<p>not because women cant do science..its because they dont like science...thats why there arent as many women in engineering as men..science is not appealing to all..</p>
<p>Of course there are women who have zero interest in engineering. No dispute there. </p>
<p>But for those that are interested AND QUALIFIED ( and there are a lot of them because you can find them admitted to and graduating from MIT, Stanford, Cornell and others) they should not be excluded from Harvard because somebody in a position of power thinks they are better suited to a more traditional female major or, maybe, staying home and birthin' babies.</p>
<p>Fewer women apply in the first place to engineering. . . that's just the truth and there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why their representation in those departments is lower</p>
<p>Ideal ratio is not necessarily 50:50. . . . We don't want to force men to study women's history and women to study engineering if they don't all want to. If fewer people want to study certain fields, then so be it. But saying that men are bad at women's studies because there are fewer men studying it, well that's bad logic.</p>
<p>itsallgood, I have to disagree with you. . . . Harvard and Princeton try to accept more women to engineering, because fewer applypercentage of female applicants ACCEPTED is HIGHER HIGHER HIGHER, understand? 30% attending, yeah it's not 50%, but it's not fishy.</p>
<p>No discrimination here except helpful discrimination, seriously</p>
<p>Jono, where did you get your info about higher acceptance rate of women? If it's true, great!</p>
<p>I don't think I ever made any statement about men going into womens studies, Or said anything about an ideal ratio. You're confusing me with someone else.</p>
<p>I was responding to you and Byerly both (yeah, you two are certainly different people haha!)</p>
<p>I got the info from friends (girls) who study engineering now (maybe Byerly can back that up with some stats somewhere)</p>
<p>byerly is a moron who has no job or family or any ties with ppl at all. he lives in some mansion in west chester and never sees a poor person or a person in need. embittered and unburdened bu an human relationships, he is comforted by spewing out his right wing nut job beliefs and bickering with 17 year olds online calling them "ayatollahs". sadly, this man was produced by harvard. chances are, you are as embarassed by him as i am.</p>
<p>itsallgood..i did miss the point...sorry</p>
<p>Check the CDS forms for MIT and Caltech to confirm that the admit rate for females is far far higher than it is for males, because they are striving - with only limited success - to attain "diversity" on campuses that benefit (or suffer, depending on your point of view) from a self-selecting pool of uniformly brilliant, disproportionately geeky, disproportionately male and disproportionately Asian applicants. </p>
<p>I guess you could call this "affirmative action" of a sort, although there has been no finding that females have been "discriminated against" so as to justify special advantages in admission. Its simply part of a plan to attain "diversity" - ethnically, racially, culturally, geographically .... and sexually.</p>
<p>I don't think it would surprise anybody to know that the Ivies - and most elites - have long been "on the lookout" for females interested in math an science. Lets face it: they may get a bit of an edge in admissions. Why? Because everywhere gfemales are less likely to major in these fields.</p>
<p>Look (in another example for which stats can be found) at the female/male breakdown in the school of engineering at Cornell - despite a demonstrably higher admit rate for females as they strive for "diversity."</p>
<p>Yes Byerly, females have never been discriminated against ...</p>
<p>*sigh</p>
<p>When it comes to admission to elite schools in the fields of math and science, statistics seem to show pretty clearly that - far from being discriminated against - females are being given an edge in admissions.</p>
<p>Only now they are given an edge! But for the last 1,000 years, women have been forced to stay at home and cook! I really can't believe you Byerly. I can't believe you actually said that women have never been discriminated against. What planet do you live on???</p>
<p>p.s. Byerly - How old are you? Have you graduated from college?</p>
<p>Where are you getting your stats. I would like to see first hand. thanks</p>
<p>byerly is in his 60s. he is a harvard grad who lives in a mansion in westchester and spends all his time looking up articles to support his absurd claims</p>
<p>Wow, if all the affirmative action you allege has taken place can only get women to 30% of a program, then there's a long way to go.</p>
<p>I never said "women have never been discriminated against."</p>
<p>Don't be silly.</p>
<p>Actually you did say that, and simply went back and edited your post after reading my response. </p>
<p>I'm clearly not as silly as you'd like to think, Byerly.</p>
<p>Why is it necessary for women to compose 50% percent of a program? </p>
<p>I personally don't feel like I need diversity in that way. . . . gender/ethnic/whatever diversity doesn't really mean very much. Diversity should be defined by what goes on in a population's brains, not in a population's appearances, and, well, just because a person is a certain gender/race/whatever doesn't mean that the person lends diversity to a population's brains.</p>
<p>"I guess you could call this "affirmative action" of a sort, although there has been no finding that females have been "discriminated against" so as to justify special advantages in admission. Its simply part of a plan to attain "diversity" - ethnically, racially, culturally, geographically .... and sexually."</p>
<p>that's not what you're talking about, caramelkisses?</p>
<p>The issue isn't whether or not women have been discriminated against: It's what he said. I think his statement was taken completely out of context. It is valid to suggest a need to acknowledge the different ways the sexes learn, and I applaud Summers for his honesty. Jumping on the PC-wagon stifles progress.</p>