The Diversity Pipeline

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

You’re making my point for me.

The idea that (A) the underrepresentation of women in tech is explained by (B) issues such as harassment, stress, discrimination, under-appreciation, etc. is just plain dumb. B does not cause A, as far as I can tell.

Again I ask - so what?

Let's assume that you are right, that those who actually can enjoy tech as a career are so insanely rare as to be some kind of stunt of humanity. (as far as I can tell this is immaterial for having a career in it, but whatever). We posit that there is a massive shortage of those who would do tech as their career on both sides, and the easiest way to increase this is to increase the amount of overall workers who can do it and can tolerate it - which is significantly higher as a percentage of women. 

We also postulate that one reason they do this is because they choose to avoid tech. 

The obvious solution is to make tech more attractive to women. Again, not lying to them - find out what women desire from a career and make it better in tech than in other places. Oddly, you don't trumpet where this has been largely successful - with LGBT. Tech has long had a habit of making gay rights a pinnacle of their workplace culture, giving health benefits to spouses and partners (Microsoft has been doing this since at least 2004), allowing easier adoption and support, etc, and it's worked to attract a number of LGBT workers that other places do not have. Microsoft has also been doing things like giving more parental leave for the same reason. You don't have to lie to women to tell them to work in tech - show them that tech goes above and beyond other career options and gives them benefits and perks that override the drawbacks. 

5 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

If changing A could be done by being even better at B: great. That would address two important issues. However, I see only weak evidence for the implication B => A. Help me change my mind about it. But note that my belief in “B => A” is not changed by updating my model about how believable B is, or how good it would be to change A.

You say you see weak inference; where is the inference for anything else? High variability doesn't explain why women aren't in tech in the lower rungs, as an example. It's not like we're talking about chess champions here. 

5 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

The intellectually corrupting demon of tribalism makes the following (false) inference:

People who deny “B => A” must support B.

This is a false inference. Yet we have plenty of evidence that our brains work exactly like that: to hear “B does not take place,” or even “I support B” whenever somebody says “B does not imply A”. And since people who support B are clearly evil, the brains of very tribal (but decent) people like Kalbear come to a wrong conclusion about people like me (principled contrarians, problem solvers, sociopaths.) This is toxic to discourse.

You have shown zero interest in discussion of the actual problem, however. I don't think that you support B; I simply think that you appear to have your mind made up and have no desire to make anything better, which is a bizarre point of view to me. There are only two conclusions to be reached from this behavior: either you want to keep B, or you are completely unable to change your mind about what causes A. 

You're making the same mistake that others do in that thinking that because someone thinks you are wrong, they think it for only toxic reasons. That you accuse me of it is amusing to me, especially when scolding me on toxic discourse. I simply think that for whatever reason, you have no interest in exploring solutions to the problem of fewer women in the workplace. My hypothesis is that you believe programming to be this bizarre field that only weirdos could enjoy, and to others it is literally the worst possible thing they could do. I don't know why you think this, 

[Happy Ent]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oddly, you don't trumpet where this has been largely successful - with LGBT.

The only anecdote I quoted was exactly that. Irit Dinur, a lesbian.  So to the point that I trumpet anything, I trumpet exactly that. (But I don’t trumpet.)

And it’s such a weak, weak case. Let me, just for exercise, show why:

CS started out as a place where LGBT felt welcome; our bloody hero Alan Turing was famously gay. This is not something we decided to fix and then fixed. Instead, it is built into the discipline, part of our DNA. Software engineers are famously not sexual, software engineering is dominated by an absence of sexually stereotypical gender roles—alpha males and bimbo females are absent, nobody is expected to wear makeup. This makes the tech community very attractive to LGBT and everybody else who rejects traditionally sexualised workplace culture. The fact that LGBT feel welcome in tech is exactly why most women don’t. Software engineers don’t primarily evaluate their colleagues on what kind of reproductive organs they possess—they evaluate their colleagues on whether they can untangle an octopus merge conflict or understand that a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. 

Bam. Inverted the entire argument using the same data. So the data can’t have been good.

(The entire line of reasoning strikes me as unprincipled cherry-picking, which is why I tend to reject that kind of discourse. I feel we’re both getting dumber by it.)

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

The only anecdote I quoted was exactly that. Irit Dinur, a lesbian.  So to the point that I trumpet anything, I trumpet exactly that. (But I don’t trumpet.)

Which is why I stated that you ignored the actual actions taken and how they've improved things.

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

And it’s such a weak, weak case. Let me, just for exercise, show why:

CS started out as a place where LGBT felt welcome; our bloody hero Alan Turing was famously gay.

He was also chemically castrated by his government. Not exactly the best example. 

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This is not something we decided to fix and then fixed. Instead, it is built into the discipline, part of our DNA. Software engineers are famously not sexual, software engineering is dominated by an absence of sexually stereotypical gender roles—alpha males and bimbo females are absent, nobody is expected to wear makeup.

Okay, let's stop there, because I think this is making a bigger point than you might think.

Can you imagine, for a second, not fitting in to that stereotype of a nerdy person? Do you understand that for the most part at my job, this stereotype isn't particularly accurate? It was built into the discipline when computers were a hobby, when they were weird and expensive and required vast esoteric knowledge to manipulate. 

It isn't remotely the case that this is true now. 

And think about this - that that stereotype does MASSIVE harm to those who don't fit in to that role - and that role is overwhelmingly male oriented. Look at your words - alpha males and bimbo females, where one is at best a neutral comment and the other is massively negative. Look at the 'fake geek girls' that we see in social media as criticism. 

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This makes the tech community very attractive to LGBT and everybody else who rejects traditionally sexualised workplace culture.

Why do you think LGBT reject sexualized workplace culture?

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

The fact that LGBT feel welcome in tech is exactly why most women don’t. Software engineers don’t primarily evaluate their colleagues on what kind of reproductive organs they possess—they evaluate their colleagues on whether they can untangle an octopus merge conflict or understand that a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. 

Tell that to James Damore. 

The implication that women don't feel welcome is odd, too. Why wouldn't women feel welcome not being evaluated based on sex organs? Why wouldn't women feel welcome in a place where their viewpoints are not particularly associated with having tits? This seems like precisely the wrong argument.

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Bam. Inverted the entire argument using the same data. So the data can’t have been good.

Conversely, the argument relies heavily on faulty premises that reveal, among other things, a fairly deep bias - namely, women cannot fit in to that nerdy culture because they are women. 

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

(The entire line of reasoning strikes me as unprincipled cherry-picking, which is why I tend to reject that kind of discourse. I feel we’re both getting dumber by it.)

Saying how the tech industry worked to make strides and be inclusive to LGBT, introducing things like couple's rights to benefits and adoption benefits when most of the rest of the country did not, seems like precisely the way to answer the problem to me. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

35 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

For other reasons, presumably.  Surely, the universe of things that might annoy a woman are not exclusively composed of men (or the wrong men) finding them sexually attractive.

Rule #1-Be attractive

Rule #2-Don't be unattractive

Rule #3-Never refer to yourself in the 3rd Person.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I believe in the universal brotherhood of humankind, in loving one's neighbors, in loving one's enemies, in treating others as one would like to be treated oneself, etc., etc..  These are religious principles.  First principles.

These are common sense, moral principles that predate religion.

[Lily Valley]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:00 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

See Kal below. One needs to understand why they are making those choices or the true volition in the "choice".  

Thanks Kal for this thoughtful response and the other. 

and Lily, I personally appreciate and enjoy well fitting foundation garments. Just saying - it takes all kinds 

Zabz, I can't find any that fit properly and my aggravation that this ill-fitted garment will destroy the professional appearance of my jeans and t-shirt is a daily struggle.  I have to crawl around on the floor for half of my day and have people staring at me for the other half.  PM me your recs for these marvelous creations.

On 9/25/2017 at 8:18 PM, kairparavel said:

PREACH.

Signed,

Woman who works in tech

Stay strong, sister.  Far better to ask a question than mask ignorance with arrogance.

On 9/25/2017 at 10:02 PM, Starkess said:

yep yep yep yep

Not to mention there is an enormous amount of pressure to represent not only your own ability but the ability of all women*. If you fuck up there are people like Lew T sitting around ready to pontificate about why it is a clear indication that women can't do it. A mistake feels like letting down your entire gender. 

*or other subsection of people

Yep, and hear :cough cough: "Affirmative Action"  :cough:

On 9/26/2017 at 3:06 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Step down off your throne.  You are just an anonymous person on the internet, like the rest of us.  You are not entitled to the special privileges you are demanding.

I don't think I can lol this enough.  

On 9/27/2017 at 11:47 AM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Heard and interesting talk from Frances Frei (yes, that Frances Frei) last year on this topic.  Apparently they found that they could improve performance of women in the classroom by videotaping and NOT showing them videotaping, but rather having a mentor view it and then describe what was good and what could be improved.  Apparently men didn't do as well with this particular technique - was better to show them the tape and discuss while running.  Anyhow, a thought.

  

Zabz, this is really interesting.  Studies have shown that learning styles show a slight favoritism towards women / auditory written and men / visual.  This study would fall in line with that.  I

 I force my lab students to give group presentations every second week when they hand in their lab reports.  I have noticed that my women students ask for a lot more feedback on their presentations and are more likely to ask questions ahead of time on their work.  I have several male students who ask questions AFTERWARDS about their work and NEVER about their presentation skills.  It might be valuable to tape all of the presentations and offer the tapes to groups after their Q and A.  

I'm only in the second semester of the new lab routine, but I've already noticed much better critical thinking skills from all my students.  They're subject to peer and instructor review during these presentations (students are graded positively for grilling their peers AND participating in their presentations).  I have also seen far lower rates of attrition.  The latter is significant because my college population is nearly 50+ under-represented groups in STEM.  If we throw in first in family for college and low social-economic background, those numbers climb to 90%.  The women are still asking less questions than their male counterparts and are more likely to be ignored (by politely raising their hand instead of shouting for the floor).  I've also had to shut down a bit of hepeating.  

Overall, by week 3, my women students are demanding to do their share of experimental design work.  This has greatly reduced that whole, "Let the girl take the notes," phenomenon I have seen in traditional labs.  This used to be particularly infuriating to me, as the women who brave a STEM career are usually not good, they're fucking excellent.

Prior to the new lab curriculum, we were only getting 50-60% completion.  Each term saw only one female student all the way through Calculus Based Physics.  It's getting better for both the overall student body and the number of women who complete.  

For anyone interested in a non-traditional lab model, what I'm doing in there is loosely based on the University of Baltimore's work.  Information can be found here:

http://umdperg.pbworks.com/w/page/10511229/Scientific Community Labs

There's enough information there to get you started and there are several dissertations / papers that use behavioral science to track students thought processes, participation and understanding.  I'm not equipped for all that.  I'm tracking the attrition numbers and pre/post concept inventory scores.

I don't remember who complained that this was "an education problem and not a corporation problem", but let me just say that educators are doing all they can.  What we're seeing is women and minorities drop out because of the way that they are treated by their peers and by their mentors in some completely male dominated institutions.  After that, they have the pleasure of STILL being second choice, second guessed and overlooked in the work force.  When recruitment and retention fails and your hiring pool is not reflecting the general population AND IT IS TOO SMALL, changes need to be made to address the reasons for that.  It's good for business and it's good for human endeavors in science.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Lew Theobald said:

So, you are saying they are not "First Principles" but "First First Principles".

Doesn't matter.  Either way, they have to be taken on faith.  They cannot be proven.  That's why they are called "First Principles".

As for their predating religion, I will have to take your word for it, as unlike you, I am not 20,000 years old or more.

Oh Jesus. You know, I was born in 1967, but I know that the Baltimore Orioles defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the World Series in 1966.

These principles do not have to be taken on faith. We can see the results and effects of these principles in our everyday lives.   

[TerraPrime]

12 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

You’re making my point for me.

The idea that (A) the underrepresentation of women in tech is explained by (B) issues such as harassment, stress, discrimination, under-appreciation, etc. is just plain dumb. B does not cause A, as far as I can tell.

B exists and is very real. In tech. And in teaching, in law, in nursing. (Arguable, more so.) B is disgusting and terrible and an offence to human decency. We should, and do, take active steps to prevent B.

However, I want to change (or at least understand) A. This does not make me a better person. I claim no moral high ground based on my earnest desire to change (or at least understand) A. It is not a value-laden endeavour, but one inspired by intellectual curiosity and professional incentives. There is nothing inherently good about addressing A. (In fact, it might be evil.) On the other hand, there is something good about addressing B.

But I care about A. This thread claims to, too. Which is why I’m here.

If changing A could be done by being even better at B: great. That would address two important issues. However, I see only weak evidence for the implication B => A. Help me change my mind about it. But note that my belief in “B => A” is not changed by updating my model about how believable B is, or how good it would be to change A.

I presume you're keeping up with the findings on studies that survey women in STEM as to why they're not entering STEM fields or why they are leaving STEM fields? Here's a summary from National Science Foundation released in 2010 in case you want a refresher: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf  It is a PDF of the report. Quoting from parts of the executive summary: 

 

This report demonstrates the effects of societal beliefs and the learning environment on girls’ achievements and interest in science and math. One finding shows that when teachers and parents tell girls that their intelligence can expand with experience and learning, girls do better on math tests and are more likely to say they want to continue to study math in the future. That is, believing in the potential for intellectual growth, in and of itself, improves outcomes. This is true for all students, but it is particularly helpful for girls in mathematics, where negative stereotypes persist about their abilities. By creating a “growth mindset” environment, teachers and parents can encourage girls’ achievement and interest in math and science. Does the stereotype that boys are better than girls in math and science still affect girls today? Research profiled in this report shows that negative stereotypes about girls’ abilities in math can indeed measurably lower girls’ test performance. Researchers also believe that stereotypes can lower girls’ aspirations for science and engineering careers over time. When test administrators tell students that girls and boys are equally capable in math, however, the difference in performance essentially disappears, illustrating that changes in the learning environment can improve girls’ achievement in math. (page xiv and xv)

So, assuming you're aware of the prevailing paradigm adopted by one of the premier funding agencies for STEM in the US, are you disputing this paradigm? Or are you saying that this doesn't constitute causality? Are you questioning the strengths of conclusions in social sciences in general, or are you saying that this set of conclusions is problematic? Both? 

I am trying to figure out where your support is in saying that there's no evidence that harassment, discrimination, hostile professional culture, etc., cause a decrease in willingness and desire for women to enter and stay in STEM fields. That pretty much goes against everything I've read about the issue. 

 

12 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

And since people who support B are clearly evil, the brains of very tribal (but decent) people like Kalbear come to a wrong conclusion about people like me (principled contrarians, problem solvers, sociopaths.) This is toxic to discourse.

Personally, I think sociopathy is more toxic to discourse than alleged tribal mentality, because sociopathy is the inability to emotionally relate to others while putting up a pretense that you do. But I suppose that begs the question on what is the purpose of a discourse. 

 

6 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

CS started out as a place where LGBT felt welcome; our bloody hero Alan Turing was famously gay. This is not something we decided to fix and then fixed. Instead, it is built into the discipline, part of our DNA. Software engineers are famously not sexual, software engineering is dominated by an absence of sexually stereotypical gender roles—alpha males and bimbo females are absent, nobody is expected to wear makeup. This makes the tech community very attractive to LGBT and everybody else who rejects traditionally sexualised workplace culture. The fact that LGBT feel welcome in tech is exactly why most women don’t. 

Things must be quite different in Sweden or Europe. 

In the United States, the IT field appears to have over-representation of LBGT people started with a basic premise of possessing highly valued job skills protect one from unfair job discriminations in certain contexts. That is why you tend to see more professionals being out, especailly in the 80s and 90s. When you have a terminal professional degree and when you're a high-performer at your job, you're more likely to be protected (though not guaranteed - see counter example of professional athletes) so you could be out. In other words, there are just as many dish washers and building service workers and store clerks who are LBGTQ - they're just less able to be out in the earlier decades because their employment is more vulnerable to antigay biases. There's nothing inherently gay friendly about computer science. 

In fact, it's a rather obnoxious piece of stereotype to speculate that LBGTQ people are drawn to computer science field because women in the field are not expected to wear makeups and where men are not competitive, like lesbians don't wear make ups as a rule and gay men are all passive betas? WTFBBQLutefisk? 

 

6 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Software engineers don’t primarily evaluate their colleagues on what kind of reproductive organs they possess—they evaluate their colleagues on whether they can untangle an octopus merge conflict or understand that a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. 

Richer Spencer declaims that he's not a racist - he just wants a white ethnostate to call his own, that's all. Similarly, James Damore doesn't think he's sexist - he just believes that the presence of women in silicon valley jobs is due largely to a liberal agenda that favors diversity over merit. 

These are two recent examples showcasing how practically nobody thinks they are biased, even when by all objective standards, they are. The reality is full of revelations that people who never thought they make decisions influenced by implicit biases are indeed doing just that. If you have some evidence suggesting that software engineers, or computer science people, as a group, are somehow exempt from this human condition, then let's see it. Otherwise, I will remain unconvinced by your earnest declaration that software engineers are objective rational actors that evaluate and assess colleagues based only on merit and not influenced by social biases. 

So, your attempt inversion of the model isn't really valid. 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

If you don't understand how "love thy neighbor" doesn't benefit you in an everyday manner, I don't know what to say to you. It's not something I need to take on faith when my neighbor gives me a tangible example on an almost daily basis.

[TerraPrime]

20 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

But, okay, sure.  Nobody thinks the world is a perfect place.  Nobody thinks it can be a perfect place, though we can still try to make it better.  But until I know what specific remedies you are proposing, I don't know whether to support you.

We're not there yet. We haven't even agreed that there is a problem, and what that problem is. We can't even begin to assess whether our respective solutions are compatible or incongruent. 

 

23 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I do not believe, as a matter of faith, that more "diversity" is automatically and always better; that any relative degree of homogeneity or imbalance or outcome is always bad; nor that anything that CAN be done to accommodate women in the workforce, necessarily SHOULD be done. That is your religion, not mine.  To me these are merely issues to be considered on a case-by-case basis, in terms of the potential costs and benefits (including moral aspects).

But it's not a matter of faith. We have evaluations and studies done to assess the impact of diversity. Someone up thread earlier posted some links to these studies. A diverse mixture of workers do tend to produce better outcomes. It is up to you to accept these conclusions, or not. But it most certainly isn't a matter of faith in the way that believing Nirvana is achievable through mindful meditation is a matter of faith. 

 

31 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

You ask why we should not alter the round hole.  Well, the round hole in this case is a valuable industry that has contributed enormously to society.  If you change the valuable industry, are you sure it will be just as valuable and competitive after you have changed it?

Yes. It will actually be more valuable, in measurable ways. 

 

33 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I just want to know what you think the next step should be, before I decide whether or not I support it.  

Why does this smell like a sea-lion to me? 

But okay. 

There are many steps we can take to improve representation of women and ethnic minority members in STEM fields. You can read the PDF I linked to Happy Ent for a starter. Additional measures like mentoring, cohort-based activities, and immersive experience can all enhance participation. For retention, we need to address the procedural pitfalls in hiring, evaluating, and promoting individuals to minimize the influence of implicit biases in our decisions. Studies have shown that when people are reminded of the principles of equality and fairness, and given sufficient time to assess the material, they make less biased decisions. We also need to educate the educators so they can stop the cultural practices of marginalizing under-represented groups. Direct intervention steps like tutoring groups will also be helpful. 

One thing to keep in mind is that one solution is not going to work in all cases. Some disciplines lend themselves to mentoring arrangement better than others, for instance. Other disciplines, in comparison, may benefit more from direct interventions in the form of study groups and cohorts. 

 

40 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I agree.  What else, then?

The "else" would fall into what you'd call "social engineering," i.e., shifting cultural convictions, challenging implicit assumptions, modifying behavioral patterns through education and institution-level policies. The "else" will most assuredly NOT be "let the chips fall where they may," nor will it be to "leave people alone." 

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Please stay on topic. 

Thank you. 

 

[/mod hat]

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

29 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I don't know what this means.  I hope it's not an insult.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

 

It refers to a poster who is constantly asking for citation and calls for civility as a manner of trolling, or at the very least someone who is more or less a waste of time to engage with.

[Lily Valley]

On 9/26/2017 at 4:33 PM, dmc515 said:

Anyway, my query here wasn't so much about this colleague's difficulties in public speaking as it was that she feels she is not being afforded the respect she needs in the classroom due to her gender (and, to a lesser extent, her age).  This clearly seems to be the main reason she has yet to gain the necessary confidence.  That's why I posted it here, because I believe there's some posters that may be able to speak to this far better than I can.  That being said, thanks for your suggestions @Iskaral Pust, it's much appreciated!

I can guarantee that she isn't.  It is frankly unbelievable the way that women professors are spoken to by some of their students.   There are methods of dealing with it that a female faculty could advise her on, but most women faculty figure out their own method of dealing with student bullshit on their own.  As a general rule, an  instructor will not reach their stride until the third year teaching a particular course.  Is she complaining about her interactions with students?  If so, she needs to be put with an appropriate mentor for mitigation.  Even at my college which is grossly understaffed, we have chain of command for dealing with faculty / student issues.

15 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

You’re making my point for me.

The idea that (A) the underrepresentation of women in tech is explained by (B) issues such as harassment, stress, discrimination, under-appreciation, etc. is just plain dumb. B does not cause A, as far as I can tell.

 

Follow me on armchair philosophy:   women in tech experience B at several places along their career path

1)  first showing interest as kids, experience B, quit

2) First joining a club, class in the field in middle or high school (or a message board), experience B, quit

3) Attend college in said field, experience B, quit

4) Suffer through all of the above and persevere due to passion, get their first job in their field, experience B, quit

5)  Voila, "Why aren't there more women in STEM?"

[Lily Valley]

11 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

LOL, no.  I'm pretty sure Einstein would have a pretty good idea of the difference in mass, and of where the center of gravity lies, and why and how this might make a difference.  But let's not debate physics.  It was only a metaphor.

Actually, let's. 

 

If the tail has sufficient momentum, it'll wag the world.  Can you tell me when and why we will lose the moon?  

(Hint:  The "moon" is the "tail")

Behold Exhibit B:  Arrogance without any evidence.

[Kalbear]

ITT: women tell of experiences being tested and talked down to by man, man proceeds to attempt to explain physics to a physics teacher. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

Is she complaining about her interactions with students?  If so, she needs to be put with an appropriate mentor for mitigation.  Even at my college which is grossly understaffed, we have chain of command for dealing with faculty / student issues.

Yes, this is what she's been complaining about.  The other colleague I mentioned (who also is, literally, the TA mentor) and I have tried to get her to specify to no avail.  There's a meeting tomorrow I'll go to, then probably drinks, so hopefully we can get her to open up more about exactly what she's dealing with.  My department is grossly understaffed as well (at least in American politics), but the de factor senior faculty member is now one of my committee members that is universally loved (by us grad students, at least).  If there's any need for mitigation, she will happily destroy all offending undergrads.

[Lily Valley]

A meeting "over drinks" with other members of the department present is extremely inappropriate.  In that setting she is automatically set up to be a "buzzkill" and a "whiner".  In my shitbix college, her complaints (or a student's) would have given her a MINIMUM 1:1 10-30 minute meeting with her supervisor the results of which would gave been : 1) plan to move forward or 2) termination of her temp contract or her supervisor's authority.

 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

A meeting "over drinks" with other members of the department present is extremely inappropriate.  In that setting she is automatically set up to be a "buzzkill" and a "whiner".  In my shitbix college, her complaints (or a student's) would have given her a MINIMUM 1:1 10-30 minute meeting with her supervisor the results of which would gave been : 1) plan to move forward or 2) termination of her temp contract or her supervisor's authority.

 

The meetings over drinks are the only times she has expressed any type of complaint with anyone.  But yes I'll try to speak with her privately beforehand.

[Lily Valley]

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

The meetings over drinks are the only times she has expressed any type of complaint with anyone.  But yes I'll try to speak with her privately beforehand.

Awesome.  This is a really hard thing to get a handle on.  Since you say she is pretty young, she simply may not have had the experience yet to put together an authoritative toolbox.  I had to dig into my years of dealing with kids to deal with unruly students.  I have a face that has silenced a thousand teenagers that can rip the paint off my classroom walls.  I've only had to pull that one out twice.   

I hope it goes well.  What she's having a hard time expressing may be tough for her to put a finger on.  The disrespect comes in the form of eye-rolling, "exasperated" sighing, argumentative statements and the like.  If it were as simple as the students calling her, "stupid b*****" she wouldn't be having a tough time speaking up for herself.  All of it is disrespectful and it undermines her subject matter expertise. 

Since this is her first year teaching, all of the above will undermine her confidence.  I don't have any good answers on how to deal with it.  I tend to diffuse students who are taking their frustration out on me inappropriately ("physics is hard so the teacher must suck" kind of crap) by cracking jokes in class.  If I lose my temper, I give them a quiz, leave the room and tell them to teach themselves.   

Finally, with regards to my College, it's the State that doesn't prioritize proper staffing.  The majority of my students work really hard and they deserve the best from me.  Allowing disrespectful students to continue their disruptive behavior in class hurts the students who are trying to succeed.  It will erode the entire class's confidence in the teacher and in their own mastery of the material. 

When I get sick and tired of fighting for myself, I fight for them.  Ask your new instructor to do the same.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sounds like you're suggesting that the educators should do their job.  I think that is Happy Ent's field.  I am happy to leave it to the educators, to decide what educational tools they should be using, to achieve the best results with their students.  I have no particular opinion as to that.  

 

Also Lily's.  Just saying.

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

ITT: women tell of experiences being tested and talked down to by man, man proceeds to attempt to explain physics to a physics teacher. 

This is absolutely my favorite thing about this thread.  It is so incredibly and completely meta.  There have been actual women in tech who have popped into this thread.  Only Lily has had the intestinal fortitude to really stay engaged (I view myself as an empathetic tourist who knows enough about math-type stuff to be completely and totally dangerous :))