Sometimes hard to follow who's exactly replying to what....but let me jump in here (maybe in sequence, maybe out of sequence)
The too-broad-a-brush is always a concern. Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading. And sometimes, quite honestly, that broad brush is used to make a particular point, recognizing that there are always a host of exceptions to any gross generalization, however it is used.
Your point about NSBE & the encouragement of Blacks to enter STEM is a good one. But you say you don't see any downsides to such encouragement. I do. And I see them the same way we would see a downside to parents encouraging Little Joey in his efforts but not his sister, Sue. We imagine the Dad saying, 'Heck, I'm just encouraging Joey to work hard and do his best because that helps to build his future." And he's right; that encouragement does. But what does the lack of encouragement do to Sue?
The NSBE works to encourage Blacks in STEM. But wouldn't a higher & 'truer' goal be to encourage ANYONE to pursue STEM? Would we be equally pleased to discover a NSWE targeting only White students? Would we say we see no downsides? [Imagine the reaction to a school announcement which says the National Society of White Engineers is meeting tomorrow with any White students who might be interested in STEM! NBC Nightly News would be broadcasting right outside the front door....interviewing the activists who are -- quite rightly -- picketing and protesting.]
Clearly, to your point, we don't seem to live in a color blind society. But as Justice Roberts might say, the best way to start living 'color-blindly' is to stop behaving as though color matters. The fact that the Georgia GOP's leaders are mostly White Males actually means nothing, truly. Unless we believe that you can tell a book by its cover. Neither does the fact that 94% of the Golden State Warrior players are Black (when 13% of the population is Black) indicate that the Warriors are a racist organization. That 93% of all pre-school teachers are women actually tells us nothing about whether the PreSchool Prep process is sexist (I'm guessing most probably not).
True, a lot of people who really should know better may take a look at a picture and draw an erroneous conclusion about what the people pictured are thinking and doing, but the solution is not to recolor (or re-sex!) the picture, it's to educate those who draw erroneous conclusions. The truth is, and I know you already know this...and that I'm preaching to the choir... you really can't tell a book by its cover. (I'm sure we've both read a ton of excellent books that had horribly lousy covers!)
In the end, yes, I do recognize that groups like the NSBE are doing good work, so it's hard to argue with good results. But we truly do need to recognize that there is an implicit and increasingly dangerous message in any color-centric approach to anything... and that message is, always, that skin color somehow matters.
It doesn't.
In any moral or ethical sense, the color of one's skin, the size of one's feet, the curl of one's hair -- it's all completely meaningless when it comes to the quality & integrity of one's work. It's what we do that counts, not how we look.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with many of your points, but the under-representation of minorities in STEM fields has a historical context that's hard to ignore, especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise.
Let's start with some basic numbers. Here's an excerpt from a National Science Foundation/National Science Board report that was published last year:
Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American workers are underrepresented in STEM, with the greater discrepancy being among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher than those without a bachelor’s degree. Hispanic or Latino workers make up 18% of the U.S. workforce but represent 14% of STEM workers. Similarly, Black or African American workers make up 12% of the U.S. working population but represent only 9% of STEM workers. In the STEM workforce with a bachelor’s degree or higher, Hispanic or Latino workers represent 8% of the workforce, and Black or African American workers represent 7%. However, at 19% of the STW, Hispanic or Latino workers are more than their proportion of the working population. Black or African American workers are underrepresented at 10% in the STW.
The proportion of Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino workers increased in both the STEM workforce with at least a bachelor’s degree and the STW between 2010 and 2019. In STEM, the number of Black or African Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased 67%, and those in the STW increased 24%. Similarly, Hispanic or Latino STEM workers grew 99% for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 44% for those in the STW. Participation increased for these groups at a higher rate than White STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those in the STW. This resulted in an increase in the proportion of Black or African American workers in STEM with and without a bachelor’s degree by approximately 1 percentage point in each and an increase in the proportion of Hispanic or Latino workers by 2 percentage points among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 4 percentage points among those without a bachelor’s degree (Figure LBR-24).
STW = Skilled Technical Workforce
The proportion of blacks in STEM professions was much lower when NSBE was founded in 1974, only 10 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It made sense for a group of black engineering students at Purdue University to encourage other blacks to pursue careers in engineering. The demographics of today's STEM workforce with a college degree suggests that this effort still makes sense.
America needs all the STEM workers it can get, so I don't see the downsides of NSBE unless you think NSBE's efforts discourage others from pursuing STEM careers. I don't think that's the case, but I'm open to a counter-argument.
It should also be noted that another Pew analysis says that only 20% of blacks think scientists are "very welcoming" to black people and only 23% of blacks think engineers are "very welcoming" to black people. Pew's analysis, but contrast, says that 36% of blacks think scientists are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people. They also say that 33% of blacks think engineers are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people:
Many will think these perceptions are wrong, but Pew's numbers speak for themselves. NSBE's efforts help counter a narrative that discourages blacks from pursuing STEM careers.
Having made these points, I agree with you that there's too much emphasis on race in America. I wish race relations were better and that we were closer to being a color-blind society. That's one of the reasons I do these posts.
Clifton, thanks so much for you comprehensive reply! Hard to argue those points.
But some quibbles, perhaps, (better expressed over a beer I might add!).
STEM badly needs good people. No question. But STEM, as it should be, is and must remain a self-selecting set of highly demanding careers. A lot of hurdles need to be successfully cleared before one arrives as a top-notch STEM graduate (a fully-fledged scientist), not least of which is a demonstrated & consistently achieved aptitude for Quant. I'm sure we both know many who have washed out either because of a breaking point (as in 'I don't want to do this anymore') or a simple failure point (Advanced Stat or 2nd year Organic is several steps beyond most people's comfort level).
Demographic imbalance at these higher levels tends to be misleading. The numbers are too small and the hurdles too steep to read race or sex-based discrimination into the final tallies. Unfortunately those truths tend not to persuade those who insist on equating disparate outcomes with discriminatory treatment. I'd recommend Heather MacDonald's excellent summary of this situation here: https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine .
As for the question of 'targeted encouragement' (as in special STEM-boosting sessions for Women or BIPOC's )....yes, I would argue that such focus does indeed tend to discourage those not equally targeted. Again, I'd say 'Encourage everyone!'
Personally I don't care if my surgeon is Black, White, Green, Female, Male, Short, Tall, whatever...I just want them to be OUTSTANDING. To invite a 'preferred' crowd to the party is to not invite and not include the Other, whoever that Other might be. Hard to avoid the feeling of being under-valued and ignored if all the fawning and coaching and mentoring and scholarships are nominally restricted to people who don't look like 'me'!
Would you see a downside to a National Society of White Engineers targeting & encouraging White students because, after all, 'we need all the STEM workers we can get'? I suspect you would (I suspect all of us would...because, in fact, it's racially discriminatory).
But your points about 'feeling welcome' are fascinating. We'd have to ask how much of that 'feeling' is a function of an actual, real, tangible 'unwelcoming' and how much is simply the very common feeling that every 'rookie' has when entering the 'old-timer's' clubhouse. I've had that feeling; I'm sure you've had it also. That's not racism or sexism, that's just the normal sense that -- as a rookie -- your perspectives and non-experience are not particularly valued.
I had a conversation years ago with an individual who had just begun teaching at the HS level. She told me that she faced a ton of resistance & hostility from the students....because, or so she thought, she was female. I explained, as you might imagine, that everyone faces exactly the same thing when they begin. It's not a function of gender or color; it's a function of being a newbie and the inevitable of being 'tested' in any new environment. The worst crash & burn I ever witnessed was a skinny White guy with a high voice who left the school halfway through the semester. He, too, would have said he was not 'welcomed'. But his failure had nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the fact that he couldn't handle the normal rough & tumble of teaching.
Sometimes an 'unwelcoming' is truly a function of bias & discrimination....but sometimes (I'd say most of the time) it's more a function of a hard life in a big, cold, and most typically uncaring world.
The truth is, when all you have is a hammer, all you tend to see are nails. And if 63% of all Black adults believe 'racism' is "an extremely big problem" despite an utter lack of evidence of any racist policy , procedure, law, or institutional system....then it's going to be easy to see so-called 'unwelcoming' as yet another racist nail. I've had cardiologists tell me that hiring and retaining newly minted med school grads is increasingly impossible because they all want the corner office, and no weekend on-call duty (otherwise they feel 'unwelcomed!).
I agree with BDavi's post above: "Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading." I think that's what we have here, M Clifton, to an extent. And what this ignores is how thinking "math is racist," and logic and book-learning is "acting white" feeds into the problems.
What I'm particularly interested in, at this moment in time, is that You wrote, "especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise."
My own preference is some examples, that than Pew studies, which are suspect.
This isn't a poll, but consider the large number of black people who purchased cryptocurrencies in recent years. One of the key motivations was a distrust of established financial institutions. Here's a link to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City:
Just now catching up. I'll tell You right off, TY Sir Clifton, but we aren't likely to agree on this. I only skimmed article, because it makes me sad, and a little mad.
First off, anybody considering crypto should know *exactly* what it is, and what it isn't. My views may be in the minority. You can see how it's viewed by this Harding guy. Other people view crypto as a political statement.
Here's what is, as a matter of *FACT:* It's a method of financial SPECULATION. That's it. Early on, it was pegged to gold. So it was SPECULATING in gold. That hasn't been the case for a long time tho. So now the question to ask is, what is the value that's *behind* a crypto-coin? What's *backing* it?
That's pretty simple, too: *Perceived* demand. To put it more simply, it's basically the same as investing in *art.* What's a coin worth? It's in the eye of the beholder. That's it.
Like I "said," minority opinion. But this is another FACT: For those people who brag about how many multiples of millions of dollars they've made? *Many* multiples? There will be an equal amount of money *lost* by a large number of people. If You get in early, You make money. But when *everybody* is getting in, because "the price can *only* go higher?" And the price *skyrockets?* They'll lose out bigtime. The pros and the early backers, and mebbe this Harding guy, will make out like bandits. The vast majority of small-time investors? They saw 3/4 of the value they put into it disappear lately.
From this Bradford who was interviewed:
> “If you’ve been hearing that people are getting rich dealing in the crypto space and—recognizing that you might have no wealth at all or have a major gap to break through—then crypto becomes somewhat attractive to you from that standpoint,” Bradford said. “So the wealth gap is the thing that really stands out.”
Yeah. I heard a guy who was getting rich of crypto explain why millennials were into it so much. He said, "It's the only way millennials can get enough money to buy a house."
I'm sorry. Only people who are financially retarded would believe that. If You're trying to come up with Your first piece of wealth, the *stock market* is too risky, unless You buy real defensively. And that is, by no means, a guaranteed return. Crypto to build wealth? Yeah, for a few. And they'll brag about it. More buyers, better for them. You don't hear much from the people who lost their shirts, do You?
> "Another consideration in crypto’s appeal is that many see it as a more financially stable and secure environment than traditional financial institutions. This is because cryptocurrencies rely on permanent, irrefutable records of ownership and a private key to access funds."
I'm sorry. This is financial malpractice. This efftard calling himself SBF? If that doesn't tell You how secure crypto is, I dunno what to say. Yeah, people can *see* it however they wanna. That doesn't make it true, however. Wishful thinking, as a general financial methodology, tends not to work out very good in the long run. But who worries about the long run? And that attitude, which rules the day, doesn't just apply to Blacks. Is a societal disease.
“This transparency and accessibility may appeal to Black consumers distrustful of traditional financial institutions and of participating in a system that may not work in their best interests,” Bradford wrote in the research study.
I can't speak to how well financial institutions work for Black people. My understanding is that there are *LAWS* involved that prevent some-a the discrimination and some-a the worst practices. In crypto? It's the wild west out there. As we've just seen with this SBF, who'll likely get away with it, for a number of despicable reasons, right?
Note that I'm not particular singling out Black people here. I was very surprised to find race even entered into the discussion. I'm mad at everybody who thinks getting rich quick is a good scheme. Is a good way of looking at the world. And I'm sad that, per usual, most people lose out with that attitude. But some will make humongous *fortunes.* There's always a few, bankrolled by the many.
The rock band The Who sung it best: "Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss..."
Mebbe I shouldn'a "said" below that White kids were stupid for not investing in the stock market, Sir Clifton. Because it mainly depends on what the stocks are bought *For.* And I hesitate to ask.
If You're in the stock market to *make money,* I think that's pretty foolhardy. Not *stupid* like investing in crypto. But I believe the *fact* is that most professional stock brokers don't make much money. If You're looking for the tip that will triple a stock's value, i feel sorry for You. And if You're trying to make a killing day-trading I feel worse.
I started a loooong write up of the principles of investing in the stock market, but You probably already know all that, and I dunno if anyone is even following the comments to this article any more.
As others have "said," TYTY Sir Clifton, for all Your time writing and engaging with the commenters. BTW, read another article today about crypto. The gist of it was that crypto needed regulating, but there are powerful interests against the idea.
TY for the info. I liked Adams when he ran on a platform of getting police to get down the crime. Sort-a counter-narrative. My understanding is he's accomplished, basically, none-a that. This here removes any respect I had for the man which, like I implied, wasn't stellar.
> "However, stock market participation is higher among younger Black Americans, with 68% of Black respondents under 40 now investing, compared to 57% of younger white investors."
As far as I can tell, young Whites have lowered the bar so low that now the gutter is the new sidewalk.
Have a good evening, Sir Clifton. My long day is done. (Mebbe more tomorrow. :-)
Denominators always intrigue me in all data analyses (my main job is data analytics based consulting). In your examples, I wish we could know the *reason* behind the % that say scientists are "welcoming/not welcoming". If only we could know whether it was "because of what you've assumed going into interactions/were told this was the case" or "because of blatant examples you couldn't ignore". I know...so subjective and hard for even the individual to honestly discern.
But this would change the approach to the solution.
You would solve presuppositions by not telling so many black individuals that this is the truth of the world. You would solve the issue of blatant examples by educating the STEM world on how to not continue in this way. Two very different approaches.
Similarly, of the lower representation of non-white groups in STEM, I would love to somehow know "% that were 1. interested and 2. attempted to enter STEM and 3. were not able to do so" (for each ethnicity). Forget the actual % compared to US population...that may confuse the narrowing of the analytics funnel. I would consider it a promising sign if that conversion rate was currently on par with for white or asian populations. Then our focus could appropriately shift on either exposing INTEREST in STEM and then later on we could see why they weren't SUCCEEDING in obtaining careers in STEM. By jumping to the missing population of step 3 as proof, we may continue to be disappointed and continue to hang in neutral.
TL;DR - we may be missing a middle portion of the analytics funnel to know where it's dropping off between population>interest>application>accomplishment and that may be key for where to put resources. Perhaps NSBE is focusing on the issue in this way...but the highlighted stats seem to not suggest that.
Thanks Clifton (for all of your continued studies and publications). Unfortunately the very last sentence alludes to what I was hoping there was a whole study on. Quote: "To increase STEM representation in high school, college and the workforce, efforts by educators and policymakers to support talented students of color may need to begin by the elementary grades."
It seems that the "may need to" phrase is what I'm referring to. This should be looked into and is likely to change to "will need to" if studied thoroughly. Based on other findings I've read from organizations like Girls Who Code and similar organizations, these narrowing-of-the-funnel of eventual careers starts early and it is a bit misleading for any article title to focus on step 3 of this funnel and jump to "X race is underrepresented in Y field".
If found to be true, I look forward to seeing a headline such as "a lack of early interest in STEM leads some groups to be much less likely to pursue STEM later in life...let's fix this" in the future. I do believe nuanced steps like this will lead to the long term success of more marginalized groups in areas such as STEM.
This study is a baby step in the right direction, but I agree with your point that a more definitive prescription is needed. To be fair, the authors acknowledged that while their analysis explained much of the Hispanic-White gap it wasn't as good at determining the factors behind the Black-White gap. More work is needed.
Are there any studies about the success of black STEM students after graduation from HBCUs, State Universities vs more elite colleges? I wonder if a "funnel" is or could be created by older black alum in STEM positions. I don't know much about STEM education, but are there work/study programs(5-6 years) where students can work in STW/STEM jobs while studying? This may help them to be in the real world part of the time. Internships are great, but it may be too late by then. Voc. HS' do something similar for the "trades"; what about STEM at that level?
Sorry, but I didn't learn much from this study. (Granted, I only skimmed it.)
Or, rather, I thought it was already *known* that parents having sufficient time and a lotta books and that kind-a stuff effected early engagement in education. What insights did I miss?
Out of curiosity, what is the proportion of Oriental Asian and Near East Asians in STEM workforce, Hispanics? Is there an NSBOA? NSBNE? or just NSBA? NSBH? Is there anything to the idea that Asians are more hostile to blacks? Any stats pro or con? or are they just lumped in with "whites"? I have no issue with an NSBE or any group encouraging more people pursuing STEM education and careers.
The report I referenced includes this excerpt about Asians in STEM:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020a) 2019 ACS, Asians and Whites represent a greater share of STEM (9% and 65%, respectively) compared to all Asians and all Whites in the U.S. workforce (6% and 61%, respectively) (Figure LBR-23). However, the representation of Asians in STEM is primarily driven by their representation among STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher (16%), whereas Asians are underrepresented among STEM workers without a bachelor’s degree, or the STW (4%). In contrast, Whites represent a greater share of STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree (66%) and of the STW (65%).
The full report (The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers) is long and includes lots of information. I didn't see the level of detail you're seeking, but there may be other sources with that information.
There is a Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers (SASE). I don't know anything about them, but here's a link to their web site:
Sometimes hard to follow who's exactly replying to what....but let me jump in here (maybe in sequence, maybe out of sequence)
The too-broad-a-brush is always a concern. Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading. And sometimes, quite honestly, that broad brush is used to make a particular point, recognizing that there are always a host of exceptions to any gross generalization, however it is used.
Your point about NSBE & the encouragement of Blacks to enter STEM is a good one. But you say you don't see any downsides to such encouragement. I do. And I see them the same way we would see a downside to parents encouraging Little Joey in his efforts but not his sister, Sue. We imagine the Dad saying, 'Heck, I'm just encouraging Joey to work hard and do his best because that helps to build his future." And he's right; that encouragement does. But what does the lack of encouragement do to Sue?
The NSBE works to encourage Blacks in STEM. But wouldn't a higher & 'truer' goal be to encourage ANYONE to pursue STEM? Would we be equally pleased to discover a NSWE targeting only White students? Would we say we see no downsides? [Imagine the reaction to a school announcement which says the National Society of White Engineers is meeting tomorrow with any White students who might be interested in STEM! NBC Nightly News would be broadcasting right outside the front door....interviewing the activists who are -- quite rightly -- picketing and protesting.]
Clearly, to your point, we don't seem to live in a color blind society. But as Justice Roberts might say, the best way to start living 'color-blindly' is to stop behaving as though color matters. The fact that the Georgia GOP's leaders are mostly White Males actually means nothing, truly. Unless we believe that you can tell a book by its cover. Neither does the fact that 94% of the Golden State Warrior players are Black (when 13% of the population is Black) indicate that the Warriors are a racist organization. That 93% of all pre-school teachers are women actually tells us nothing about whether the PreSchool Prep process is sexist (I'm guessing most probably not).
True, a lot of people who really should know better may take a look at a picture and draw an erroneous conclusion about what the people pictured are thinking and doing, but the solution is not to recolor (or re-sex!) the picture, it's to educate those who draw erroneous conclusions. The truth is, and I know you already know this...and that I'm preaching to the choir... you really can't tell a book by its cover. (I'm sure we've both read a ton of excellent books that had horribly lousy covers!)
In the end, yes, I do recognize that groups like the NSBE are doing good work, so it's hard to argue with good results. But we truly do need to recognize that there is an implicit and increasingly dangerous message in any color-centric approach to anything... and that message is, always, that skin color somehow matters.
It doesn't.
In any moral or ethical sense, the color of one's skin, the size of one's feet, the curl of one's hair -- it's all completely meaningless when it comes to the quality & integrity of one's work. It's what we do that counts, not how we look.
TY again.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with many of your points, but the under-representation of minorities in STEM fields has a historical context that's hard to ignore, especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise.
Let's start with some basic numbers. Here's an excerpt from a National Science Foundation/National Science Board report that was published last year:
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212/participation-of-demographic-groups-in-stem
Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American workers are underrepresented in STEM, with the greater discrepancy being among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher than those without a bachelor’s degree. Hispanic or Latino workers make up 18% of the U.S. workforce but represent 14% of STEM workers. Similarly, Black or African American workers make up 12% of the U.S. working population but represent only 9% of STEM workers. In the STEM workforce with a bachelor’s degree or higher, Hispanic or Latino workers represent 8% of the workforce, and Black or African American workers represent 7%. However, at 19% of the STW, Hispanic or Latino workers are more than their proportion of the working population. Black or African American workers are underrepresented at 10% in the STW.
The proportion of Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino workers increased in both the STEM workforce with at least a bachelor’s degree and the STW between 2010 and 2019. In STEM, the number of Black or African Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased 67%, and those in the STW increased 24%. Similarly, Hispanic or Latino STEM workers grew 99% for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 44% for those in the STW. Participation increased for these groups at a higher rate than White STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those in the STW. This resulted in an increase in the proportion of Black or African American workers in STEM with and without a bachelor’s degree by approximately 1 percentage point in each and an increase in the proportion of Hispanic or Latino workers by 2 percentage points among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 4 percentage points among those without a bachelor’s degree (Figure LBR-24).
STW = Skilled Technical Workforce
The proportion of blacks in STEM professions was much lower when NSBE was founded in 1974, only 10 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It made sense for a group of black engineering students at Purdue University to encourage other blacks to pursue careers in engineering. The demographics of today's STEM workforce with a college degree suggests that this effort still makes sense.
America needs all the STEM workers it can get, so I don't see the downsides of NSBE unless you think NSBE's efforts discourage others from pursuing STEM careers. I don't think that's the case, but I'm open to a counter-argument.
It should also be noted that another Pew analysis says that only 20% of blacks think scientists are "very welcoming" to black people and only 23% of blacks think engineers are "very welcoming" to black people. Pew's analysis, but contrast, says that 36% of blacks think scientists are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people. They also say that 33% of blacks think engineers are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/04/07/black-americans-views-of-education-and-professional-opportunities-in-science-technology-engineering-and-math/
Many will think these perceptions are wrong, but Pew's numbers speak for themselves. NSBE's efforts help counter a narrative that discourages blacks from pursuing STEM careers.
Having made these points, I agree with you that there's too much emphasis on race in America. I wish race relations were better and that we were closer to being a color-blind society. That's one of the reasons I do these posts.
Clifton, thanks so much for you comprehensive reply! Hard to argue those points.
But some quibbles, perhaps, (better expressed over a beer I might add!).
STEM badly needs good people. No question. But STEM, as it should be, is and must remain a self-selecting set of highly demanding careers. A lot of hurdles need to be successfully cleared before one arrives as a top-notch STEM graduate (a fully-fledged scientist), not least of which is a demonstrated & consistently achieved aptitude for Quant. I'm sure we both know many who have washed out either because of a breaking point (as in 'I don't want to do this anymore') or a simple failure point (Advanced Stat or 2nd year Organic is several steps beyond most people's comfort level).
Demographic imbalance at these higher levels tends to be misleading. The numbers are too small and the hurdles too steep to read race or sex-based discrimination into the final tallies. Unfortunately those truths tend not to persuade those who insist on equating disparate outcomes with discriminatory treatment. I'd recommend Heather MacDonald's excellent summary of this situation here: https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine .
As for the question of 'targeted encouragement' (as in special STEM-boosting sessions for Women or BIPOC's )....yes, I would argue that such focus does indeed tend to discourage those not equally targeted. Again, I'd say 'Encourage everyone!'
Personally I don't care if my surgeon is Black, White, Green, Female, Male, Short, Tall, whatever...I just want them to be OUTSTANDING. To invite a 'preferred' crowd to the party is to not invite and not include the Other, whoever that Other might be. Hard to avoid the feeling of being under-valued and ignored if all the fawning and coaching and mentoring and scholarships are nominally restricted to people who don't look like 'me'!
Would you see a downside to a National Society of White Engineers targeting & encouraging White students because, after all, 'we need all the STEM workers we can get'? I suspect you would (I suspect all of us would...because, in fact, it's racially discriminatory).
But your points about 'feeling welcome' are fascinating. We'd have to ask how much of that 'feeling' is a function of an actual, real, tangible 'unwelcoming' and how much is simply the very common feeling that every 'rookie' has when entering the 'old-timer's' clubhouse. I've had that feeling; I'm sure you've had it also. That's not racism or sexism, that's just the normal sense that -- as a rookie -- your perspectives and non-experience are not particularly valued.
I had a conversation years ago with an individual who had just begun teaching at the HS level. She told me that she faced a ton of resistance & hostility from the students....because, or so she thought, she was female. I explained, as you might imagine, that everyone faces exactly the same thing when they begin. It's not a function of gender or color; it's a function of being a newbie and the inevitable of being 'tested' in any new environment. The worst crash & burn I ever witnessed was a skinny White guy with a high voice who left the school halfway through the semester. He, too, would have said he was not 'welcomed'. But his failure had nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the fact that he couldn't handle the normal rough & tumble of teaching.
Sometimes an 'unwelcoming' is truly a function of bias & discrimination....but sometimes (I'd say most of the time) it's more a function of a hard life in a big, cold, and most typically uncaring world.
The truth is, when all you have is a hammer, all you tend to see are nails. And if 63% of all Black adults believe 'racism' is "an extremely big problem" despite an utter lack of evidence of any racist policy , procedure, law, or institutional system....then it's going to be easy to see so-called 'unwelcoming' as yet another racist nail. I've had cardiologists tell me that hiring and retaining newly minted med school grads is increasingly impossible because they all want the corner office, and no weekend on-call duty (otherwise they feel 'unwelcomed!).
Great example of this phenomenon in Tim Constantine's story about Michelle, back in 2020: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/29/is-michelle-obama-a-racist/ .... and how they both reacted to a line-cutter at the airport.
Thanks for all of your comments. I enjoyed our exchanges!
My pleasure entirely. Appreciate the opportunity to stretch my thinking!
I agree with BDavi's post above: "Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading." I think that's what we have here, M Clifton, to an extent. And what this ignores is how thinking "math is racist," and logic and book-learning is "acting white" feeds into the problems.
What I'm particularly interested in, at this moment in time, is that You wrote, "especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise."
My own preference is some examples, that than Pew studies, which are suspect.
This isn't a poll, but consider the large number of black people who purchased cryptocurrencies in recent years. One of the key motivations was a distrust of established financial institutions. Here's a link to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/ten/2022-fall-ten-magazine/inside-the-rise-of-black-consumer-cryptocurrency-ownership/
Just now catching up. I'll tell You right off, TY Sir Clifton, but we aren't likely to agree on this. I only skimmed article, because it makes me sad, and a little mad.
First off, anybody considering crypto should know *exactly* what it is, and what it isn't. My views may be in the minority. You can see how it's viewed by this Harding guy. Other people view crypto as a political statement.
Here's what is, as a matter of *FACT:* It's a method of financial SPECULATION. That's it. Early on, it was pegged to gold. So it was SPECULATING in gold. That hasn't been the case for a long time tho. So now the question to ask is, what is the value that's *behind* a crypto-coin? What's *backing* it?
That's pretty simple, too: *Perceived* demand. To put it more simply, it's basically the same as investing in *art.* What's a coin worth? It's in the eye of the beholder. That's it.
Like I "said," minority opinion. But this is another FACT: For those people who brag about how many multiples of millions of dollars they've made? *Many* multiples? There will be an equal amount of money *lost* by a large number of people. If You get in early, You make money. But when *everybody* is getting in, because "the price can *only* go higher?" And the price *skyrockets?* They'll lose out bigtime. The pros and the early backers, and mebbe this Harding guy, will make out like bandits. The vast majority of small-time investors? They saw 3/4 of the value they put into it disappear lately.
From this Bradford who was interviewed:
> “If you’ve been hearing that people are getting rich dealing in the crypto space and—recognizing that you might have no wealth at all or have a major gap to break through—then crypto becomes somewhat attractive to you from that standpoint,” Bradford said. “So the wealth gap is the thing that really stands out.”
Yeah. I heard a guy who was getting rich of crypto explain why millennials were into it so much. He said, "It's the only way millennials can get enough money to buy a house."
I'm sorry. Only people who are financially retarded would believe that. If You're trying to come up with Your first piece of wealth, the *stock market* is too risky, unless You buy real defensively. And that is, by no means, a guaranteed return. Crypto to build wealth? Yeah, for a few. And they'll brag about it. More buyers, better for them. You don't hear much from the people who lost their shirts, do You?
> "Another consideration in crypto’s appeal is that many see it as a more financially stable and secure environment than traditional financial institutions. This is because cryptocurrencies rely on permanent, irrefutable records of ownership and a private key to access funds."
I'm sorry. This is financial malpractice. This efftard calling himself SBF? If that doesn't tell You how secure crypto is, I dunno what to say. Yeah, people can *see* it however they wanna. That doesn't make it true, however. Wishful thinking, as a general financial methodology, tends not to work out very good in the long run. But who worries about the long run? And that attitude, which rules the day, doesn't just apply to Blacks. Is a societal disease.
“This transparency and accessibility may appeal to Black consumers distrustful of traditional financial institutions and of participating in a system that may not work in their best interests,” Bradford wrote in the research study.
I can't speak to how well financial institutions work for Black people. My understanding is that there are *LAWS* involved that prevent some-a the discrimination and some-a the worst practices. In crypto? It's the wild west out there. As we've just seen with this SBF, who'll likely get away with it, for a number of despicable reasons, right?
Note that I'm not particular singling out Black people here. I was very surprised to find race even entered into the discussion. I'm mad at everybody who thinks getting rich quick is a good scheme. Is a good way of looking at the world. And I'm sad that, per usual, most people lose out with that attitude. But some will make humongous *fortunes.* There's always a few, bankrolled by the many.
The rock band The Who sung it best: "Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss..."
We're in agreement about cryptocurrency. That said, a lot of black people have embraced it as an investment vehicle, including the mayor of New York:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/08/bitcoin-in-new-york-eric-adams-says-crypto-should-be-taught-in-school.html
https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-22/mayor-adams-receive-first-paycheck-cryptocurrency
Black attitudes about investing are diverse. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive into an analysis by Ariel Investments and Charles Schwab:
https://www.schwabmoneywise.com/tools-resources/ariel-schwab-survey-2022
Mebbe I shouldn'a "said" below that White kids were stupid for not investing in the stock market, Sir Clifton. Because it mainly depends on what the stocks are bought *For.* And I hesitate to ask.
If You're in the stock market to *make money,* I think that's pretty foolhardy. Not *stupid* like investing in crypto. But I believe the *fact* is that most professional stock brokers don't make much money. If You're looking for the tip that will triple a stock's value, i feel sorry for You. And if You're trying to make a killing day-trading I feel worse.
I started a loooong write up of the principles of investing in the stock market, but You probably already know all that, and I dunno if anyone is even following the comments to this article any more.
As others have "said," TYTY Sir Clifton, for all Your time writing and engaging with the commenters. BTW, read another article today about crypto. The gist of it was that crypto needed regulating, but there are powerful interests against the idea.
TY for the info. I liked Adams when he ran on a platform of getting police to get down the crime. Sort-a counter-narrative. My understanding is he's accomplished, basically, none-a that. This here removes any respect I had for the man which, like I implied, wasn't stellar.
> "However, stock market participation is higher among younger Black Americans, with 68% of Black respondents under 40 now investing, compared to 57% of younger white investors."
As far as I can tell, young Whites have lowered the bar so low that now the gutter is the new sidewalk.
Have a good evening, Sir Clifton. My long day is done. (Mebbe more tomorrow. :-)
Denominators always intrigue me in all data analyses (my main job is data analytics based consulting). In your examples, I wish we could know the *reason* behind the % that say scientists are "welcoming/not welcoming". If only we could know whether it was "because of what you've assumed going into interactions/were told this was the case" or "because of blatant examples you couldn't ignore". I know...so subjective and hard for even the individual to honestly discern.
But this would change the approach to the solution.
You would solve presuppositions by not telling so many black individuals that this is the truth of the world. You would solve the issue of blatant examples by educating the STEM world on how to not continue in this way. Two very different approaches.
Similarly, of the lower representation of non-white groups in STEM, I would love to somehow know "% that were 1. interested and 2. attempted to enter STEM and 3. were not able to do so" (for each ethnicity). Forget the actual % compared to US population...that may confuse the narrowing of the analytics funnel. I would consider it a promising sign if that conversion rate was currently on par with for white or asian populations. Then our focus could appropriately shift on either exposing INTEREST in STEM and then later on we could see why they weren't SUCCEEDING in obtaining careers in STEM. By jumping to the missing population of step 3 as proof, we may continue to be disappointed and continue to hang in neutral.
TL;DR - we may be missing a middle portion of the analytics funnel to know where it's dropping off between population>interest>application>accomplishment and that may be key for where to put resources. Perhaps NSBE is focusing on the issue in this way...but the highlighted stats seem to not suggest that.
Thanks for your comment. I've seen new research that attempts to address some of the important points you're making. Use this link to see an overview:
https://theconversation.com/disparities-in-advanced-math-and-science-skills-begin-by-kindergarten-191990
Thanks Clifton (for all of your continued studies and publications). Unfortunately the very last sentence alludes to what I was hoping there was a whole study on. Quote: "To increase STEM representation in high school, college and the workforce, efforts by educators and policymakers to support talented students of color may need to begin by the elementary grades."
It seems that the "may need to" phrase is what I'm referring to. This should be looked into and is likely to change to "will need to" if studied thoroughly. Based on other findings I've read from organizations like Girls Who Code and similar organizations, these narrowing-of-the-funnel of eventual careers starts early and it is a bit misleading for any article title to focus on step 3 of this funnel and jump to "X race is underrepresented in Y field".
If found to be true, I look forward to seeing a headline such as "a lack of early interest in STEM leads some groups to be much less likely to pursue STEM later in life...let's fix this" in the future. I do believe nuanced steps like this will lead to the long term success of more marginalized groups in areas such as STEM.
This study is a baby step in the right direction, but I agree with your point that a more definitive prescription is needed. To be fair, the authors acknowledged that while their analysis explained much of the Hispanic-White gap it wasn't as good at determining the factors behind the Black-White gap. More work is needed.
Are there any studies about the success of black STEM students after graduation from HBCUs, State Universities vs more elite colleges? I wonder if a "funnel" is or could be created by older black alum in STEM positions. I don't know much about STEM education, but are there work/study programs(5-6 years) where students can work in STW/STEM jobs while studying? This may help them to be in the real world part of the time. Internships are great, but it may be too late by then. Voc. HS' do something similar for the "trades"; what about STEM at that level?
Sorry, but I didn't learn much from this study. (Granted, I only skimmed it.)
Or, rather, I thought it was already *known* that parents having sufficient time and a lotta books and that kind-a stuff effected early engagement in education. What insights did I miss?
Out of curiosity, what is the proportion of Oriental Asian and Near East Asians in STEM workforce, Hispanics? Is there an NSBOA? NSBNE? or just NSBA? NSBH? Is there anything to the idea that Asians are more hostile to blacks? Any stats pro or con? or are they just lumped in with "whites"? I have no issue with an NSBE or any group encouraging more people pursuing STEM education and careers.
The report I referenced includes this excerpt about Asians in STEM:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020a) 2019 ACS, Asians and Whites represent a greater share of STEM (9% and 65%, respectively) compared to all Asians and all Whites in the U.S. workforce (6% and 61%, respectively) (Figure LBR-23). However, the representation of Asians in STEM is primarily driven by their representation among STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher (16%), whereas Asians are underrepresented among STEM workers without a bachelor’s degree, or the STW (4%). In contrast, Whites represent a greater share of STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree (66%) and of the STW (65%).
The full report (The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers) is long and includes lots of information. I didn't see the level of detail you're seeking, but there may be other sources with that information.
There is a Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers (SASE). I don't know anything about them, but here's a link to their web site:
https://saseconnect.org/
Here's a link for their chapter at Texas A&M University;
https://www.sasetamu.org/
TY for responding. Sorry took so long, been too busy to read lately.
Hope you & yours have a great holiday season.