Aye, during my Mech Engineering degree, we had 122 folk enrolled, 3 of them were girls.
Printable View
Aye, during my Mech Engineering degree, we had 122 folk enrolled, 3 of them were girls.
My uni has statistics, we have 9% girls in my department for bachelor students, and a whopping 5% for master students. Across the entire university, 18% of all students are women.
*sigh*
Physics at my university did not fare much better.
I feel so spoiled now remembering the ratio at USF's College of Education
Apparently, this doesn't apply to Chemical Engineering. :)
I don't know what the ratio is for my major specifically, but 23% of undergraduates and 20% of graduates in the school of engineering at UT Austin are women. For fall 2010, the enrollment at the university stood at 50.5% female.
My problem is that half the guys in my classes are undatable due to crippling social anxiety.
Never swallow the bubblegum
http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/...77980011_n.jpg
You guys should have gone into BME. Not majority women, of course, but a good 30+% depending on the program. My concentration often has majority-women labs (two labs I spent most of my time in for the last 10 years were overrun with women). Some of them were even attractive. ChemEs and BMEs fared far better in the women department than MechEs, EEs, CS, and CivEs. Materials Science was in between. IE often depended on the school, I've found. Hell, I married a BME.
Fun fact: programming used to be the province of women as it wasn't seen as a technical profession, but more of a secretarial job (albeit a fancy one). The people who programmed ENIAC were ALL women.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-k...at_the_zoo.gif
Despite all my rage i am still just a cat in a cage
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/3O6et.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/UxPqk.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/K1lZS.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/UkMY5.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/hAXuX.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/comDG.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/nvmXz.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/rzKO6.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/fHtiE.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/1kjp8.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/Slh1y.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...tian/z6j0g.png
Breaking Bad, Season 4 Episode 13 spoiler (IE last episode of the series for the next year or so):
Spoiler:
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/198...ctive/729x.jpg
The Norwegian team's handball coach after the judge made a horrible call the last seconds of the march, making the team lose 33-32 to Iceland. I love the picture. The commentator also said the F-word live.
Loving the re-jigged movie posters Ness.
lots o frames:
Seriously? Anonymous is coming? "Look! We ripped down another virtual poster and made a few IT guys work overtime!"
What a profound disappointment...wiggin saying "even some of those smart women" are also physically attractive. And "Hell", he married a BME. pffftQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Uhm... please. I wasn't saying they weren't worth anything if they weren't attractive - I was friends with most of them. But I wasn't interested in bumping uglies with them; so what? And you don't need to be an engineer to be smart. I wasn't making any statement about women in general (or smart women) - just saying that certain kinds of engineering tended to attract more women. Given the larger pool to draw from, it's unsurprising there were more suitable mates for a given individual than if there's all of one or two women in a major.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
:cry:
Aww..
Spent a lecture finger-painting:
http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/...18436730_n.jpg
My inner child and I, before the demon of raw carrots, 6 AM, renal physiology, class schedules and our journalling system
http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/...06786686_n.jpg
http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/...73190140_n.jpg
Obama does not adhere to modern standards of hygiene, while Romney adheres to timeless standards of hygiene like dust adheres to his shoe :(
And this is a great example of why numbers are important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
US National Debt & Interest Expense by Presidential Term, Percentage of GDP National Debt, Total Gross Domestic Product Interest Expense Year % Change Debt Total(6) As % of GDP Ending President Current $ (1) Growth Rate, YoY During Presidency Avg. Annual Current $ (2) as % of (As of Sept. 30) 12/31/1976
FORD $653,544,000,000 $1,825,300,000,000 35.8% 12/31/1977 CARTER $718,943,000,000 10% $2,030,900,000,000 35.4% 12/31/1978 CARTER $789,207,000,000 10% $2,294,700,000,000 34.4% 12/31/1979 CARTER $845,116,000,000 7% $2,563,300,000,000 33.0% 12/31/1980 CARTER $930,210,000,000 10% 42% 10.6% $2,789,500,000,000 33.3% 12/31/1981 REAGAN $1,028,729,000,000 11% $3,128,400,000,000 32.9% 12/31/1982 REAGAN $1,197,073,000,000 16% $3,255,000,000,000 36.8% 12/31/1983 REAGAN $1,410,702,000,000 18% $3,536,700,000,000 39.9% 12/31/1984 REAGAN $1,662,966,000,000 18% $3,933,200,000,000 42.3% 12/31/1985 REAGAN $1,945,912,000,000 17% $4,220,300,000,000 46.1% 12/31/1986 REAGAN $2,214,835,000,000 14% $4,462,800,000,000 49.6% 12/31/1987 REAGAN $2,431,715,000,000 10% $4,739,500,000,000 51.3% 12/31/1988 REAGAN $2,684,392,000,000 10% 189% 23.6% $5,103,800,000,000 52.6% $214,145,028,848 4.2% 12/31/1989 BUSH $2,952,994,000,000 10% $5,484,400,000,000 53.8% $240,863,231,536 4.4% 12/31/1990 BUSH $3,364,820,000,000 14% $5,803,100,000,000 58.0% $264,852,544,616 4.6% 12/31/1991 BUSH $3,801,800,000,000 13% $5,995,900,000,000 63.4% $286,021,921,181 4.8% 12/31/1992 BUSH $4,177,009,000,000 10% 55.6% 13.9% $6,337,700,000,000 65.9% $292,361,073,071 4.6% 12/31/1993 CLINTON $4,535,687,054,406 9% $6,657,400,000,000 68.1% $292,502,219,484 4.4% 12/31/1994 CLINTON $4,800,149,946,143 6% $7,072,200,000,000 67.9% $296,277,764,246 4.2% 12/31/1995 CLINTON $4,988,664,979,014 4% $7,397,700,000,000 67.4% $332,413,555,031 4.5% 12/31/1996 CLINTON $5,323,171,750,783 7% $7,816,900,000,000 68.1% $343,955,076,695 4.4% 12/31/1997 CLINTON $5,502,388,012,375 3% $8,304,300,000,000 66.3% $355,795,834,215 4.3% 12/31/1998 CLINTON $5,614,217,021,195 2% $8,747,000,000,000 64.2% $363,823,722,920 4.2% 12/31/1999 CLINTON $5,776,091,314,225 3% $9,268,400,000,000 62.3% $353,511,471,723 3.8% 12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697 -2% 36% 4.4% $9,817,000,000,000 57.7% $361,997,734,302 3.7% 12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436 5% $10,286,200,000,000 57.8% $359,507,635,242 3.5% 12/31/2002 BUSH $6,405,707,456,847 8% $10,642,300,000,000 60.2% $332,536,958,599 3.1% 12/31/2003 BUSH $7,001,312,247,818 9% $11,142,100,000,000 62.8% $318,148,529,152 2.9% 12/31/2004 BUSH $7,596,165,867,424 8% $11,867,800,000,000 64.0% $321,566,323,971 2.7% 12/30/2005 BUSH $8,170,424,541,313 8% $12,638,400,000,000 64.6% $352,350,252,508 2.8% 12/29/2006 BUSH $8,680,224,380,086 6% $13,398,900,000,000 64.8% $405,872,109,316 3.0% 12/28/2007 BUSH $9,229,172,659,218 6% $14,077,600,000,000 65.6% $429,977,998,108 3.1% 12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,612 16% 89% 11.1% $14,441,400,000,000 74.1% $451,154,049,951 3.1% 12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512 15% $14,256,300,000,000 86.4% $383,071,060,815 2.7% 12/31/2010 OBAMA $14,025,215,218,709 14% $14,745,100,000,000 95.1% $413,954,825,362 2.8% 12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397 8% 41% 13.8% $15,176,100,000,000 99.7% $454,393,280,417 3.0%
And last year's modest 8% increase is largely due to obstructionists in Congress, not fiscal responsibility on the part of the president.