefs". It's a bit like "no Black people ride at the front of the bus" and "Black people should not ride at the front of the bus" - you've conveniently assumed a level playing field where there likely is none, and you've also erroneously linked the current state of things to the ideal state of things. As for the military - not being a military man I'm not sure I am qualified to comment... but are there not many more roles in the military that do not require the massive amounts of brawn that "only men" can provide?
jtbigwoo 16y ago
Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching. Lawrence Summers? Is that you?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Clearly not - Larry Summers never made any gender-based value judgements, nor did he even draw conclusions. He got into trouble for asking questions people didn't want the answer to.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    And yet, to this day, people remember what they thought he said, rather than what he actually said. Weird, isn't it?
orangecat 16y ago
I don't see how that follows. Most chess grandmasters are men; should women not play? If you accept the hypothesis that males have greater genetic variability than females, it shouldn't be surprising to see men overrepresented at the very top (and bottom) of just about everything. And military requires more endurance that women normally have. It also requires more endurance than most men have. But if an individual woman can legitimately meet that standard, why deny her the opportunity?

thelabyrinth 16y ago

If you haven't read SuperFreakonomics and you're interested in this comment, get a copy of the book: the first chapter is about how the "decline" of the education system is linked to rising professional opportunities for women. It used to be that highly competent women often became teachers because that was the only thing available to them. Now women can be professors, work in business, etc. Note: this is not an argument for restricting female choice or anything else. It's about diagnosing how one (good) thing can lead to unintended consequences.

code_duck 16y ago
What this really indicates is that teachers need to be paid more, and the working environment improved. Then the profession will become more attractive to talented who are currently choosing other careers.