Wibbs wrote: » Indeed, though another thing I see is that as a trend those subjects that require actual applied thinking rather than rote learning the boys also do better(a subject like English would require a mixture of both).
midnight city wrote: » So you did english, irish, maths, applied maths, physics, what else?
GingerLily wrote: » I'm female and took applied maths and physics to boost my points so I didn't need to rely on languages for points. Should I be bitter that school LC is bias towards traditionally female subjects that I am not strong in, or should I be grateful that as I'm a female and got to benefit through my gender in the LC? I'm just curious.....
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Also what you would expect given generations of kids fed baloney like "male brain good at the maths subjects , the female brain good at the language stuff"
silverharp wrote: » its kind of what you expect male brain good at the maths subjects , the female brain good at the language stuff.
silverharp wrote: » its kind of what you expect male brain good at the maths subjects , the female brain good at the language stuff. the problem with the LC is it has 3 compulsory languages, Eng Irish and a European language. so the points are biased. It seems like a lot of boys would get piped for high point courses like medicine or law because of some B's popping up in say the Irish or French. It it comes to guys competing for engineering or IT courses they are grand as they are only competing amongst themselves by and large.
py2006 wrote: » Out of curiosity, I went a took a wee look at the stats on this years Leaving Cert (higher) Results. They are in table format so it doesn't seem to display correctly on phones.Irish: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 772 1153 1520 1719 1686 1556 1418 1173 855 452 229 61 11 2 TOTAL MALE 300 508 757 906 968 988 908 806 704 369 220 47 7 3English: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 751 1297 1094 1898 2624 2672 2920 2703 2144 1179 665 163 14 1 TOTAL MALE 411 841 704 1364 1848 2020 2392 2330 2054 1310 898 253 22 5Maths: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 238 333 451 596 699 805 901 870 754 619 500 342 57 0 TOTAL MALE 591 513 605 734 845 902 907 846 742 537 498 255 54 4French: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 611 708 849 915 986 1006 1044 906 884 622 514 213 16 0 TOTAL MALE 275 386 453 529 569 641 704 632 615 477 455 229 14 0Biology: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 883 1309 1279 1488 1565 1437 1482 1473 1126 1047 1199 980 245 23 TOTAL MALE 516 752 711 831 941 847 881 864 749 734 853 753 220 24Physics: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 162 166 145 139 150 159 143 139 75 80 98 84 27 7 TOTAL MALE 457 449 341 346 358 325 371 353 269 312 352 338 141 17Chemistry: Subjects Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F NG TOTAL FEMALE 396 377 434 405 385 361 344 336 302 276 272 265 86 7 TOTAL MALE 411 322 301 327 286 253 236 289 211 204 236 235 84 17
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Why would you have a problem with some professions like medicine being dominated by one gender but not other professions?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Is that anecdotal or do boys actually respond better to male teachers? I asked earlier how to encourage more men to go involved in teaching but nobody had any ideas. I presume render quotas are out of the question? Why would you have a problem with sobe professions like medicine being dominated by one gender but not other professions?
silverharp wrote: » sure but as a net taxpayer im on the hook for it until we go to commercial fees
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The point of my brief question (I thought you'd appreciate that) was to see if the people in your imaginary scenario can all do the job. If they can the standard of work is high enough, if they can't all do the job, then the standard of work isn't high enough.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Being fair, thus s more a rant about 'fluffy' courses than anything relevant to this particular discussion.
midnight city wrote: In my experience boys respond well to male teachers. Considering we have a school system with 50% girls and 50% boys. Why should they be taught by 85% women.
psinno wrote: Is discrimination only wrong because it lowers the standard of work?
midnight city wrote: If there are enough physically strong women interested in firefighting then great let them at it. What we don't need is 5 ft 2in 7 stone women becoming firefighters. I wouldn't want a similar sized man doing it either. There is no problem with women being police officers or firefighters if they are physically up to the job.
silverharp wrote: as for university not all courses are created equal so I am not so bothered by the overall number without more analysis. to pick an extreme example if a class of 99% women doing a gender studies degree pushes up the % of women in college I don't care as long as they are paying the the real cost of the course themselves. if its gov funded why is the taxpayer laying on "fluffy" courses for women, the deal was they would go into Science and IT and contribute to the economy, creating thousands of soft media, communications, journalism courses to feed the educational industrial complex is just adding cost to the system as there generally isn't a lot of jobs in these allegedly vocational sounding courses.
midnight city wrote: Personally i don't have an issue with 43% of university students being comprised of women. There are other good careers such as the trades, army, guards etc that men go to instead. I am a little concerned however at the leaving cert results and the top university courses such as medicine being dominated by women.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Can both of these people in your scenario, do the job?
psinno wrote: If a woman meeting a lower standard can do the job so can a man meeting the same lower standard.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Dangerous territory there. What if 43%of men is the right number in university? Slap on the wrist for me, naughty.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » As long as the standards mean everyone can actually do the job, then fine. If you have surplus candidates, then it could well be advantageous to make sure he industry isn't nearly single sex. Dangerous territory there. What if 43%of men is the right number in university? Slap on the wrist for me, naughty. (Just playing devil's advocate)
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » We need more male teachers because reasons but not more female firefighters also because reasons. More male friendly education system to make sure men get on = good. but changing the firefighters curriculum is suspect.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Any man? Men in general? If they can both do the job then what would you care after they hauled the hose up the stairs or carried you out of the building?
psinno wrote: If a woman meeting a lower standard can do the job so can a man.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » If the people who pas the tests can do the job then
silverharp wrote: but let these organsiations have their own entry qualifications, if a woman can pass the same fire fighter test well and dandy but dont dumb down the tests and dont pester them why they dont have "more" female fighters. maybe 2% or whatever is the right number
Rory28 wrote: If they keep the same test for male and female firefighters then I dont see the problem. but if they change the criteria for women then its putting lives at risk. I used to be in the fire auxiliary and quickly realised i was not strong enough to carry a firehose up 20 flights of stairs. ****s heavy.
Rory28 wrote: Just because its harsh on women does not mean its sexist. you need to be strong to be a fireman. technique is not as important as brute strength.
