[Turnaround]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/opinion/dw...hpt=hp_bn7

The first paragraph says it all, really:

Quote:

Judith was an overachiever with a problem. A college freshman, she loved psychology but was determined to get straight A's. When she got only B's, she was despondent -- and left the field entirely.

If only Judith would've stuck with it! We all know that an "overachiever" who can pull B's in freshman psych classes is bound for a lucrative career.

More hilarious snippets:

Quote:

To hear the headlines tell it, girls are the undisputed leaders in American classrooms. They have higher GPAs than boys and attend colleges and graduate schools in greater numbers.

Holy hell, how out of touch are these academics? Yea, GPA really tells the story... everyone knows a social work major with a 3.6 will go on to be so much more successful than an engineer with a 3.2.

Quote:

Earlier this year, Harvard University professor Claudia Goldin found that women were dropping out of undergraduate economics courses when they failed to score As, off-ramping from a highly rewarding profession.

Step 1: Obtain mediocre degree. Step 2: "highly rewarding profession." Of course it's that simple.

Quote:

When adolescence strikes, girls face pressure not only to be nice and hard-working, but well-liked, thin, selfless and sexually desirable.

No similar pressure exists on boys. They don't care about sex.

Quote:

Ability is not the problem here. Multiple studies confirm that girls and boys are equally well suited to academic performance.

Huh? The gender gap was never about academic performance; it's about real world success. Nobody even disputes that girls are just as capable *academically*. How is that even relevant?

Today's news media places absolutely no value on logical, accurate thinking. Any moron can get an editorial as long as he/she is willing to regurgitate the same leftist boilerplates ad nauseum. It's sickening.

[Samseau]

Haha. Academic performance is just that. A performance, of which women are excellent actors. In the real world, there's only so much need for actors.

[Goldmund]

One of the co-authors....

[El Chinito loco]

(07-29-2014 09:54 PM)Turnaround Wrote:  

Nobody even disputes that girls are just as capable *academically*. How is that even relevant?

It appears that women who excel in school are good at regurgitating rote facts and playing politics in the academic establishment. A lot of women are also given a pussy pass when it comes to grad school. Getting a Masters and Ph.D in "social sciences" is highly dependent on the standards of the people who are reviewing your thesis.

When it comes to innovation and creative thinking (in all fields) it's almost always men.

[JustJay]

(07-29-2014 09:54 PM)Turnaround Wrote:  

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/opinion/dw...hpt=hp_bn7

The first paragraph says it all, really:

Quote:

Judith was an overachiever with a problem. A college freshman, she loved psychology but was determined to get straight A's. When she got only B's, she was despondent -- and left the field entirely.

If only Judith would've stuck with it! We all know that an "overachiever" who can pull B's in freshman psych classes is bound for a lucrative career.

More hilarious snippets:

Quote:

To hear the headlines tell it, girls are the undisputed leaders in American classrooms. They have higher GPAs than boys and attend colleges and graduate schools in greater numbers.

Holy hell, how out of touch are these academics? Yea, GPA really tells the story... everyone knows a social work major with a 3.6 will go on to be so much more successful than an engineer with a 3.2.

Quote:

Earlier this year, Harvard University professor Claudia Goldin found that women were dropping out of undergraduate economics courses when they failed to score As, off-ramping from a highly rewarding profession.

Step 1: Obtain mediocre degree. Step 2: "highly rewarding profession." Of course it's that simple.

Quote:

When adolescence strikes, girls face pressure not only to be nice and hard-working, but well-liked, thin, selfless and sexually desirable.

No similar pressure exists on boys. They don't care about sex.

Quote:

Ability is not the problem here. Multiple studies confirm that girls and boys are equally well suited to academic performance.

Huh? The gender gap was never about academic performance; it's about real world success. Nobody even disputes that girls are just as capable *academically*. How is that even relevant?

Today's news media places absolutely no value on logical, accurate thinking. Any moron can get an editorial as long as he/she is willing to regurgitate the same leftist boilerplates ad nauseum. It's sickening.

Thats all that school is about really. If you're a good little student who can spew the same shit that the professor feeds you, you'll be successful not only in academia but in life.

These same people who got straight A's or high GPA in college feel that it's just enough to get them into a well paying job. That their GPA matters the most to the employer. But to the employer it's another small fish in a big pond. What else do you bring to the table besides good grades?

Good grades means you were a good student. But how does that translate into a good worker?

I'm sure there are people here in the forum that might have known someone who was a high roller in college with 4.0 GPA but absolutely suck in the workforce.

I feel bad for America once the Common Core program goes into fully effect. I'm not liking what it brings to the table overall....

Common Core State Standards Initiative

[Azriel Odin]

(07-29-2014 09:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Haha. Academic performance is just that. A performance, of which women are excellent actors. In the real world, there's only so much need for an actor.

I can't argue with that. I'm currently doing my Masters, since it is the only clear path to get into my desired profession. The course I am doing is 80% women. They do really well at theoretical 'self reflection' assignments, but the moment they have to do practical work most of them fall to pieces.

[Truth Teller]

In my freshman chem lab, I was partnered with a girl who literally couldn't do anything right. I covered for her mistakes so I wouldn't fail.

[Tytalus]

This is reflecting genetic differences in how men and women perceive risk and ability.

Here's what happens. Say we have a year/grade 12 student deciding what field to pick in University. Say they even like science and aren't so hot on the liberal arts.


They have: English 95%, Geography 90%, History 90%, Biology 85%, Physics 80% and Math 80%.

A girl looks at this and goes "Well, I'm good at english and bad at science, therefore I should major in english, and if I really hate it, I'll major in history or geography."

A guy looks at this says, "Man I hate all that fuckin writing, and you know, what 80% in physics and math means I'm in the top quarter of my class, I bet I'll do fine in a hard science or engineering degree."

They have the EXACT SAME MARKS and the EXACT SAME ABILITY, but the PERCEPTION of what they are is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

[clever alias]

it somewhat misses the point because it touches on grade inflation, which is huge for both genders. Now with web sites like ratemyprofessor, people will postpone important course to wait for an easier teacher, or they drop any course if they are getting under an A.

[CRR]

Why do women fail?

Because work is often challenging and stressful. Women respond to this with emotion, men respond with logic. Logic is almost always better in a work situation, whereas emotion needs to almost always be completely removed from the situation.

The two good bosses that I had that were women were calm yet decisive*. I've had a few awful women bosses. All were overly emotional, one to the point where I was at a meeting listen to her rant and the only thought running through my head was "I cannot understand how you are an executive at such a company. You are an embarrassment".

And of course this isn't just in the executive suite. As I've said, I overhear chatter outside my office, and on a few instances I hear the women complain about men. Most is harmless, but I always laugh to myself when they complain about 'equal pay' yet leave as soon as the clock strikes five.

So it isn't a question of GPA, which as stated above is only part of the equation. A lot comes down to reliability. Who is more likely to make a rational decision? Who is more likely to be cool, calm and collected when shit hits the fan? Who is more likely to work the long hours and be available when the boss needs him/her? The person who is not available because who knows what their feelings are, or the person who when called upon can push any feelings aside and get the job done?

*Both were very bangable.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-29-2014 10:49 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

They have the EXACT SAME MARKS and the EXACT SAME ABILITY, but the PERCEPTION of what they are is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

NO - Men do not have the same ability, since even babies of 2 weeks of age are interested in different things. And the IQ distribution is unequal too - 65% of MENSA-level are men and over 90% of top 5% of MENSA are men. If you combine it with different interests, then you realize that the sexes were never meant to compete. And yes - if you create a test and force men to do only gossip, play with small children and stay at home all day - then by far more men would commit suicide than women - you go girrlls - you win!

Here more parts of the documentary: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comme...s_cut_all/

We are a species with different interests. I've read even opinions by female engineers who have stated that even the less intelligent men do a better job than her. She somehow admitted that having raw intelligence and getting the degree does not automatically make you into a competent productive engineer or STEM worker. It takes constant dedication and interest and a mindset that mostly men possess. We become infatuated with a subject and spend years doing it - even continuing the work in our free time.

______________

And the best quote in my opinion:

Quote:

To hear the headlines tell it, girls are the undisputed leaders in American classrooms. They have higher GPAs than boys and attend colleges and graduate schools in greater numbers. In part, this is because girls excel at the self-discipline required of students. Indeed, if life were one long grade-school, girls would rule the world.

Yes - if life indeed would bow to feminist doctrine and create a a system similar to grad-schools which are streamlined for the docile female mind while "Ritalining" hyperactive boys - then yes the grand world civilization would be for the matriarchs to rule. It would however look like this:

   

But hey - who needs toilets, written speech, science etc. when they have a matriarch rule over some wondrous mud-huts.

[SteveMcMahon]

(07-30-2014 02:16 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

it somewhat misses the point because it touches on grade inflation, which is huge for both genders. Now with web sites like ratemyprofessor, people will postpone important course to wait for an easier teacher, or they drop any course if they are getting under an A.

Schools have been feminised over the years and are now set up to play to the strengths of girls. They reward sitting still, being "nice", memorising what teacher said and repeating it back in exams.

Grade inflation has happened over the same period, and the result is a generation of 110 IQ girls and boys leaving high school with unwarranted self esteem.

University is very far from the "real world", but it's often the first encounter these kids have with an environment where just paying attention in class and doing assigned homework isn't enough to excel.

[strengthstudent]

I started to understand leftists more when I realized that they think high education => high success, employment, upper middle class etc. This is a reason why the left is always pushing for free education and high education as a human right(at least in EU), and why it is a huge part of inequality that not all have the possibility for higher education. They think that no education means no possibility of success.

Many on the left fail to notice that the education is nothing but a means to an end, which COULD help. They fail to notice that becoming a truly successful person in the today's world without any academic education is actually very likely. Many drop out from college because they do not want to waste any time in an useless institution.

Of course it is true that good education helps, but the more you evolve as a thinker and pragmatist, you'll see the university more as an indoctrination fun center than anything else. You could literally cut 75% or more of university education and I don't think anything would suffer, rather it could actually help the economy.

Majority of the studies have no relevance in the real world, and are mostly understanding the past history more than predicting the future(which is mostly impossible anyway), innovating anything new or understanding risks/probabilities(Taleb ref.). Even big parts of the "hard sciences" like theoretical mathematics or physics are mostly just play and fun, with very little real world relevance. Many schools of applied science are more effective, but hardly academic.

I had MBA studies as my minor and was laughing my ass off when the professor was showing graphs after graphs how to boost innovation... everything was about how a state or union can help it with different (bullshit) programs payed by the tax payers. No word on competition or offering good incentives which actually work in the real world. Not long after I started noticing how almost all of the professors and lecturers were mostly just full of useless shit and powerpoint presentations.

[Genghis Khan]

(07-30-2014 04:29 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 02:16 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

it somewhat misses the point because it touches on grade inflation, which is huge for both genders. Now with web sites like ratemyprofessor, people will postpone important course to wait for an easier teacher, or they drop any course if they are getting under an A.

Schools have been feminised over the years and are now set up to play to the strengths of girls. They reward sitting still, being "nice", memorising what teacher said and repeating it back in exams.

Grade inflation has happened over the same period, and the result is a generation of 110 IQ girls and boys leaving high school with unwarranted self esteem.

University is very far from the "real world", but it's often the first encounter these kids have with an environment where just paying attention in class and doing assigned homework isn't enough to excel.

This.

I remember when I first started attending university. A lot of the kids I knew were cocky as shit. Plenty of them got flushed out of the engineering program. And maybe I got older, but I also got the feeling that every year the freshmen got dumber and more entitled. When I was freshmen, my friends and I all agreed that respect is earned, not given. My senior year, we actually met freshmen who thought they were owed respect for just being alive.

[SteveMcMahon]

(07-30-2014 05:22 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  

I started to understand leftists more when I realized that they think high education => high success, employment, upper middle class etc.

Yes. And when it became obvious most people weren't cut out for higher education, they just dumbed down the education. All must have prizes.

The modern university is a hybrid cargo cult/cash scam.

Young people are suckered in to debt because "everybody knows" a degree is a passport to a good job and comfortable life. But everybody is wrong.

The value of a typical degree has been so watered down that it's next to worthless in the job market. Even traditional "good" degrees like Law don't offer much real world opportunity now, because we have far too many lawyers.

Universities cynically run worthless degree programmes in subjects like media studies, sociology, and womens studies, taking advantage of the gullibility of youth.

[El Chinito loco]

I've also been noticing a trend that a lot of female grads with worthless piece of shit degrees such as "gender studies" or "womyns rights" end up in journalism. That's really their only available career path aside from diving headlong into academia or donning a cardboard sign and yelling slogans outside of city hall or whatever.

So the result is that you have a lot of single bitter feminists in their 20's and 30's making pissant journalist wages in big expensive metropolitan cities ranting about men and the hard knocks they've been dealt. It really starts to make sense when you see how a lot of these dried up spinster wastrels spend an inordinate amount of time crying about money. It's because they are getting paid exactly what they deserve for their below administration assistant skill set but feel entitled anyways.

[Feisbook Control]

(07-30-2014 04:29 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 02:16 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

it somewhat misses the point because it touches on grade inflation, which is huge for both genders. Now with web sites like ratemyprofessor, people will postpone important course to wait for an easier teacher, or they drop any course if they are getting under an A.

Schools have been feminised over the years and are now set up to play to the strengths of girls. They reward sitting still, being "nice", memorising what teacher said and repeating it back in exams.

People often make this claim about the education system, yet I don't think it's right. I went to a private school where we were very often taught like that, and yet we did excel. Old school private schools (and even schools in the public education system at one point) were like that. There was tons of memorisation (poetry, lists of English kings, Latin verb conjugations, etc.) and yet such a method produced the brilliant minds of yesteryear. My school wasn't quite as old school as that (even it was changing -- it was the late 80s/early 90s), but it was back in the day. Look at all the scientists, philosophers, etc. up until the mid-20th century or even a bit beyond. There were tons of intellectual giants then, and they all -- all -- went through hardcore old school education systems that placed a strong emphasis upon sitting down, shutting up and memorising stuff.

I don't have a firm hypothesis for what's gone wrong, but I do suspect that it's feminisation of a sort, but different to what you describe. I went to a government primary school until the end of grade three, when my parents pulled me out of the system in disgust. What I distinctly remember about my (female) grade three teacher was that she played real favourites with the girls, she had trouble controlling the boys, and there was a lot of busy work and an overemphasis on art type projects. You could be doing a science project, and she'd be more worried about how the borders on your page looked. It was a world of petty shit.

When I got to private school, we had hard arse teachers, almost to the man. There were only a handful of female teachers, and only a handful of weak male teachers. We walked all over both. Few lasted. Whether they quit or were fired, I do not know. The average teacher was someone you just didn't even consider fucking around with. I could tell all sorts of stories about my school, including the reverend (priest) who had been a boxer in his youth (he would have been in his sixties when he taught us) and who beat the crap out of a couple of kids in our class. In fact, most of the really scary teachers were all really old. They might have been sixty, but you still knew they'd kick your arse. All of those guys were scary motherfuckers. Even if you didn't necessary respect them, you feared them. Several did hold court in a very old school "chalk and talk" kind of way and no one said boo to them. If they told you to go and memorise something, you damn well went and memorised it. There was no familiarity with them at all. We literally knew their family names and that was the single piece of information we knew about them. We didn't know their first names, we didn't know about their private lives. They were like granite statues in the classroom. I remember one of them mentioning something about being a kid (in the 30s) once, and I thought to myself, "This guy was never young. He was born 112 years old." They weren't your friend. Shit, they weren't even human. They simply "were". I think that all added to it. I really think it came down to them having a certain presence, and us knowing that there were very firm boundaries, and if you crossed them, at the least you'd lose a limb.

At the time, I really resented it (and reflecting upon it, there was still some needless nonsense that went on), but having been a teacher myself, I see now what an absolute farce the government system is. It's an utter free-for-all. Kids don't actually want that. They want clear boundaries and tough (but fair) discipline. Women are generally really bad at providing and enforcing those things, plus the modern bureaucracy and parents don't allow for such things anyway. Especially when dealing with teenage boys, a lot of it is physical, too. Women just can't get up in your face like a man can.

[SteveMcMahon]

(07-30-2014 05:34 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I remember when I first started attending university. A lot of the kids I knew were cocky as shit. Plenty of them got flushed out of the engineering program. And maybe I got older, but I also got the feeling that every year the freshmen got dumber and more entitled. When I was freshmen, my friends and I all agreed that respect is earned, not given. My senior year, we actually met freshmen who thought they were owed respect for just being alive.

There's definitely something happening. Part of my job involves doing final round interviews for potential new hires, after they've been sifted through HR. So the people I see are supposed to be the handpicked best of the applicants.

I work for a well known multinational that offers excellent earnings and career opportunities, so you'd expect good quality candidates to be swarming us for the chance of a job. But usually I end up having to pick the least bad from a bad bunch.

What I see time and time again with recent graduates or school leavers who come to work for us is this: stratospheric self esteem, poor work ethic, and an incredible unwillingness to learn from experienced colleagues, because they think they know it all. They seem to want constant praise just for turning up at work and doing the bare minimum expected of them.

And when you give them a bollocking for poor performance, they run crying to HR.

There are some good ones, but we're dealing with a more entitled and softer generation than when I started work in the 90's.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-30-2014 05:52 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I don't have a firm hypothesis for what's gone wrong, but I do suspect that it's feminisation of a sort, but different to what you describe. I went to a government primary school until the end of grade three, when my parents pulled me out of the system in disgust. What I distinctly remember about my (female) grade three teacher was that she played real favourites with the girls, she had trouble controlling the boys, and there was a lot of busy work and an overemphasis on art type projects. You could be doing a science project, and she'd be more worried about how the borders on your page looked. It was a world of petty shit.

When I got to private school, we had hard arse teachers, almost to the man. There were only a handful of female teachers, and only a handful of weak male teachers. We walked all over both. Few lasted. Whether they quit or were fired, I do not know. The average teacher was someone you just didn't even consider fucking around with. I could tell all sorts of stories about my school, including the reverend (priest) who had been a boxer in his youth (he would have been in his sixties when he taught us) and who beat the crap out of a couple of kids in our class. In fact, most of the really scary teachers were all really old. They might have been sixty, but you still knew they'd kick your arse. All of those guys were scary motherfuckers. Even if you didn't necessary respect them, you feared them. Several did hold court in a very old school "chalk and talk" kind of way and no one said boo to them. If they told you to go and memorise something, you damn well went and memorised it. There was no familiarity with them at all. We literally knew their family names and that was the single piece of information we knew about them. We didn't know their first names, we didn't know about their private lives. They were like granite statues in the classroom. I remember one of them mentioning something about being a kid (in the 30s) once, and I thought to myself, "This guy was never young. He was born 112 years old." They weren't your friend. Shit, they weren't even human. They simply "were". I think that all added to it. I really think it came down to them having a certain presence, and us knowing that there were very firm boundaries, and if you crossed them, at the least you'd lose a limb.

At the time, I really resented it (and reflecting upon it, there was still some needless nonsense that went on), but having been a teacher myself, I see now what an absolute farce the government system is. It's an utter free-for-all. Kids don't actually want that. They want clear boundaries and tough (but fair) discipline. Women are generally really bad at providing and enforcing those things, plus the modern bureaucracy and parents don't allow for such things anyway. Especially when dealing with teenage boys, a lot of it is physical, too. Women just can't get up in your face like a man can.

Constant memorization was part of the school system. There is nothing wrong about good behavior either. But there is something wrong, when your good behavior is 10-20% of your whole grade and only 50% is comprised by the real work and tests you do. That is common core.

The old private schools have mostly the same program for decades with only minor changes. The old money families know perfectly well that you cannot pamper your progeny or the wealth will be gone within 2 generations at the most. Some do not understand it though and are surprised that their kids turn out to be fucked-up coked trust-fund-brats.

What has been done with the education system has been very well explained by former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) under Ronald Reagan:

Yeah - interview by Alex Jones, but ignore that - it is truth anyway.
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Her book THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA is available currently for free via e-book. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/Mom...oA.sml.pdf

[catoblepa]

men are more successful than women because we have a stronger sex drive that gives us a stronger motivational push. if you want female sexual and love companionship you need to compete and be successful, a woman just needs to be young/youthful looking with a minimum wage of attractivity but women don't care much for sexual variety anyway being a lot more selective than us.
that's why the apical positions in society will always be held by men.

[RockHard]

(07-30-2014 05:52 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

It's an utter free-for-all. Kids don't actually want that. They want clear boundaries and tough (but fair) discipline.

That's parenting in a nutshell. If you know one thing about parenting, it should be this.

[2014]

Who cares? In the coming decades the prevailing wisdom will be that, in the vast majority of cases, anyone going to college would be wittingly taking part in a scam. A scam in which the student goes ahead and defrauds themselves.

If you look at all top earners, without question and by a long margin they are always Chief Executives and they, more often than not, start their own company or rise through a company by knowing whatsup in the real world, not in theory, or on paper, or on some $100k college degree on basket weaving.. they get shit done in life. These people who drop out because of a 'B' on some economics paper were never going to make it in reality anyway.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The gracelessness of American women and their inability to take criticism (or failure) is bred in our school system and condoned by our parents, all of whom are bent on creating generations of "princesses."

I'm sure we've all had the experience of saying something negative to a woman (perhaps inadvertently) and having her go completely insane. I had one write me a long email and not speak to me for eight months because of a minor misunderstanding.

Now apply this to the real world. When you have people who behave this way in business, success is not in the cards. You have to roll with the punches not be a petty tyrant. You can't be a princess who throws people out of the kingdom when they're not fanning your ego and/or playing court jester.

Intelligence is only useful if you're open to receiving all kind of information -- positive and negative. Anyone who surrounds themselves with yes-men (i.e. Beta Orbiters) will be stupid because you don't get smart being told only what you want to hear.

Ironically enough, just as women are getting more opportunities in society, that same society is turning them into the exact kinds of people who cannot make the most of such opportunities.

You can be a princess. Or you can be successful in business. You can't be both. A lot of women are only capable of the first -- hence the cop out cases features in this article.