Anti-male movement

Da Boss

Is anyone here in agreement with me when I say there's an anti-male movement in ireland gaining pace quickly, this movement consisting of both women and indeed some men to rather puzzlingly

super_furry

Nope.

AndyBoBandy

super_furry wrote: »

Nope.

Me neither

bmwguy

Da Boss wrote: »

Is anyone here in agreement with me when I say there's an anti-male movement in ireland gaining pace quickly, this movement consisting of both women and indeed some men to rather puzzlingly

Yes. There are certain double standards in the media where it's ok to criticise, belittle and point out men's shortcomings that are seen as ok. It has crept into real life too. But it's not anything to worry about, just annoying. As long as the quota system for employees, executives, directors, board members etc. doesn't reach taking the piss levels we are ok.
Everyone, male or female, should be judged on their own individual merits.

Da Boss

bmwguy wrote: »

Yes. There are certain double standards in the media where it's ok to criticise, belittle and point out men's shortcomings that are seen as ok. It has crept into real life too. But it's not anything to worry about, just annoying. As long as the quota system for employees, executives, directors, board members etc. doesn't reach taking the piss levels we are ok.
Everyone, male or female, should be judged on their own individual merits.

Yes indeed, Well phrased speech there, another example of this is that apparently the leaving cert is biased to boys because boys are better at the Stem subjects

jsms88

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes indeed, Well phrased speech there, another example of this is that apparently the leaving cert is biased to boys because boys are better at the Stem subjects

Well that's not true. Girls are consistently outperforming boys in the vast majority of subjects every single year, including many of the STEM subjects.

Da Boss

jsms88 wrote: »

Well that's not true. Girls are consistently outperforming boys in the vast majority of subjects every single year, including many of the STEM subjects.

Sorry lady but the statistics yesterday showed that while girls outperformed boys in more areas, STEM subjects were the exception

correction

Nah, it's just a case of certain insecure men having things their own way for so long now viewing equality (which we still don't even have) as a threat to their status.

jsms88

Da Boss wrote: »

Sorry lady but the statistics yesterday showed that while girls outperformed boys in more areas, STEM subjects were the exception

You're looking at total numbers but that's always going to give misleading results as more boys do STEM subjects than girls. That doesn't mean they outperform them. If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.

Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:

Mathematics
F: 13.9%
M: 21.7%
(MALE WIN)

Applied Mathematics
F: 29.7%
M:39.9%
(MALE WIN)

Physics
F: 31%
M: 25.8%
(FEMALE WIN)

Chemistry
F: 27.4%
M: 30.8%
(MALE WIN)

Physics and Chemistry
F: 28.2%
M: 20.6%
(FEMALE WIN)

Agricultural Science
F: 23.8%
M: 14.8%
(FEMALE WIN)

Biology
F: 22.3%
M: 19.3%
(FEMALE WIN)

Engineering
F: 23.1%
M: 21.5%
(FEMALE WIN)

Construction Studies
F: 24.3%
M: 17%
(FEMALE WIN)

Technology
F: 33.6%
M: 27.4%
(FEMALE WIN)

DCG
F: 30.9%
M: 26.6%
(FEMALE WIN)

So out of the 11 STEM subjects, boys did better in terms of percentages scoring the top grades in only 3.

If you want to consider it from the other end, i.e. in terms of failing the exams, a greater percentage of girls failed in only two of these subjects: Mathematics and Construction Studies.

None of this is unusual. Trends over the years generally reflect similar results.

PS I am a male. Please do not refer to me as 'lady' on this forum.

Wibbs

What strikes me about these figures is not the whole "which is better", but how narrow the actual gaps are(maths seems to be the outlier). Kinda shoots down the whole [insert gender here] is better at [insert subject here].

As for the "anti male movement", the vast majority of that guff is online or in the media. In the real world while there are issues it's not nearly so marked a "gender war" as some suggest or think. The whole "gender war" itself is more imported American based bullsh1t anyway.

Speaking of...

Da Boss wrote: »

Sorry lady

Lady? What are you, a New York taxi driver? Let's dial that dismissive nonsense back please.

The_Conductor

I suspect the OP has been reading the summaries in the Indo- there is one article in particular which seems to be getting a lot of people's goat up:

Sinead Ryan's Piece here

All I can say is- its the media- and courting controvesy is a good method to sell papers. Perhaps Sinead even believes what she has written- but hasn't say down and actually looked at the statistics- or perhaps, it simply suits her to gloss over inconvenient truths.

There is a perception that there is an equality issue here- because more males than females study the stem subjects and end up in higher paying jobs. Well- the answer is not to dumb down the subjects- its to look at why fewer females gravitate towards these subjects.

Just because you can get wonderful grades in languages and artsy subjects- if ultimately these are not going to help you down the road- perhaps the answer is to try to get people to look at the bigger picture.

Then- you have the fact that over 86% of all teachers are female- perhaps there is a bias there- towards pushing girls into subject areas where teachers know they'll mop up marks- but ignoring the bigger picture.

Then again- you have the teachers themselves- getting additional increments for having a degree or a masters- but no cognisance whatsoever of what that degree or masters is in. How about trying to encourage science and engineering grads into teaching? Its certainly not happening at the moment........

All told- I think our children are very poorly advised by their teachers- and perhaps by career guidance counsellors? Just because your teacher is doing fine with a degree in Greek and Roman civilisations- doesn't mean its a viable or tenable option for 99% of pupils.

Just because more guys end up in computer science, or accountancy- does not mean there is an equality issue- which is what that reporter in the Indo seems to imagine there must be.

jsms88

The_Conductor wrote: »

Then again- you have the teachers themselves- getting additional increments for having a degree or a masters- but no cognisance whatsoever of what that degree or masters is in. How about trying to encourage science and engineering grads into teaching? Its certainly not happening at the moment........

Do you mean paying a science teacher more than a geography teacher for doing the same amount of work?

shopper2011

jsms88 wrote:

Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:

"Lies Lies and Statistics" - Mark Twain

Gbear

jsms88 wrote: »

You're looking at total numbers but that's always going to give misleading results as more boys do STEM subjects than girls. That doesn't mean they outperform them. If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.

Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:

Mathematics
F: 13.9%
M: 21.7%
(MALE WIN)

Applied Mathematics
F: 29.7%
M:39.9%
(MALE WIN)

Physics
F: 31%
M: 25.8%
(FEMALE WIN)

Chemistry
F: 27.4%
M: 30.8%
(MALE WIN)

Physics and Chemistry
F: 28.2%
M: 20.6%
(FEMALE WIN)

Agricultural Science
F: 23.8%
M: 14.8%
(FEMALE WIN)

Biology
F: 22.3%
M: 19.3%
(FEMALE WIN)

Engineering
F: 23.1%
M: 21.5%
(FEMALE WIN)

Construction Studies
F: 24.3%
M: 17%
(FEMALE WIN)

Technology
F: 33.6%
M: 27.4%
(FEMALE WIN)

DCG
F: 30.9%
M: 26.6%
(FEMALE WIN)

So out of the 11 STEM subjects, boys did better in terms of percentages scoring the top grades in only 3.

If you want to consider it from the other end, i.e. in terms of failing the exams, a greater percentage of girls failed in only two of these subjects: Mathematics and Construction Studies.

None of this is unusual. Trends over the years generally reflect similar results.

PS I am a male. Please do not refer to me as 'lady' on this forum.

Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.

It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.

jsms88

Gbear wrote: »

Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.

It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.

That's total speculation of course. It also implies that at the age of 15, when choosing their leaving cert subjects, girls are in some way more capable of choosing subjects that they are 'good' at than boys are. I don't buy that. A 15 year old boy who is great at chemistry is equally as likely to pick it for his leaving cert as a capable girl.

professore

jsms88 wrote: »

Gbear wrote: »

Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.

It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.

That's total speculation of course. It also implies that at the age of 15, when choosing their leaving very subjects, girls are in some way more capable of choosing subjects that they are 'good' at than boys are. I don't buy that. A 15 year old boy who is great at chemistry is equally as likely to pick it for his leaving cert as a capable girl.

Agreed, but I speculate having seen this myself that the less capable girl is more likely to choose a "girly" subject like Home Ec or a language whereas the less capable boy would be more likely to choose a "boy" subject like a science (bar biology, which is a more "girl" science.). So I think more capable students would be more likely to do subjects they like and are good at than less capable, who would go for stereotypical gendered subjects.

H3llR4iser

jsms88 wrote: »

...If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.

Very sound logic - which should be applied to all the data, even when it is not about school.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the "anti male movement", the vast majority of that guff is online or in the media. In the real world while there are issues it's not nearly so marked a "gender war" as some suggest or think. The whole "gender war" itself is more imported American based bullsh1t anyway.

Mostly this - online / media are a different thing from reality, and I'd say a proper cesspit in many ways.

In "real life", I have met maybe one person who would go to extreme lengths of annoyance if she so much as heard a joke vaguely about women. The vast majority, women and men alike, tend to be quite frank and open - I've met many women who, for example, have a big issue with the way lots of topics are discussed in the largely feminist media, as they think it's more detrimental than anything else.

I've also met one or two who would have weird, idiotic idea about men and how we behave / think, mostly based on soaps portrayal of us. I would classify that as sheer, genderless stupidity.

TL;DR - don't think so; not yet, at least.

ADDENDUM - That said, I do firmly believe there's a big issue when it comes to largely ignoring men's issues; From health (both physical and mental) to social pressure and general risk, there's a big attitude at "brushing them under the carpet".

jsms88

professore wrote: »

Agreed, but I speculate having seen this myself that the less capable girl is more likely to choose a "girly" subject like Home Ec or a language whereas the less capable boy would be more likely to choose a "boy" subject like a science (bar biology, which is a more "girl" science.). So I think more capable students would be more likely to do subjects they like and are good at than less capable, who would go for stereotypical gendered subjects.

Nicely put. Agreed.

However, there is nothing to say that a more capable student shouldn't pick the 'girly' Home Ec anyway. I have never bought into this idea that the brainy kids should do the science subjects and the less capable should stick to geography, etc.

Being mathematically gifted shouldn't mean you shouldn't do history if you enjoy it, for example. Equally, you'll find many less capable students in the physics and higher maths classes because they insist on being there.

I suppose the point I'm building to is that you'll find a mix of abilities in any class (unrelated to gender) and are unlikely to see a situation like that described in an earlier post where there are only excellent female students taking a particular subject or only less capable males, etc.

wakka12

Yes, confined almost entirely to the realms of the internet though. Go outside ,turn off your computer and enjoy the world where gender obsessed morons are a lot less mouthy about rights and social justice than they are on the internet . Normal people outside the Internet forums live a lot more happily alongside each other , whatever gender religion race sexuality , I think there's a lot less tension there than online .

um7y1h83ge06nx

There are some idiots out there unfortunately but they do appear to be in the minority.

I can never understand those that have a problem with the opposite sex. The likes of Una Mullaly and Louise O'Neill obviously have fathers and maybe brothers in their lives.

Myself, I have a mother, wife and very soon a daughter. I would hate for any of them to be treated negatively purely because of their gender.

A lot of this rubbish comes from American culture where things need to be black and white, good Vs evil. We see it at the moment there with the far right Vs far left debate.

Quick frankly there are a minority of total gob****es in this world that are nothing but petulant bullies. Anyway, rant over.

Gbear

jsms88 wrote: »

I suppose the point I'm building to is that you'll find a mix of abilities in any class (unrelated to gender) and are unlikely to see a situation like that described in an earlier post where there are only excellent female students taking a particular subject or only less capable males, etc.

I didn't say that's how it is, of course, but that that kind of situation could be one of any number of confounding factors that lead to those kinds of results.

Without controls in place we can't read much of anything into them.

The_Conductor

jsms88 wrote: »

Do you mean paying a science teacher more than a geography teacher for doing the same amount of work?

Honestly- yes.
I genuinely think that teachers should be paid accordingly to the subjects they teach.

I am not advocating penury for geography/language/religious studies teachers- I am suggesting that a chunky premium be paid to teachers of certain subjects- covering the stem subjects- alongside 'welcome' payments for new entrants to teaching- holding primary degrees in stem subjects.

I would also suggest that the Department should liaise with our multinationals- and put together a roving panel of trainers- who would undertake to take 1-2 hours a week in schools- perhaps after hours- and students could volunteer to attend these sessions.

As a student myself (25 odd years ago)- I did outreach teaching in a school in a disadvantaged area (Darndale) for 3 years (I taught Chemistry and Honours and Ordinary Level Maths). The classes were in the evening- and attendance was entirely voluntary for the students. Most days I had at least 15 students- in the run up to the Leaving- this swelled to almost 30. I was proudly told by the principal- that some of the students from my classes were offered places in Trinity and UCD- often the first members of their families to attend third level education- this was back in the early 90s.

I have no idea if similar schemes still run- but it would be a boon if they did- supported by our Hi-Tech sectors, the Department- and a new cadre of teachers- with good qualifications to teach these subjects.

I don't suggest we should tell the geography teachers of the world to take a hike- I do suggest that the blanket bonus payments and seniority structure- which rewards a degree, or a masters, or a post grad rather than a hdip, rather than looking at what prospective teachers qualifications actually are- is a very obvious target for addressing the manner in which we have teachers with all manner of soft subjects- and a dearth of those qualified or willing to teach the hard subjects.

We already look at disadvantaged schools via the Deise system- why not think outside the box- and actively encourage talented individuals who are willing to teach our children the skills they need to maximise their potential- to take up employment in our educational sector.

I.e. I am not suggesting we offer our geography or language teachers- a different payscale- I am suggesting we look at teaching stem subjects- in a similar manner to in the UK, France or Scandinavia- where there is a recognition that they *need* to teach children skills to equip them for the modern world- as opposed to simply maximising their exam potential. Hell- if exam results are used as a yardstick- your geography teacher you used as an example- would be grinning like a Chesire cat- I've no idea how or why their results are so exemplary. However- if we are corraling students into the highly regarded geography classes- at the cost of core science or other stem subjects- which patently is the case- the battle is lost- before a punch is ever thrown.

Its hard to explain to a class that looking at maximising their leaving cert points- isn't the be-all and end-all. Sure you can do a conversion course if you really want to do core science subjects but don't have the second level education to support your application- I was the last year of the Matric exam for university- that tells you how old I am- the leaving cert is not necessarily the be-all and end-all.

We need to encourage holders of core stem qualifications- into our schools. We do not need to encourage more geography and soft subject teachers.
This is the issue.

silverharp

havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.

spurious

There are many girls' schools where only one science subject is offered. If opportunities were equal the performance would be as equal at the top end as it is in others. The top end is not the issue, the main problem is the disengagement by many average to lower ability males from an early stage.

The_Conductor

silverharp wrote: »

havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.

Yes- they've this in most other countries at this stage- Ireland is very much an outlier...........

jsms88

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- yes.
I genuinely think that teachers should be paid accordingly to the subjects they teach.

I am not advocating penury for geography/language/religious studies teachers- I am suggesting that a chunky premium be paid to teachers of certain subjects- covering the stem subjects- alongside 'welcome' payments for new entrants to teaching- holding primary degrees in stem subjects.

I would also suggest that the Department should liaise with our multinationals- and put together a roving panel of trainers- who would undertake to take 1-2 hours a week in schools- perhaps after hours- and students could volunteer to attend these sessions.

As a student myself (25 odd years ago)- I did outreach teaching in a school in a disadvantaged area (Darndale) for 3 years (I taught Chemistry and Honours and Ordinary Level Maths). The classes were in the evening- and attendance was entirely voluntary for the students. Most days I had at least 15 students- in the run up to the Leaving- this swelled to almost 30. I was proudly told by the principal- that some of the students from my classes were offered places in Trinity and UCD- often the first members of their families to attend third level education- this was back in the early 90s.

I have no idea if similar schemes still run- but it would be a boon if they did- supported by our Hi-Tech sectors, the Department- and a new cadre of teachers- with good qualifications to teach these subjects.

I don't suggest we should tell the geography teachers of the world to take a hike- I do suggest that the blanket bonus payments and seniority structure- which rewards a degree, or a masters, or a post grad rather than a hdip, rather than looking at what prospective teachers qualifications actually are- is a very obvious target for addressing the manner in which we have teachers with all manner of soft subjects- and a dearth of those qualified or willing to teach the hard subjects.

We already look at disadvantaged schools via the Deise system- why not think outside the box- and actively encourage talented individuals who are willing to teach our children the skills they need to maximise their potential- to take up employment in our educational sector.

I.e. I am not suggesting we offer our geography or language teachers- a different payscale- I am suggesting we look at teaching stem subjects- in a similar manner to in the UK, France or Scandinavia- where there is a recognition that they *need* to teach children skills to equip them for the modern world- as opposed to simply maximising their exam potential. Hell- if exam results are used as a yardstick- your geography teacher you used as an example- would be grinning like a Chesire cat- I've no idea how or why their results are so exemplary. However- if we are corraling students into the highly regarded geography classes- at the cost of core science or other stem subjects- which patently is the case- the battle is lost- before a punch is ever thrown.

Its hard to explain to a class that looking at maximising their leaving cert points- isn't the be-all and end-all. Sure you can do a conversion course if you really want to do core science subjects but don't have the second level education to support your application- I was the last year of the Matric exam for university- that tells you how old I am- the leaving cert is not necessarily the be-all and end-all.

We need to encourage holders of core stem qualifications- into our schools. We do not need to encourage more geography and soft subject teachers.
This is the issue.

I don't like your use of term 'soft' subjects and 'hard' subjects. Go and look at the statistics. There are very few differences in the grading of different subjects every year. There are no soft/easy subjects in the Leaving Cert. Every subject requires commitment and hard work to do well. Alas, dare I say, your view is one which I have come across from many maths teachers over the years; that their subject is better than everyone elses. And yet, when I have gone on holidays I have found my school-learned French very useful but, to date, I have never yet stood on the side of a GAA pitch wondering what the angle of the sun to the goalpost is, nor indeed any application of that particular learning!

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what we, as a society, value in a person, most of which are not realistic or even acceptable. The first being that someone working in science/maths is more valuable than those in other disciplines. Of course, science/maths is important but who is anyone to go around telling someone else that becoming a historian or an accountant or a translator is effectively wasting their working life or not making a worthwhile contribution to society. A student who loves Spanish may go on to take part in UN/NATO work resolving international relations disputes or even wars. A student who loves music may go on to write symphonies, celebrated the world over, that bring hours of joy to people. These are not cures for cancer but we don't live in a Marxist state. We have free will to makes choices about what we do with out lives. It's not about allocating all the resources 'for the greater good' and, therefore, it is not appropriate for a government, through it's teacher pay structures, to effectively devalue anyone who doesn't go down the road of science. And, let's be honest, the vast majority who do go down that road are not going to cure cancer. With all due respect to them, they will work hard in their labs, etc. but they will achieve nothing of note. We cannot devalue everyone else in the hope that we will find the one in a billion scientist that makes a difference once a century.

Furthermore, for similar reasons to above, I would advocate keeping multinationals as far away from our schools as possible. Primarily because not only do they not care about the students, but there's a lot more to school life and even college life than simply being trained for the workforce. Thankfully, our schools are not mere factories, building robots to work in Apple or Pfizer, nor should we ever encourage them to become so.

Of course, a hugely practical consequence of your suggestions, is that there will no longer be any history or geography teachers if we refuse to pay them equally to their colleagues. Why would anyone want to go down a second-rate career path? Take a look at America and Trump and see what happens when people decide that they have nothing to learn from history. I wasn't around back then but I would imagine that Hitler's rise to power was based on similar rhetoric to what we're hearing out of America these days.

You strongly imply that the only reason to do a non-science subject is to score points in the Leaving Cert but this is totally incorrect as my several examples above show. So, your whole argument is based on an assumption that science is the way to go and we'll all be better off when science is the be-all-and-end-all of our school system, workforce, etc. This is simply not true.

jsms88

silverharp wrote: »

it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher

I cannot believe I'm reading this. Really???? How can you back up such a sweeping statement? On the basis that you found Maths harder than Business when you were in school and, therefore, your Maths teacher must have been brainier than your Business teacher if s/he was able to handle it??? Absolutely ridiculous!

I know a very intelligent individual who went on to become a French teacher of all things. I know many people who could have gone to college but chose to stay at home on the farm instead. You're assuming that people always do what they are capable of, not what they want to do. Using that logic every single 625-pointer in the Leaving Cert must do Medicine - no choice! Sure, why would they even consider something else if they're able to go so high? Well, because they don't want to do Medicine.

There's no sense at all to what you're saying. Your Business teacher could well have had a much higher IQ than your Maths teacher.

silverharp

jsms88 wrote: »

I cannot believe I'm reading this. Really???? How can you back up such a sweeping statement? On the basis that you found Maths harder than Business when you were in school and, therefore, your Maths teacher must have been brainier than your Business teacher if s/he was able to handle it???

Absolutely ridiculous! I know a very intelligent individual who went on to become a French teacher of all things. You're assuming that people always do what they are capable of, not what they want to do. Using that logic every single 625-pointer in the Leaving Cert must do Medicine - no choice!

There's no sense at all to what you're saying. Your Business teacher could well have had a much higher IQ than your Maths teacher.

there have been IQ studies on courses university students take. You would agree that the average IQ of a university Engineering class would be higher than a university social studies class?

neris

Its a media thing being lead by the likes of Una Mullaly in the irish times, shes a serious chip on her shoulder about men for some reason and seems to blame them on a daily basis for everything thats wrong on planet Una but in the real world the average Josephine on the street doesnt have a problem with males to the extent she does. The media and social media are creating a false world where everything has to be right and no one can have an opinion different to that of the pc opinion

LionelNashe

silverharp wrote: »

havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.

A problem I see with that is that it might encourage good business studies teachers to become bad maths teachers.

jsms88

silverharp wrote: »

there have been IQ studies on courses university students take. You would agree that the average IQ of a university Engineering class would be higher than a university social studies class?

I'm talking about high achievers though... not the lad who hops into an arts degree to take advantage of no college fees because he has nothing else to do. Yes, a civil engineering student will have a higher IQ than him but not necessarily a commerce or finance student.

silverharp

LionelNashe wrote: »

A problem I see with that is that it might encourage good business studies teachers to become bad maths teachers.

I'd assume they control with with grades and subject choice. In the UK you could teach Bus Org without having an A level in Maths but them they they couldnt switch. In ireland you can become a bus org teacher yet have only done pass maths for the LC. A problem in Ireland is that a lot of maths teachers didnt do the subject in college. Supposedly a lot of physics teachers in Ireland double up as math teachers so its not perfect. Pay Maths teachers ~80-90K on the basis its what they studied it in college and got at least an A or B in H Maths in their own LC... boom standards rise!

silverharp

jsms88 wrote: »

I'm talking about high achievers though... not the lad who hops into an arts degree to take advantage of no college fees because he has nothing else to do. Yes, a civil engineering student will have a higher IQ than him but not necessarily a commerce or finance student.

the way I'd put it is that imo one could do a decent points grab in the LC based on your subject choices, Get an A-B in subjects like Bus org, Geog, Home Ec. doesnt require a high IQ just some interest and diligence . on the other hand if you got your points from Maths, Applied Maths and Physic that student most likely has a higher IQ even if they got the same or lower points than the other student.

jsms88

silverharp wrote: »

the way I'd put it is that imo one could do a decent points grab in the LC based on your subject choices, Get an A-B in subjects like Bus org, Geog, Home Ec. doesnt require a high IQ just some interest and diligence . on the other hand if you got your points from Maths, Applied Maths and Physic that student most likely has a higher IQ even if they got the same or lower points than the other student.

It would require a certain mathematical ability, yes. I'm not sure I'd call it IQ. There's more to IQ than arithmetic and trigonometry. Would that person necessarily be equally adept at learning languages? Or interpreting poetry? I don't think so.

The_Conductor

jsms88 wrote: »

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what we, as a society, value in a person, most of which are not realistic or even acceptable. The first being that someone working in science/maths is more valuable than those in other disciplines. Of course, science/maths is important but who is anyone to go around telling someone else that becoming a historian or an accountant or a translator is effectively wasting their working life or not making a worthwhile contribution to society.

I posted a link to an article penned by a self confessed feminist in the Indo- which was lamenting the manner in which more boys were getting the higher paying jobs in the high-tech and stem industries- because they were doing the subjects necessary to enter these sectors- whereas girls were being coralled into the 'softer subjects' (which is the term the Indo- which I have zero regard for- insists on using).

There are a larger number of higher paying jobs in maths and science disciplines- or disciplines that *need* very good groundings in maths and science- than there are higher paying jobs for someone with an impeccable grounding in geography. We had this discussion in work last week- and one colleague pointed out to some high profile jobs in Met Eireann- as an example of high paying jobs for people with good geography qualifications- until another colleague found an advertisement on gradpublicjobs.ie looking for qualified meteorologists for apprenticeships- implying we were yellow packing Met Eireann. I don't know how valid an example it is- but it did make most of us shut up.

I don't think anyone is saying that being an accountant (which is a maths discipline if ever there was one), a historian or a translator 'is wasting their time'. The last person let go in any failing company is the company credit controller- no-one else, the credit controller. However, there are a limit to how many credit controllers we need nationally. An actuarial accountant- is the highest paying graduate job in the country- and has consistently been for the last 25 years. Some accountancy jobs (I'm a qualified forensic accountant for example) don't pay nearly as well- but they're the outliers. As for historians- I can think of 3 very highly regarded historians, without thinking particularly hard- however, they're all on defined payscales in academia- and I imagine earn more from piecemeal work in journalism or the odd book- than they do in their day jobs. Nothing wrong with being a historian- but we don't need thousands of them. We do need thousands of computer programmers, lab analysts etc. We need a few tens of historians.

As for translators- traditionally we had little need for them. I worked in that sector for a while- and ended up as a manager in a call centre (back in the 90s)- before I went back and did a second degree nights and weekends in IT- and escaped. Yes- its a job- but the pay is crap- the hours are random- and the nature of the job is only a step up from working in retail- which I also did back in the 80s and 90s. Been there- done that.

jsms88 wrote: »

I don't like your use of term 'soft' subjects and 'hard' subjects. Go and look at the statistics. There are very few differences in the grading of different subjects every year. There are no soft/easy subjects in the Leaving Cert. Every subject requires commitment and hard work to do well. Alas, dare I say, your view is one which I have come across from many maths teachers over the years; that their subject is better than everyone elses. And yet, when I have gone on holidays I have found my school-learned French very useful but, to date, I have never yet stood on the side of a GAA pitch wondering what the angle of the sun to the goalpost is!

I didn't come up with the term- however, it is a truism. I am not looking at the grading of the subjects- hell, geography has the best grading of any subject in the leaving cert. I am talking about studying hard and soft subjects- as a stepping stone to better paid employment in later life. Grading is well and good- so bloody what that there are more As in Leaving Cert geography- than in Leaving Cert Chemistry- so bloody what. It is myopic in the extreme- looking at the leaving cert as a 'be-all and end-all'- and the only people who seem to like selling this- and coralling students on this basis- are teachers.

Personally- if I had any say in the matter- I *would* pay a mediocre teacher of honours maths- a significant premium over a brilliant teacher of geography. There- I've said it. I agree with the maths teachers you've encountered. As for French- I didn't do it for the leaving cert- however, I spent a couple of years attending meetings in Brussels- and now get tossed any French documents that need translating in work (I did German and Spanish in school- not French).

The point being made is- someone who is competent in a Stem discipline- is eminently more employable and has for more employment opportunities open to them- than a brilliant historian, a brilliant archaeologist, a brilliant scholar with a first in Greek and Roman etc etc. Pushing students into studying subjects- to clock up points and get into Archaeology or whatever- is all well and good- but where the hell is that student going to be in 10 years time? Claiming the dole? Versus a boring but fairly competent Java programmer- who is on 80k per annum and has 14-15 companies offering them all manner of incentives to jump ship to them............. Have a look at Linked-in- I'm not making it up.

Also- have a look at the competition that PAS ran for an archaeologist post in Meath Co. Co. last Autumn- 1,364 highly qualified applicants interviewed for a single post. Versus- a PAS competition for an EO ICT competition- held the same week- 1,670 applicants interviewed from an original pool of for 220 posts.

There are a very limited number of reasonable paying posts in soft subject areas- versus a much wider field of far better paid posts (with a few notable exceptions- notably in consulting) in the core Stem areas.

By the way- I'm not entirely clear why you put accountancy down as a soft subject- its viewed by many students as boring- but its a decent well paying job- but its a critical maths and business discipline. I wouldn't rule out business disciplines- in favour of the core stem subjects. The point being made in the article- is how unfair it is that there are more boys in well paying computer jobs- than there are jobs for the brilliant girl with her 1:1 in geography degree- how unfair it is- we need to do something to give the girl with her 1:1 in geography the same opportunities as the boy with his degree in computer science........... Have a read of it..........

jsms88 wrote: »

Who is anyone to go around telling someone else that their chosen path/subject is not valued by society or a waste of time. A student who loves Spanish may go on to take part in UN/NATO work resolving international relations disputes or even wars. A student who loves music may go on to write symphonies, celebrated the world over, that bring hours of joy to people. These are not cures for cancer but we don't live in a Marxist state. We have free will to makes choices about what we do with out lives. It's not about allocating all the resources 'for the greater good' and, therefore, it is not appropriate for a government, through it's teacher pay structures, to effectively devalue anyone who doesn't go down the road of science. And, let's be honest, the vast majority who do go down that road are not going to cure cancer. With all due respect to them, they will work hard in their labs, etc. but they will achieve nothing of note. We cannot devalue everyone else in the hope that we will find the one in a billion scientist that makes a difference once a century.

No-one is telling anyone that their chosen path is a waste of time.
Unfortunately- economics governs life in general- whether you like it or not.
If there are 400 good geography students going for 1 post in Met Eireann- why should met eireann pay over the odds for the brilliant student. Much the same- Deloitte (for example) are only looking for graduates- they are not specifically looking for disciplines for their graduate programmes- however- they then expect their chosen candidates to leverage their backgrounds- to get their qualifications in accountancy, finance, tax law- and various scientific disciplines- as they see fit (obviously tax features strongly). Someone with their 1:1 in geography- is an apprentice- expected to now go and educate themselves- it is a stepping stone- not the end. If you use it as an end- your only option open to you- is probably as a teacher..........

As for a student who writes symphonies bringing joy to the world- honestly- I'm not sure you realise just how desperate this sounds. How many Irish music students have written symphonies which have featured on the world stage over the past 30 years? None that any random person walking down the street can point to. Someone will probably mention U2- as an example. While U2 have indeed featured on the curriculum- with the exception of the Edge, who received a few piano lessons as a kid- they are self taught...........

Sure we have to be free to make our own choices (and indeed mistakes)- we are not in a Marxist society- however, it behoves us to encourage students to think outside the box- and to try and view their choices as stepping stones on a journey- rather than as a destination in its own right. This is a core concept that teachers are singularly failing to grasp.

jsms88 wrote: »

Furthermore, for similar reasons to above, I would advocate keeping multinationals as far away from our schools as possible. Primarily because not only do they not care about the students, but there's a lot more to school life and even college life than simply being trained for the workforce. Thankfully, our schools are not mere factories, building robots to work in Apple or Pfizer, nor should we ever encourage them to become so.

Yes- there is more to school, or college, than being trained for the workforce- however, the simple fact of the matter is- after you've got your brilliant leaving cert, your 1:1 in geography from Trinity (or where-ever) and your hDip- you then are tossed onto the job market where you have to earn your crust. Ignoring this salient fact- is rather convenient. It is not fair to assume that society is going to pick up the bucket for all those unemployed archaeology students out there- society does not owe them a debt- these students should be helped equip themselves to help themselves. Hell- even the old expression about giving a man a fish and you feed him for a day- but teaching a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime- comes to mind.

Education- for educations sake- is a luxury. This seems to be lost there somewhere. Its also why we don't have the same apprenticeship system that is so successful in Germany and elsewhere- we would do well to study what works elsewhere and see if we could apply some elements of it here.

jsms88 wrote: »

Of course, a hugely practical consequence of your suggestions, is that there will no longer be any history or geography teachers if we refuse to pay them equally to their colleagues. Why would anyone want to go down a second-rate career path? Take a look at America and Trump and see what happens when people decide that they have nothing to learn from history. I wasn't around back then but I would imagine that Hitler's rise to power was based on similar rhetoric to what we're hearing out of America these days. You strongly imply that the only reason to do a non-science subject is to score points in the Leaving Cert but this is totally incorrect as my several examples above show.

Not at all.
There will always be a cadre of students out there- who are happy with their 1:1 in history, or greek and roman civilisations, or geography etc etc- and willing to leverage it for whatever its worth. I did say- have a common payscale for teachers- but pay subject specific allowances for teachers of stem subjects etc. You could stagger this- so there was a 6k per annum allowance for teaching chemistry- alongside a 'welcome payment' for the new teacher to cover a specific percentage of their student loans (normally it would be 8% per annum- so their loans are repaid after teaching for just over 12 years).

I'd also strongly suggest that teaching- as a profession- *needs* to try and encourage more men into the profession. If the tables were turned- and 80-90% of all teachers (in absolute numbers) were men- there would be uproar and quotas prescribed to get women into teaching ASAP. However, there is neer a whimper- its more a footnote. This gender dominance in teaching- is not an Irish phenomena- it is however the second highest international gender dominance noted in the OECD sectoral reports.

jsms88 wrote: »

So, your whole argument is based on an assumption that science is the way to go and we'll all be better off when science is the be-all-and-end-all of our society. This is simply not true.

I was discussing the Indo article- which has gotten a lot of people badly riled (if you haven't read it- I'd strongly encourage you to do so).

There is no single discipline that is the be-all and end-all in society- I would argue that each student out there should equip themselves with a range of disciplines, preferably suited to them and their goals in life- and that they should reassess where they are- perhaps every 5 years or so- and make new choices as they progress in life- cognisant of the situations and circumstances they find themselves in.

Anyone who expects to do their leaving cert and their degree, and perhaps a hdip or a grad-dip- and thats it- they're equipped for life- is living under a rock- and while they may get away with it- they are the ones who are expecting society to meld to their wishes and accommodate them- for their intranscience.

I'm not entirely sure what your reticence towards our multinational is- I've attended a lot of very good courses held by several of them- and learnt skills, and had a chance to bounce ideas off people, which has been very helpful to me. One large US employer here- is already providing second level programming and apprenticeships to promising students. Sitting everyone down in the classroom- and using a one-size fits all approach- patently has failed- why should we continue flogging a dead horse?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's just capitalism in action really, and as much to do with the decline in profitability
of print media as anything else. People like Katie Hopkins on one side and Mulally on the other generate revenue now by being outrageous, seemingly a good portion or even majority of it from people who keep them in print by reading them to outrage themselves.

I keep hearing about how this is infecting our campuses, I work with college students and it is in its hole.

Absolutely there are aspects of men's lives which could be better supported, in terms of physical and mental health, domestic and sexual violence particularly. But these are things that just need to be prioritised more rather than have taken any retrograde steps. Getting into a who gets a sh1ttier more patronising go in ads or wider pop culture competition seems petty and unproductive tbh.

Being a man is an aspect of one's identity which is going to hugely influence your life, in some positive ways and some negative ways. Just like being a woman. Or being Irish. Or being white. But IME the only place where there are any significant portion of people for whom it's their whole big victim deal is online, and that's mostly because the fcuking USA has been leaking its bull**** everywhere for quite a while now.

jsms88

Ok, I accept the sound logic of a lot of your points. However, you have responded a bit obsessively to all of my specific examples rather than my actual points. Yes, few Irish people go on to achieve fame in music but that's only an example; it's not the point. The point is they should be free to go down such a road if they see fit and not be pushed or corraled, to use your word, in a direction that don't want to go in because someone else has decided that they'll be happier sitting at a desk making lots of money. They may not be.

Likewise for historians, accountants, translators. These are just examples of valuable jobs that some people may be passionate about and they shouldn't have to fight against a system that tells them to go in a more commerical/economic direction if they do not want to. [I include accounting as an example as it is not a STEM subject, according to the Dept of Education.]

You acknowledge that there is more to schooling that prepping for the workforce but the backbone of your argument for how the system should work is how many jobs are out there and how much money can be made in certain sectors. Fifteen-twenty years ago, you were mad if you weren't looking at going into computer science and we all know what happened to that particular sector!

People should consider employability and earnings of course but people should, where possible, do what they love and are passionate about. I remember being almost embarrassed when I went to college because I picked the course I wanted to do and people used to ask me why I wasn't doing some other course just because I got the points for it. Well, yes, I got the points and yes, I could make more money but I don't want to go into that area. Your logic is the reason we have lots of people in stable employment, living in big houses and driving expensive cars but who are depressed and stressed in their jobs and from the young age of 35 are counting down the weeks until they can get out... wishing their lives away.

You argue against girls being corralled into certain 'soft' subjects (although as I said before, they don't exist and I consider this a snobby term used by teachers of certain subjects for an ego boost) but your solution is to corral them into other subjects. There should be no corralling in any direction. Our education system should give people every option and possibility and allow them to follow their own paths and not discriminate based on what's 'hot' at a particular time or what others people think everyone wants in a career (money, etc.)

And even if there is some justification for encouraging people to follow a particular path at a particular time, there should be no stronger incentivising than informing and advising people of the situation and allowing them to make up their own minds. Playing around with wages of people in the same workplace doing the same amount of work is not acceptable. In fact, using teachers pay as the mechanism makes no sense anyway. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't see how paying certain teachers more is going to increase the number of students going into a particular sector to begin with. Students don't know anything about teachers' pay. All it will do is increase the number of people who want to be Maths teachers.

The_Conductor

Ignoring the rest of your post- and focusing on your statement-

Fifteen-twenty years ago, you were mad if you weren't looking at going into computer science and we all know what happened to that particular sector!

What are you talking about?

I'm not aware of a computer programmer who was unemployed throughout the downturn- and the increases in salaries as the economy has improved- has been in a few select sectors- notably the IT sector- partly as a reflection of people abandoning certain sectors (such as IT) following the financial crash- and the dot com bubble.......

Of all the examples you could have chosen- you picked the strongest and fastest growing sector in the Irish economy......

Try hiring a Java or SQL programmer or a database administrator- you'll be shocked at how few candidates there are out there- and what they cost.........

I am saying- people need to look at the bigger picture- and viewing the leaving cert as the be-all and end-all- is myopic, and unhelpful.

A push into vocational education- akin to the German system- is long overdue here in Ireland.

jsms88

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ignoring the rest of your post- and focusing on your statement-



What are you talking about?

I'm not aware of a computer programmer who was unemployed throughout the downturn- and the increases in salaries as the economy has improved- has been in a few select sectors- notably the IT sector- partly as a reflection of people abandoning certain sectors (such as IT) following the financial crash- and the dot com bubble.......

Of all the examples you could have chosen- you picked the strongest and fastest growing sector in the Irish economy......

Try hiring a Java or SQL programmer or a database administrator- you'll be shocked at how few candidates there are out there- and what they cost.........

I am saying- people need to look at the bigger picture- and viewing the leaving cert as the be-all and end-all- is myopic, and unhelpful.

A push into vocational education- akin to the German system- is long overdue here in Ireland.

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

um7y1h83ge06nx

jsms88 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

There are a few other views on that. Yes the dot-com bubble burst around 2000 and 2001 that had a big impact on jobs.

Before this you had loads doing computer science as it was seen as a golden career. A lot didn't fully understand what the courses entailed and drop out rates were very high. This coupled with the dot-com bubble bursting means that students are wary of doing computer science, dropping demands in the courses and hence dropping the points.

Also there is a huge level of misunderstanding regarding Dell in Limerick. The manufacturing side was wrapped up and moved to Poland but the professional services and development side of the business stayed on. So to be blunt, the lower skilled jobs were lost and the higher skilled kept. Since then Dell has expanded the higher skilled divisions in Limerick, they are frequently hiring.

IT is such a broad term, the reality often gets lost in the media.

Myself, I've been constantly employed in software development since I graduated in 2005, moving 3 times by choice. Touch wood it stays that way of course.

limnam

jsms88 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

As Geroge Hook would say. Horse manure.

I'd move away from the IT example as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

The_Conductor

jsms88 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

Dell sent two factory manufacturing lines for laptops- from Limerick to Poland- and they've both been sent elsewhere since. This was low-skill/no-skill manufacturing and assembley jobs- definitely not IT. Dell currently employ 2,780 people in Ireland- even after their 'flight to Eastern Europe'.

The biggest fall-out from the dot.com bubble of 2000/2001- was low skill / no skill posts- including a shedload of callcentre jobs- migrated elsewhere. Hell- I trained in my replacement in two separate companies- one of them in Slovenia, the other in India.

As for the demand for computer courses in college- I'm not entirely clear what your point is- if you look at the number of applicants- there is no fall in the number- over the last 20 years. None- at all....... Certain sectors fell off a cliff- and have rebounded- including a few subjects that you might not imagine- such as Agricultural Science. The number of applicants for Ag Science has had a wholly unexpected renaissance. Construction type courses (such as materials engineering etc) fell off a cliff in tandem with Ag Science- and are now back in vogue again (but not as spectacularly as Ag Science).

I've been in IT for most of the last 25 years- with a small gap for a few years- where I got diverted into call centre hell- I don't regret getting into IT- I regret that when I first went to Uni- that Comp Sci wasn't my course of choice- but I did go back and do a second undergrad degree in Comp Sci in the evenings (which was how I escaped from call centre hell back in the 90s).

You seem to have a very bad idea of what working in IT has been like for the last 20-30 years- I assure you- working in Dell in Limerick- was not an IT job- in the same manner- the HP sweatshop in Leixlip where they only recently finished making ink cartridges- also, most certainly, is not/was not an IT job.........

Studying Greek and Roman Civilisations- because you don't have to pay university fees and have an interest in it- is a waste of your time, my time- and society's time- and a drag on the exchequer. Sure- it may help with your critical thinking etc- if you leverage it in this way- and some people do- but a sizeable majority of students discover they've spent 3 years doing a hard slog (or perhaps a not so hard slog)- to get their piece of paper- and its worth sweet sod all.

Perhaps this is the arts degree versus other disciplines- coming to the fore?
Studying an abstract topic- or an arts degree- is a luxury- which has really exploded- since fees were abolished. Does this mean that what was a luxury became a common good- that anyone could aspire to? I know- from interviewing candidates for posts- that I don't give a rats arse that they have a degree in Modern English- or a degree in Computer Science- if the degree had a thesis that had to be researched and defended- I'm interested in that- or if there was an apprenticeship included as part of the degree- I'm damn interested in that. After that- I couldn't care less whether you have a 1:1 or a pass degree- I want to see what you've been doing with yourself and what your experience is. Once upon a time a degree meant something- not anymore. Hell- some of our pre-eminent business people- didn't do their leaving certs- never mind their degrees.

I find the sense of entitlement of some students- who have a 1:1 in an Artsy subject- baffling- however, I also am not necessarily impressed with someone with the latest and brightest Comp Sci qualification- though I do have more time for them. Had one girl tell me all about Barry Smith out in UCD and her robotics project for an hour a few months ago- I loved hearing her story- but ultimately- her lack of experience was why she didn't get the job- not the fact that she was the only female candidate interviewed (8 people were short listed for interview- the successful candidate sold himself and his skills in a way that none of the others were capable of).

Its a hard market out there- and kids do need to be equipped for the modern world. Implying to them that a good arts degree is valuable- is giving them a sense of security that is wholly unwarranted.

You are standing up for historians and other soft professions- to a remarkable extent. I know this is something that we are not going to agree on- come what may.

From my own experiences- I would argue that wholly aside from the subjects one studies in school- or the degree they do in college- the person, and what they make of what they encounter in the world- is far more important that the slip of paper they have. Degrees have become so devalued in the modern economy- because we are churning out such vast numbers of people with their parchments- who to be brutally honest- are incapable of doing very much at all. Your argument- that the arts people at least can think in a critical manner- perhaps holds some water- but its still not going to get them a job- the scientist or the engineer- can get their choice of entry level post in
any of a plethora of different companies. Look at Deloittes Irish partners- they include a civil engineer and a girl with a geology degree among their number (the rest of them are predominantly accountants/tax specialists). I don't see any historians in their numbers- nor archaeologists- both disciplines of which we have trained improbable numbers over the last 15 years.

You obviously think I'm being mean or unfair in my criticism of the soft subjects- I don't think I am- perhaps I am being a little cynical- but thats only from my own experiences- having been on both sides of the fence.

jsms88

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ignoring the rest of your post- and focusing on your statement

Convenient for you. I rest my case.

The_Conductor

jsms88 wrote: »

Convenient for you. I rest my case.

Thankyou- I needed a smile.

Eric Cartman

I think these things mostly exist online. I have a few women in my life who, over the last few years have taken hardcore to blaming men for everything and buying the una mullally 'everything is a mans fault' line to heart. I equally have some other friends who are male who constantly post about how the end is nigh and all women are just false rape accusation hardcore feminists trying to have men eradicated.

And looking at those two groups, what I've found is a very common trait, these extreme beliefs are all held by utter losers. Losers sitting at home in their parents house, unemployed, never had an other half, no hobbies except drugs or posting crap on instragram, rewatching 90s tv shows all day, 0 motivation, 0 aspirations.

If you go out in the real world and converse with people who have careers or go to pubs with friends or do any of the very normal outgoing things that normal people do , you will almost never encounter the 'MRA Neckbeard rape squad' or the 'feminazis' . With the exception of political gender quotas (which I oppose) it hasn't penetrated life here at all.

Lemming

jsms88 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

I'm a computer science graduate. I am a computer programmer. I graduated in 2001 literally as a lot of the big players all went into hiring freezes as the silly money from the dot-com bubble popped. That still left all of the sensible money (of which there was a lot).

Now, let us pause a moment. When you say "IT"; what do you mean? 1st line tech support at eircom, Dell, etc.? Assembly line "technicians"? Business Analysts? Technical writers? Software developers? Software Architects? SQL developers? SQL Admin? IT Admin? Managers for any and/or all of the above? I could keep listing jobs for the next three posts worth and still keep going ...

Back on track; to hear my tale of woe, I spent two and a half months during the summer after graduating technically unemployed, gaining and commencing work in late August. Many of my friends told a similar tale. Oh noes; I had a summer holiday! 1 1z 0ppr3zz3d.

TL;DR: jsms88 hasn't a clue of what they speak regards IT

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

TL;DR: jsms88 hasn't a clue of what they speak regards IT

iptba

The Leaving Cert results broken down by gender are up at examinations.ie: https://www.examinations.ie/statistics/

I think it is interesting to look at the top grade (Grade 1=A1) at honours level as, even with hard work, many people would struggle to get such a grade. Some sort of natural ability or a lot of interest plays a part in a lot of cases.

Languages:
Irish: girls: 799 boys: 346 ratio: 1:0.43
French: girls: 616 (66%) boys: 314 ratio: 1:0.51
German: girls: 196 boys: 110 ratio: 1:0.56
Spanish: girls: 277 boys: 134 ratio: 1:0.48

English: girls: 675 boys: 441 ratio: 1:0.65

Mathematics: girls: 279 boys: 675 ratio: 1: 2.42

If it was just down to girls working harder, this is not the type of pattern you would expect.

With these subjects particularly English, Irish and Maths, there is not much scope to not do the subjects. With other subjects, biased groups of individuals could take or not take the subject.

Middle Man

correction wrote: »

Nah, it's just a case of certain insecure men having things their own way for so long now viewing equality (which we still don't even have) as a threat to their status.

Are you still only at that stage - it's not the 1990's you know!

2017 - It's time to move on!!!

Many of us men now see women as full capable adults and with equality comes shared responsibility. Women need to embrace the opportunities of today that generations of women before did not have. To younger Irish women, please stop continually bitching about men, because that does not exactly demonstrate that you're capable adults IMO.

There are insecure men, but some women can also be viewed as such and certain bad behaviour reinforces that viewpoint. For example, there are certain women who are just plain rude to the point of passing remarks on the appearance of males in public - did they ever learn any manners? I am fed up of women who call men pathetic - they should look at themselves first and ask, "Why do we feel the need to behave in such an obnoxious and paranoid way towards men? Is it not pathetic to feel the need to behave in this way?" Also, why are many Irish women so dour looking and why is it that they are gaining an international reputation for being manipulative?

However, all this behaviour is doing is encouraging harder men like myself who now practice zero tolerance towards any man hating feminism. In fact, Irish men have a bad reputation for over-seeking approval from women (including mothers) and are seen as weak - however, this will change unless feminism undergoes a major overhaul and becomes less bigoted and more inclusive. Many guys here see me as too strong in my views, but I'm of the view that Irish men have become far too soft as do people abroad - Irish men will increasingly feel the need to be tougher and demand respect! However, things in motion have a tendency to go too far and I'm sure that's not what anyone here wants.

Irish women need to grow up!

The_Conductor

Honestly- sometimes some women go out of their way to try and make you as miserable as possible- just because you're male. I've had doors slammed in my face while I'm carrying heavy things- and been sneered at- with a comment such as- 'lets see you multitask your way out of that' etc.

Thats just uncivil and mean behaviour- and if a guy did this to a girl- he'd end up in HR, with his suitability to continue with the business in question- and told he was lucky he wasn't reported to the Gardaí on assault charges. Instead- its a group of 20 something girls- who get a laugh out of taunting some of the older guys they work with- safe in the knowledge that they are the right gender..........

You also have the polar opposite- I had a certain former Táiniste open a door and help with a security code for me- when she could see I was overburdened (and wary that I going to be accidentally hit with an elbow etc).

Good manners are in short supply- and I don't know if picking on guys is some sort of an insecurity- its not acceptable behaviour though.

Re the girls above- I did report them to my manager- who was female- and was told to 'Man up'........ Like what?

Damned if you, damned if you don't. Can't win. Heads you win, tails, I loose.......

evolving_doors

A few things I'd like to add.

The masters quaification for teaching was done away with yonks ago, get your facts straight.
In any event I qualified for the masters payment, because I'm pro-rata (not full time) it'll work out about 20 years before it pays for itslef!!!! Horay!!
Secondly, teaching now requires a masters level (for the 'hdip'). So the chances of ANy teacher ever going back to do another masters after commencing teaching is very slim (unless its for leadership and management to get the only promotion going). This is a sad situation for continuing professional development.

Next--- why does this debate always wind up with a pi55ing contest about honours bloody maths (and engineers being the best thing since slice bread).
We're pushing square pegs into round holes... 30% counts for points now! 40% in hons maths and you can get a whopping amount of points for little understanding gained. The system is a joke.

Gender! Yes there is a large majority of primary teachers female... but check out the majority who go on to become principal!

Why don't more males enter teaching... money. When the bust happened a lot of engineers under the sun thought about strolling into teaching and assumed they didnt need a qualification and could teach maths no problem. It was a weekly moan on the T&L forum from said engineers. Anyway.. when things picked up they legged it again for the higher pay.

Why do they want more females to enter high paying professions (a la stem) ... to drive down wages.