physica

Ok so you look down on academia and it's very competitive. So you think he's mesmerised by this shallow mundane thing however, he has also managed to achieve great things in academia. He has not pursued wealth but gone for contributing more to science. How is he shallow there??? You have focused on one thing even though you can do multiple things in life. Again you're simply looking down on people and asserting opinions. I can give you some advice for that, stop looking down on people and judging them based on one or two actions they do online. You can do multiple things with your life. From your own admission you strayed from the academy. Again you're making huge judgements by something you're not 100% clued up on. You may call it meat grinding I call it holding you to the save standard as everyone else. The first steps in education are abstract and kids will struggle to see the bigger picture. However, graduating from physics has changed the way I see the world..... sure I get more annoyed at main stream media because journalists don't understand probability theory but I can create mathematical models, I understand physical systems. This is useful in most jobs from engineering to company data analytics to finance and more. I have also been shown the mathematics behind forming or stars and black holes, electromagnetism, quantum particles. Most importantly of all I learnt the scientific method which is how to come up with a mathematical model of a system and how to test it. This is the fundamental basis of thinking for yourself. If you are disgusted by the imparting of this knowledge because you didn't do very well we could make the argument that you are shallow.

Says you but that's not everyone's' definition of purpose. by who? These are your personal opinions, other people can look at life in a different angle and find different meaning in life. As long as you're not directly hurting someone by your actions you can live life how you want. You seem to be missing what I've written about you judging people by a few shallow actions on the internet. Here is what I wrote about it. You read his comment on line and said that it was sad because he spends a lot of time playing and getting hold of games. What you failed to pick up from his comment is that he is a very dedicated scientist who has an amazing academic record and turns his back on careers that pay well for science. When I was living with him he was getting scores above 90%, when he went to a post grad interview at a university that's ranked in the top 10 in the world he taught the interviewers some maths and got a unconditional offer straight away. What I am saying is that you couldn't have been more wrong in your assessment about him and you were so wrong because you based it on an online comment he posted. I am confident that you are very wrong about the other people you are judging on the internet based on a few comments you've seen them post. I don't think society is shallow and petty, I think you're looking at it in a very lazy judgemental way. I too spend time playing games, I sometimes waste whole days playing online games. I sometimes taunt people on these online games. I sometimes watch porn. When I was a kid I spent hours playing video games and board games. I'm starting my third degree, I got into UCL (currently ranked 7th in the world) for postgrad physics and engineering in medicine. I'm learning code in my spare time in-turn developing computer programs that scrape data off the internet (plan is to help map disease in third world countries in the future), I'm coming close to releasing my phone app that I have been developing. However, if you didn't know that about me and just looked at my facebook activity and played a few online games with me you'd think that my life was shallow petty and wasted. You cannot sum someone's life up by reading a few posts they write on the internet.

I'm not really sure where you're coming from here. As long as these people are not hurting anyone they're allowed to do that. Assuming that their choice is wrong means you have to define a purpose to life. This is why religion has tyrannical episodes because it makes up a purpose to life. Everyone is free to define their own purpose in life. If you are concerned about the future of science then you can pursue science yourself. I like the idea of helping people, making a change and I like science which is why I'm pursuing postgrad in physics and engineering in medicine but I do not have the right to force others down my path. You're also being a bit simplistic and one-dimensional. People can have freedom on the internet and still choose science. I know I do. People can also love playing games and do worthwhile things. You said that Prometheus's statement about him spending a lot of time playing games, talking about games and getting games was sad. I personally know Prometheus. I lived with the guy for a while. He values his secrecy so I won't disclose too much however, he has done multiple degrees, done three masters degrees has experienced a couple of world class universities that are in the top 10 in the world in math orientated subjects but has not chased a lucrative career, instead he is doing more science in the postgrad world. You may think my endorsement of this guy is a big laboured but I'm making a point that you're prejudging and simplifying things. If you stop judging people straight away you will see that society is not as bad or doomed as you think.

This is flat out wrong. I have shown you stats where between 22 and 39 they earn more when you exclude overtime. If you think this is different in the USA please provide stats that excude overtime and account for age. YOU are proposing the theory, YOU have the burden of proof. Your response to me saying that you provide no evidence is to waffle and provide no links or evidence...... good one. Luckily you're fighting for the female victimhood cult so no one will pick you up on this. Enough with the cheap dirty tricks. Stop trying to reverse the scientific method. YOU are proposing the theory that part of the gender pay gap is because of the organising of the patriarchy. YOU have to provide the evidence. If YOU provide no evidence then it is as good as a conspiracy theory. This is very basic concept or science.... how are you not getting it. Another cheap trick, pretend that you answered the question and refer back to the post..... If you really answered it copying and pasting would be an easy solution... sigh I'll go the extra mile and point out how you have done nothing. here is 105 So you have a question. Another cheap trick of trying to reverse the scientific method. Then just some vague statement with no evidence or links. Also how does the stat that women 22-39 earn more than men prove that women get rewarded for their youth??? If that was the case then women under 22 would be earning more. Also your vague statement (I'll be generous and call a model) doesn't acount for women earning more for 17 years. If they were getting punished for aging you would see a decline as the age increases. Instead you see a dramatic change from 39 onwards. This is just vague statements with no links, it's compariable to pub talk. Really not an answer to what I'm bringing up. This is post 115: Ok hate to break it to you but again this is just vague speculating with zero links. It's as good as pub talk. Just saying the US has cultural differences doesn't cut it. I have given you stats that show that when age is concerned women earn more than men per hour from the ages of 22-39 when overtime is excluded in the UK. If YOU want to propose the theory that the wage gap is consistent against women through all ages in the USA the YOU have to provide stats that show this is the case when taking into account age and excluding overtime. Basically you've done nothing but just spew your own opinions...... man this is easy. Guess what guys you're going to have to try some more cheap tricks, hide behind the downvoting and do anything possible not to take my points head on because guess what........ YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS

There's a trade-off, whilst there is clear financial incentive it is an event. it's a break in the routine life, people get to talk about it with others. We are social animals, this is why festivals and events are so popular. Whilst making someone feel special all the time is nice it's not that easy. If you're doing it all the time then it's no longer special and there are a few people out there who would think it's too much. We have busy lives to small encouragements such as thanksgiving, Chirstmas, birthdays etc are a way of bumping us back into the giving and spoiling type. Don't get me wrong I've worked in A and E and seen the suicides at christmas (I don't celebrate christmas) and I don't celebrate my birthday either but in general if done sensibly these celebrations are beneficial to society. This is why all societies all over the world have celebrations at marked times of the year.

Completely agree had to vote up. You have to think why people are playing games. Partly to pass time, simulate, because it's fun and because they get to simulate doing stuff they'd never do in real life. I play starcraft and order units to kill other units without even thinking twice...... In real life I definitely wouldn't facilitate killing. Same goes with the way I talk online. A conversation online generally has less impact because you don't know the person and they have no ties to your social circle. You can even mute them and considering the previous points you will forget about them very quickly. The problem is that people take themselves too seriously on the internet. Whilst I don't shout abuse at people I sometimes taunt people when playing online games and I've lost count of how many people have taunted me. The bottom line is that they don't know anything about you. What I think is more interesting is the people who take it to heart. There is an increasing number of people who really freak out when someone has a difference of opinion to them or says that their efforts are not amazing. Colleges are partly to blame allowing the creation of "safe spaces", making up a line of facts which are usually victim orientated and attacking and demonising anyone who questions those facts. I am one small person in a vast world. I am not connected to you in any way apart from this dialog. If you don't like what I'm saying don't worry it will not affect your life in any way unless you choose for it to. Where the double standards really come out is when lefties call politicians and speakers who aren't left every name under the sun but then try and silence them when they say something they don't agree with. Thankfully in gaming freedom of speech is still going strong. Whilst some activists have tried to imposed their double standards onto this industry the gaming industry thankfully has remained market orientated which maintains freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Instead of buckling to tyranny they let their customers decide. If you want to engage in this horseplay you can do that. If you don't no one is forcing you to play. If there is enough people who want a heavily policed gaming platform then there would be a market for it and money to be made. More heavier policing would cost more. If you'd like to pay more for that then it would be your choice to seek out such a service as long as I don't have to be forced to pay more people because someone else is too delicate. It's up to the parents. Laws against the internet are hard to enforce and easily infringe on the freedom of speech. You seem to have an issue with western culture. That's up to you however, it's western culture that pushes forward human rights and democracy. Western culture has produced most of the modern innovations and leads the world in education and research. The poor in the west have much more freedom. Majority of art, literature and film comes out of the west. It's popular to hate the west like it's popular to hate the head boy a school. We can talk superficial statements till the cows come home but in reality the real deep-down reason is that they weren't picked to be head boy. In this day and age there isn't another culture that even comes close to rivaling western culture.

No one has produced USA stats that look at age and exclude overtime. I have shown that there is an inconsistent 17 year period in the UK that no one dares touch. If you want to push your conspiracy theory you have you have to show that the wage gap is consistent throughout the ages when over time is excluded. Right now you're sticking your head in the sand and saying look at all this other poor quality data that doesn't address the 17 year inconsistency that you have shown in the UK. Again YOU are proposing you know what's going on not me it is up to you to show this. Right now you've failed to do so, so your theory is more of a speculation with insufficient data. Looking at the bigger picture if you are unemployed for a period of time then you will not progress in your career at the same rate as others who do not take time out. If we look at the bigger picture we have to acknowledge a 17-year inconsistency when you exclude overtime and look at age. If you want YOUR model to explain why there is a pay gap you have to look at why at 39 there is a change which is over 100% of the pay gap. If YOU want to assert that the gender pay gap is consistent against women throughout age in the USA YOU have to provide stats that exclude overtime and look at hourly earnings throughout age. This is very directionless. No one is disputing the fact that there is a gender pay gap for SOME AGE GROUPS however, there is a small cult that seems to think they know the reasons why and the reason why is their conspiracy theory. I say we don't know enough, there is a lot of noise and their is an inconsistancy in the stats if you exclude overtime and look at it over age. If you want your conspiracy theory to fit you will have to explain how this conspiracy theory fits with the inconsistency in the stats. If you can't do that and want to retreat back to just the USA you have to show that the wage gap is consistent for all ages when overtime is excluded. If you think that consipracy theory is a little harsh look at the reasoning that's being accepted: With no evidence this screams consipracy theory. Also doens't even bother to explain how my points, links and claims support this. However, you and iNow haven't pulled this up. This did not recieve a vote down yet my posts have. Hence why I describe a cult mentality and this thread has been rife with doucle standards and cheap tricks. This is mainly iNow and ovetone, CharonY I appreciate the dialog with you. Thank you for not getting involved with the mob/cult mentality. Keep throwing your toys out the pram and down voting. You know you can't touch my points

You haven't even come close to it and you and your friends know it which is why they were trying to downplay it as a small irrlevent slice of data a few posts ago, 105 was a question and 115 was waffle without a single piece of evidence to back it up. Nice try but you're dirty tricks are not touching me. It's very likely. Coming from someone who went from medical back to study physics and now doing physics and eningeering in medicine postgrad the pace is a lot faster. With medical there is a ton of regulation, the change is a change in the biology memorised. In tech and engineering jobs new programming languages come out, other programming languages become obsolete. Take a couple of years out of a biotech company and you stuggle to get a company to take you on due to the competative nature. Nursing is famous for being easy in terms of part time and maternity leave. Still lets not turn the scientific method on it's head. I was speculating party doing your job. You claim you know the cause of the gender pay gap, tell me your model that explains why women earn more than men from 22-39 and how the discrimination kicks in after that. This is nice pub talk but do you have any evidence to back this up? This is compariable to a conspiracy theory. The fact that at age 39 women go from earning more than earning less (accounting for over 100% of the pay gap) means that there must be some serious restirctions on women which would be very easy for you to find. Without evidence your theory is nothing. Once again Overtone you've added nothing. iNow usually picks you up for slopply contributions but luckily for you you're supporting the female victimhood conspiracy so anything for the cause hey iNow? Are you even going to try and approach the facts I produce that smash you position into the ground or are you going to dance around and snipe hiding behind the downvote? In conclusion no one has even come close to producing evidence of this consipracy theory, produce good quality data or even attempt to exaplain inconsistencies when good quality data is produced, instead it's been ingored and downplayed. The proof is the fact that no one even dares to attempt to explain the facts I've been laying out here. overtone has waffled mildly about them but it's pub talk at best with illogical explainations and zero evidence. this is what's going on right now: Carry on voting down because that is all that you can do. This female victimhood cult has pushed good people away from the science forums.

stop trying to be dishonest. iNow, on 12 Feb 2016 - 03:17 AM, said: The wage gap persists and females are making less than males for no recognizable reason other than the ridiculous fact that they have a second X chromosome and some private lady bits instead of a Y chromosome and some external boy plumbing. Now I appreciate that my statements lock you down and you can't really respond to them. You try a few tricks, try and get me to prove why your theory is wrong as opposed to proving it yourself. Again I lock you down quickly. You then flat out lie and say that you're simply highlighting the gap. The second quote shows you're not. Last but not least you try and seek solace in voting me down even though I have been consistent and held your feet to the fire with facts as opposed to trying tricks. Keep it up. A hypothetical rating system doesn't disprove my facts and you know this. I haven't seen any good quality data excluding overtime in the USA. If you can find it will help you proving your theory that women are discriminated against. We know that men are twice as likely to do over time, relying on data that doesn't exclude overtime is just messy and disingenuous. Again I have to keep focusing on the scientific method here. I have not proposed that I know the forces behind these gaps. However, if we are to be consistent with the scientific method someone who does claim has to explain why they are earning more in their prime out of university and why it drops off at 39. I'll do a little bit of your job for you and chuck out a speculation but this is in no means an invite to force me to produce a theory and start defending it distracting from the fact that your are coming to the table with a theory. Women who recently graduate are less likely to be raising a child and can focus on work. The fact that there is a period where women earn more than men suggests that 100% of the pay gap later on could be down to external factors like raising children. You have to explain how women are discriminated from pay and promotions despite earning more for 17 years (I think people generally get promotions and pay rises when working for 17 years). You play down this section but women are earning more suggests that there are changes at 39 that accounts more than 100% of the gender pay gap later on. Nice spin but you but lets look at the other side people chose to ignore earlier on: Percentage of men employed with children: age 16-24 69.5% 25-34 88.6% 35-49 92.1% Percentage of women employed with children: age 16-24 35.8% 25-34 63.0% 35-49 75.0% Percentage of men employed without children: age 16-24 48.6% 25-34 83.6% 35-49 82.0% Percentage of women employed without children: age 16-24 51.1% 25-34 85.0% 35-49 79.7% Office of national statistics [page: 9] http://www.ons.gov.u...1776_328352.pdf When we look at the later years the difference between men and women going to work when children are involved is also in the double digits. Look there's a lot of noise and guess work here. Your model of sexual discrimination doesn't even come close to a conspiracy theory yet. If you take time out of a highly skilled trade you deskill quicker. Physics/tech and engineering jobs move a lot faster than caring professions and people who work in history departments or libraries etc. We are all agreeing that women take time out to raise kids. Instead of discrimination is it just that these jobs are fast paced? Again I'm going to introduce some more noise here. If we look at Europe poor countries like Lithuania have nearly 50/50 men and women in senior management jobs. When you look at wealthy stable countries like Germany and France women account for less than 10% of senior management jobs. Why is it that in richer countries were the households are more stable and have more expendable income women are less likely to be in a senior management role??? Do you think women's' choice might be a factor??? Show me some USA stats that takes overtime into account and age and I'll believe you that there's a consistent gap.

Again this is another example of a dirty trick. I have shown you that taking into account age and excluding over time shows different results. YOU are proposing the theory. If YOU want to prove that women in the USA are discriminated against then show me the stats that take into account age and exclude overtime that women are discriminated against. Again YOU are proving the theory. If you want it to be: it only makes YOUR job harder not mine. It baffles me as to why the scientific method gets turned on it's head when female victimhood gets chucked into the mix. This is what it's like at the moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL9lVE5MJ9A

Wow took a break and people took the chance to ignore the fact that women earn more than men per hour ages of 22 and 39 (excluding overtime). http://www.ons.gov.u...1778_385428.pdf [page12] If you're pushing forward the theory that women are discriminated against because of their sex in turn getting lower pay you have to explain why women get paid more when over time is excluded. I see that the dirty tricks have come out of the closet again, ignore stats that go against your theory in favour of stats with less controls and more noise and try and get people who are not proposing a theory to try and prove a negative.

Thanks for looking into this. It turns out I was installing it to pip as opposed to pip3. It now works

These reasons just strengthen my resolve that you need to do an undergrad. There is more to a phd than simply doing the math. You will have to communicate with others and work with others. You will also have to teach subjects to undergrads as a phd student. Doing undergrad will get you out of your comfort zone and make you a more rounded person. I think few people on this thread look back at their high school selves and think that he had it all figured out back. Also you cannot under estimate exams. Reading and thinking you understand something is very different to aactually passing exams on it. Again we have all known people who sat exams thinking they knew the material back to front only to fail. This is why we have them. Also I hate to break it to you but on a global scale you're not that special. If you're as smart as you think you are you will be able to go to Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge. There will be plenty of smart people there who will challenge you and teach you things. Again Imperial NHS has let me work with Oxbridge grads and UCL postgrad has also let me bump shoulders with very smart people. They all say the same thing, at high school they thought they were super smart but when they got to university they were fairly average. I used to think I was super smart but seriously, some exposure in a top university really put things into perspective for me. Also you're undergrad isn't wasted, if you breeze though it use your spare time to prep for post grad, start a buisness or invent something. Really smart people do this all the time in undergrad. update: some of my response parrots Arete's must have been writing at the same time.

I'd also look at this from a competition perspective. A phd is an academic job. They would compare your application against others. Whilst you claim to understand it other applicants will have actually passed exams on it and applied the knowledge to project work. The second one is a big thing. One it shows if you can think outside the box and manipulate the concepts so they can be practically applied, secondly it shows you understand the material and have a taste in what these projects are like giving you a further true understanding of if you actually want to do it. I've been at Imperial NHS trust for 5 years and will be starting postgrad in physics and engineering in medicine at UCL in sept and I have seen my fair share of people who have read stuff in their spare time, think they understand and have even less of a clue actually applying it. You will not be able to match up against a graduate who has this experience. This is why young people are accepted to university early if they are gifted but not accepted straight to a phd program from high school.

I've come a fair way in python 3. I am having trouble installing modules on my mac. Poured hours into it and it's still not working, documentation on the internet that I have managed to find is vague at best. I've used pip and typed: sudo install XlsxWriter into the command line and got the following: usage: install [-bCcpSsv] [-B suffix] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 file2 install [-bCcpSsv] [-B suffix] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 ... fileN directory install -d [-v] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] directory ... Then back to another command prompt... is it ready to use? I'm finding installing modules extremely frustrating Update: I tried running a script and it said ImportError: No module named 'xlsxwriter'

I've voted this up for honesty. I've debated with others in the past who have changed their previous point and accused me of not being able to read. Will read the rest later on today

Look at post 102 on this thread Keep them rolling I care about facts and reality, insults and character speculations roll off the back when you know you logic has been 100% untouched in this thread. Now we are on to the next part of cheap tricks. Dumping stuff, hoping people will not read through it, not bothering to explain it whilst not addressing the stats I produced. Sigh let me do your job for you again. link one The commentary in this is depressing. The stats are very one dimensional. It talks about average loss of earnings over a life time. If you want to raise specific points out of this do so. link two In scientific journals you have to declare interests..... I think the institute for women's policy research has a clear financial interest, if it doesn't show a problem that need to be fixed by policy it might lose funding. It shows. It doesn't exclude the background noise of overtime and it doesn't look at wage gap over age...... so in response to my stats you've given me stats that have more background noise and fails to look at a key area where I have identified the reverse. In a hard science you'd be called a crackpot for this but we are talking about gender pay gap so the double standards will be in your favour today. link three Again more noisy data. It doesn't exclude overtime. So you still dare not touch the stats I produce and instead produce stats that are less controlled. Once again I look forward to your next cheap trick, character attack and voting down because that's all you have.

Sigh lets stop with the emotion and lets focus on the verbal reasoning and scientific method. Where have I said that women must raise children? Lets break it down again...... the data shows that when children are involved the gap between men and women being in employment increases greatly. I've presented to really show how lazy it is to simply speculate that women are being punished for their age. I then made some speculations as to why this is but this isn't the main focus here. Stop trying to be sneaky and flipping the scientific method. I find it funny that people are focusing on the areas where I'm doing their work for them as they feel no need to even assess their theories. You are proposing that there is a correlation between sexism and gender pay gap. I've presented two key stats that really smash this hypothesis in the face. Women between 22 and 39 earn more than men per hour. Yes as women get older they earn less. The lazy get out to try and bolster the crumbling theory is that women are punished for their age whilst men are not. I then produce stats showing that when children are involved less women maintain employment. If you think that sexism causes the gender pay gap you are the one that has to explain these stats. I am not the one who has let my emotions get the better of me, created theories and expect others to come up with the explanations. It's a very cheap trick to force me into formulating a theory then force me down the route of defending this forced theory drawing attention away from the intial theory that you proposed.... I'm too smart for you iNow, keep with the character attacks and down voting and I'll keep dishin out the facts.... argh yeah. In terms of douchy smugness it's perspective. When your logic is getting ripped to shreds or people aren't biting on the cheap tricks you're offering and you can't come close to justifying your theory in light of the stats produced it's easy and lazy to take comfort in the fact that they're a bad person. Me I'm above that in this thread which is why I'm not down voting. Instead I'm addressing facts and keepin my logik tight. If it softens to blow of reality keep down voting me and focusing on my character. You've contributed nothing here. You've failed to even come close to explaining why these stats prove your theory and you attack character. This isn't exactly a proud moment for you is it son? Now if you're ready to bring something new to the table or attempt to address the facts I've displayed I welcome it because I'd prefer some decent conversation with you.

This is exceptionally lazy. There are other factors that could affect it. Women taking time out to have children or raise a family will affect pay later on. Taking time out isn't the end of the story, does raising a family make women less likely to put extra hours and gun for promotions? Now let me lay this out for you because once again the scientific method has been chucked out of the window. You are proposing that women get punished because of their age..... you are going to have to control for these factors because the burden of proof is on you. Now I'm going to do a bit of your job for you but you're not going to thank me for it. Lets go back to the office of national statistics. Percentage of men employed with children: age 16-24 69.5% 25-34 88.6% 35-49 92.1% Percentage of women employed with children: age 16-24 35.8% 25-34 63.0% 35-49 75.0% Percentage of men employed without children: age 16-24 48.6% 25-34 83.6% 35-49 82.0% Percentage of women employed without children: age 16-24 51.1% 25-34 85.0% 35-49 79.7% Office of national statistics [page: 9] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf As you can see the difference between percentages of men and women employed isn't big when children aren't involved. However, when children are involved the difference is a lot bigger up to the age of 49. When you're not employed you're not gaining the same skills and experience as people who are employed. The knock on effect is that you will not get paid as much as someone who has been in work all the time. Your conspiracy theory isn't really matching up with reality is it son??? Again overtone the burden of evidence is on you. You are going to have to provide some exceptional evidence to prove that women are punished because of their age. It's going to have to be very strong because the facts I've produced in this post really smash your hypothesis out of the water.

Wow instead of disputing the stats people vote down and vote up name calling. Look you produced a few studies with poorly controlled data and linked them together in a conspiracy style of reasoning. However, you can keep calling me names, it seems to be working for you. I tend to step back after a while in female victimhood debates because people get too over emotional and the mob seems to come out and pander to it. Note that you fail to refute my recent specific points. I'm not the one who's trying to prove a certain causation. I actually did your work for you in the previous post as a demonstration to how slap dash the conversation gets when talking about female victimhood. If you want to add more factors into the causation that YOUR trying to prove feel free. As for ethnic names I think it's a bit all over the place when describing gender gap but if you can link it I'm happy to hear your reasoning. Of course but if you read my link I provided men are twice as likely to do overtime. They collected the data via reported overtime. If you report more overtime you get paid more. If you're not reporting your overtime you're not going to get paid for it. Overtime rates vary but there are industries that will pay you more per hour. Instead of wasting time trying to calculate the impact anybody who has any scientific acumen and integrity would use data that excludes overtime in order to get rid of that excessive noise. Now here's the thorn in the side that you guys daren't go near because it smashes the female victimhood conspiratory theory in the face very hard is that when you exclude overtime women between the ages of 22 and 39 earn more per hour than men. http://www.ons.gov.u...1778_385428.pdf [page12] (Office for national statistics) Your theory has to explain this. Good luck.

I appreciate this thank you for taking the time. Now lets summarise what it is in the grand scheme of things. It's a social experiment that states that women's CVs are valued less in terms of competence and how much they should get paid. Now lets remain rational. If it were any other field of science we would get this information and compare it to reality to see if it aids in modelling reality and if so how much. Because of the study you present we will focus on 20s to early 30s, as this is where people usually graduate college and forging their careers. Your study is on the assessment of undergrad CVs for hiring. Lets establish some facts that will also help us with our model: We know that men are more likely to do overtime (men between 25 and 34 are twice as likely to do overtime) http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/11/art7full.pdf [page37] We know that men are more likely to choose higher paying majors such as engineering as opposed to childcare We add in our model that women in the early stages of hiring are more likely to have a lower value placed on them because of the study you present Because of this we have to find data that plots gender wage gap by age groups, majors and excludes overtime. Sadly most of the data collected only excludes one thing. If it's overtime they don't assess age. If it's age they don't exclude overtime. The amount of shoddy data is depressing. It's as if people writing reports for institutions such as "chartered management institute and women in management" and “woman’s institute of management” have a financial incentive to whip up frenzy. Or those legislators have a financial incentive to keep legislating. The best I could find was data that took age into account and excluded overtime. We will have to ignore major choice. However, even we compromise in favour of women in the analysis we still see that between the ages of 22 and 39 women in the UK are earning more per hour (excluding overtime) than men. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf [page12] (Office for national statistics) Conclusion: the study completely fails to model reality. It’s either true and women are experiencing some extreme privilege elsewhere to make up for it to the point where they are out earning men or it’s one of those social science studies that can’t be replicated. I haven’t actually proposed the hypothesis that misogyny and sexism influence the gender pay gap. People who are should be doing this. When female oppression gets discussed rationality goes out the window. Instead they point to isolated studies, spew stats that clearly fail to control for variables and link them together with the academic rigor that’s comparable to conspiracy theories. These people usually strongly state that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and that genes and biology hardwires some men to love other men and some women to love other women. The next breath they completely reject the notion that biology and genes may hardwire women to GENERALLY have different priorities or choices to men. I remind people on this thread who think that sexism affects the pay gap that they are the one proposing a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show that your theory models reality.

So we are not going to go into specifics or disprove certain facts we are going to just appeal to authority and ad hominem. I find it amazing that gender differences where women are victims seem to make rational people irrational. The conversation on maternity leave has been fairly one-dimensional so far. Maternity leave isn't the only thing that impacts on the career...... children still need raising and looking after even though they are 12 months old or more. This means that one person usually takes a back seat. Not staying late so they can pick up the kids and do school runs or not doing extra hours at the office for the promotion will also affect the career progression. Again people here have been very relaxed. I am going to keep consistent with the philosophy of science and the science forum. The hypothesis is that women are being discriminated against in terms of pay simply because of misogyny. It is up to the people claiming this causation to provide the evidence. Once again because it's female victimhood people have done an 180-degree turn on their scientific standards and we have people producing evidence why this is not the case. Remember to take into account risk when providing evidence for your hypothesis. Men are more likely to take risk. We all shrug our shoulders when men are likely to develop and addiction or become homeless but we start making stuff up when men take risky behaviour that pays off like dropping out of college to start companies like Mircosoft. At least Ten oz has been consistent with his scientific approach. Sadly this link doesn't give any methodology. Most psychological studies are not reproducible and it doesn't tell us how they measured it or how they came up with the payment value. For example if John's CV was sent to New York city and Jenifer's was sent to New Hampshire the pay gap could be simply down to regional differences. You'd be amazed what researchers do for funding for a campaign. As this thread has shown us it's easy to get rational people to behave irrationally when gender is involved. If you want money gender gap and race baiting are the easiest. Remember the 1 in 5 women being raped on campus. When they looked at the methodology they classed rape as if the women regretted sleeping with the guy or was given the impression that there would be a serious chance of a long term relationship? Obama pushed the stat as well, it's because it's easy money. Rational people like the people on this thread act irrationally when it's women victimhood. This doesn't take into account choice of occupation. What's slightly comical is that this comes after your point that women are underrepresented in STEM fields which usually pay well. Your previous point discounts this point. It didn't take into account university attended or major choice. What they have in common they are young and have college degrees. WOW would you have these standards for any other subject that you're posting on? In conclusion there has been no evidence posted on this thread that women are paid less simply because of their gender. Rememeber it's your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you.

There's multiple angles in which people look at this. I am starting UCL in September (postgrad) and my friend is currently there also doing postgrad. I regularly visit him on campus. What we have both noticed is that there are loads of recruitment fairs (like every week) from top employers. I and my friend have had experience from non prestigious universities before UCL and there wasn't many recruitment fairs and when they were they were not from top employers. Another advantage is the fact that prestigious universities have more money. You can debate whether students from prestigious universities are smarter till the cows come home (my suspicion is that they are not) however students from more prestigious universities generally have a wider selection student projects to choose from which can be more fancy. That being said university is what you make of it. I don't know what it's like in the USA but the top universities in the UK really don't care where you did your undergrad. I'm field in medicine/applied physics/engineering, in these fields you need equipment, funding and facilities. In fields that don't require such like theoretical physics you will find some high flying successful people tucked away in unheard universities. I don't know what computer science is like personally but from what I guess it really isn't elitist. The computer tech industry is littered with people who dropped out of university and forged empires. There seems to be a get on with it a do it attitude in the computer industry. Code is cheap to write and there's little to no regulation in doing it. Once you have a finished product distributing it is super easy and cheap, you don't have to buy and stock a product. Because of this you can have a survival of the fittest in start up companies and interns. You'll see elitism in areas where there is a lot of regulation and heavy cost that needs to be laid down initially. My guess is that if you work hard. Work on your own side projects and enter competitions you will standout. We can't stick our heads in the sand and say that going to a prestigious university doesn't help. However, we also cannot assume that employers are one dimensional and don't realise that there are multiple factors that make someone a good employee.

hash is for a note, it doesn't affect the script process. It's to stop me getting confused. Just brought matlab student licence. it was £50 but when you add additional add ons and tax it came up to £200. I bit of a kick in the teeth but loads of engineering jobs require matlab skills and part of my assessment in the masters is in matlab. I'd be very short sighted to deny an extra year of practice on this for £200. Do you know of any good compilers and editors to download for C++ for mac?

now on the second part of the program. I will be processing each hour then printing lists of how many patients had to wait X hours before seeing a doctor. The problem is that it says syntax error on the first line but gives me nothing else. Can anyone see the syntax error? # first hour process (8am to 9am) patients_waiting_since eight = patients_each_hour[9] - doctors_per_hour[9] if patients_waiting_since eight < 0: patients_waiting_since_eight = 0 patients_waiting_two_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_three_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_four_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_five_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_six_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_seven_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_nine_hours_eight = 0 patients_waiting_ten_hours_eight = 0 # second hour process (9am to 10am) if patients_waiting_since_eight > 0: patients_waiting_two_hours_nine = patients_waiting_since_eight - doctors_per_hour[10] if patients_waiting_two_hours_nine <= 0: patients_waiting_since_nine = patients_each_hour[10] + patients_waiting_two_hours_nine patients_waiting_two_hours_nine = 0 if patients_waiting_two_hours_nine > 0: patients_waiting_since_nine = patients_each_hour[10] if patients_waiting_since_eight == 0: patients_waiting_since_nine = patients_each_hour[10] - doctors_per_hour[10] else: print("there is an error in the program from 9am to 10am") patients_waiting_three_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_four_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_five_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_six_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_seven_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_nine_hours_nine = 0 patients_waiting_ten_hours_nine = 0 # third hour process (10am to 11am) if patients_waiting_two_hours_nine > 0: patients_waiting_three_hours_ten = patients_waiting_two_hours_nine - doctors_per_hour[11] if patients_waiting_three_hours_ten <= 0: patients_waiting_two_hours_ten = patients_waiting_since_nine + patients_waiting_three_hours_ten patients_waiting)three_hours_ten = 0 if patients_waiting_two_hours_ten <= 0: patients_waiting_since_10 = patients_each_hour[11] + patients_waiting_two_hours_ten patients_waiting_two_hours_ten = 0 if patients_waiting_two_hours > 0: patients_waiting_since_ten = patients_each_hour[11] if patients_waiting_three_hours_ten > 0: patients_waiting_since_ten = patients_each_hour[11] patients_waiting_two_hours_ten = patients_waiting_since_nine patients_waiting_four_hours_ten = 0 patients_waiting_five_hours_ten = 0 patients_waiting_six_hours_ten = 0 patients_waiting_seven_hours_ten = 0 patients_waiting_nine_hours_ten = 0 patients_waiting_ten_hours_ten = 0