Lack of women in STEM

there are more men in the tails of the bell curve for IQ. I know shitting on IQ is vogue, but it does probe the sort of problem solving skill you need for STEM. Women tend towards the mean and have a narrowed distribution. This is why they earn the most degree, but the least quantitative ones. Testorsterone also improves visio-spatial understanding which is required to excel. For example, even though there are more ungifted men, their visio-spatial is good enough to be applied in skilled labor.

>underrepresentation
Why are they using such a misleading word for this? As if it's a democratic election system and the people who represent women are in the minority.

The single truth in the world is that only profits will prevail. It doesn't matter if you are a men or a women, if you earn profits, you are valuable. There is no secret agenda to keep women out of science.

More women graduate highschool than men. In bachelor, many women exit to become teachers.

underrepresentation's a meme

>be in highschool science
>teacher reads out women only science trips and summer events
>stacies go because muh day off school
>interested males aren't allowed to go

>fast forward two years
>stacies in meme tier degrees
>males are fighting for opportunities presented to these girls to spruce up their UCAS degree
>males go into STEM

we need to stop forcing people into roles they clearly don't want to be in while depriving those who're interested in pursuing their interests

>>8670126
>we need to stop forcing people into roles they clearly don't want to be in while depriving those who're interested in pursuing their interests

I'm all for that, but according to the graph it was 68/32 m/f ratio on barchelor degrees. Shouldn't that ratio reflect your interest already? the 32% female who got a science degrees were not doing meme degrees. Why does it still fall off the cliff later on?

>>8670165
It may reflect capacity. Refer to:
>>8670075

Each step is more difficult, so if there are less and less women relative to men at the higher extreme of the intelligence bell curve, women will be further "underrepresented".

It's not that "women are dumber", but that women are concentrated around a certain intelligence range. There are much fewer very smart women than very smart men.

>>8670064
we need more women trained on SANDWICH than STEM. Srsly I go into Jersey Mike's and if a chick is preparing the sandwich I walk the fulk out. Only dudes can make decent sandwiches. We need chicks to understand how to make tasty sandwiches first, then we'll let them into STEM.

>>8670178
One thing this could be, if we're going to go this innate reasoning route, that women are more interested in working with people as opposed to working with objects. Academics isn't viewed as a profession where you are working with people. At least with a bachelor's, you're not becoming a scientist.

>>8670064
>It is obvious that it is not just based on interest
that is the case, no matter how hard you want to believe otherwise

>>8670165
>women aren't going into STEM, why?
>invest 1000000000 gorilion dollars into sexist women-only programs and scholarships, reformat schools to appeal to women and push them to STEM, etc etc
>women are going into bachelor's for STEM and then quitting as soon as they find out what STEM is, how can we keep pushing them to pursue STEM?

retard

>>8670064
The ratio of science PhDs are 75% male and 25% female

Of that PhD graduates, the research jobs are 71% male and 29% female

If anything it shows institutional biases in hiring against men. In every step of the way that involves free choice the female ratio drop off, but in the particular step that reflects institutional hiring women are over-represented.

File: 1479314144017.png (248KB, 738x312px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 738x312px

For a change, I would like to see a survey of the different genders asking questions about how happy and satisfied they are with their lives. I have a feeling that results would be very telling.