|
|
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
|
|
| |
A report from the Chronicle of Higher Education daily update today highlighted some recent research on access to higher education.
The impact of financial inequalities -- such as the role of family income -- is almost entirely neglected by popular theories guiding research on college access, says Edward P. St. John, a professor of education at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Is it just me, or does it seem obvious that not all of us have the net worth of a Dubya Shrub? And that variations in net worth would have an impact on college access? Like, if your net worth was approximately one-third of what Bill Gates had, your kids could probably go to just about any college they wanted, as long as they weren't total idiots. Whereas, if my net worth consisted of my company house in southwestern PA,
my eight-year-old car, $2000 in my checking account and $15,000 in retirement savings, and net household yearly income is $40,000, my kids just might possibly have a little less choice in higher education than yours.
The article goes on:
He says that a central problem overlooked in theories on access "is the implicit assumption that financial aid is adequate to enable students to enroll in college and as a consequence, concerns about finances do not inhibit preparation or enrollment." But evidence suggests that even with financial aid, the costs of college matter a great deal to students and their families, he writes. Regardless of that, researchers have tended to examine issues related to college access and academic success through blurry theoretical lenses, he says.
I would like to rub shoulders with some of the folks who are walking around spouting the "financial aid is adequate to enable students to enroll in college and...concerns about finances do not inhibit preparation or enrollment". Then I will invite them to come visit southwestern Pennsylvania with me. Money - class - is as big an issue for diversity in science and engineering as race and sex.
The Chronicle says that Mr. St. John's article,
"Contending With Financial Inequality: Rethinking the Contributions of Qualitative Research to the Policy Discourse on College Access," is available free for a limited time through Sage Publications. It is part of a special issue devoted to the topic of financial aid and access to college.
10:53:07 PM 
|
|
Sharon and Sonja and all you other poor benighted souls who think fancy whore calendars are a positive step forward for women in IT...allow me to introduce you to what a truly sexy woman in IT is like. Allow me to suggest, for your consideration, Ellen Spertus, 2001's Sexiest Geek Alive! Here's Ellen's take on a very important question:
- ...do you really want to be called a geek?
I'll admit I'm more comfortable with the term "nerd". I think there's a coastal difference in connotations. On the East Coast (where I went to school), nerd was positive and geek was negative. On the West Coast (where I now live), the reverse seems to be the case. I would be interested to know at what point in the country the shift takes place.
Does anyone know if this important research question has been answered? Where does the shift take place?
Ellen is beautiful and intelligent and geeky and funny, too. This joke made me laugh out loud, which probably just shows how geeky (nerdy? since I'm in Philly?) I am.
Yes. For example, why do programmers confuse Christmas with Halloween? Because 31 OCT = 25 DEC.
Ellen is, I believe, a contributor to the most fabulous volume "She's Such a Geek! Women Write About Science, Technology, and Other Geeky Things", in which I also (ahem) have an essay. You may get your eager paws on a copy this November. Advance copies can be ordered at Amazon already. But I like Barnes and Noble better.
10:19:42 PM
|
|
Well, Sonja has come back with a devastating response to my critique of the Screen Goddess IT Calendar:
tsk tsk tsk facts inaccuate again I'm not Sonja - American Beauty:-))) a review of the goddess web site or any media will reveal that fact. I have enjoyed other blogs due to intellectual objective debate however when it degrades to personal irrational 'insults' no real value to add. bye
I guess that shows me. Now that Sonja has laid bare the flaws in my logic, who am I to argue further that fancy whore calendars don't advance the cause of women in IT?
Sharon has actually been injured by my critique:
My apologies for the terrible typos in my last comment - it is unfortunately an output of sitting up late into the evening reading opinions of contributors such as yourself.
I recommend less screen time and maybe some aspirin, but remember, I am not a physician.
I have to say - if I were judging only by their comments, I would not guess that Sharon and Sonja worked in IT. But then, I have not spent many hours up late reading the goddess IT web site to discover more about their fascinating personalities.
Here's something interesting to consider. Over at Inky Circus, you can read their take on the whole IT Screen Goddess hoo-ha. There you will find this interesting link to the Vancouver Fire Department's Flame Calendar. There's a photo of a beefy lad with a long, long, long hose between his legs. Yes.
What's the difference between the Flame Calendar and the IT Screen Goddess calendar?
-
Beefy lad with long hose = Very, very macho man = Very competent firefighter
-
Nekkid lady with rose petals = Male erection = Yeah baby, I'll give IT to you all night long
And that asymmetry, my children, is patriarchy in action. And that's why posing for fancy whore calendars is not and will never be a positive step for women in science and engineering, at least until the revolution comes.
9:54:22 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
Suzanne E. Franks.
Last update:
8/23/2006; 4:09:28 PM.
|
|
| August 2006 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
| Jul Sep |
|
