Women Dominate Men in 7 of 10 Graduate Fields, and Women Are Gaining on Men in All 10 Fields
Mark Perry writes:
The table above displays data from The Council of Graduate Schools for the average annual growth in graduate school enrollment by gender over the ten year period from 1998-2008 for the ten main fields of graduate study. The bottom table above displays data for graduate school enrollment by gender in 2008.
Not only do women outnumber men in graduate school overall by a ratio of 143 females enrolled for every 100 males, but women outnumber men in 7 out of 10 graduate fields of study, and the annual growth in female graduate school enrollment from 1998-2008 is greater than the growth rate for men in all ten graduate fields of study. Even in academic disciplines like engineering where women were underrepresented in 2008 in terms of graduate school enrollment, the number of women enrolled in graduate engineering programs has grown at more than twice the annual growth rate for men in engineering from 1998 to 2008. More evidence that men have become the “second sex” in higher education.
July 29, 2010 No Comments
Americans are Creationists; Britons and Canadians Side with Evolution
47% of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the past 10,000 years while 68% of Britons and 61% of Canadians believe humans evolved over a process spanning millions of years, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In other words, two-thirds of Britons and three-fifths of Canadians side with evolution whereas only one-third of Americans believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms.
To compare this to the scientific community, a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that “87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection.”
July 29, 2010 2 Comments
Looking at the Big Mac Index
Last week, The Economist released its updated Big Mac Index which compares how much it costs to buy a Big Mac across the globe. It is, according to the magazine, “lighthearted attempt to gauge how far currencies are from their fair value.”
It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), which argues that in the long run exchange rates should move to equalise the price of an identical basket of goods between two countries. Our basket consists of a single item, a Big Mac hamburger, produced in nearly 120 countries. The fair-value benchmark is the exchange rate that leaves burgers costing the same in America as elsewhere.
The chart below shows how countries rank on the Big Mac Index. You will notice that Asia is the cheapest place to buy a Big Mac while it is more expensive to buy them in Canada, Scandinavia and Europe:
Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander took the data one step further “Big Mac Index stacks up against key measures of economic prosperity and well-being, running a series of basic correlations and plotting some scatter-graphs of it against key measures of economic and social well-being.”
Florida and Mellander find that the Big Mac Index is associated with economic output and life satisfaction, and is a key indicator of the “transition to modern, post industrial economies.”
It is also “negatively associated with blue-collar economies, being negatively associated with the percentage of the workforce in manufacturing, construction, and other physical labor work.”
July 29, 2010 1 Comment
Elton John Stands His Ground
Elton John has been sticking his neck out for (in my opinion) some unlikely causes for the master musician. First, he surprisingly refused to boycott Israel for the flotilla incident. The Jerusalem Post gives his performance an outstanding review.
With the sinister pomp-and-circumstance opening of “Funeral For A Friend” filling the stadium, Elton John stepped out behind the wings like a sequined-clad queen arriving to greet his loyal subjects at Ramat Gan Stadium Thursday night.
As routine as a mega-superstar pulling into town should have been – and we’ve been blessed with quite a few, from Paul McCartney and Madonna to Metallica and Leonard Cohen – everyone was aware that something more was hanging on this performance.
Simply put, Elton hadn’t cancelled. Immediately after a revved up second song, “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting,” he spoke for the first time – making reference to his musical brethren who have feared what they don’t understand, and wittingly or not, joined the cultural boycott of Israel.
“Shalom, we are so happy to be back here! Ain’t nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby,” spouted John with a pumped fist in the air. “Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That’s what we do. We don’t cherry-pick our conscience.”
He then breaks stride again with his entertainment industry brethren by refusing to boycott Arizona venues. Fox News reports:
Never one to back out of a performance to make a statement, music icon Elton John offered some choice words for his fellow musicians who choose to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070 immigration law.
According to the Arizona Daily Star, while performing at his sold-out concert at the Tucson Arena, he said:
“We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won’t come here. They are f***wits! Let’s face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what’s the (expletive) with these people?”
Surprising as the pop master’s statements are, they are not particularly controversial. Elton John never endorses any one side in the case of either Israel or Arizona. He is simply making a statement that he will not be swayed by populist mob mentality. There are many who claim tolerance, but in fact react viscerally to differing opinions. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said:
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.
It’s nice to see someone showing some real independence of mind.
July 29, 2010 1 Comment
Do Genetics Determine Your Sensitivity to Other People’s Drinking Behavior?
Genetics may determine the extent to which you are influenced by social drinking cues such as advertisements, drinks placed on a bar, and seeing others around you drinking, according to a new study published in Psychological Science.
Drinking alcohol increases levels of dopamine — a brain chemical that causes pleasure and makes us feel good. The dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) has been shown to be involved in motivation of seeking out rewards. Research has suggested that carrying a specific form (or variant) of this gene — one that includes seven or more repeats of a certain section of the gene — may be associated with craving caused by alcohol-related cues. Psychological scientist Helle Larsen from Radboud University in The Netherlands and her colleagues wanted to investigate if this 7-repeat gene variant plays a role in how an individual responds to alcohol-related cues.
July 29, 2010 No Comments
United Kingdom Sentence of the Day
[O]ver the past four decades a mere 18 teachers have been drummed out of the profession for incompetence.
Melanie Phillips on teachers in the U.K.
July 28, 2010 No Comments
Value-Added Tax and the Federal Deficit
Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge discusses the Value-Added Tax (VAT) rate that would be needed to erase the budget deficit created by rampant government spending:
Over the past weekend, the Office of Management and Budget released its annual Mid-Session Review of the Budget which projects the administration’s policies over the next ten years. The big news is that OMB is projecting a $1.4 trillion deficit for 2011 (the third year in a row at this level), a $911 billion deficit in 2012, and deficits between $698 billion and $900 billion for the remainder of the decade.
These deficit estimates assume the extension of the Bush tax cuts for families under $250,000 but $639 billion in new tax revenue from repealing the tax cuts for upper-income families. These estimates also assume $702 billion in “other revenue changes and loophole closers” along with some $711 billion in spending cuts, mostly in defense.
Because a Value Added Tax (VAT) has been floated as a solution to the government’s budget problems, we did a back of the envelope estimate of the VAT rates that would be needed to raise enough money to cut Obama’s deficits to zero. Assuming a VAT base of 41 percent of GDP (the average of European-style VATs) , we would need a 22 percent VAT in 2011 to close the $1.4 trillion deficit.
In future years, as the deficit is expected to fall, we would still need a VAT rate of 8 to 14 percent to raise enough revenues to close the budget gap. Of course, these VAT rates would assure that federal revenues stayed above 22 percent of GDP for the next 10 years. Something that has never happened before in U.S. history.
Legislators suffer from a twisted doctrine regarding government deficits: the government’s budgetary “needs” are held as the priority – if citizens want or need lower taxes, they must wait until spending is under control. It is not only liberal legislators who ascribe to this doctrine. For example, Senator John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that they were not coupled with restraints on spending. So here we have a “conservative” essentially stating that Americans must continue to pay excessive taxes until the government gets around to reigning in spending (and let’s be honest, when has that promise ever been kept?) But it is not the government’s money, it is ours. The individual American citizen should be the primary concern – government works within the boundaries its citizens set, not vice versa. And as the late, great Milton Friedman once remarked:
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
July 28, 2010 No Comments
No evidence that popular slimming supplements facilitate weight loss, new research finds
According to ScienceDaily:
New research evaluating the effectiveness of a broad selection of popular slimming supplements sold in pharmacies and health food shops has found no evidence that any of them facilitate weight loss. Two studies have found they were no more effective than the fake supplements they were compared with.
July 28, 2010 No Comments
Thou Shalt Make Fun Of Thy Religion
In the middle ages of Christianity opposition to the State opinions was hushed. The consequence was, Christianity became loaded with all the Romish follies. Nothing but free argument, raillery & even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
- Thomas Jefferson
As a Christian, I’ll be the first to admit that ridicule of a deeply-held religious belief can certainly hurt. Obviously religious ridicule is protected by the First Amendment. But from a practical, faith-based standpoint, such ridicule and criticism is invaluable. Any viewpoint, be it political, philosophical, or spiritual, benefits from criticism. Or, more precisely, it benefits from the defense of such criticism. As Jefferson points out, a religion that is not exposed to criticism stagnates. I know many Christians who learn to defend their faith by reading the works of Christian philosophers. Personally, I prefer to read the works of committed atheists such as Ayn Rand (who offers some of the most scathing criticisms of religion I have ever read). After all, isn’t the human immune system most strengthened by actual exposure to disease?
So from a person of faith, to people of faith: give thanks to ridicule and criticism of your religion. Remember that what doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger. An unchallenged belief is a weak belief – I prefer my opinions be somewhat battle-hardened.
July 28, 2010 No Comments
Atlas Shrugged Movie Details
The full cast and crew, plus other details of the Atlas Shrugged movie are now available at IMDb. The move is, of course, based on the Ayn Rand novel of the same name. With no reputable names, rushed production, and an emaciated budget, I’m somewhat skeptical of how the movie will play out. Plus, the movie will be set in the present day and some of the novel’s key plot points may not make the chronological transition well. For example: the novel’s antagonist is Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive who is one of the country’s most powerful and independent business leaders – but when was the last time a railroad executive fit that description?
For anyone that holds out hope for a successful movie, or just wants the latest Atlas Shrugged movie news, you can become a fan of the movie on Facebook.
July 28, 2010 1 Comment