Predicting failure of the university

Commun. ACM Pub Date : 2018-03-26 DOI:10.1145/3190615
Cacm Staff
{"title":"Predicting failure of the university","authors":"Cacm Staff","doi":"10.1145/3190615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"of women in science and engineering. (Incidentally, my only daughter has a degree in electrical engineering and is gainfully employed in artificial intelligence and robotics.) I support increased efforts to teach coding to girls (and boys) and eliminate gender bias (such as in grant and paper reviewing). I thus read Jodi L. Tims’s “From the Chair of ACM-W” column “Achieving Gender Equity: ACM-W Can’t Do It Alone” (Feb. 2018) with great interest, especially when she said, “ . . . a nagging question that many of us who work so hard in the space of gender equity in computing have. Why, with so much sustained effort by so many individuals and organizations, is progress toward gender equity so slow?” My concern is that neither the column nor its cited works defined the “equity” mentioned in its headline. Is the only possible definition 50%/50% representation at every level of expertise? Or could it be, say, 56%/44% women/ men—the percentages of all students in U.S. public colleges? Conversely, are the numerous professional disciplines where women outnumber or out-earn men manifestly “iniquitous” according to the column’s assumed definition? We STEM professionals and educators, and the public more generally, would gain clarity, and hence be better able to take enlightened action, if the goal were first made explicit and justified, then accepted by stakeholders. David G. Stork, Portola Valley, CA, USA","PeriodicalId":10645,"journal":{"name":"Commun. ACM","volume":"17 1","pages":"8-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Commun. ACM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3190615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

of women in science and engineering. (Incidentally, my only daughter has a degree in electrical engineering and is gainfully employed in artificial intelligence and robotics.) I support increased efforts to teach coding to girls (and boys) and eliminate gender bias (such as in grant and paper reviewing). I thus read Jodi L. Tims’s “From the Chair of ACM-W” column “Achieving Gender Equity: ACM-W Can’t Do It Alone” (Feb. 2018) with great interest, especially when she said, “ . . . a nagging question that many of us who work so hard in the space of gender equity in computing have. Why, with so much sustained effort by so many individuals and organizations, is progress toward gender equity so slow?” My concern is that neither the column nor its cited works defined the “equity” mentioned in its headline. Is the only possible definition 50%/50% representation at every level of expertise? Or could it be, say, 56%/44% women/ men—the percentages of all students in U.S. public colleges? Conversely, are the numerous professional disciplines where women outnumber or out-earn men manifestly “iniquitous” according to the column’s assumed definition? We STEM professionals and educators, and the public more generally, would gain clarity, and hence be better able to take enlightened action, if the goal were first made explicit and justified, then accepted by stakeholders. David G. Stork, Portola Valley, CA, USA
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测大学的失败
在科学和工程领域的女性。(顺便说一句,我唯一的女儿拥有电气工程学位,在人工智能和机器人领域工作,收入颇高。)我支持加大力度向女孩(和男孩)教授编程,消除性别偏见(比如在拨款和论文评审方面)。因此,我怀着极大的兴趣阅读了乔迪·l·蒂姆斯(Jodi L. Tims)的“从ACM-W主席的角度”专栏“实现性别平等:ACM-W不能独自完成”(2018年2月),特别是她说,“……这是一个困扰我们很多人的问题,我们在计算机领域的性别平等领域努力工作。为什么如此多的个人和组织做出了如此多的持续努力,性别平等的进展却如此缓慢?”我担心的是,该专栏及其引用的文章都没有定义标题中提到的“公平”。唯一可能的定义是在每个专业水平上50%/50%的代表性吗?或者说,美国公立大学学生中男女比例分别为56%和44% ?相反,根据本专栏假设的定义,女性人数超过男性或收入超过男性的众多专业领域是否明显“不公平”?如果目标首先明确和合理,然后被利益相关者接受,我们STEM专业人士和教育工作者以及更广泛的公众将获得清晰度,从而能够更好地采取开明的行动。David G. Stork, Portola Valley, CA, USA
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Internet of Things Security and Privacy Labels Should Empower Consumers The Internet of Batteryless Things Software Managers' Guide to Operational Excellence Co-Developing Programs and Their Proof of Correctness Generative AI Degrades Online Communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1