It’s not that the courses themselves are hostile, but the industry certainly can be - and that’s going to dissuade people from starting down that path.
What exactly is obviously hostile about our universities? Is it the safe spaces? Is it the lower standards applied to minorities and women to make it easier to get in? Is it all of the scholarships open only to minorities and women?
Universities are quite obviously the most inclusive and least hostile place in the world for minorities and women.
You do come across as having a negative attitude toward women and minorities because you are saying they only got in because someone let them in, they are expected to be lesser.
I’m not saying that at all. But that is exactly the message affirmative action sends to applicants. In general they are both sexist and racist, even to those they supposedly benefit.
What I said was that even with systemic advantages put in place encouraging women and minorities (excluding Asians of course, because for some reason they don’t count) to join stem courses, they still show a statistically significant preference to do other majors.
If you think I have a negative attitude towards any group, it’s not because of anything I’ve said. If I had to guess, I’d say that’s probably just the reaction you have to people when you can’t engage in rational discussion on this topic.
The percentage of all PhDs earned by women has just, in the last ten years, hit 50%. Of the STEM fields only biology has over 50%, and engineering, physics, and math are in the 20s. A lot of strides have been made, but "most inclusive and least hostile" is not born out by the data.
It’s not a straw man at all, it’s an accurate description of acedemia. Now you’re saying it’s the industry’s fault (never mind that the industry generally practices the same affirmative action as universities do). But that can’t possibly be the case because the industry doesn’t have enough female and minority stem graduates to hire “enough” women and minorities.
