<p>corrected link sorry</p>
<p>Perhaps we can look forward to these values at Harvard in the coming years!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/president/s...1017/index.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/president/s...1017/index.xml</a>
<a href="http://dailyprincetonian.com/archive...ws/11769.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://dailyprincetonian.com/archive...ws/11769.shtml</a></p>
<p>does it really matter if it is a male or a female?</p>
<p>EVERYBODY!!!!</p>
<p>I think the point was just to introduce the new president, which is a big deal. Not to talk about the gender of the new president..........</p>
<p>I honestly believe that this was a political statement by Harvard and that regardless of qualifications, they chose a women president just to choose a women president. However, I'm still happy that they atleast have an actual president now instead of an interim.</p>
<p>Wow this is totally groundbreaking ! Women as a gender are better now because of this! </p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>I doubt anyone considered women unfit for the President post at great universities before. All this particularly choice shows is that politics is slanting in favor of women for the time. </p>
<p>Women deserve only the best, but if your a woman and you think this is some great victory for your gender you seriously need to read more about successful women.</p>
<p>I am simply thrilled about this. I, too, am a middle aged woman, a Harvard graduate, and a member of a traditionally male-dominated profession (medicine). The road has not been easy for any of us. It is a common experience to perceive that one has to be better than our male competitors, just to stay afloat. </p>
<p>I am thrilled not only about the choice of a woman, but about the fact that she is described as a consensus builder. I believe it is high time that less combative management styles were rewarded in our society. I am weary of one-upsmanship, grandstanding, and watching males take credit for women's ideas in meetings, or, worse, in larger venues. Just think of how we could evolve as a species, and the degree of balance we could achieve as a society, if we start utilizing all that female talent.</p>
<p>i go to cornell .. we have a male president .. imagine that ?</p>
<p>You sexist pigs!</p>
<p>TheMK99 wrote:
"I doubt anyone considered women unfit for the President post at great universities before. All this particularly choice shows is that politics is slanting in favor of women for the time. "</p>
<p>I suggest that you do a lot more reading in history. Women were considered unfit for careers in fields like medicine, journalism, engineering and, yes, even being college professors and administrators. It even was hard for women to become presidents at female only colleges.</p>
<p>I know a very accomplished woman who's in her 60s. About 20 years ago, when she applied for the presidency job at her alma mater, she was told that the very fact that she -- a woman -- bothered to apply was "embarassing." That college, a third tier, still hasn't had a female as its permanent president.</p>
<p>I know another 60something woman there who had had to file a sex discrimination lawsuit in order to get the administrative position that she'd applied for. She has not one, but 2 doctorates, far more than most males who had such positions there.</p>
<p>From an article in the Jackson, Miss. Clarion Ledger:
""Women are not only disproportionately under-represented in higher education, they are over-represented at the lower ranks and conspiciously missing from administration," Clarke said in an outline describing the significance of her project.</p>
<p>Reports show gains for women in leadership roles on campus in recent years. Since 1986, the percentage of women college presidents has doubled from 9.5 percent to 19 percent. In 1984, 1.1 percent of the women in American higher education were employed either as deans or any position above that."<a href="http://www.millsaps.edu/news_events/flt/thesis.shtml">http://www.millsaps.edu/news_events/flt/thesis.shtml</a></p>
<p>From the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2001:
"According to the most recent survey of college presidents by the American Council on Education, the proportion of women among them grew from 9.5 percent in 1986 to 19.3 percent in 1998, when there were about 460 women among the 2,380 presidents who responded to the survey. </p>
<p>Until the early 1990's, the number of female presidents was so small at the biannual meetings of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, that they would all gather at a single table in the coffee shop of the hotel, says Christina Bitting, the association's vice president for membership services. "
<a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Hi51vdCTSOEJ:chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i33/33a03701.htm+%22women+college+presidents%22+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us%5B/url%5D">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Hi51vdCTSOEJ:chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i33/33a03701.htm+%22women+college+presidents%22+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us</a></p>
<p>and:
"Women in Administration. When Title IX became law, women were noticeably absent at the administrative level in educational institutions across the country. Women reached the rank of department chair at the absurdly low level of less than one percent. The number of women college presidents–less than 150–was incredibly low, even at women's colleges. </p>
<p>Today, more than 450 educational institutions are headed by women. However, there are approximately 3,400 institutions of higher learning in this country, which means fully 87 percent are headed by men. Women administrators are more likely than men to hold positions in external affairs and student services than in executive, administrative, and academic affairs. Within each of these administrative categories, women on average are employed at lower ranks and earn lower salaries than their male counterparts. Salary differences are especially prevalent in the upper ranks. "
<a href="http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/resource/title9/report/employ.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/resource/title9/report/employ.htm</a></p>
<p>Why do people believe just because there is unequal representation it has to do with discrimination? I can never understand that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know another 60something woman there who had had to file a sex discrimination lawsuit in order to get the administrative position that she'd applied for. She has not one, but 2 doctorates, far more than most males who had such positions there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does having two doctorates have do anything about this? There can be many reasons why someone wasn't chosen for a position. </p>
<p>Why do minority groups always blame discrimination for their shortcomings? I fully support them if there was discrimination involved but it seems nowadays any inequality is discrimination. I always hear how girls math skills aren't as good because of negative comments they receive. Im a guy and my parents and teachers told me I wasn't good at math either. But I didn't let that stop me from pursuing my engineering degree. Im also asian but I don't use that as an excuse. If someone makes a negative comment about my ethnicity so what? You throw it aside and keep moving. </p>
<p>Of course if there is real discrimination then it is fully justified to bring it to attention. But too many people cry wolf nowadays.</p>
<p>I believe if the media will stop catagorizing people based on gender and race then it will help our society. A lot of times they bring it up to produce more sensational stories.</p>
<p>"What does having two doctorates have do anything about this? There can be many reasons why someone wasn't chosen for a position."</p>
<p>Sure there can. However, there were plenty of men with much lower qualifications who had high administrative positions through the good ole boy network. Some of them even eventually got sacked for doing things like embezzeling.</p>
<p>The woman was extremely well qualified, and after she won her lawsuit became one of the best administrators at the college.</p>
<p>" believe if the media will stop catagorizing people based on gender and race then it will help our society."</p>
<p>The reason that the media sometimes points out gender and race when it comes to things like jobs is because of the scarcity of people in certain positions who are of certain genders and races, particularly genders and races that had faced legal sex and racial discrimination.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Barak Obama's race should not be mentioned in his quest to become president? If blacks hadn't been for so long legally prevented from voting in much of the US, perhaps we'd have had a black president by now. It's not as if no blacks qualified for such an office.</p>
<p>"Im a guy and my parents and teachers told me I wasn't good at math either. But I didn't let that stop me from pursuing my engineering degree. Im also asian but I don't use that as an excuse. "</p>
<p>What you're not understanding is that in the past, by law, a woman who wanted to be an engineer could have been denied admission to an engineering school simply because of her gender -- even if she was by far the most qualified applicant.</p>
<p>In addition, it was perfectly fine for secondary schools to keep girls from taking higher level math simply because they were girls.</p>
<p>It's very hard to become an engineer if one can't get into engineering school or take the course requirements allowing one to enter engineering school. Female engineers also couldn't get jobs. Why? They were female.</p>
<p>Here's what happened to former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor:</p>
<p>"In 1946 she enrolled at Stanford University, where she studied economics and graduated magna cum laudein 1950. A year before receiving her B.A. she entered the law school, from which she received an LL.B. in 1952. A member of the board of editors of the Stanford Law Review, Day graduated third in a class of 102, two places behind her future Supreme Court colleague William H. Rehnquist....</p>
<p>Despite her outstanding academic record, she failed in efforts to obtain employment as a lawyer with San Francisco and Los Angeles law firms because she was a woman. The only one willing to hire the future justice at all offered her a job as a legal secretary...."</p>
<p>Yes, that was the kind of discrimination that even extremely well qualified women faced. Only women with superstar grit and talent were able to overcome those barriers. Meanwhile, mediocre males were able to sail into positions that outstanding women were denied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you suggesting that Barak Obama's race should not be mentioned in his quest to become president? If blacks hadn't been for so long legally prevented from voting in much of the US, perhaps we'd have had a black president by now. It's not as if no blacks qualified for such an office.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you are right. I do hope that someday there will be little notice of "first black" records in the same way that there is little notice of "first Irish" records, because all of the interesting and challenging and rewarding things that people can do in our society will have been done by many people of many different heritages. I'm sure it is noteworthy that various Ivy League colleges now have women presidents--I can just barely remember when they didn't admit women students. Best wishes to the new Harvard president, whose appointment to office has not yet been fully confirmed.</p>
<p>Congratulations to the new president! It brings back memories of when Hanna Gray left Yale to become the first head of a major uni at Chicago. Amazing to note that she was "only" 48 back in '78! </p>
<p>I note that both women have Bryn Mawr and Harvard roots. I wonder if their paths have crossed?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you're not understanding is that in the past, by law, a woman who wanted to be an engineer could have been denied admission to an engineering school simply because of her gender -- even if she was by far the most qualified applicant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that was wrong as well but Im talking more about present day. I know a girl who got a full scholarship awarded only to minorities. Now she has a full ride while I have to pay my 30K+ tuition a year. A girl can be just as capable as a guy in engineering. But higher education has all sorts of programs to promote women in engineering. They have Society of Women Engineers, summer enrichment programs, scholarships, big sister/little sister networks, women only sponsored programs, etc. All for the sake of diversity. Schools will do anything to attract women in engineering nowadays. Why not just treat everybody equally? I was one of few asians in my engineering classes but that didn't deter me. Women can't use that as an excuse not to do engineering. If there is unequal representation so be it. If women aren't interested in engineering so be it. Im not interested in early childhood education. People have different interests.</p>
<p>But I do agree it was wrong to legally deny or discriminate against women back then. But society has changed and I believe women have as much equal opportunities as guys. Except for a few cases here and there.</p>
<p>"Schools will do anything to attract women in engineering nowadays. Why not just treat everybody equally? "</p>
<p>Because people still aren't equal.
Girls still don't get the encouragement to go into math and science careers that guys do.
Girls also don't get the academic encouragement that guys do. For instance, there was a fairly recent study that said that teachers tend to praise girls about the neatness of their homework, while guys are praised about the content. As a result, guess who's most likely to develop critical thinking skills and the confidence in those skills.</p>
<p>Have you ever heard of the study that resulted in the "halo effect"? Teachers were told that certain students (who had been randomly selected, but the teachers didn't know that) were very bright and would blossom academically if given the right kind of instruction. Guess what? Those randomly selected students did blossom academically. Why? Probably because their teachers believed in them and took extra time with them and gave them more encouragement.</p>
<p>"Despite the fact that science teachers are expected to treat all students fairly and that most are genuinely committed to the success of females in science classes, disturbing gender differences still exist in enrollment in science classes, academic success, and the pursuit of science related careers. </p>
<p>Research has identified two factors that have worked against the participation and success of females. First, most teachers do not give equal encouragement to females; and second, because of their prior experiences, girls probably will not do as well as boys if they are treated EXACTLY the same.</p>
<p>Teachers who avoid overt discriminatory behaviors are often guilty of small, subtle cues that work against females. One study showed that teachers call on boys more often than girls (especially when asking higher-order questions), allow less time for girls to respond, and give more non-verbal reinforcement to boys. Another study showed that in laboratory or small-group situations, teachers are more likely to tell girls how to complete a task or do it for them, while they help boys structure their own strategies. This not only cheats girls out of a growth experience but gives a clear signal of lower expectations for girls.</p>
<p>While the individual incidents may seem trivial, the cumulative effects on young people can be significant. Surprisingly, studies show that these behaviors existed in both male and female teachers and among those who seemed committed to the success of females....</p>
<p>The shortage of female role models has caused students of both genders to view science as unfeminine....</p>
<p>It is the teacher's ongoing task to present each student with challenging yet realistic goals that will nurture the skills and behaviors that ensure future success. Gender differences have proven to be complex and vary tremendously among individuals and classroom situations. Yet, the traditional, much-respected strategy of treating everyone the same will bring only limited results.</p>
<p>I can hardly believe that the thread has gone on this long without anyone posting Heather Mac Donald's decimating take-down of the political correctness run amok at Harvard, typified in this appointment: <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-02-09hm.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-02-09hm.html</a></p>
<p>And dear Northstarmom, in your post: </p>
<p>--"Schools will do anything to attract women in engineering nowadays. Why not just treat everybody equally? "
---Because people still aren't equal.
Girls still don't get the encouragement to go into math and science careers that guys do. </p>
<p>But we MUST treat people equally. Some parents read to their kids and challenge them, others plop them in front of the TV or ignore them. The first kids have an UNFAIR advantage in college admission and job search. They "aren't equal"--is that what you say? So we can't have a meritocracy? Shall we do everything by lottery and raffle, with a guaranteed 51% women, 14% hispanic, 13% african-american, 3% jewish, 4% muslim, and so on down the line??</p>
<p>Also, everyone, remember Heather Mac Donald is a secularist. This is not a religious right take down of Harvard's banality and idiocy.</p>
<p>"But we MUST treat people equally. Some parents read to their kids and challenge them, others plop them in front of the TV or ignore them. The first kids have an UNFAIR advantage in college admission and job search. They "aren't equal"--is that what you say? So we can't have a meritocracy? "</p>
<p>The U.S. has never had a meritocracy. When, for instance, women and people of color and people of certain religions were not allowed to go into certain careers, to take certain classes or enter certain colleges strictly due to their race or gender, the U.S. didn't have a meritocracy.</p>
<p>Not that long ago, more than half of the U.S. population was not allowed to have many options or advantages, and as a result mediocre white males got prime opportunities that they didn't deserve. Where were the howls back then demanding a meritocracy?</p>
<p>Even with the equal rights laws in place, there still isn't a total meritocracy. People who have connections have an advantage. People who have money have an advantage. People who are good looking have an advantage. All may get opportunities that they wouldn't have gotten in a real meritocracy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes this a bit different (and more striking) to me is not just that this is Harvard, but that she is a humanities scholar. It seems that women scientists or engineers (hard science types) have been slowly awarded more respect, as if they are OK because they have proven their intellectual rigor through their scientific backgrounds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, on the contrary, haven't Ivies been traditionally biased against appointing "hard" scientists and engineers to positions of power in the university's central administration ? Shirley Tilghman for example is not only Princeton's first female president, but also the first hard scientist to hold that office (she's a molecular biologist). In fact, take Harvard's 5 last presidents: Summers was an economist, Rudenstine had a Ph.D in English literature, Bok taught Law, Pusey was a historian like Faust, and Conant (a chemist) was the only "hard" scientist in the group (his predecessor, Lowell, despite having an undergraduate degree in Math, eventually also became a historian and professor of government/political science).</p>