Social Justice in PhD course Education
Written by Engineer Afsaneh Cooper on 12/8/2017 |
Engineering schools all around the world now are considered sexists / masculine type schools in which female engineers are a minority group.
Gender Balance Male-Female Ratios in Australian Universities
Upon the available statistics men engineers only like to supervise and work with 10-30 years younger female engineers similar to the other social groups, we see in society that age difference of couples are usually 5-10 years old, but among Chinese this age difference is 25-30 years old as reporters recorded in social media and News. Therefore it is not surprising that a Chinese professor of 55 years old rejects to supervise a female engineer who is 50 years old, but he would be friendly to work with a female engineer who is 25-30 years old!
Also among Iranian men engineers a male engineer of 35 is ten time more likely to be supervised than a female engineer of 35 years old. This is because Iranian men, specially educated men are family oriented and try not to make their wives jealous by supervising a young girl, whom they cannot take home for dinner later on, due to fear from the wife!
Among Indian men, who see women as full time bakers in their service, baking hot chapattis three times a day, being a female engineer triggers a feeling of threat in them. After the rise of China, which is neighbour of Australia, many Chinese men who were not allowed to have more than one child in China, fled to Australia to invest in higher education, bridging visa, getting permanent residency, purchasing a house and getting an academic job, just to see their dream of having more than one child, which communist government of China would not let them have it. In 2015 the law of one child in China stopped. Now those many academics, who used to work in Australia do not work here anymore, and their numbers are decreased. It was not surprising to see a Chinese female GP being retired with 2 children in Australia, because her husband was in retirement age and she was under 35 years old, in 2014!
Most men engineers specially Chinese and Indians under-represent female engineers, socially exclude them, see them as identity threat, as hard students to supervise, with a baggage of diversity support at their back from Commissioner, and their awareness of these rights! So men engineering academics keep supervising mostly boys or younger women, whose knowledge about these rights are very limited. Iranians are very comfortable with men engineers to work with, due to commitment to their wives or religious banners they feel.
How could authorities issue new policies, which increase the number of enrolments of female engineers at PhD course level? These are courses which ends to qualifications that increases the status and power of the degree holders in the society.
If you like to know how government and staff at Universities can increase the rate of enrolment of female engineers [especially female mechanical engineers] please type FE1 in search box of:
www.ewindfly.net
and look at links 1-10 and read after page 47 in link 6.
Also you can pass tables1 and 2 to School of Graduate School to fill it up and you see how the policy at PhD course which includes Rule of the University in Australia, which relates to applications for admission to University to undertake a 'Doctoral Degree':
Rule of the University in Australia
At university of Tokyo which is the 12th best world university in Mechanical Engineering, the academic staff do not communicate with future PhD students to admit them. Future students sit in an exam and the exam results says how the "university vacancies" should be divided among "future PhD student applicants". Also in University of Tokyo, which is 16 ranks higher than Melbourne University in Mechanical engineering, TOEFL and GRE of "any date" is required for PhD application to lodge.
A small number of Australian Universities require that all IELTS Tests should be only 2 years old, UWA accepts 2 years successful full time University study in Australia in "any date" equivalent to IELTS Score 6.5 for English Competency for PhD course, even if the course of study was not completed.
University of Tokyo opened its "International Multidisciplinary Engineering [IME]" course for overseas Students taught in English in 2015. I assume none of the competent future engineering PhD students would rather study their PhD study in Australia, after knowing the difference between "Tokyo / Australian" Engineering Schools and also the total cost of "enrollment+application+admission" fees for three years full time PhD in Tokyo University which is AU$13,619 or nearly AU$14,000 all up, would rather pay over AU$90,000 to Australian Universities for similar PhD course study cost [all fees included in 3 years] to study in Australia! Even it is cheaper for Australian government to send the competent PhD future students to University of Tokyo rather paying AU$45,000 to Australian University [all fees included in 3 years] for domestic Australian Citizen Students to stay in Australia and finish their degree of PhD here. This is because Australian government would save $31,000 for each domestic Australian Citizen students who study his/her PhD in Tokyo rather in Australia.
Almost 95% of 40 Australian Universities accept Australian Citizenship document as equal as "English Competency" and do not require any "IELTS score" to be admitted to PhD course. The universities banners in Perth show that Perth Universities have converted to "Chinese culture" and they try to prevent "democratic women engineers" of taking high status jobs such as "professor of university", etc.The following behaviors have been recorded by world scholars from the engineering schools academics and their assessors when they confront female engineers to assess them for PhD course:
Men Engineering Academics' Ambiguous Behavior categories, which are not measured by University Rule, but can be measured under Cooperative Principle in Linguistic:
When each school of engineering in one country reached to maturity, integrity and Zeal of social justice, which is required for an advanced manufacturing engineering team not a consumer engineering team, then that country can claim that is a democratic country in real meaning of democracy that men’s freedom ends to the limit which women's freedom starts in division of status jobs / research training between men and women engineers.
For references in this document also type FE2 in search box of:
www.ewindfly.net
since Admin staff and Equity staff cannot prove that when an academic says, he cannot supervise a female engineer applicant because the PhD proposal is not in-line with his research interests, this proves the Rules of the University in Australia mentioned in this web page with red title about academics choosing their favourite students, without any set number for “percentage of enrolled women engineers applicants” [ see Y in Table 2 at the top of this web page] is not metric rules in assessment and cannot be used to assess a female future PhD student to be admitted to PhD course. Assessment instruments should be metric and since none of the authorities are able to assess the judgment of a male engineering staff about a female engineering applicant to evaluate whether the response that academic gave for “her PhD proposal” is a masculine negative response due to under -representation of women in engineering or it is true, this policy should be set aside and another better policy be replaced by this tricky unfair policy!
I suggest a solution for the inclusion of female engineers in PhD courses [see tables 1-2 at the top of this web page]:
N1 = Number of women engineer applicants
N2 = Number of men engineer applicants
X = N3/N1 = (Number of enrolled men engineers / Number of men engineers applicants)
Y = N4/N2= (Number of enrolled women engineers / Number of women engineers applicants)
N3 = Number of enrolled women engineers
N4 = Number of enrolled men engineers
V = Total number of vacancies in School of engineering for PhD students in a term/semester/year
N2 (X) + N3 = V Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice
[please click on "contact us" tab in this website and write to Afsaneh Cooper if you require all formulas which
ended to this calculation in detail]
Two examples for application of the above Equation in 2 Australian Universities:
For example in semester 2, 2017 there are 200 vacancies in school of engineering for PhD course, but 100 women engineers and 400 men engineers applied to study PhD course.
N1 = 100
N2 = 400
V = 200
X = Given by Human Rights Commissioner to apply social Justice for inclusion of women enrolment in engineering School in PhD course to Murdoch University [University 1] for the period of enrolment. If the Commissioner of Human Rights decides that X in year 2017 for Murdoch University should be minimum 40% [= 0.4] "Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice" would be substituted as follows:
N2 (X) + N3 = V
400 (0.4) + N3 = 200
160 + N3 = 200
N3 = 200 – 160
N3 = 40 Number of enrolled women in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University
N4 = Number of enrolled men
N4 = v – N3
N4 = 200 – 40 = 160
N4 = 160 Number of enrolled men in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University
Therefore we reach to this conclusion that in 2017 after the Human Rights Commissioner decided that X = (number of enrolled men / number of men applicants) Should be 0.40 or 40%, then Murdoch University which received 500 applications for PhD course in 2017, would divide the 500 to the following numbers based on the applicants’ genders:
X = 40% = 0.40 Given by HR Commissioner
N1 = 100
N2 = 400
Then Murdoch University would count the number of vacancies in PhD course by consulting the academics in School of Engineering. The following figure can be determined:
V = 200
Having the above 4 variables and substituting them in Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice:
N2 (0.4) + N3 = V
[400 × 0.4] + N3 = 200
160 + N3 = 200
N3 = 40
Murdoch University now knows out of 100 women engineer applicants 40 of them must be enrolled in PhD course.
Then N4 = V – N3 can be found:
N4 = 200 – 40
N4 = 160 = Number of enrolled men in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University.
The outcome of admission would be:
N3/N1 = 40/100 = 40%
N4/N2 = 160/400 = 40 %
Fair Enrolment of female engineers in PhD course:
Out of the 400 men engineering future PhD student applicants 160 were admitted. Out of 100 women engineering future PhD students 40 were admitted. Therefore 200 vacancies were filled in School of Engineering with 160 men and 40 women.
A second example [not real] is the Biased Enrolment of female engineers in another School of engineering in PhD course:
Dean of Graduate School at RMIT University decides X = 90% for 2017 enrolment of 513 applicants for PhD course among those applicants only one female engineer applied. School of engineering has 464 vacancies for PhD students. RMIT is the most resourceful Australian University for engineering students as the other field are not taught unless they are related to engineering.
N2 (X) + N3 = V Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice
N1 = 1
N2 = 513
V = 464
X = 90% = 0.90
[513 × 0.9] + N3 = 464
462+ N3 = 464
N3 = 2
Y = N3 / N1
Y = 2 / 100 = 2%
Upon the Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice an Eastern State University Dean of Graduate School has enrolled 98% of men engineering applicants. She has only enrolled 2% of the women engineering applicants. Since 98% of the women engineering applicants were told by men engineering academics that their PhD proposals were not in-line with their research interests, this assessment of the Dean of the Graduate School has been in line with biased assessment of men engineering academics, who rejected 98 PhD proposals of women engineers based on their feelings and pretended that those projects were not in line with their research interest. Feeling cannot be used as an assessment tool. As a result since the feelings of those academics cannot be measured, the assessment of these 98% women engineering applicants by men engineering academics of RMIT is not valid as it breaches the standards of assessment in higher education in 2016. Also the rejection of 98% of the women engineers could be due to age, masculine under representation of female engineers, etc. Which Rules of the University in Australia [see under red title in this web page] can not pick up! But innovative Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice picks up the unfair event at RMIT [Example only not real].
Therefore a policy which allows the Dean of Graduate School to reject 98% of "women engineering PhD Proposals" should not be used as an assessment instrument and "Ewindfly Equation of Social justice with X = N3/N1 determined by the Commissioner of Social Justice and V = Number of Vacancies, be determined by the VC of the University" is closer towards the democratic nature of this country. This Equation is a warranty to make sure "Australian Democratic legislation" which defines “the freedom boarder of men engineers limited by the freedom boarder of female engineers in taking the vacancies in engineering schools for PhD course admission” is not breached by abusers of the old policy [See red title: Rules of the University in Australia in this web page].
Link 4 bellow shows majority of migrants in Australia during 2000-2016 have come from India and China. Therefore the culture of India and China is more likely is one of the core reasons for discrimination of Female Engineers in Australia. A lot of high skilled male engineers from these two countries have changed the application of Human Rights setting of Australian legislation. I can understand that the Jesus and Muhammad are under blanket, when Buddhists, Hindus, and Sunnis dance with their rules in Australia as Industrial leaders of the Australian Universities!!!?
1. Millions rally in Spain on International Women's Day
2. Australian Women march streets of Sydney against exploitation of migrant women from their jobs and positions, etc.
3. Female Specialist Child Care Assistants strike in Australia for extra 50% pay rise in compared to similar Certificate III Male wages.
4. During 2000-2016, 292,000 born in India migrants, 95,000 born in China migrants and 63,000 born in Iraq and Afghanistan arrived in Australia. Out of these in the same period, 12,431 migrants moved to Melbourne.
References
Gender Balance Male-Female Ratios in Australian Universities
Upon the available statistics men engineers only like to supervise and work with 10-30 years younger female engineers similar to the other social groups, we see in society that age difference of couples are usually 5-10 years old, but among Chinese this age difference is 25-30 years old as reporters recorded in social media and News. Therefore it is not surprising that a Chinese professor of 55 years old rejects to supervise a female engineer who is 50 years old, but he would be friendly to work with a female engineer who is 25-30 years old!
Also among Iranian men engineers a male engineer of 35 is ten time more likely to be supervised than a female engineer of 35 years old. This is because Iranian men, specially educated men are family oriented and try not to make their wives jealous by supervising a young girl, whom they cannot take home for dinner later on, due to fear from the wife!
Among Indian men, who see women as full time bakers in their service, baking hot chapattis three times a day, being a female engineer triggers a feeling of threat in them. After the rise of China, which is neighbour of Australia, many Chinese men who were not allowed to have more than one child in China, fled to Australia to invest in higher education, bridging visa, getting permanent residency, purchasing a house and getting an academic job, just to see their dream of having more than one child, which communist government of China would not let them have it. In 2015 the law of one child in China stopped. Now those many academics, who used to work in Australia do not work here anymore, and their numbers are decreased. It was not surprising to see a Chinese female GP being retired with 2 children in Australia, because her husband was in retirement age and she was under 35 years old, in 2014!
Most men engineers specially Chinese and Indians under-represent female engineers, socially exclude them, see them as identity threat, as hard students to supervise, with a baggage of diversity support at their back from Commissioner, and their awareness of these rights! So men engineering academics keep supervising mostly boys or younger women, whose knowledge about these rights are very limited. Iranians are very comfortable with men engineers to work with, due to commitment to their wives or religious banners they feel.
How could authorities issue new policies, which increase the number of enrolments of female engineers at PhD course level? These are courses which ends to qualifications that increases the status and power of the degree holders in the society.
If you like to know how government and staff at Universities can increase the rate of enrolment of female engineers [especially female mechanical engineers] please type FE1 in search box of:
www.ewindfly.net
and look at links 1-10 and read after page 47 in link 6.
Also you can pass tables1 and 2 to School of Graduate School to fill it up and you see how the policy at PhD course which includes Rule of the University in Australia, which relates to applications for admission to University to undertake a 'Doctoral Degree':
Rule of the University in Australia
- Before admitting a person to a course, the relevant Associate Dean (Research) shall be satisfied that appropriate supervision and resources will be available for the candidate for the duration of the course.
- The Graduate Research School must not accept applicants for admission unless appropriate supervisory arrangements have been made for the specific field and course of study.
- The Faculty Graduate Studies Committee may approve an application for admission providing the Head of Enrolling Area has certified that:
- adequate supervision, infrastructure, and other resources and facilities are available.
At university of Tokyo which is the 12th best world university in Mechanical Engineering, the academic staff do not communicate with future PhD students to admit them. Future students sit in an exam and the exam results says how the "university vacancies" should be divided among "future PhD student applicants". Also in University of Tokyo, which is 16 ranks higher than Melbourne University in Mechanical engineering, TOEFL and GRE of "any date" is required for PhD application to lodge.
A small number of Australian Universities require that all IELTS Tests should be only 2 years old, UWA accepts 2 years successful full time University study in Australia in "any date" equivalent to IELTS Score 6.5 for English Competency for PhD course, even if the course of study was not completed.
University of Tokyo opened its "International Multidisciplinary Engineering [IME]" course for overseas Students taught in English in 2015. I assume none of the competent future engineering PhD students would rather study their PhD study in Australia, after knowing the difference between "Tokyo / Australian" Engineering Schools and also the total cost of "enrollment+application+admission" fees for three years full time PhD in Tokyo University which is AU$13,619 or nearly AU$14,000 all up, would rather pay over AU$90,000 to Australian Universities for similar PhD course study cost [all fees included in 3 years] to study in Australia! Even it is cheaper for Australian government to send the competent PhD future students to University of Tokyo rather paying AU$45,000 to Australian University [all fees included in 3 years] for domestic Australian Citizen Students to stay in Australia and finish their degree of PhD here. This is because Australian government would save $31,000 for each domestic Australian Citizen students who study his/her PhD in Tokyo rather in Australia.
Almost 95% of 40 Australian Universities accept Australian Citizenship document as equal as "English Competency" and do not require any "IELTS score" to be admitted to PhD course. The universities banners in Perth show that Perth Universities have converted to "Chinese culture" and they try to prevent "democratic women engineers" of taking high status jobs such as "professor of university", etc.The following behaviors have been recorded by world scholars from the engineering schools academics and their assessors when they confront female engineers to assess them for PhD course:
Men Engineering Academics' Ambiguous Behavior categories, which are not measured by University Rule, but can be measured under Cooperative Principle in Linguistic:
- IELTS score gained in the recent two years [and not in any time]
- Excommunication of female engineers [freedom of speech is banned]
- Becoming silent when female engineers call academics or their admins for starting a conversation about possibility of supervision for PhD [not giving service to phone callers]
- assessing female engineers proposal as it is not in-line with their research interest, while it is [lack of integrity or honesty]
- Pretending they are overloaded with PhD students and have no more time to supervise any more PhD students [only approving male engineering students mainly from their own ethnicity with no room for outsiders]
- Raising their voice so the female engineer has a bad feeling about them and runs away [harassing with voice tone to deter]
- Never responding to the email of the female engineer instead respond to Graduate School manager and avoid that student /
- Never ticking check boxes showing he is prepared to offer his own project title if he thinks the PhD proposal of the female engineer is not in line with his research interest [assessment can not be recorded even in the form of ticks in check boxes in front of some outcome based performance questions of multiple choice type]
When each school of engineering in one country reached to maturity, integrity and Zeal of social justice, which is required for an advanced manufacturing engineering team not a consumer engineering team, then that country can claim that is a democratic country in real meaning of democracy that men’s freedom ends to the limit which women's freedom starts in division of status jobs / research training between men and women engineers.
For references in this document also type FE2 in search box of:
www.ewindfly.net
since Admin staff and Equity staff cannot prove that when an academic says, he cannot supervise a female engineer applicant because the PhD proposal is not in-line with his research interests, this proves the Rules of the University in Australia mentioned in this web page with red title about academics choosing their favourite students, without any set number for “percentage of enrolled women engineers applicants” [ see Y in Table 2 at the top of this web page] is not metric rules in assessment and cannot be used to assess a female future PhD student to be admitted to PhD course. Assessment instruments should be metric and since none of the authorities are able to assess the judgment of a male engineering staff about a female engineering applicant to evaluate whether the response that academic gave for “her PhD proposal” is a masculine negative response due to under -representation of women in engineering or it is true, this policy should be set aside and another better policy be replaced by this tricky unfair policy!
I suggest a solution for the inclusion of female engineers in PhD courses [see tables 1-2 at the top of this web page]:
N1 = Number of women engineer applicants
N2 = Number of men engineer applicants
X = N3/N1 = (Number of enrolled men engineers / Number of men engineers applicants)
Y = N4/N2= (Number of enrolled women engineers / Number of women engineers applicants)
N3 = Number of enrolled women engineers
N4 = Number of enrolled men engineers
V = Total number of vacancies in School of engineering for PhD students in a term/semester/year
N2 (X) + N3 = V Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice
[please click on "contact us" tab in this website and write to Afsaneh Cooper if you require all formulas which
ended to this calculation in detail]
Two examples for application of the above Equation in 2 Australian Universities:
For example in semester 2, 2017 there are 200 vacancies in school of engineering for PhD course, but 100 women engineers and 400 men engineers applied to study PhD course.
N1 = 100
N2 = 400
V = 200
X = Given by Human Rights Commissioner to apply social Justice for inclusion of women enrolment in engineering School in PhD course to Murdoch University [University 1] for the period of enrolment. If the Commissioner of Human Rights decides that X in year 2017 for Murdoch University should be minimum 40% [= 0.4] "Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice" would be substituted as follows:
N2 (X) + N3 = V
400 (0.4) + N3 = 200
160 + N3 = 200
N3 = 200 – 160
N3 = 40 Number of enrolled women in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University
N4 = Number of enrolled men
N4 = v – N3
N4 = 200 – 40 = 160
N4 = 160 Number of enrolled men in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University
Therefore we reach to this conclusion that in 2017 after the Human Rights Commissioner decided that X = (number of enrolled men / number of men applicants) Should be 0.40 or 40%, then Murdoch University which received 500 applications for PhD course in 2017, would divide the 500 to the following numbers based on the applicants’ genders:
X = 40% = 0.40 Given by HR Commissioner
N1 = 100
N2 = 400
Then Murdoch University would count the number of vacancies in PhD course by consulting the academics in School of Engineering. The following figure can be determined:
V = 200
Having the above 4 variables and substituting them in Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice:
N2 (0.4) + N3 = V
[400 × 0.4] + N3 = 200
160 + N3 = 200
N3 = 40
Murdoch University now knows out of 100 women engineer applicants 40 of them must be enrolled in PhD course.
Then N4 = V – N3 can be found:
N4 = 200 – 40
N4 = 160 = Number of enrolled men in School of Engineering in 2017 at Murdoch University.
The outcome of admission would be:
N3/N1 = 40/100 = 40%
N4/N2 = 160/400 = 40 %
Fair Enrolment of female engineers in PhD course:
Out of the 400 men engineering future PhD student applicants 160 were admitted. Out of 100 women engineering future PhD students 40 were admitted. Therefore 200 vacancies were filled in School of Engineering with 160 men and 40 women.
A second example [not real] is the Biased Enrolment of female engineers in another School of engineering in PhD course:
Dean of Graduate School at RMIT University decides X = 90% for 2017 enrolment of 513 applicants for PhD course among those applicants only one female engineer applied. School of engineering has 464 vacancies for PhD students. RMIT is the most resourceful Australian University for engineering students as the other field are not taught unless they are related to engineering.
N2 (X) + N3 = V Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice
N1 = 1
N2 = 513
V = 464
X = 90% = 0.90
[513 × 0.9] + N3 = 464
462+ N3 = 464
N3 = 2
Y = N3 / N1
Y = 2 / 100 = 2%
Upon the Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice an Eastern State University Dean of Graduate School has enrolled 98% of men engineering applicants. She has only enrolled 2% of the women engineering applicants. Since 98% of the women engineering applicants were told by men engineering academics that their PhD proposals were not in-line with their research interests, this assessment of the Dean of the Graduate School has been in line with biased assessment of men engineering academics, who rejected 98 PhD proposals of women engineers based on their feelings and pretended that those projects were not in line with their research interest. Feeling cannot be used as an assessment tool. As a result since the feelings of those academics cannot be measured, the assessment of these 98% women engineering applicants by men engineering academics of RMIT is not valid as it breaches the standards of assessment in higher education in 2016. Also the rejection of 98% of the women engineers could be due to age, masculine under representation of female engineers, etc. Which Rules of the University in Australia [see under red title in this web page] can not pick up! But innovative Ewindfly Equation of Social Justice picks up the unfair event at RMIT [Example only not real].
Therefore a policy which allows the Dean of Graduate School to reject 98% of "women engineering PhD Proposals" should not be used as an assessment instrument and "Ewindfly Equation of Social justice with X = N3/N1 determined by the Commissioner of Social Justice and V = Number of Vacancies, be determined by the VC of the University" is closer towards the democratic nature of this country. This Equation is a warranty to make sure "Australian Democratic legislation" which defines “the freedom boarder of men engineers limited by the freedom boarder of female engineers in taking the vacancies in engineering schools for PhD course admission” is not breached by abusers of the old policy [See red title: Rules of the University in Australia in this web page].
Link 4 bellow shows majority of migrants in Australia during 2000-2016 have come from India and China. Therefore the culture of India and China is more likely is one of the core reasons for discrimination of Female Engineers in Australia. A lot of high skilled male engineers from these two countries have changed the application of Human Rights setting of Australian legislation. I can understand that the Jesus and Muhammad are under blanket, when Buddhists, Hindus, and Sunnis dance with their rules in Australia as Industrial leaders of the Australian Universities!!!?
1. Millions rally in Spain on International Women's Day
2. Australian Women march streets of Sydney against exploitation of migrant women from their jobs and positions, etc.
3. Female Specialist Child Care Assistants strike in Australia for extra 50% pay rise in compared to similar Certificate III Male wages.
4. During 2000-2016, 292,000 born in India migrants, 95,000 born in China migrants and 63,000 born in Iraq and Afghanistan arrived in Australia. Out of these in the same period, 12,431 migrants moved to Melbourne.
References
- Please type FE1 in search box of www.ewindfly.net
- Please type FE2 in search box of www.ewindfly.net