Black Man in the Lab!

[Mumbles]

A study done by an engineering journal in the 90s pointed to the fact that blacks were generally not selecting engineering in school.

As to engineering being white, without Asian immigrant engineers technology would have not have grown. In t 90s there was a drop in American engineering enrollments.

The 60s Moynihan study on poverty was controversial It concluded that in both blacks and whites primary education performance correlated to family stability and economics, not race. It also concluded that welfare was destroying the back family.

That's actually not true. Moynihan blamed the falling-apart of the black family on the destructive influence of slavery and Jim Crow (and states that the fact that black people even survived as a testament to their strength), and to the fact that discrimination forced them into a matriarchal family unit, in a patriarchal society. He pointed to the increased use of welfare as a consequence of this, rather than a cause.

...well, people who wish to can read the Report here.

When I started as an engineer in 1980 it was racist and misogynist. Racial and female jokes and slurs were common.

Today it is a different environment. People who play the race card today only serve to hold back blacks. The belief the deck is stacked against them.

Engineers from Russia, Eastern Europe, India, and Asia are common as are women.

You would need to look at the college choices by race ad the overall math preparstion.

I watched a show on a NYC charter school. Uniforms required, discipline and respect for teachers reinforced, and parental involvement required. Black kids perform well.

lt is like the RCC schools I went to. With my dysfunctional family situation without the RCC school discipline that kept e from gong too far astray I might not have graduated high school. Single parent father family who left me and my sisters alone for days. One sister did not graduate high school , she went to a public school.

I'll grant you this - in defense, at least, the major companies are loudly in favor of finding more black engineers, specifically. They often create specific mentoring programs, both for younger hires, and for employees to work with black high school students. The internal culture is not perfect, certainly - I have stories about that! - but it's also not a brutally hostile work environment for black people, either.

(Of course, HR these days will track you by every attribute they can find, but that's another matter)

 

[RavenSky]

As for the the question then my answer would be genetics. Just today I saw a study where they linked violent criminals to specific genes.
And what if tomorrow they link STEM to specific genes which are much less common among blacks?

To me it's more about familiarity with a profession. Yes, there may be an inheritable genetic component but in my experience kids tend to emulate their peers and parents more than anything else. It was inconceivable to me to become a doctor as a young person. I wanted a more normal job like working in a steel mill. Becoming an engineer or a computer scientist was also inconceivably difficult. But if my parents had been professionals I think the prospects would have been very different. Certain things would not have seemed so impossible.

I think you have a great point here. Even with my upper middle class privileged upbringing, even with math teachers who strongly encouraged me to pursue what was clearly a gift for a STEM track, it simply wasn't a part of my world so it just didn't seem like an option.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have loved to have gone into the sciences.

 

[Toni]

To me it's more about familiarity with a profession. Yes, there may be an inheritable genetic component but in my experience kids tend to emulate their peers and parents more than anything else. It was inconceivable to me to become a doctor as a young person. I wanted a more normal job like working in a steel mill. Becoming an engineer or a computer scientist was also inconceivably difficult. But if my parents had been professionals I think the prospects would have been very different. Certain things would not have seemed so impossible.

I think you have a great point here. Even with my upper middle class privileged upbringing, even with math teachers who strongly encouraged me to pursue what was clearly a gift for a STEM track, it simply wasn't a part of my world so it just didn't seem like an option.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have loved to have gone into the sciences.

I think that I was extremely fortunate to have been born when I was born and to my parents. It was a time when a lot of societal norms and assumptions were being challenged. My parents were very cognizant of the limitations that were imposed upon them by the poverty they grew up on as well as the more rigid class expectations: it was hard for my grandparents to conceive of their children becoming professionals. The fact that my father made it int white collar work and my mother could be a stay at home mother was a real symbol of success. But my parents had bigger dreams for us, recognized that we were academically talented and also saw the potential in math and science careers. It was after all the race to space! And barriers were being broken down, opening these careers to women.

This did not come conflict free: my mother desperately wanted me to be a nurse. My father wanted us girls to have great, barrier busting careers--which we would put on hiatus once we had children.. It was clear that my parents saw motherhood and home making to be more important.

 

[barbos]

How so? This thread is about absence of black men in the lab. What's their excuse?

Again, you use the wrong word.

So you say.

It's actually not hard to work in "the lab" with a BS degree - or even just as an undergrad working towards one. For that matter, technicians don't even have that much. The actual story is specifically about black men earning PhDs in STEM, in particular. To address that, you need to address every roadblock, from birth, through the end of their academic career. And, in my experience, when you look towards PhDs in particular, money becomes important - and the less wealth a person's family has, the more important it becomes. You can claim stipends and the like as much as you want - but unless they rival what one can make by simply leaving college and working (and STEM degrees can earn a lot of money in private industry), they're going to leave.

Again, not all whites leave, but it seems "all" blacks do.

And in fact, I'll guarantee you that most STEM graduates went into the field not only because it's interesting, but also because it offers high salaries with just a Bachelors degree.

I don't disagree with that. But the question is about PhD STEM.

You're looking for an "excuse" - I refuse to offer you one. I'm giving reasons.

I did not ask for a reason, I asked for an excuse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. Once you apply the proper controls race almost always drops out of the picture.



This I find more questionable. Rather than destroying families I think it made the life of single parenthood easier so more people chose that route.

Blacks who immigrate do not have the cultural baggage and damage of blacks coming from slavery and Jim Crow. Colin Powell is a good example. Jamaican immigrant parents.

Yup--because it's cultural baggage, not discrimination.

I watched a show on a NYC charter school. Uniforms required, discipline and respect for teachers reinforced, and parental involvement required. Black kids perform well.

Yup--get the parents involved and kids of any color do well. If the parents don't care it doesn't matter what color their skin is.

The cultural bagage comes from slavery and Jim Crow. Post Civil War blacks began educating themselves and moving into society. Jim Crow was the white reaction.

Even if true this doesn't change my position one bit.

You don't cure cultural baggage with antidiscrimination measures.

 

[barbos]

A study done by an engineering journal in the 90s pointed to the fact that blacks were generally not selecting engineering in school.

This actually agrees with my "retarded monkey" theory. Well, it's not really mine but name and application are.
From a brain and stuff point of view the main and the most striking difference between humans and apes is amount of time it takes to mature.
3 year old ape is a fully mature individual who finished its "education", 3 year old human is a baby which can't do anything. It takes 25 years to grow a fully functional human brain. And hard core scientists never fully mature, they are essentially old kids. You have to be a 45 years old "kid" to study coffee stains (material science) or play with numbers (mathematics). Grown and fully mature brain would have no interest in such "crap".
And blacks appear to mature both physically and psychologically much faster and more consistently than whites. So when people say "I had so much interest in science in school" it does not really matter, what matters is how much of that interest, curiosity and ability to learn you kept into your 20-30-40-50.

 

[steve_bnk]

Agreed. Once you apply the proper controls race almost always drops out of the picture.



This I find more questionable. Rather than destroying families I think it made the life of single parenthood easier so more people chose that route.

Blacks who immigrate do not have the cultural baggage and damage of blacks coming from slavery and Jim Crow. Colin Powell is a good example. Jamaican immigrant parents.

Yup--because it's cultural baggage, not discrimination.

I watched a show on a NYC charter school. Uniforms required, discipline and respect for teachers reinforced, and parental involvement required. Black kids perform well.

Yup--get the parents involved and kids of any color do well. If the parents don't care it doesn't matter what color their skin is.

The cultural bagage comes from slavery and Jim Crow. Post Civil War blacks began educating themselves and moving into society. Jim Crow was the white reaction.

Even if true this doesn't change my position one bit.

You don't cure cultural baggage with antidiscrimination measures.

Laws went a very long way.

Successful discrimination lawsuits decades back has forced corporate America to deal with it. A company being labeled racist today can impact it.

Mid to large size companies tend to have formal training and discrimination policy. Today it is lum,ped under diversity and hostile work environments. Up here people tend to avoid talking politics, race geder, sexuality, and religion in the open workspace. It is toe asy for the talk to turn hostile.



Affirmative action had its place. It mainstreamed Blacks, and got them into colleges.

Don't forget gov Wallace's proclamation over federal forced desegregation of schools, ' segregation today segregation tomorrow...'

I would agree that today govt action has gone as far as it can. It can not be ignored, it all has its basis in slavery and Jim Crow. When I was born Jim Crow was in full effect.

IIn1970 I was at a Navy electronics school in Tenn outside of Memphis. A southerner I was stationed with liked to go what he called 'nigger knocking'. He and his pals would drive around in the back of a pickup truck knocking down blacks with 2x4s. Those people are still around and had kids.

 

[steve_bnk]

That's actually not true. Moynihan blamed the falling-apart of the black family on the destructive influence of slavery and Jim Crow (and states that the fact that black people even survived as a testament to their strength), and to the fact that discrimination forced them into a matriarchal family unit, in a patriarchal society. He pointed to the increased use of welfare as a consequence of this, rather than a cause.

...well, people who wish to can read the Report here.

When I started as an engineer in 1980 it was racist and misogynist. Racial and female jokes and slurs were common.

Today it is a different environment. People who play the race card today only serve to hold back blacks. The belief the deck is stacked against them.

Engineers from Russia, Eastern Europe, India, and Asia are common as are women.

You would need to look at the college choices by race ad the overall math preparstion.

I watched a show on a NYC charter school. Uniforms required, discipline and respect for teachers reinforced, and parental involvement required. Black kids perform well.

lt is like the RCC schools I went to. With my dysfunctional family situation without the RCC school discipline that kept e from gong too far astray I might not have graduated high school. Single parent father family who left me and my sisters alone for days. One sister did not graduate high school , she went to a public school.

I'll grant you this - in defense, at least, the major companies are loudly in favor of finding more black engineers, specifically. They often create specific mentoring programs, both for younger hires, and for employees to work with black high school students. The internal culture is not perfect, certainly - I have stories about that! - but it's also not a brutally hostile work environment for black people, either.

(Of course, HR these days will track you by every attribute they can find, but that's another matter)

I didn't say slavery and Jim Crow e were not the root causes. I believe the report cited welfare as contributing to the decline and the only real solution was job opportunities.

 

[Mumbles]

That's actually not true. Moynihan blamed the falling-apart of the black family on the destructive influence of slavery and Jim Crow (and states that the fact that black people even survived as a testament to their strength), and to the fact that discrimination forced them into a matriarchal family unit, in a patriarchal society. He pointed to the increased use of welfare as a consequence of this, rather than a cause.

...well, people who wish to can read the Report here.



I'll grant you this - in defense, at least, the major companies are loudly in favor of finding more black engineers, specifically. They often create specific mentoring programs, both for younger hires, and for employees to work with black high school students. The internal culture is not perfect, certainly - I have stories about that! - but it's also not a brutally hostile work environment for black people, either.

(Of course, HR these days will track you by every attribute they can find, but that's another matter)

I didn't say slavery and Jim Crow e were not the root causes. I believe the report cited welfare as contributing to the decline and the only real solution was job opportunities.

We're getting off track - but the Moynihan Report actually did call for a massive investment into black families and neighborhoods, in order to make up for the ravages of slavery and Jim Crow. An investment that, to date, has not happened.

One note - this isn't a discussion about what you said, to be clear. Rather, it's a discussion about what Moynihan wrote, as far as the Moynihan Report goes. As far as engineering goes, yes, I will hold you accountable when you say that things have changed - but having entered the workplace in 1999, and having heard stories about engineering in 1980-1970, I fully agree with you that there has been a major shift.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laws went a very long way.

Successful discrimination lawsuits decades back has forced corporate America to deal with it. A company being labeled racist today can impact it.

Mid to large size companies tend to have formal training and discrimination policy. Today it is lum,ped under diversity and hostile work environments. Up here people tend to avoid talking politics, race geder, sexuality, and religion in the open workspace. It is toe asy for the talk to turn hostile.



Affirmative action had its place. It mainstreamed Blacks, and got them into colleges.

Don't forget gov Wallace's proclamation over federal forced desegregation of schools, ' segregation today segregation tomorrow...'

I would agree that today govt action has gone as far as it can. It can not be ignored, it all has its basis in slavery and Jim Crow. When I was born Jim Crow was in full effect.

IIn1970 I was at a Navy electronics school in Tenn outside of Memphis. A southerner I was stationed with liked to go what he called 'nigger knocking'. He and his pals would drive around in the back of a pickup truck knocking down blacks with 2x4s. Those people are still around and had kids.

Exactly--laws broke the back of discrimination. It's done, the wide-reaching laws serve no productive purpose anymore.

 

[J842P]

Brief check on the ground rules: are Asians white for this discussion?

In most of the United States, yes, Asians are considered white with the exception of the Hmong.

You people in the Mid West have real weird ideas about race.

 

[J842P]

lol, PhDs are free.

Actually, in the natural sciences, you usually get paid to do them. So they aren't free. They are actually sources of money.

Now, that doesn't stop a bachelor's from potentially being very expensive.

But getting the PhD itself is usually paid for and includes at a modest stipend.

 

[J842P]

How is than an excuse?
PhDs are free, in fact, normally you are being paid to do it.
Yes, payoff is bad, but that does not prevent whites from going for it.

First, "excuse" is a bizarre word to use here. The vast majority of people are under no obligation to even attempt to get a PhD, so there's no need for an excuse when they don't bother.

Second, you can't just enter a PhD program right out of high school, you know - and even engineering undergrads have to pay for the privilege of attending school, unless they're extremely lucky (which I was). A family who can barely afford to get a kid through high school, stands nearly no chance of supporting the same kid through that program alone - especially as the parents grow older, and increasingly unhealthy.

Third, the point is, if they *do* get a BS degree, then it's often a smart idea to stop there, and get a job that will likely pay for their MS degree, as well as giving them a good salary - and they can move along from there if they so desire.

And fourth, no, PhDs are not "free". You act like it's a "free" coffee mug or shirt.

Well, in the natural sciences, it really is free where "free" means that it doesn't cost you any money. Indeed, you are given money to do it.

Also, an MS is usually a waste of time (and money) in the natural sciences. I'll be honest, I don't know much about engineering. I do have a buddy doing his PhD in engineering. He didn't get his MS first and he's getting paid to do the PhD (although he did have trouble finding funding for a time).

 

[J842P]

In most fields of biology one needs a PhD plus at least one post doc., preferably more than one. That's a lot of delay/forgone income for not lots of future compensation.

Aye. Many people spend over a decade as a post-doc. That's very shitty.

I suppose I am an example of a minority male who dropped out of a STEM field (neuroscience).

In the life sciences particularly there is a coming glut of PhDs and not enough tenured track positions. The very dim future prospects coupled with the fact that I hated having to shoehorn some "translational" bent onto the research I was interested in doing if I wanted any chance to get decent funding made me say "screw this."

I was never very much aware of my own minority status in the lab. I did have a very good mentor as an undergrad, though, but I interacted with many different researchers and not just my own PI and they were usually all very open and willing to help anyone interested in their field. Although there were some questionable comments coming from older faculty towards females ("Don't you want to have kids?"), in biology at least there is pretty much parity when it comes to males and females.

Indeed, during that one year of PhD I did I almost chose to work in a lab of a female investigator. She was great and did fantastic research. I really respected her approach of combining quantitative neuroanatomy with electrophysiology (which is not as common as you would think), but her techniques weren't as "sexy" as the guy who I ended up working with. He was doing optogenetics and working in the olfactory system, which my undergraduate research was in, and since optogenetics is the "next big thing" in neuroscience I decided I'd be better off with him.

 

[J842P]

Again, how is that a good excuse for blacks not going to grad school?

Well, in biology at least, it's a terrible life choice with regards to career prospects.

http://biojobsblog.com/2013/02/26/its-official-the-us-doesnt-need-any-more-phd-life-scientists/

 

[fromderinside]

Exactly--laws broke the back of discrimination. It's done, the wide-reaching laws serve no productive purpose anymore.

B. Fin' S. laws reigning in 'stand ground' and 'cop saving self before calming situation' laws need be enacted and enforced.

Why? Property rights are subordinate to human rights and the police duty is to protect (the citizen and community - there is nothing in there about protecting brothers and saving skins - from personal harm ) and to serve (the community and the leviathan).

 

[Toni]

lol, PhDs are free.

Actually, in the natural sciences, you usually get paid to do them. So they aren't free. They are actually sources of money.

Now, that doesn't stop a bachelor's from potentially being very expensive.

But getting the PhD itself is usually paid for and includes at a modest stipend.

Usually isn't always. Back when my husband was doing his PhD, he had a very modest stipend and we scraped by because I was working full time. Last I looked at stipends, they were still pretty modest but you could live on them--carefully.

Truth is that if I were to get a PhD tomorrow and take a tenure track position (assuming I could find one) I would most likely earn less than I do now. Which is why I haven't been able to talk a fairly brilliant coworker into doing just that. Too many years deferred income for not much pay off.

 

[Rhea]

Actually, in the natural sciences, you usually get paid to do them. So they aren't free. They are actually sources of money.

Now, that doesn't stop a bachelor's from potentially being very expensive.

But getting the PhD itself is usually paid for and includes at a modest stipend.

Usually isn't always. Back when my husband was doing his PhD, he had a very modest stipend and we scraped by because I was working full time. Last I looked at stipends, they were still pretty modest but you could live on them--carefully.

Truth is that if I were to get a PhD tomorrow and take a tenure track position (assuming I could find one) I would most likely earn less than I do now. Which is why I haven't been able to talk a fairly brilliant coworker into doing just that. Too many years deferred income for not much pay off.

Even Mitt Romney had to sell some stock to make it through grad school!

 

[beero1000]

Actually, in the natural sciences, you usually get paid to do them. So they aren't free. They are actually sources of money.

Now, that doesn't stop a bachelor's from potentially being very expensive.

But getting the PhD itself is usually paid for and includes at a modest stipend.

Usually isn't always. Back when my husband was doing his PhD, he had a very modest stipend and we scraped by because I was working full time. Last I looked at stipends, they were still pretty modest but you could live on them--carefully.

Truth is that if I were to get a PhD tomorrow and take a tenure track position (assuming I could find one) I would most likely earn less than I do now. Which is why I haven't been able to talk a fairly brilliant coworker into doing just that. Too many years deferred income for not much pay off.

Usually as in essentially always. It's been my experience that being accepted into a PhD program without a tuition waiver and a stipend is tantamount to being rejected. Schools might occasionally send out acceptances without support as a sort of system of alternates, in their view it's a low investment for a decent gain once attrition among the supported grad students starts to take its toll...

Of course, no one goes into academics for the money, but that's besides the point. The standard advice is to only do a PhD if you can't imagine doing anything else. The income data is clear, even a supported PhD with no loans is a negative lifetime monetary investment - the loss of 5+ years of income with all of its assorted raises, compounded, is too much to overcome.

 

[Mumbles]

Usually isn't always. Back when my husband was doing his PhD, he had a very modest stipend and we scraped by because I was working full time. Last I looked at stipends, they were still pretty modest but you could live on them--carefully.

Truth is that if I were to get a PhD tomorrow and take a tenure track position (assuming I could find one) I would most likely earn less than I do now. Which is why I haven't been able to talk a fairly brilliant coworker into doing just that. Too many years deferred income for not much pay off.

Usually as in essentially always. It's been my experience that being accepted into a PhD program without a tuition waiver and a stipend is tantamount to being rejected. Schools might occasionally send out acceptances without support as a sort of system of alternates, in their view it's a low investment for a decent gain once attrition among the supported grad students starts to take its toll...

Of course, no one goes into academics for the money, but that's besides the point. The standard advice is to only do a PhD if you can't imagine doing anything else. The income data is clear, even a supported PhD with no loans is a negative lifetime monetary investment - the loss of 5+ years of income with all of its assorted raises, compounded, is too much to overcome.

And that's the point. The point of black kids going into STEM majors is actually very dear to me. It's a great way to break the so-called cycle of poverty. But even I can't say that some kid from the streets should go for a PhD. Truthfully, I would (and do) recommend that they get their BS degree, and then go out and make money.