Women Only Professorships

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, Duh! Of course, my perception. Really reaching for the obvious here...

Yet it doesn't tally with mine.

Hilarious. That's an objection?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

Sigh. Ok. Prove to me that they have the worst social mobility of the developed world... and while you're at it, give me a specific definition of what social mobility means and entails. Also, perhaps also connect your explanation to my original post that you quoted? (explaining the relevance)

Have a Google, it's all there. I don't need to define Social Mobility, it has a well-defined meaning. Since you've been arguing about it for a few posts I thought you knew what it meant.

You're shifting topics. Social mobility instead of what I was posting about.

Do you actually not know what social mobility is? Because it's pretty much the measurable version of the American Dream coming true.

I guess our experiences differ. Sorry, I really can't be bothered to spell this out for you. My post was pretty direct in its meaning.

And mine's pretty direct too.


And... another point completely unrelated to my post. You have a certain habit of doing this, I see.

Look. I'll put it plain. Either deal with what I've written and discuss it, or don't. But don't expect me to jump around to deal with unrelated points.

I'm being perfectly plain. You have a perception, one you've provided nothing to back up except something-something-entitled-people-nowadays. On the radio this morning there was some lad mentioned who did the Young Scientists 10 or so years ago, billionaire now. There's the Strype lads (may be the same :P ), there's people making fortunes at a young age through hard work, same as there's always been.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet it doesn't tally with mine.

Well, there's a shocker. You do realise that most of us post on boards because people have different opinions?

And mine's pretty direct too.

Yup, and honestly, I have zero interest in discussing it. Why? Because I recognize that such a discussion would require pages upon pages of posts within a topic that is different... and we'd probably still disagree at the end.

mvl

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I never said it was. In fact, I explicitly said that it wasn't just a male thing. People tend to hire people who are like them. This means, though, that a lot of tech companies end up being heavily or exclusively male for this reason. And they can say 'women don't apply', sure, but an all-male workplace puts women off applying, and thus the cycle continues.

This is why there are initiatives to get more women into tech.

i do wonder what size of companies you're talking about: is it startups ? i would not be familiar with those, or none of the state employers - as i've only worked in private sector/multinationals.
so tech multinationals having 20+ percent female staff (with increase in senior mgt roles recent years too) would not be exclusive male. also, if recruitment process is driven by HR (which is non tech - so has a percentage of female too), then usually you would have a mixture of male/female staff in a recruitment panel. as a woman, my view is that the problem is with what you have "an all-male workplace puts women off applying". why should women be put off by anything ? i would not be looking for best friends in work, i would be looking for interesting work ...

nkl12xtw5goz70

Being a woman in a female-dominated workplace often isn't easy sailing either, it should be noted. By all accounts, bullying is rampant in the nursing profession, for instance. Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute finds that 58 percent of workplace bullies are women, and that female bullies almost always target other women. I've know women to say openly that they'd much prefer to work in a male-dominated environment than a female-dominated one.

Leroy Huge Technologist

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Being a woman in a female-dominated workplace often isn't easy sailing either, it should be noted. By all accounts, bullying is rampant in the nursing profession, for instance. Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute finds that 58 percent of workplace bullies are women, and that female bullies almost always target other women. I've know women to say openly that they'd much prefer to work in a male-dominated environment than a female-dominated one.

It's odd but I've never experienced any degree of bullying in the workplace. Some minor emotional/gossip harassment from females, but the majority of staff in each company was female so that kinda makes sense. Still, I can't honestly see why in a professional working environment why anyone would tolerate such behavior from other people. Even before the surge in power for HR, most companies had internal rules and methods of dealing with harassment on the hush hush.

Nah. TBH, I don't really see why a woman would be afraid of working in a company where the majority are males. Most stories I've heard from friends in such situations usually tell of having many big brothers, rather than anything even remotely nasty or sexual. Some minor advances but easily put down.

mvl

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I don't really see why a woman would be afraid of working in a company where the majority are males.

This reminded me of something (and wonder if its one of the root causes for such attitude in general): I've been to a girls only secondary school open day just few months ago, and one of the messages from staff was that girls perform better in single sex environments, something about how in mixed environments girls would be less confident. There seems to be some research about this - e.g. https://www.agsa.org.au/news/new-research-proves-girls-schools-give-girls-confidence/
-> so, can there be educators that pass this type of "knowledge" to female students, causing them later to be put off, or afraid ... ?
And in general, since I am from eastern europe myself - I am baffled by some of the perceived imbalances here (so different than in environment I grew up, as for my socio economic background, male/female are working side by side); this is the second thread in the last month with similar subject discussed, and on each of them there were some examples that sounded surreal ...
PS: my minion later decided to go co-ed anyway - boys don't intimidate her at all

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Being a woman in a female-dominated workplace often isn't easy sailing either, it should be noted. By all accounts, bullying is rampant in the nursing profession, for instance. Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute finds that 58 percent of workplace bullies are women, and that female bullies almost always target other women. I've know women to say openly that they'd much prefer to work in a male-dominated environment than a female-dominated one.

58% isn’t a huge majority and wouldn’t make me wish to work on a male-dominated team more. That stat tells me that bullying isn’t much more likely to come at the hands of a woman. A bit more likely but nothing drastic.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

It's odd but I've never experienced any degree of bullying in the workplace. Some minor emotional/gossip harassment from females, but the majority of staff in each company was female so that kinda makes sense.

Well, male and female bullies differ in that the former are fairly indiscriminate in who they target, while the latter almost exclusively go after other women. Because of this, a man in a female-dominated workplace may have a relatively easy time of it, but female-on-female bullying can still be a huge issue, especially where so-called "Queen Bee" bullies rule the roost.

The Atlantic published a feature article on it in 2017 called "Why Do Women Bully Each Other at Work?" It makes for interesting reading. There may even be an evolutionary aspect to it:

Joyce Benenson, a psychologist at Emmanuel College, in Boston, thinks women are evolutionarily predestined not to collaborate with women they are not related to. Her research suggests that women and girls are less willing than men and boys to cooperate with lower-status individuals of the same gender; more likely to dissolve same-gender friendships; and more willing to socially exclude one another. She points to a similar pattern in apes. Male chimpanzees groom one another more than females do, and frequently work together to hunt or patrol borders. Female chimps are much less likely to form coalitions, and have even been spotted forcing themselves between a female rival and her mate in the throes of copulation.

Benenson believes that women undermine one another because they have always had to compete for mates and for resources for their offspring. Helping another woman might give that woman an edge in the hot-Neanderthal dating market, or might give her children an advantage over your own, so you frostily snub her. Women “can gather around smiling and laughing, exchanging polite, intimate, and even warm conversation, while simultaneously destroying one another’s careers,” Benenson told me. “The contrast is jarring.”

Kidchameleon

Another reason for female's attacking other females is the fact that bullies will go for those who are less likley to fight back. Women tend to be physically weaker than men (in general) so are perceived to be less of a threat

paleoperson

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Well, male and female bullies differ in that the former are fairly indiscriminate in who they target, while the latter almost exclusively go after other women. Because of this, a man in a female-dominated workplace may have a relatively easy time of it, but female-on-female bullying can still be a huge issue, especially where so-called "Queen Bee" bullies rule the roost.

The Atlantic published a feature article on it in 2017 called "Why Do Women Bully Each Other at Work?" It makes for interesting reading. There may even be an evolutionary aspect to it:

That's a bunch of nonsense. I've read a lot about chimpanzees and other primates and it's a field notorious for people reading too much into what they see and making things up as they go along. You could just as easily or more persuasively argue chimpanzee males are more often hostile with each other and fight and dominate each other a lot more than females do who are more cooperating.

paleoperson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Another reason for female's attacking other females is the fact that bullies will go for those who are less likley to fight back. Women tend to be physically weaker than men (in general) so are perceived to be less of a threat

yeah, I don't think it works like that.

mvl

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Being a woman in a female-dominated workplace often isn't easy sailing either, it should be noted. By all accounts, bullying is rampant in the nursing profession, for instance. Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute finds that 58 percent of workplace bullies are women, and that female bullies almost always target other women. I've know women to say openly that they'd much prefer to work in a male-dominated environment than a female-dominated one.

But care to provide source for the 58 percent ?
Searching from your post I only found this report from WBI with much lower percentage (is it the same institute ??)

- source: https://www.workplacebullying.org/gender/



PS: interestingly enough, on same page there is an explicit table about race and bullying - but lets not bring those numbers here.

Kidchameleon

paleoperson wrote: »

yeah, I don't think it works like that.

Oh really, how does it work so? Go on, educate me...

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh really, how does it work so? Go on, educate me...

The situation is that of female on female bullying so being physically less stronger than males wouldn't be a factor.

Anyway, just as with males, there is a wide range of strength differences in females, but also there is a social aspect for the avoidance of physical violence for women. Biologically and culturally, females tend to use emotional violence or rather more subtle verbal suggestions to affect others. It's one of the reasons that there tends to be a more established networks for gossiping in predominately female workplaces, whereas in male workplaces, gossip doesn't become so established. It's more of an individual thing, rather than a group consensus.

With males in a workplace, it rarely comes down to actual physical acts, and instead, it's a degree of looming. The assertion of perceived Alpha male characteristics to express dominance. Women tend to show such alpha dominance in other less direct ways. Although as always, there are exceptions where a female might have spent more time with males, or perceives the male behavior as being more effective and therefore assumed more stereotypical male behavior. "Butch" females (not necessarily a sexual preference) are a good example. They assume how they think males behave.

Bullying tends to reflect the genders differences. Males being more direct tend to use physical size/strength to express superiority, and the result of that bullying is a very obvious humiliation. Females tend towards the emotional or use of psychological as a way of being less direct, and the effect of the bullying is less obvious (although the result is pretty much the same)

Just IMHO. Btw.

nkl12xtw5goz70

paleoperson wrote: »

That's a bunch of nonsense. I've read a lot about chimpanzees and other primates...

Yes, I'm sure you know much more about the field than a psychology professor with a PhD from Harvard.

mvl wrote: »

But care to provide source for the 58 percent ?

It's mentioned in this piece.

"Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute has suggested that as many as 58% of bullies in the workplace are women, and these individuals most often victimise other women. The study found that Queen Bees choose other females as targets nearly 90% of the time."

nkl12xtw5goz70

We've created a myth that a woman in a male-dominated workplace will be belittled, sexualized, and harassed, while also being denied recognition and promotion. We've created an analogous myth that a woman in a female-dominated workplace will be supported, safe, encouraged, and able to reach her potential.

This is simply untrue. In reality, bullying is completely out of control in some female-dominated professions. This Irish Times article cites a 2015 study which found that almost 60 percent of Trinity midwifery students reported being bullied while on placement in hospitals. One trainee midwife detailed her experience:

Sarah was on the verge of completing her four-year midwifery course when she decided she could take no more.

After three years of hard study, sacrificing much of her personal life and simultaneously raising her three children, she decided to leave.

“I became scared of the constant belittling of me as a person and as a student midwife. I dreaded seeing her coming into the ward,” she said of a senior colleague in handwritten notes taken to record her experience.

During her training she would be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, require private counselling and anti-depressants.

“I felt just totally useless, no good to anyone,” she recalls now.

Sarah’s story (her name has been changed) is similar to those of other student midwives – unlucky enough to be singled out by a senior member of staff, openly humiliated, told she was not up to the job and given little support.

“I needed to be guided, encouraged and taught,” her notes recorded at the time. “Instead I felt humiliated, stupid and totally incompetent.”

I've had numerous women tell me over the years that they received more support in their careers from men than from other women. And yet we persist in the fallacy that women enable other women to succeed while men want to tear women down. It's absolutely not true.

mvl

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

I've had numerous women tell me over the years that they received more support in their careers from men than from other women. And yet we persist in the fallacy that women enable other women to succeed while men want to tear women down. It's absolutely not true.

ok, I just want to add here that for me personally the best managers have always been women: for all my significant career progression milestones I had a direct woman manager ... but I work in IT - so this domain may be the exception of all exceptions...

nkl12xtw5goz70

mvl wrote: »

ok, I just want to add here that for me personally the best managers have always been women: for all my significant career progression milestones I had a direct woman manager ... but I work in IT - so this domain may be the exception of all exceptions...

Without a doubt, there are many excellent female executives and managers who support their staff in their careers. If you were lucky enough to have good female bosses, that's great.

Of course, that by no means implies that women always support other women in the workplace. As the bullying epidemic in nursing and midwifery shows, many female managers can be anything but supportive. The trainee midwife above was bullied and belittled so much that she ended up dropping out of the field suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

Unfortunately, many women are reluctant to report female-on-female bullying because they feel an element of shame in "letting the side down." But it's time we got rid of the stereotypes of the supportive female boss and the male harasser. Both men and women can make their employees' lives a misery — with the notable difference that female bullies almost always target other women, while male bullies are more equal-opportunity offenders.

paleoperson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh really, how does it work so? Go on, educate me...

If physical threat from your own colleagues is a part of everyday life in your workplace then you my friend are on the very wrong side of town. Frankly by the time you'd get to that stage weapons would even up the odds anyway. Saying things like "Go on, educate me..." seems to have a hint of sarcasm in it, if you continue with that then I'm not going to answer you again. My answers are good and you should indeed be thankful if I answer something for you, not sarcastic.

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure you know much more about the field than a psychology professor with a PhD from Harvard.

Are you really suggesting that because she has a PhD her opinion is automatically right and noone can question it unless they already have a PhD? You're really conflating having an opinion on human workplaces and relationships with having knowledge of the academic field of psychology?

Everyone studies and understands human relationships and has their own take. A lot of the time these Harvard PhD professors have extremely limited experience with the real world. It would be like if someone had a political science phd and you thinking everything he suggests is the truth about politics and noone can argue unless they have a phd in political science.

"oh look at the guy having an opinion on something in politics that is different to someone with a political science phd".

I doubt you're really that dumb, you're just trolling and annoyed that someone is rubbishing the theory which apparently takes your fancy.

nkl12xtw5goz70

paleoperson wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that because she has a PhD her opinion is automatically right and noone can question it unless they already have a PhD?

I'm saying that someone with a PhD and a lengthy academic career to her name, who has published peer-reviewed research papers on the development of human female competition, is more likely to have an informed opinion on the issues at stake.

Everyone studies and understands human relationships and has their own take.

I'm sure everyone has their own take. But the opinion of a taxi driver is unlikely to be as informed as that of a Harvard-educated research psychologist.

Kidchameleon

paleoperson wrote: »

If physical threat from your own colleagues is a part of everyday life in your workplace then you my friend are on the very wrong side of town.

People are subconsciously and evolutionarily predisposed to avoid conflict with those who pose a physical threat against them. Just because there are societal rules in place now in our relatively new paradigm, we are not immune to the effects of said evolutionary traits. Even though what I'm saying is common sense and can be observed on a daily basis, theres a good book that goes into much detail called "The Social Animal" by Elliot Aronson, check it out.

paleoperson wrote: »

Saying things like "Go on, educate me..." seems to have a hint of sarcasm in it, if you continue with that then I'm not going to answer you again.

That was a response to your "hint" of sarcasm. perhaps practice what you preach...

paleoperson wrote: »

yeah, I don't think it works like that.

Leroy Huge Technologist

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

I'm sure everyone has their own take. But the opinion of a taxi driver is unlikely to be as informed as that of a Harvard-educated research psychologist.

True, but a person who has worked for a decade or two in a professional workspace might though. The problem is that modern psychology especially when it comes to female related topics is littered with researchers following a certain bias. You can see it in the rash of feminist driven research and papers released over the last two decades, to reinforce their beliefs regarding personality, behavior habits of the genders, etc.

I'll be honest and say that after working at University level that I'm less impressed with the general quality of a PHD, and that often University reputations don't necessarily reflect the people working there. I have met Harvard graduates who were complete morons, in spite of graduating there and having a PHD in a particular field, along with a pile of published papers to their name. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person is really that clued in to what they're commenting on.

I think we've elevated "experts" far too much considering that most people in the western world attend university level, and gain a relatively high level of education. I have two bachelors, an Honors degree, and a MBA. But.. I know business people without any formal education who know far more about business or people, than I do.

We've created a myth that a woman in a male-dominated workplace will be belittled, sexualized, and harassed, while also being denied recognition and promotion. We've created an analogous myth that a woman in a female-dominated workplace will be supported, safe, encouraged, and able to reach her potential.

I'd go so far to say that we've allowed a lot of myths to be created about women and their roles in society.

I was thinking about this post when I went for food tonight. Street food vendors set up regularly near my university. These are common Chinese people, most without an education. In nearly very situation, the woman was working, cooking the food, and the male was there simply helping them. The woman gave the orders, or criticised the male when he was too slow, or got the order wrong. It was the woman who talked to customers and took the money. And China is definitely a male dominated society in terms of social status... but often you'll see women ear a man apart on the street publicly with massive loss of face to him.

At the same time, I thought about the women in my life. There's a few shy quiet ones who generally are dominated by other people, not just men. But the vast majority of women I know are in complete control over their lives. My mother is a the main decision maker in my family, as is my sister in hers. Just as with my friends, while they mightn't dominate their relationships, there is a general give and take of authority for various situations...

The point is that we've allowed women to create an alternative universe. Consider female rights and the belief that men held women down for centuries. What were mothers doing all this time, while they were raising their children to dominate other women? Or the wives all had zero influence over their husbands... and yet there's many references of husbands afraid to cross their wives... and so on. We've given women a complete pass when it comes to the past and their role in defining it. Just as we do, indeed, give them a pass in having responsibility in the workspace in maintain her own authority.

Like as if all women are weak agent-less creatures incapable of competing with males... and yet, in real life, nothing could be further than the truth. Honestly, I'm thinking right now of the Irish women I know, and while they're most definitely women, they're also comfortable with drinking in the pub with a group of guys, or trading casual insults.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Klaz, a bit off topic but what in your opinion has caused Irish Universities to haemorrhage down the World Rankings? I saw my Alma mater DCU has gone from ~350 down to 600. Likewise I see UCD has gone from 161 in 2014 to 250 now.

Gerry T

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Klaz, a bit off topic but what in your opinion has caused Irish Universities to haemorrhage down the World Rankings? I saw my Alma mater DCU has gone from ~350 down to 600. Likewise I see UCD has gone from 161 in 2014 to 250 now.

Has anyone got a copy of the marking scheme used to rank universities. I've heard having IT networks, great photocopiers etc are measured and can bring you up the rankings. I would have thought that the key measure would be the academic standard. It would be great if someone on here knew how these ranking systems work.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Klaz, a bit off topic but what in your opinion has caused Irish Universities to haemorrhage down the World Rankings? I saw my Alma mater DCU has gone from ~350 down to 600. Likewise I see UCD has gone from 161 in 2014 to 250 now.

Hmm.. I've been back a few times officially as a lecturer representing Universities I've worked for abroad. All Chinese universities which are pretty awful in themselves, and a HK university which is pretty damn good in the rankings. I lecture Business Management and associated topics for Financial Management. Some CFA related content too, although I rarely touch actual accounting. So... I couldn't really state about other majors, but I do think there is some crossover from what I've heard and seen. [I also went back to university twice as a mature student, in Ireland and in Australia]

Honestly, I'd say it comes down to a number of factors.

First and foremost is critical thinking and logical analysis. Lecturers are often far less willing to allow students to argue (and therefore fully understand) the material they're supposed to absorb. There's a certain mentality growing that students should just accept the priceless knowledge bestowed upon them by the lecturer, and denial of those "truths" isn't really encouraged, and sometimes even forcibly put down. I've seen such happen in areas such as Business/Financial Ethics which should be a topic for exploration but now, often lecturers talk to their students as idiots to be converted to a certain way of thinking. There's less focus on understanding, and analysis of material. (never mind the lecturers personal bias or opinions being used as the only way to pass their exams]

I'm also noticing a lot of projects or assignments have little actual value. It's something that happens a lot here in China. Assignments are given just to keep students busy rather than to teach them anything specific. Often lecturers here will give the assignment, take them back and not even look at the papers. It drives me nuts the disrespect there, but also the lack of interest in other ideas.

I feel that many Irish lecturers have grown smug in believing that they know better than their students, and that University is just an extension of Secondary school. But... university/college students are adults and their perceptions while lacking particular knowledge have value and unique insights.

I'd also say that some blame rests on the students themselves, and their reliance on technology. It's rare to see them without their phones or laptops. Few actually take the time to take hand-written notes, and then rewrite them later in a neater hand. Writing helps with memory acquisition far greater than typing does. They're also far more distracted with the easy access to social media so they're less concerned with actually paying attention in lectures. Again, it's something extremely common in China and other countries, but I've noticed more universities in other countries banning the use of electronics in classrooms.

Lastly, the educational standard have dropped because university is easier than it was before. It's a business with aims of graduating students to gain greater funding rather than educating them with something useful. University degrees are often years behind the standards required for employment, teaching out of date material or teaching something completely irrelevant to their major (because it's costly to upgrade a lecturers knowledge, or replacing them has repercussions). It always was a business but the business mindset is far more established now. You can see it in the meetings they have when discussing course content and graduation rates. But there's also the social aspect to standards dropping with many universities lowering the bar for female students to increase graduate numbers to get in line with government policy. I've heard of lecturers being told (unofficially) to go easier on female students than the males.

But TBH universities in general across most countries have dropped in quality. The ratings aren't as reliable as they used to be because of interference from other organisations into the running of the universities themselves. Universities have become political and "moral" rather than simply educational institutions. They'll implement rules to govern their students in ways which aren't the law of the land, and nobody will stop them from doing so. In other words, quite often Universities have moved away from their purpose and are trying to become something more. There's a heap of propaganda going on in many universities to influence how students develop outside of the classroom, and that deviation of attention is going to affect its actual ability to educate something useful in the classroom.

I'm not a professor. I am studying for a PHD in Philosophy, but it's more of a personal thing than a work thing. I love lecturing business management, but I doubt I could/would work in an European institution because of all the politics, and political correctness going on. I've known a few lecturers who have lost their jobs because they refused to play with gender politics, and reinforce feminism in their classrooms (I'm still talking about Business related courses). I couldn't deal with that. I'm too direct for that kind of manipulation.. and I find it rather disgusting anyway.

We really need to remove politics from the Universities if we ever wish to have a working educational system. It's not the place of a university to program students in what to believe. The idea is to teach, provide them with the knowledge, and trust them as adults to develop themselves... but we also seriously need to start putting limits on access to electronics. Phones, laptops, etc are all useful tools in the right situation, but they're being used far too much, and are just a distraction.

Steve456

Gerry T wrote: »

Has anyone got a copy of the marking scheme used to rank universities. I've heard having IT networks, great photocopiers etc are measured and can bring you up the rankings.

There are lots of rankings. The big 3 (THE, QS, AWRU/Shanghai) each use a combination of different measures e.g. data from surveys of what employers and other universities think, number and type of articles published, number of times those articles are cited by others, figures for staff:student ratio and for proportion of international students. For the detail see:

THE - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2020-methodology
QS - https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
ARWU - http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2019.html

Gerry T wrote: »

I would have thought that the key measure would be the academic standard.

There's no very obvious numerical measure for academic standard. THE and QS are for-profit operations, looking for ways to monetise data they can easily acquire (by surveys, from the unis themselves, or from publisher databases).

vriesmays

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Klaz, a bit off topic but what in your opinion has caused Irish Universities to haemorrhage down the World Rankings? I saw my Alma mater DCU has gone from ~350 down to 600. Likewise I see UCD has gone from 161 in 2014 to 250 now.

Education for all nonsense, political correctness forcing out any outsiders, feminisation of our colleges , course places for asylum seekers and travellers, left-wing thinking among academics.

vriesmays

vriesmays wrote: »

Education for all nonsense, political correctness forcing out any outsiders, feminisation of our colleges , course places for asylum seekers and travellers, left-wing thinking among academics.

I honestly don't see a problem with course places for Travellers. They need the educational backgrounds so that they can merge with a modern society rather than staying in a backward primitive culture. No. It's a good thing to give them placements as long as they're treated exactly the same as any other student once they gain entrance.

But, unfortunately, there are preferential degrees of treatment for different groups and the mainstream Irish are being placed behind everyone else. Males behind females, Irish behind migrants, etc.

Left wing thinking, in itself, isn't a terrible thing except that it's being taken to extremes (just as in the US), and it results with propaganda and an intolerance of any differing of opinions. The end of freedom of thought and personal development. A genuine shame since my own experience in Irish college was one of growth, but as a mature student (with actual practical experience in the major) , it was one of fighting with lecturers against narrow-minded thinking.

nkl12xtw5goz70

vriesmays wrote: »

Education for all nonsense, political correctness forcing out any outsiders, feminisation of our colleges , course places for asylum seekers and travellers, left-wing thinking among academics.

There aren't many Travellers at university, to be fair. Only 1 percent of Travellers has a third-level education. The majority of them leave school between 12 and 15.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly don't see a problem with course places for Travellers. They need the educational backgrounds so that they can merge with a modern society rather than staying in a backward primitive culture. No. It's a good thing to give them placements as long as they're treated exactly the same as any other student once they gain entrance.

But, unfortunately, there are preferential degrees of treatment for different groups and the mainstream Irish are being placed behind everyone else. Males behind females, Irish behind migrants, etc.

Left wing thinking, in itself, isn't a terrible thing except that it's being taken to extremes (just as in the US), and it results with propaganda and an intolerance of any differing of opinions. The end of freedom of thought and personal development. A genuine shame since my own experience in Irish college was one of growth, but as a mature student (with actual practical experience in the major) , it was one of fighting with lecturers against narrow-minded thinking.

Luckily I hope to end up in the hard sciences so. Though from what I have heard the far-left in America have made physics and maths there next targets. Hopefully it's a good few years before they edge their way in if at all.