4 ms·
That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re
by Godel_unicode 4y ago
That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”.
You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college.
Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.
- Calavar 4y agoSorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1]. > You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming. [1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-earned-women-selected-fields-classes-1981-through-2016 https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...
- Godel_unicode 4y ago> I didn't really change much of substance That’s an interesting perspective.