University fees about to increase

[Onemorestepintheworld]

An announcement is expected today. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0qdgndz5wzt Any bets? I reckon £12k pa

@@SerenityNowSerenityNow
https://www.docmeeting.com/corti/bejune/cours/mxp/docs2/Ceci_Women_Underrepresentation_Science.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0165025415616201
These articles suggest female preferences make them less likely to choose physics. It is a sociological view to say that gender stereotypes are the only reason for female preferences. However, I think this is reductionist view and ignores biological differences.

@titchy I think there are definite advantages to nurses training on the job that nurses who did this tell me. They say that nurses coming straight out of university lack important skills. I accept that nurses have to make more decisions nowadays and may be prescribing medication but I think these qualifications can be obtained on the job as the nurses I know have done.

Back in 1985, when about 15% of people did degrees, you could do a degree in teaching for primary school. However, most secondary school teachers did a degree and then did a postgraduate teaching qualification after their undergraduate degree.

Actually nursing undergrads spend loads of time on the job. I’m finding it hard to believe that nursing and teaching became degrees to bump up female numbers! How utterly patronising.

We keep hearing about how we organise HE in the UK. Yes, that little island called the UK that voted for Brexit and likes to go it alone and cannot learn from anyone! Of course we can look at excellence abroad and learn. I wonder why we dismiss other countries so lightly who, economically, do better than we do? We seem very entrenched in our own failing system. It’s so very British to not be open to change.

Plus I do not have DC with a stem degree. I fully support other degrees and I don’t agree with 15% going to uni. However more than 35% is too many at 18. I don’t think EE at A level is normal except for some degrees where it’s the portfolio that matters and the ones I know are CC. I would prefer to see CCC as a minimum for degrees if a school leaver.

These articles suggest female preferences make them less likely to choose physics. It is a sociological view to say that gender stereotypes are the only reason for female preferences. However, I think this is reductionist view and ignores biological differences.

Yes, we know that there is evidence of gendered choices in subject preferences. This extends into career choices too.
Are you suggesting this is biological? Rather than the result of socialisation and societal expectations?
How you do you explain the fact more men are in senior leadership positions? Or that teaching, retail and health care are female dominated?

Please can you point me in the direction of research and evidence that shows the biological differences between men and women impact subject and career choices?

We keep hearing about how we organise HE in the UK. Yes, that little island called the UK that voted for Brexit and likes to go it alone and cannot learn from anyone! Of course we can look at excellence abroad and learn. I wonder why we dismiss other countries so lightly who, economically, do better than we do? We seem very entrenched in our own failing system. It’s so very British to not be open to change.

We do look at excellence abroad. Other counties also look to us.
In many sections of HE it is common practice to share best practice. We work in partnership with overseas universities, we run joint programmes, we research together and we talk!
Your description of a HE sector which 'goes it alone' is just not accurate.
We're not resistant to change. But just because something works in one country, doesn't mean it will work in the UK.
Those of us challenging your suggestions are not doing it because we don't want change. We're doing it because we know our sector, our universities, our students and the context in which we work.

However, I think this is reductionist view and ignores biological differences.

What you need a penis to study physics now? Ovaries to be a nurse?

There are no biological differences FFS. There's a whole heap of societal ones.

Science thankfully is still allowed to study male and female differences even if university lecturers or students may not like it. Sometimes that is really important research eg into how medicines work on women compared with men (and on children and on different kinds of people).

I see the university issue as part of a bigger issue in the Uk - more people here than ever in our history, highest tax burden in 70 years on those on £67k+ under the Tories (and Labour); a lot of people taking out of the system and not that many being net payers into it and very low productivity.

It is something we need to solve not just for the university sector and its costs but in other areas too.

Science thankfully is still allowed to study male and female differences even if university lecturers or students may not like it. Sometimes that is really important research eg into how medicines work on women compared with men (and on children and on different kinds of people).

I agree. Research like this is really important.
However, nobody has ever been able to explain to me how biology explains gendered career choices. Having a penis or male hormones does not make you better at science.

I think the big issue is preference! What do males and females actually enjoy? What makes them tick? It’s not that women cannot do certain subjects, they prefer not to, Msny girls hsve equal grades at GCSE and could do science A levels but prefer something else. Women in science is pushed a lot but it won’t make girls actually enjoy it enough for a career in it. In the same way fewer boys take English lit. We don’t get anxiety over that. So with all the push for stem and telling girls they should do it, they still tend to choose subjects they, as individuals, prefer.

And after their A levels / degrees - whether in Science or not - may enter different professions for preference.

How do you think those preferences develop?
It comes down to whether you think preferences are developed as a result of socialisation and societal expectations or if they are driven by biology?

The evidence suggests that it's socialisation as opposed to biology.
This is actually my area of teaching and research so could debate this ALL day.😀

I agree that socialisation has a oart to play. It’s a bit like motherhood - the mother, having been pregnant, given birth and lactated, is biologically ‘primed’ to be the early main caregiver. On top of that, there is built the societal expectation that mothers are the main early caregivers. Then on top of that is the work and financial landscape in which parents needing to leave work on time for the nursery run are seen as ‘less committed’ and women of childbearing age (especially with a young baby already) are often quietly overlooked for promotion or high profile projects ‘in case they go on maternity leave again).

The work / financial landscape is where prejudice lies (Why is nursing a low status profession? Because it is female dominated.) The biological and core socialisation elements are there, and are not themselves ‘wrong’. It’s important to disentangle them.

A woman might want to be a nurse because they are driven to care for others. What she doesn’t deserve is to be looked down on and her choice seen as less valid than someone who wants to be an engineer because they are driven by an interest in how things work.

I absolutely agree. We shouldn't be placing a value judgement on career choices.
It's about understanding these choices and the patterns that emerge. It's not about saying all girls should be aspiring for STEM careers but unpicking why girls with an interest and ability in science are not choosing to study that subject or are choosing nursing over medicine. We need to understand if there are any structural barriers in place that can be addressed.
I've just used STEM as an example here. The research looks at more than just STEM.

(That ‘drive’ in each case may be biological or societal or - most likely - a combination. It is only valid to see it as ‘prejudice’ ir ‘wrong’ if the person is told they can’t, or shouldn’t, follow the opposite path because of their gender, or if the person is discriminated against in their chosen path because of their gender)

At the moment, it seems sometimes that women are belittled for following their ‘conventional’ preferences, but this us it seems to me an artefact of the fact ghat society has come to look down on extremely valuable, difficult and worthwhile careers simply because they are female dominated. The solution is not to prevent women from entering them, but to challenge the societal prejudice that labels them as ‘lower status’.

(That ‘drive’ in each case may be biological or societal or - most likely - a combination. It is only valid to see it as ‘prejudice’ ir ‘wrong’ if the person is told they can’t, or shouldn’t, follow the opposite path because of their gender, or if the person is discriminated against in their chosen path because of their gender)

But often the 'telling' isn't that explicit. And neither is the discrimination. If it were so overt that would make life so much easier!

It's a bit more complicated than that. You've already mentioned how society /work places view women and childcare....this is a particular issue.

If childcare is viewed as the responsibility of women then this will impact a whole range of things. There is evidence of it influencing career decisions at a young age( girls will favour careers which are viewed as flexible in preparation for having a family in a way that boys/men just don't). These careers often pay less.

Women are more likely to work part time which impacts earnings and career progression. Men either don't ask for flexible working or are more likely to have it refused.
The way society views men who take shared parental leave or become a SAHP is less than favourable. This is in part due to societal views on the role of men as financial providers.

In some ways this is why we need universities - to study issues like this without fear or favour and go as far as social science or science will take them even if we all hate the results or adore the results of the work. i do not think we are going to solve it on this thread.

The issue of whether we pay (rather than just morally value) lower paid or unpaid work is quite political. If you run a commune eg like say Gloriavale in New Zealand - no wages but everyone's needs are provided for then I suppose you value all work in that sense; as indeed has ofte been tried - the FLDS had a go in the US (fundamentalist mormons operating the United Order principle) and indeed Lenin tried in Soviet Russia and the kibbutzim principles sometimes in Israel. I don't think it works too well but that does not mean I am against being kind and good and appreciative of all people whatever their status particularly mothers up all night breastfeeding a baby.

You do in fact need a penis to stir liquids in a beaker according to mumsnet. So that explains lack of women in STEM.

I think we are discussig the nature nurture debate, and most people agree that an interaction between the two affects most behaviour. Some research shows that differences in prenatal androgen exposure affects preference for toys in the early years. MRI scans shows differences in brain connectivity and activity between males and females, which can lead to gender-related cognitive differences and choices.
As it happens, my first degree is a physical science degree but I chose not to pursue a career in it due to my own natural preferences. This is despite my family, school and society trying to push it.

Some research shows that differences in prenatal androgen exposure affects preference for toys in the early years.

The research into this is hardly conclusive. The studies generally state that the differences are not statistically significant and could be explained by socialisation.

The two articles you shared earlier also state that biological differences do not explain gendered choices.

Some of these posts imply STEM is being pushed onto people who don’t want to do it. I think the programs I see are simply encouraging people to consider it as a career. Often people pick their jobs from what they see around them. We all know there are jobs in shops, hospitals, schools etc. Not everybody knows there are jobs in GCHQ for computer programmers.

Exactly this.

@DoTheyKnowItsNotChristmasYet So you think girls just see nursing and shop work with a bit of teaching thrown in throughout their lives but boys are well acquainted with GCHQ even if they don’t live anywhere near it? I don’t buy this. Girls are surely not so easily led.

Schools and government rhetoric is always pushing stem. We even have maths schools. We don’t have history schools. We have compulsory maths and, for most, 3 sciences. DC could add in a couple more stem subjects if they wanted to. No one pushes arts subjects in the same way and large numbers give them up and can barely take a MFL at gcse without saying it’s too difficult.

Of course most nurses could not get into
medicine. If they could, they would. Neither do they get pushed into nursing. It’s not as if they don’t know about other NHS careers! If nurses have stem A levels they could do a degree in a science that opens up more doors. They have the choice.

I would suggest modern girls and women aren’t the easily led ill-informed young people suggested here. They choose careers for many reasons but most people choose something they believe they can do well and will make them happy. I have been on another thread about studying law. Many women do. However on this thread the op says DD doesn’t want a London law job. She wants regional law which almost certainly pays less. So are the London law jobs for the boys who will move there? All sorts of factors go into career choice.

All sorts of factors go into career choice.

That is true but @TizerorFizz many of your thoughts on career decision making behaviour are particularly ill informed.

The vast majority of young people know very little about career options available to them. The majority of young people applying for nursing do not know the full range of NHS roles available.

They know about jobs that are familiar to them. Jobs they have had direct experience of, jobs they've seen through the media or jobs people they know do.

This is why early careers education is really important. It's why work experience, encounters with employers and role models are needed in schools.

@TizerorFizz if you are correct and the modern generation are more clued up about the options it is probably because of things like the programs informing them about the options i.e. STEM.
One of the reasons jobs like nursing is less well paid is supply and demand. There seem to be plenty of people prepared to go into that career. The number able and willing to pursue STEM careers is lower hence the higher pay.
We also as a country need innovation. If we can advance is the field of robotics for example we will need less doctors. If a machine can do an ultrasound for example it leaves the expert free to read the images all together at a time of their choosing to decide who needs further treatment.
I hope you are right and young people have more information about the options open to them but since many of our future jobs don’t yet exist I find that hard to believe.

I hope you are right and young people have more information about the options open to them but since many of our future jobs don’t yet exist I find that hard to believe.

@DoTheyKnowItsNotChristmasYet there is a huge amount of information available BUT young people often feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume.
It's also unclear where to find reliable information.

Some groups of young people don't even use formal careers information to help them make decisions! They rely on informal sources of information which comes this it's own set of issues!!