>compensation for executives at public companies is reported every year.
Yes, becaues Forbes executive positions are SO much more open to women that academic scientific careers, it makes total sense to compare them.
>Consider taking the same high IQ and work ethic, going into business, and being put on the fast track at a company such as General Electric. Rather than being fired at age 44, this is about the time that she will be handed ever-larger divisions to operate, with ever-larger bonuses and stock options.
A tenured academic has the same chance of being fired as GE employee. Or it's just as easy to be a postdoc as a GE stock-option executive. Yeah right.
> At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children.
Because every woman aspires to have babies at 22.
> "I'm not sure if I'll be able to get any job at all.
Note that when a grad student says that, there is ALWAYS an implicit "... on what I would prefer doing".
Unemployment rate for Physics PhDs is just under 10% - this is rough the same for any occupation in the "professional" sector if you consider involuntary part-time workers (not many part time science jobs)
> A woman who is smart and organized enough to earn a PhD in science would also likely be smart and organized enough to find a higher-income co-parent. What is the profit potential when suing someone earning more than $250,000 per year?
Yes, because (a) women use their career skills in finding husbands and (b) being a physicist and suing a rich ex for alimony are comparable choices - after all, why else would you be marrying? You have to be effing kidding me.
> The most serious concern is that the field that a youngster found fascinating at age 20 will no longer be fascinating after 20 or 25 years.
Yes, because only scientists get bored with their careers. Every person who decided to do advertising sales on the other hand, is still having a blast.
> A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals
Right, guys do science cause they are too dumb to know better. And people become petty criminals as a career choice. And don't forget women don't do anything as pointless as playing video games (I mean ha ha ha, next you're going to tell me that women PLAY videogames, imagine).
Look, the postdoc system ubiquitous in STEM is exploitative. Every person working in science, man or woman, knows this. And it's a perverse outcome of a funding and success model based on citation rate.
But to say women don't go into science because they're too smart for that is the same as saying that African Americans don't go into IT because they too smart want to hang around geeks and carry a pager. It's insulting to everybody concerned and completely and utterly inaccurate.
That the average person who pursues a job is not very successful economically does not mean that the job is not worth pursuing for someone who is thoughtful and talented. As noted above, if the median child support is only $6000 tax-free dollars per year that suggests that high-income potential fathers are an underutilized resource.
FYI, bart starts running at 4am, and google maps is pretty good at giving public transit direction in the bay area. the only caveat is to choose when you want to arrive as opposed to depart (duh), and if you plan to drive part way, choose the start to be where you start taking public transit.
So I too have been bitten by this, but I think there some merit in forcing you to make a habit of being in daily touch with your lists. I think you're less likely to cheat if you can't go back to rewrite history.
At that point, why not just ask them to provide the equivalent of Turbo-Tax on the web and put the code on github? I mean if they are going to compete with software providers, why mess around with PDFs?
The advantage of tax software is not that it does the caculations for you, it is that it leads you through identifying what facts are important to take into consideration - eg. "Did you sell a house this year", "did you move for your job", "did you buy an electric vehicle" and so on.
What algorithms are we talking about? The ones that are printed on the tax form? "Subtract box 3 from box 2 and enter it in box 14"? They aren't secret.
The problem people have with tax forms is not the calculations, it is understanding what has to go in the box in the first place. And, for a non-negligible part of the population, enough English literacy to read the form in the first place. Which is why volunteer tax preparation is a thing:
Seconding @robzyb. If the algorithm is out there then people and orgs can create their own implementations that help specific populations without having to license code from anyone or waiting for TurboTax or one of the majors to build a product around the algorithm that supports the needs of the specific population in question.
Also, TurboTax sucks (just try to use it), and I don't really expect the IRS to write anything better. But I do expect people to write open-source frameworks that can parse IRS formulas, and I expect lots of people to try all kinds of innovative ways to wrap the whole thing in a UI.