Forum Topic

Ed, it's difficult question to answer as to why STEM jobs aren't popular, particularly with female applicants. As someone who worked in IT for nearly five decades it's been interesting to see things change. In the early 70s there were few females studying STEM degrees at IC and I think that was probably representative of UK universities. In my first computing job (as we called IT back in the 70s!) the startup software company I worked for recruited "arts" as well as STEM graduates. That was because it was considered language and other arts employees would be better at communicating with customers and users of systems to define requirements, describe and resolve problems, etc while those with STEM training could tackle technically issues. The result was a high proportion of female employees. Over the years that position seems to have changed with IT and, more recently, Cyversecurity becoming male dominated, although I  have worked with many excellent females in both disciplines. I'm not entirely sure what's driven that change.Another observation, having attended Astrofest last week, is that they managed to achieve a balance of 50-50 male-female professional and knowledgeable astrophysicists, astronomers, costmologist, etc. Other science events I've attended - IC, BAA, SPA, etc - also have a high proportion of female presenters. So I wonder, if many women who do study STEM subjects feel more comfortable in academic institutions with stronger DEI cultures rather than, say, IT organisations headed headed by men such as Musk, Gates etc?Just personal observations and perceptions, not a rigorous analysis so could be well off the mark - and wouldn't explain men not entering STEM jobs - but perhaps a basis for further discussion?

Michael Ixer ● 492d

For the climate sceptics amongst us just read this:https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/It’s NASA, is that an impeccable enough source?The climate research teams at Exeter Uni, who work closely with the Met Office, based not coincidentally in Exeter, can provide much more detailed research, peer reviewed of course and supported by well over 90% of climate scientists worldwide.At this stage in the debate we really shouldn’t have to be going back to basics to point out what is happening to the Earth’s climate.How we, humankind, respond, is of course very much open to debate but if it does not include reducing CO2 emissions globally and rapidly, then what, exactly?  Methane is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and those emissions, too, need drastic reduction.If you don't believe any of this then that puts you at odds with 90%+ of the world's climate scientists, including those at NASA.Science matters.  Google it but do choose sites with some scientific heft and not just those that offer uninformed scepticism.The key word is “mitigation”.  Each of us can make a tiny difference at most but collectively we can achieve far more. However it’s no use talking about mitigation unless you start from the position that humankind has a serious, indeed, existential problem, and that urgent action is required. Here’s another link I recommend a sceptic should read: https://www.theccc.org.uk/climate-action/international-action-on-climate-change/If you do read it then also take a look at the very long list of serious international academic experts on the committee. That’s scientific heft for you.What we do individually, or as a country, will not be cost free. Indeed it could be financially quite painful. When considering that point consider also the potential cost of doing nothing.Your call.

Jonathan Callaway ● 498d