3 ms·

> It occurs to me that they’re the same problem, since a woman who goes into engineering probably doesn’t end up going into public administration. So you only n

> It occurs to me that they’re the same problem, since a woman who goes into engineering probably doesn’t end up going into public administration. So you only need fix one of them, and the other follows. That's assuming a fixed pie. If you push more women into the PhD level (or discourage men), then you could perhaps fix the engineering disparity while keeping the others. An overall disparity that favors women will probably not be perceived as much of a problem. > And it’s no particular surprise that people find engineering more interesting to talk about. Why? Engineering is in fact often incredibly boring to most people, and I would be very surprised if people spend more time talking about it than public policy.

woodruffw 5y ago
> That's assuming a fixed pie. If you push more women into the PhD level (or discourage men), then you could fix the engineering disparity while keeping the others. Sure. But the broader professional job market is approximately zero-sum: most people above the working class have exactly one job, so addressing a gender disparity in one segment should functionally address disparities in other segments, no? > Why? Engineering is in fact often incredibly boring to most people, and I would be very surprised if people spend more time talking about it than public policy. Sorry, this was unclear: I meant that the public talks more about getting people into engineering fields than into public administration, since the former is seen as a reliable path to the middle class. Engineering itself is boring; the public policy around the engineering workforce is of exceptional interest to a lot of people.