STEM

denhaagenite

mariaalice wrote: »

It is fashion though, chefs are highly employable in fact most of them could have the choice of two or three jobs plus its well paid once you have experience, yet you don't see the same emphasise on training more chefs in the way that IT is lauded, revered and pushed as a career choice.

Don't agree with this. Chefs and others working in the hospitality sector here can and do get paid training through Fáilte Ireland, this isn't available to those wishing to study STEM. I also struggle to understand what this has to do with the importance of STEM.

mariaalice

denhaagenite wrote: »

Don't agree with this. Chefs and others working in the hospitality sector here can and do get paid training through Fáilte Ireland, this isn't available to those wishing to study STEM. I also struggle to understand what this has to do with the importance of STEM.

Because there has to be a balance in everything even if give excellent teaching and good subject choice there are still going to be student who's talent are not in STEM subject.

denhaagenite

mariaalice wrote: »

Because there has to be a balance in everything even if give excellent teaching and good subject choice there are still going to be student who's talent are not in STEM subject.

And? That's why I'm not studying to be a brain surgeon, a chef, a history teacher. Not everyone has to go the direction of STEM, but those with the ability, aptitude and desire should be given the chance and currently they're not. The reason it's important in Ireland is because there are a lot of opportunities in the field. As with the hospitality sector, which is actually encouraging takeup of courses by offering it as a paid education.

kneemos

denhaagenite wrote: »

Don't agree with this. Chefs and others working in the hospitality sector here can and do get paid training through Fáilte Ireland, this isn't available to those wishing to study STEM. I also struggle to understand what this has to do with the importance of STEM.

No more or less important than any other area of education.
If we have a nation of techies they'll all be on minimum wage.

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

You are probably right, but at present isnt this all tied into a point system with the LC also?

Yep, I referenced it in my post. The points system is woeful at allocating college places.

Industries change too. In 15 years we don't know what the market will demand? We don't know that all the techie jobs wont be outsourced to India...

We just don't know.

Lots of professions will be outsourced to developing economies in the future. IMO, it's a fact of globalisation that, ultimately, we in the west will need to adjust to less affluent lifestyles as the third world develops and claims their share of the worlds resources.

Sure, industries change, but not at the pace that you might imagine. While the face of IT has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, the skills required to work in it haven't. It's still, at it's core, about understanding logic and problem-solving. Skills which are useful in the vast majority of workplaces.

IF the issue is one of "public money," maybe a better idea is to privatise third level...

Most 3rd level institutions are already private are they not? I'm all for state funding of education. It's the one true "silver bullet" solution in the world imo. In a world of finite resources, however, we need to be careful about how many of our students we're educating in subjects that have a poor payback level to the society funding that education. Education for the sake of education is a great thing but we can't all pursue our hearts desire (personally speaking, I can't imagine I'd be paying anything like the income tax I currently do had I pursued my interest in etymology rather than one in Business/IT, in fact, it's likely I'd be a drain on, rather than a contributor to, the exchequer).

Or get back to a place where the BA is no longer a universal default setting and we see things like more specific trade schools?

There's definitely something to this, the German apprenticeship model certainly seems to have lessons worth learning and adapting to Irelands needs.

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Yep, I referenced it in my post. The points system is woeful at allocating college places.


Lots of professions will be outsourced to developing economies in the future. IMO, it's a fact of globalisation that, ultimately, we in the west will need to adjust to less affluent lifestyles as the third world develops and claims their share of the worlds resources.

Sure, industries change, but not at the pace that you might imagine. While the face of IT has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, the skills required to work in it haven't. It's still, at it's core, about understanding logic and problem-solving. Skills which are useful in the vast majority of workplaces.


Most 3rd level institutions are already private are they not? I'm all for state funding of education. It's the one true "silver bullet" solution in the world imo. In a world of finite resources, however, we need to be careful about how many of our students we're educating in subjects that have a poor payback level to the society funding that education. Education for the sake of education is a great thing but we can't all pursue our hearts desire (personally speaking, I can't imagine I'd be paying anything like the income tax I currently do had I pursued my interest in etymology rather than one in Business/IT, in fact, it's likely I'd be a drain on, rather than a contributor to, the exchequer).


There's definitely something to this, the German apprenticeship model certainly seems to have lessons worth learning and adapting to Irelands needs.

Well I can tell you, if I had chosen IT I'd never get a job, and if I did get one, I'd be fired and end up a drain on the exchequer anyway, because I just don't think like a systemiser.

You may as well ask me to be a portrait artist. I'd never be able to do it.

People need to do what they CAN do.

Do you know why I have a smart phone? For music. Why people have kindle? For books- without these other flaky people producing things, much our technology would not be in demand, so when you think about it, the IT industry needs the flaky people.

Look around you, at your coffee cup, the clothes you are wearing, the phone you use, EVERYTHING is arts and science.

denhaagenite

kneemos wrote: »

No more or less important than any other area of education.
If we have a nation of techies they'll all be on minimum wage.

Firstly, it's not my intention that STEM education should be salaried. Secondly, STEM is not just Technology, it's Science, Engineering and Medicine aswell.

imitation

zeffabelli wrote: »

You are probably right, but at present isnt this all tied into a point system with the LC also?

Industries change too. In 15 years we don't know what the market will demand? We don't know that all the techie jobs wont be outsourced to India...

We just don't know.

IF the issue is one of "public money," maybe a better idea is to privatise third level...

Or get back to a place where the BA is no longer a universal default setting and we see things like more specific trade schools?

I dont think the outsourcing threat is ever goibg to badly effect IT, my experience is its grand for level 1 support, but the more complicated it gets the more hassle, expense and outright lies you get and that will always be the case if the company is in another country. Plus why do a course and spend 15 years hoping the job market turns in your favor, having the degree and 15 years of no experience isnt much use.

STEM does need more of a focus, as somebody who works in it I can say the primary and secondary systems are woeful, and 3rd level is often under resourced.

It was one having a high percent of degree holders having arts when it was uncommon to have a degree, now that they are common the ratio needs to be looked at, STEM qualified people are one of the reasons we have done so well with MNCs.

I do agree trades and craftsmen are vital too, I would be inclined

zeffabelli

imitation wrote: »

I dont think the outsourcing threat is ever goibg to badly effect IT, my experience is its grand for level 1 support, but the more complicated it gets the more hassle, expense and outright lies you get and that will always be the case if the company is in another country. Plus why do a course and spend 15 years hoping the job market turns in your favor, having the degree and 15 years of no experience isnt much use.

STEM does need more of a focus, as somebody who works in it I can say the primary and secondary systems are woeful, and 3rd level is often under resourced.

It was one having a high percent of degree holders having arts when it was uncommon to have a degree, now that they are common the ratio needs to be looked at, STEM qualified people are one of the reasons we have done so well with MNCs.

I do agree trades and craftsmen are vital too, I would be inclined

Honestly primary school is still analogue and about 40 years behind the times.

What do the educators expect.

denhaagenite

Sleepy wrote: »

Most 3rd level institutions are already private are they not? I'm all for state funding of education. It's the one true "silver bullet" solution in the world imo. In a world of finite resources, however, we need to be careful about how many of our students we're educating in subjects that have a poor payback level to the society funding that education. Education for the sake of education is a great thing but we can't all pursue our hearts desire (personally speaking, I can't imagine I'd be paying anything like the income tax I currently do had I pursued my interest in etymology rather than one in Business/IT, in fact, it's likely I'd be a drain on, rather than a contributor to, the exchequer).


There's definitely something to this, the German apprenticeship model certainly seems to have lessons worth learning and adapting to Irelands needs.

The lesson is we need to get to know our children better. If we do, then we will be able to teach them how to decide which direction they need to be looking in. We don't need to be teaching them what courses are the easiest, the best employment, the most lucrative.

KomradeBishop

The purpose of education isn't solely to produce workers, or to get a job in the end - education should be provided for those seeking a particular career (and it should be optimised to provide up to date education in that regard), but industry/job-based education should not be a priority that pushes out education in the arts and humanities.

A lot of industries cry out for better education for their specific industry, simply because it reduces the costs of them having to train workers - it acts as an indirect subsidy.
Adequate education should be provided for people wanting to enter certain industries, and while there is a lot of room for improvement here (I think people should begin learning coding as early as primary school, to be honest), it should not become a disproportionate focus of learning.

professore

smash wrote: »

Lets face it, computers have in some senses dumbed people down. A skill like this might be seen as redundant to most because a computer can just do it for you. Or your phone, or even your watch...

A computer can't look at a real world problem and devise an equation to solve it (not yet anyway).

zeffabelli

denhaagenite wrote: »

The lesson is we need to get to know our children better. If we do, then we will be able to teach them how to decide which direction they need to be looking in. We don't need to be teaching them what courses are the easiest, the best employment, the most lucrative.

Children are naturally curious, they want to learn, they want to share what they learned, and education has mastered the means to kill that instinct.

suicide_circus

We need more Gender Studies majors

denhaagenite

professore wrote: »

A computer can't look at a real world problem and devise an equation to solve it (not yet anyway).

Which is why outsourcing is only used to a certain point.

denhaagenite

zeffabelli wrote: »

Children are naturally curious, they want to learn, they want to share what they learned, and education has mastered the means to kill that instinct.

Ya I noticed a friend of mine had stuck up on Facebook that the solar eclipse wasn't mentioned in her kids primary school. I commented that it was a totally wasted opportunity seeing as the kids were in school at the time. Somebody countered that they don't have the resources in school. WTF? They don't have the resources to go out into the yard for an hour??

kneemos

denhaagenite wrote: »

Firstly, it's not my intention that STEM education should be salaried. Secondly, STEM is not just Technology, it's Science, Engineering and Medicine aswell.

Duh.

zeffabelli

denhaagenite wrote: »

Ya I noticed a friend of mine had stuck up on Facebook that the lunar eclipse wasn't mentioned in her kids primary school. I commented that it was a totally wasted opportunity seeing as the kids were in school at the time. Somebody countered that they don't have the resources in school. WTF? They don't have the resources to go out into the yard for an hour??

Too lazy to cut out a hole in a piece of cardboard. Union probably wont let them.

It wasn't mentioned in my child's class either.

I busted my but to try to get a science extra curricular brought in but not interested!!!!

Calina

denhaagenite wrote: »

It's just a real pity that there aren't other initiatives like Coder Dojo in other areas of STEM. There are literary, music, food etc etc festivals and things everywhere for children but you don't see that done with medicine and engineering.

Coderdojo was set up by a teenager at school as I recall. I don't think it would be hard for someone to set up a pupil focused science circle post school. My question is whether it would catch on in the same way. Given the success of the Young Scientists Exhibition, I don't see why not.

In general terms, I think there needs to be a wider look at the whole education system. Every so often, we get stuck on a detail, so at the moment it's STEM, previously it's foreign languages, other times it's computer programming (although there's a lot more to computer science than coding).

The problem, I think, is that we don't have a great attitude to education here. I had issues with LC subject selection for time table reasons but did get higher level chem and maths as desired and did get higher level French as desired. I wound up with two business subjects which I've never overtly needed but which have come in handy on occasion on a general scale.

I'm wary of pushes to value one set of subjects over another which seem to be driven by fashion, and I'm wary of a tendency in this country to assume you're naturally good at languages, or not naturally good at maths. The core support for both of them is being naturally good at working hard at whatever it is. So most computer scientists outside the anglo-saxon world seem to be remarkably good at learning languages, for example, and I know quite a few people with a background in modern languages who have been extremely strong technical programmers in low level languages.

I'm in favour of a general school leaving qualification - as in I tend to prefer the Irish Leaving Certificate to something like the A-Levels that they have in most of the UK. But I do think that we need, on occasion, to take a look at our education system and see if it's giving us the best that it could.

What does need to happen is that youngsters are not hamstrung by limitations in the school offerings. It should not be the case that kids don't do physics because "time table restrictions" or kids don't do German because "we can't get a German teacher". The net result is that for smaller schools, we need to look at upping teacher availability. We appear to have a lot of teachers, but we're not willing to employ them.

I also think that schools would be benefited by a lot more expupils coming into talk about opportunities and the practical reality of going down certain paths.

In the meantime, creating a nationally driven science club or language club...I think the scope is there. Unfortunately, it needs people, either students themselves, or volunteer teachers/parents, to step up to the mark. I'm not really sure how you would create an impetus to make it happen without stepping up to the mark yourself. I'd probably do it if I lived close to where I went to school myself as I'd have more connections into schools there to get it started. But right now...I don't have kids in school and I have no connection to the education system that would act as a hook.

sleepyheadh

suicide_circus wrote: »

We need more Gender Studies majors

Freedom!

denhaagenite

Calina wrote: »

Coderdojo was set up by a teenager at school as I recall. I don't think it would be hard for someone to set up a pupil focused science circle post school. My question is whether it would catch on in the same way. Given the success of the Young Scientists Exhibition, I don't see why not.

Agreed, I could never understand even as a teenager how there were 12 - 15 year olds involved in it because my Science education up to that point would in no way have allowed me to enter, although there were girls from my school entering (albeit children of 3rd level Science lecturers, go figure).

I don't remember there being much of a focus on languages either though, I thought I was terrible at them and after a couple of years in NL I was basically fluent in Dutch. After this I spent about a year in classes to improve my grammar. The teaching method of languages in Ireland is just diabolical. In addition, we were only offered French and German, to a lesser extent Spanish. I really think languages should be just a given, with school leavers having fluency in at least one foreign language- to an international standard, not the one currently tested for in the Leaving Certificate. It's really holding people from English speaking countries up. In Ireland we think our English sets us apart from other countries but other countries only look for a basic working knowledge in it, not PhD proficiency.

To be honest I think the one thing that assisted my education, both as a child and now, were the extra curricular music lessons I had. I played 2 instruments, was involved in 2 orchestras, 1 traditional music group and had weekly music theory lessons. This was at the expense of my parents and was not offered at all in either my primary or secondary schools. Both huge schools in Cork City. I see it as brain training and don't think my academic abilities would be quite the same had I not had this. In my experience the newer community schools and Gaelscoileanna were much more likely to offer this and the convent and boys schools didn't.

zuutroy

All the preaching the government does about the 'knowledge economy' and how important science is is just waffle.
I got my PhD just about 10 years ago and stayed in academia and still haven't got any security. I'm now (for the last 3 years) lecturing on single semester contracts, kicked out the door unpaid as soon as I finish the exams for the summer. Of course that's no excuse when someone's reading your CV down the line and wonders why there's a gap in your research output, so the past 2 summers I've worked for free. Thankfully I have a research grant to cover me this year.
I don't know how in the long term they expect interest in the sciences to rise when those doing the teaching are treated like commodities.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

zuutroy wrote: »

All the preaching the government does about the 'knowledge economy' and how important science is is just waffle.
I got my PhD just about 10 years ago and stayed in academia and still haven't got any security. I'm now (for the last 3 years) lecturing on single semester contracts, kicked out the door unpaid as soon as I finish the exams for the summer. Of course that's no excuse when someone's reading your CV down the line and wonders why there's a gap in your research output, so the past 2 summers I've worked for free. Thankfully I have a research grant to cover me this year.
I don't know how in the long term they expect interest in the sciences to rise when those doing the teaching are treated like commodities.

This is the real face of research in Irish universities. No money, no job security and no hope of any sort of permanent position until you are at least 10-15 years out of PhD. Even then the money is terrible. 18 years of training and research before you start to earn the average wage (40k). Its unbelievable.

InitiumNovum

People with STEM degrees do make better money in general than those in the Arts & Humanities, but that's really because of market demand rather than anything else. But one thing I don't understand is the government's obsession with trying to get more students to study basic science degrees. Ireland's 'knowledge economy' mainly benefits those with engineering or CS degrees, and that makes sense because the market isn't concerned that much with science in and of itself, rather it's interested in the application of science, and engineering is the application of science. Engineering used to have higher CAO points compared science in the past, but this has almost flipped. The reality is, if you want to work in science and make a similar amount of money as someone with an engineering degree, then you'd need to have a Ph.D. or a post doc. This is why you often find science graduates branching out into areas that often are not directly related to their degree.

MRnotlob606

We should teach kids things like critical thinking.

mariaalice

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

We should teach kids things like critical thinking.

How do you teach critical thinking?

Dr Strange

mariaalice wrote: »

How do you teach critical thinking?

"Doctor, doctor, will he be OK? - Not sure, Ma'am, his.....thinking.....has gone critical!"

zeffabelli

denhaagenite wrote: »

Agreed, I could never understand even as a teenager how there were 12 - 15 year olds involved in it because my Science education up to that point would in no way have allowed me to enter, although there were girls from my school entering (albeit children of 3rd level Science lecturers, go figure).

I don't remember there being much of a focus on languages either though, I thought I was terrible at them and after a couple of years in NL I was basically fluent in Dutch. After this I spent about a year in classes to improve my grammar. The teaching method of languages in Ireland is just diabolical. In addition, we were only offered French and German, to a lesser extent Spanish. I really think languages should be just a given, with school leavers having fluency in at least one foreign language- to an international standard, not the one currently tested for in the Leaving Certificate. It's really holding people from English speaking countries up. In Ireland we think our English sets us apart from other countries but other countries only look for a basic working knowledge in it, not PhD proficiency.

To be honest I think the one thing that assisted my education, both as a child and now, were the extra curricular music lessons I had. I played 2 instruments, was involved in 2 orchestras, 1 traditional music group and had weekly music theory lessons. This was at the expense of my parents and was not offered at all in either my primary or secondary schools. Both huge schools in Cork City. I see it as brain training and don't think my academic abilities would be quite the same had I not had this. In my experience the newer community schools and Gaelscoileanna were much more likely to offer this and the convent and boys schools didn't.

Ir bewilders me why music isn't considered as essential as Math and English. It is so fundamental and so good for us!

denhaagenite

mariaalice wrote: »

How do you teach critical thinking?

Looking at both sides of an argument, testing, analysing and highlighting flaws in methodologies. Getting them to learn how and why instead of just learning by heart.

sleepyheadh

At what level do you suggest bringing this in?

2011

UCDVet

Maybe it's just me, but I think STEM is over-rated.

2011

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but I think STEM is over-rated.

In terms of what?
Demand for these roles, job satisfaction, salary, variety, challenges, promotional opportunities?
I am an engineer, it ticks all of those boxes for me.

Dozer Dave

2011 wrote: »

I am an engineer, it ticks all of those boxes for me.

Your special :pac:

UCDVet

2011 wrote: »

In terms of what?
Demand for these roles, job satisfaction, salary, variety, challenges, promotional opportunities?
I am an engineer, it ticks all of those boxes for me.

I feel like our culture/society has been treating STEM education/jobs as the ticket to a great life - to a degree that is disproportionate to how good those jobs are.

I'm not saying going into STEM field is a bad choice (I'm a software engineer), but I am saying it's not for everyone. And it's not inherently better than non-STEM jobs.

I'm having trouble finding any statistics that are Ireland specific, but I think the climate is similar to the US.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html

74 percent of those who have a bachelor's degree in science, technology, engineering and math — commonly referred to as STEM — are not employed in STEM occupations

I also feel that comparisons people frequently make with STEM verse nonSTEM are unfair and misleading. For example, I frequently hear that STEM workers earn more than nonSTEM workers; but rarely do I see a study that takes into account related factors like education. If the median education level for STEM workers is higher than nonSTEM workers, and there is a strong link between educational level and income, it might be unfair to say that getting a degree in STEM is more likely to lead to a higher income compared to a nonSTEM degree.

The other thing is that many STEM programs are fairly difficult to complete. It's entirely possible that there are other attributes that STEM graduates tend to have that end up making them more likely to get a good job - regardless of what they studied at all. Let's face it, some people are just not motivated, they don't care about school and they don't care about work. They're not likely to be high earners with good jobs - this group gets lumped into nonSTEM.

I know personally/anecdotally - nearly half of the students that started on a Computer Science degree, at my university, failed out. Almost all of them went into a nonSTEM field. And the 74% of STEM graduates who end up in a nonSTEM field - I'm willing to bet money that most of them were not the top performers. They're the ones who struggled to get a job, and settled for something else.

It's like saying the 'Top 50% of earners make more than the non Top 50%' - only less extreme. Or comparing the average salary of 'Management' to 'Non-Management'. We'll of course, management workers as a whole are going to make more than non-management because, for the most part, the most successful non-management workers get moved into management (at least, in theory, but it's true for the general case)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that STEM is just *correlated* with some good things, but I'm not sure it *causes* them. Most of the STEM workers I know are pretty smart and reasonably dedicated/motivated. Most of the nonSTEM workers I know who are pretty smart and reasonably dedicated/motivated are still doing much better than the median nonSTEM worker.

Sleepy

I'd wager that a lot of the STEM graduates who ended up working in non-STEM roles are in management tbh. Most of the board of directors in my company are engineers by training but have been working in business roles for over a decade at this stage and it's something I see a lot.

My own undergrad was in Commerce but I'm still well able to recognise that those who earned an Engineering degree had a much better education than I did.

2011

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not saying going into STEM field is a bad choice (I'm a software engineer), but I am saying it's not for everyone. And it's not inherently better than non-STEM jobs.

Definitely not for everyone, agreed.

The bottom line for an anorak like me a STEM job is inherently better.
Why? Becasue I actually enjoy the challenge of much of the work I do.
That is more important to me that a larger salary.

I'm having trouble finding any statistics that are Ireland specific, but I think the climate is similar to the US.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html

I would not disagree with the report on the link either.

Typically STEM graduates are strong on maths and are good problem solvers. So it would not surprise me if some find employment and preform well in nonSTEM roles.

If the median education level for STEM workers is higher than nonSTEM workers, and there is a strong link between educational level and income, it might be unfair to say that getting a degree in STEM is more likely to lead to a higher income compared to a nonSTEM degree.

That depends very much on the degree. There are a number of nonSTEM degrees are highly unlikely to lead to a descent career IMHO.

And the 74% of STEM graduates who end up in a nonSTEM field - I'm willing to bet money that most of them were not the top performers. They're the ones who struggled to get a job, and settled for something else.

Or maybe they finished their STEM degree and realised that it was not for them?
I would think that of the 74% many of them would have done a postgrad to align with their nonSTEM role and/or would be working in a management role.

AndonHandon

Nerds and geeks are walking around thinking they are cool, they need to be taken down a peg or two.

Stheno

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but I think STEM is over-rated.

UCDVet wrote: »

I feel like our culture/society has been treating STEM education/jobs as the ticket to a great life - to a degree that is disproportionate to how good those jobs are.

I'm not saying going into STEM field is a bad choice (I'm a software engineer), but I am saying it's not for everyone. And it's not inherently better than non-STEM jobs.

I'm having trouble finding any statistics that are Ireland specific, but I think the climate is similar to the US.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html


I also feel that comparisons people frequently make with STEM verse nonSTEM are unfair and misleading. For example, I frequently hear that STEM workers earn more than nonSTEM workers; but rarely do I see a study that takes into account related factors like education. If the median education level for STEM workers is higher than nonSTEM workers, and there is a strong link between educational level and income, it might be unfair to say that getting a degree in STEM is more likely to lead to a higher income compared to a nonSTEM degree.

The other thing is that many STEM programs are fairly difficult to complete. It's entirely possible that there are other attributes that STEM graduates tend to have that end up making them more likely to get a good job - regardless of what they studied at all. Let's face it, some people are just not motivated, they don't care about school and they don't care about work. They're not likely to be high earners with good jobs - this group gets lumped into nonSTEM.

I know personally/anecdotally - nearly half of the students that started on a Computer Science degree, at my university, failed out. Almost all of them went into a nonSTEM field. And the 74% of STEM graduates who end up in a nonSTEM field - I'm willing to bet money that most of them were not the top performers. They're the ones who struggled to get a job, and settled for something else.

It's like saying the 'Top 50% of earners make more than the non Top 50%' - only less extreme. Or comparing the average salary of 'Management' to 'Non-Management'. We'll of course, management workers as a whole are going to make more than non-management because, for the most part, the most successful non-management workers get moved into management (at least, in theory, but it's true for the general case)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that STEM is just *correlated* with some good things, but I'm not sure it *causes* them. Most of the STEM workers I know are pretty smart and reasonably dedicated/motivated. Most of the nonSTEM workers I know who are pretty smart and reasonably dedicated/motivated are still doing much better than the median nonSTEM worker.

STEM is a massive focus due to the likes of Watson from IBM and it's ability to replace people, Gartner predict that self aware tech will take away a lot from the need for people by 2020, I suspect it will be longer

AndonHandon wrote: »

Nerds and geeks are walking around thinking they are cool, they need to be taken down a peg or two.

I'd be considered an uber nerd in the area I work in, I spend loads of time thinking how what I do and how I work can benefit people so why would you say that?

And btw I'm female, I've been the only SME in orgs who was and it never made a difference that I was

jimgoose

zeffabelli wrote: »

Back in the dinosaur ages, we had to learn computer languages like basic.

NO ONE has done anything with it since!! There isn't one programmer in my entire alumni base.

I started with Sinclair BASIC when I was thirteen years old. That was 1985.

Tarzana2

The Rodgers wrote: »

The coding thing has jumped the shark imo, see it everywhere, bank ads, people I know who have never had an interest in tech starting degrees to learn code.

We can't all be codin' lads.

And loads of job specs looking for it as a desirable skill, even in non-tech roles. What up?

jimgoose

Stheno wrote: »

STEM is a massive focus due to the likes of Watson from IBM and it's ability to replace people, Gartner predict that self aware tech will take away a lot from the need for people by 2020, I suspect it will be longer



I'd be considered an uber nerd in the area I work in, I spend loads of time thinking how what I do and how I work can benefit people so why would you say that?

And btw I'm female, I've been the only SME in orgs who was and it never made a difference that I was

Watson will never replace people. I'm one of his psychiatrists.

jimgoose

Tarzana2 wrote: »

And loads of job specs looking for it as a desirable skill, even in non-tech roles. What up?

The usual. Gobsh1te recruiters rugby-tackling the latest buzzword.

Stheno

Tarzana2 wrote: »

And loads of job specs looking for it as a desirable skill, even in non-tech roles. What up?

That's usually BA/Quant roles IME

I'm wondrering though if requesting a women in IT forum as a subforum of the ladies lounge is worthwhile?

I work in IT and am a minority, I'd be considerd fairly senior and use groups like girl groups to chill out?

jimgoose

Stheno wrote: »

That's usually BA...

I ain't goin' on no plane, Hannibal!!

Nucular Arms

zeffabelli wrote: »

Someone who is not a systemiser is going to suck at most levels of IT.

Most left brain products will be outsourced to Bangladesh.

What you are trying to create here is an aspergers nation. (Silicon valley.)

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well I can tell you, if I had chosen IT I'd never get a job, and if I did get one, I'd be fired and end up a drain on the exchequer anyway, because I just don't think like a systemiser.

People need to do what they CAN do.

I'm sorry but the whole whole empathiser-systemiser theory is based on shaky science at best. As is the 'left brain right brain hypothesis' which has been widely debunked.

Baron cohen seems a good enough sort but his work seems more geared toward grabbing headlines than acknowledging the vast body of evidence supporting neuroplasticity as the primary mechanic of cognitive development.

People can pretty much learn any skill given enough time and energy devoted to doing so. That's one of the most empowering abilities we have as a species, and deserves more recognition from the general population. This whole "I'm just not a maths person" or "I just don't have any musical ability" attitude is just patently wrong for most people (who might consider themselves as such). The truth is that your brain will dynamically rewire itself to promote synaptic pathways that are more utilised than others, while simultaneously allowing less utilised neural pathways to atrophy. We can, and do, adapt constantly to new information and new stimulus in our environment. If you do more maths or keep practising your musical instrument / portrait drawing or whatever... you will get better at it. Your brain will change to accomodate the activity.

Sure it's easy to infer that people often have preferences for one thing, subject, activity or another, but that doesn't mean that they can't do those things that they don't prefer. That they won't do those things is a far better observation.

Sorry to single you out but i'm just sick of hearing people going on about these outdated / unsubstantiated theories as if they are fact when they just aren't.

I do admire your ideal of promoting science (and education in general) as being best served by catering to the inherent curiosity and wonder in the young though so kudos for that!

zeffabelli

Nucular Arms wrote: »

I'm sorry but the whole whole empathiser-systemiser theory is based on shaky science at best. As is the 'left brain right brain hypothesis' which has been widely debunked.

Baron cohen seems a good enough sort but his work seems more geared toward grabbing headlines than acknowledging the vast body of evidence supporting neuroplasticity as the primary mechanic of cognitive development.

People can pretty much learn any skill given enough time and energy devoted to doing so. That's one of the most empowering abilities we have as a species, and deserves more recognition from the general population. This whole "I'm just not a maths person" or "I just don't have any musical ability" attitude is just patently wrong for most people (who might consider themselves as such). The truth is that your brain will dynamically rewire itself to promote synaptic pathways that are more utilised than others, while simultaneously allowing less utilised neural pathways to atrophy. We can, and do, adapt constantly to new information and new stimulus in our environment. If you do more maths or keep practising your musical instrument / portrait drawing or whatever... you will get better at it. Your brain will change to accomodate the activity.

Sure it's easy to infer that people often have preferences for one thing, subject, activity or another, but that doesn't mean that they can't do those things that they don't prefer. That they won't do those things is a far better observation.

Sorry to single you out but i'm just sick of hearing people going on about these outdated / unsubstantiated theories as if they are fact when they just aren't.

I do admire your ideal of promoting science (and education in general) as being best served by catering to the inherent curiosity and wonder in the young though so kudos for that!

I get what you are saying, and I know Baron-Cohen's theories on empathy are widely debated-I'm not a disciple of them myself and the wholly current accepted wisdom on empathy hold significant doubts for me, and I am aware of neuroplasticity and the science around it {I am not a scientist though] even though many so called scientists{by this I refer to psychiatrists} are happy to ignore it.

Leaving empathy aside for a moment because that isn't really what I am talking about....

What I am not aware of is that left/right brain divides were entirely debunked. Do you have any reading on this? I came across an article not too long ago talking about this, but it seems that article was misleading and did not carry too much weight.

You might get 'better" at a specific skill, but you still might not get good enough at them to hold down a job doing it.

No amount of practise is going to make me good enough at Calculus for example to be hirable. No amount of pracitise at this stage in my life, will make me a good enough cellist to get hired, though I could probably whip off twinkle twinkle.

NI24

I have to say, this a great thread and I'm learning a lot. And while I don't think being pushed to do pursue a career you're generally not interested in is a good idea, the fact remains that a lot of Western nations lack highly trained and/or educated individuals in sciences and maths, particularly applied. I remember having a conversation with my Calculus teacher in high school about this very subject. My school had German exchange students every year since he taught there(he worked there over 20 years) and he said that the German students' math and science skills got worse every year. The last year I attended was the worst, he said (almost equal to the American students).

I also have to concur with ScienceNerd when he/she says that Maths, Physics, and Engineering courses are almost always dominated by men-- unlike, say, biology or medicine. The fact is, men generally outperform women in these areas, which also might explain why so many all-girl schools don't supply courses in said subjects.

Adamantium

We shouldn't have to push anything to do anything, if it's so great then we 'll have more than enough people, if someone enjoys working in the hospitality/travel sector and the results are apparent and real to them, then great.

Maybe people don't want to do STEM work because they're smarter than we give them credit for. Common sense for their own self preservation dictates their actions not the propaganda that society spews (I say this as one who fell into it in 2008).

jimgoose

Adamantium wrote: »

We shouldn't have to push anything to do anything, if it's so great then we 'll have more than enough people, if someone enjoys working in the hospitality/travel sector and the results are apparent and real to them, then great.

Maybe people don't want to do STEM work because they're smarter than we give them credit for. Common sense for their own self preservation dictates their actions not the propaganda that society spews (I say this as one who fell into it in 2008).

I couldn't agree more. We certainly need to get a little more interested in the "hard" disciplines, before the Asian Kid hands us our collective ass - some would say he/she's already doing just that - but it's no use beating people into it either. Anyone can do it, but it is colossally more difficult to apply yourself to something if you're not interested in it naturally. I certainly find that as I get older I have no patience with stuff I don't ruddy-well like! :pac: