"Ultimately, though, she chose to go back into acting to allow her to spend more time with her sons, a decision she called intensely personal."
So a science or engineering career is too demanding and/or does not pay enough to support a family. And for this we need more STEM education, maybe we need less.
@resistion- I hear what you are saying. I thought about that a couple of times during her talk- it's kind of ironic that someone who makes a living as a TV star--the very thing that many people say we as a society glamorize way too much at the expense of honorable professions such as engineering--would be passionate about the virtues of STEM education. Let's agree on this--we would all like to make a living working on a sitcom. Here's a person who did that, still got a PhD, then decided to go back to acting because she could. Now that she has visibility, she's using it to push an agenda that says STEM education is a viable choice for many, many young people, including women. I respect that.
bobzz, I did not read in the article that science/engineering careers are too demanding (or pay enough) to support a family. Instead I read that Bialik choose to be at home to raise her children, this is in of itself also a courageous thing given the cultures view of careers vs stay at home moms.
Good choice for speaker; glad she was tagged to inspire audience. The committee did a service to the community by choosing Bialik. Would have been interesting to gauge listeners as they exited; what did the EEs think about the keynote?
Yes, I see your point. And maybe for an audience of engineers even more so. But her typcial audience is more hetergeneous, and many young people in particular can relate to her and realize that if she thinks STEM is "ccol" maybe they should not completely dismiss a career in a STEM field.