Harvard Pres.: Women so-so scientist.

<p>Ms Carmelkisses doesn't read too closely, as you can see. I was pointing out that what is, in effect, "affirmative action" benefitting females in admission generally to math and science schools such as MIT and Caltech, or in admission to math and science programs at other elites, is part of a program for seeking "diversity", and is not supported by a specific finding of "discrimination".</p>

<p>At MIT and Caltech, in particular, the goal seems to be as much to benefit the atmosphere or "quality of life" on campus by achieving a better sexual balance among the student body at to remedy any type of legal "discrimination."</p>

<p>An understandable policy approach, perhaps, but primarily designed to benefit the school itself, and improve its "desirability" as a place to go to school.</p>

<p>I didn't need to read closely. You explicitly stated that women have not been discriminated against. Just because you've since deleted that sentence doesn't equate to your never having said it. Unless of course you mean to tell me I hallucinated that part of your original post.</p>

<p>I have deleted nothing.</p>

<p>I really don't care whether admissions are discriminatory, or if I can't find specific statistics to prove my point (since we all know that numbers rule ALL). What matters to me is the fact that I thank God I'm not going to Harvard with a president like that. It's not about being "politically correct". It's the fact that I am a woman. I am damn good at math. And to be told that I'm genetically inferior to a man, when I'm better at math and science than probably at leat 95% of them? NOT COOL.</p>

<p>Also, Byerly, you're giving us conservatives a really bad name, so knock it off please.</p>

<p>I don't think that's what Summers said, Prettyfish. I too am a woman, and I am a Harvard prefrosh. But I reject these knee-jerk feminist lines about Summers discriminating against women in that statement. Let's all take a deep breath and then go read what he said IN CONTEXT.</p>

<p>Exactly, Sunglasses.</p>

<p>There is entirely too much "projecting" going on here, with people getting on their ideological high horse about what they think, or imagined, somebody said, or - worse - what they imagine somebody meant even though they really don't know (or seem to care!) what he actiually said.</p>

<p>People who are that intellectually brittle would not do well at Harvard.</p>

<p>"There is entirely too much "projecting" going on here, with people getting on their ideological high horse about what they think, or imagined, somebody said, or - worse - what they imagine somebody meant even though they really don't know (or seem to care!) what he actiually said ... People who are that intellectually brittle would not do well at Harvard."</p>

<p>Exactly, Byerly. </p>

<p>Read your own quote carefully. Then take a look at yourself in the mirror on your high horse, defending the world against all of the imaginary ayatollahs and PC nuts who are running rampant throughout newspapers and college campuses. You seem a bit brittle in the head ... how are you doing at Harvard?</p>

<p>News flash: whether you like it or not, your school president is in deep trouble, and his latest comments are only making the situation worse.</p>

<p>LOL, you should only wish!</p>

<p>Summers is locked in solidly, and will be president for the next 15-20 years. When he steps down, he will be viewed as one of the five greatest presidents in Harvard's long history, and will have transformed the institution.</p>

<p>His administration will see a doubling of the size of the physical campus, a substantial increase in undergrad enrollment, an unprecedented focus on the sciences, and a tripling of the size of the engineering program.</p>

<p>Many of these changes will be underwritten by the largest capital drive in the history of higher education - bringing in between $5 - $10 billion - soon to enter the "quiet phase."</p>

<p>byerly</p>

<p>you sound like stalin... they're all around us those "feminazis" but harvard will be great and crimson will spread over the land muah ha ha ha ha (maniacal laughter)</p>

<p>reading your posts make me laugh.</p>

<p>btw what connection do you have to harvard is it similar to dubya's connection to Yale?</p>

<p>The sources Summers used to back up his statement say that Summers is wrong:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505363.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505363.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In fact read the entire issue of today's Harvard Crimson and you'll see the fallout on campus, which seems wholeheartedly negative.<br>
Sorry Byerly.</p>

<p>And this article (sorry for the double post) from today's NYTimes. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/education/19harvard.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/education/19harvard.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Summers is not a real scholar(maybe once was, but not anymore), he's an administrator. As an administrator he has presided over what appears to be systematic discrimination against femaie faculty in the sciences. He and his attitudes are a window into the reasons why women are discriminated against in Engineering and Science in general. It is a paternalistic and condecending view of women and their place in the world. These kind of views might support the systematic discrimination against women interested in Science and Engineering in the admission process at Harvard and explain why Harvard accepts less than 50 women each year into their Engineering program when MIT, Cornell, Princeton and Stanford enroll hundreds each.</p>

<p>IMHO.</p>

<p>I find it rather disconcerting that several posters seem to prioritize ephemeral, ill-defined goals like 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' (that horribly determinist view that a person's particular ethnic background, gender, socioeconomic class dictate his views) rather than, say, merit and achievement. As much as you decry negative discrimination, is it not inconsistent with strict egalitarianism that you call for positive discrimination? </p>

<p>Perhaps in your worldview, there is no other explanation for the smaller proportion of female engineering students than bias in admissions. Could it be that they were comparatively weaker candidates for admission? Could it be a smaller female applicant pool? The phenomena is there, let's try to find the reasons behind it. </p>

<p>Lastly, perhaps it would be better to trust in a market-based solution to problems than to impose quotas and the like.</p>

<p>Your analysis is rational but very unfashionable, Invictus. </p>

<p>Fortunately for Harvard (and indirectly for those who may eventually follow its lead in these matters), Larry Summers is not only a strong administrator but a brilliant economist who understands the way markets work.</p>

<p>I suspect the way the usual suspects have reacted hysterically to Summers politically incorrect musings may provide the raw material for a potential sequel to "I Am Charlotte Simmons" - skewering efforts by the academic ayatollahs to crush free expression (of views with which they disagree.)</p>

<p>And -surprise - the Harvard Crimson predictably weighs in on behalf of the ayatollahs! The Crimson can always be counted on to hew to the leftist party line - as they have been doing ever since (following Stalin's pact with Hitler) they urged the United States not to get involved in "Europe's War" against the Axis Powers.</p>

<p>Thank God neither the Nation nor the President of Harvard relies on the political advice of the Crimson editors.</p>

<p>How can MIT, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford and other elite schools with elite engineering departments find qualified students (by the hundreds), and Harvard can't?</p>

<p>The Harvard engineering department is 1/10 the size of the engineering programs at some of those addresses. Even so, I seriously doubt that the percentage of females earning engineering degrees from those schools - or, moreover, majoring in mathematics or physics at those schools - is substantially different from the comparable percentages at Harvard.</p>

<p>The talent is obviously out there. If Harvard wanted a more balanced program, they could probably have it because there is no lack of qualified candidates. So, why don't they want it? Maybe Larry Summers answered that question for us the other day in his speech.</p>

<p>Harvard already has about 50:50 male:female in the school as a whole.</p>

<p>Summers doesn't run admissions. Are you suggesting that he bribed admissions officers not to admit equal numbers of women and men into engineering? Because that would NOT stay quiet without some incentive, because that's a really terrible thing. It's also a really impossible thing. That obviously hasn't happened.</p>

<p>There's no lack of qualified candidates for Harvard. Yes, I believe you're right. What is it, 20,000 qualified candidates? Yeah. . . . . . There is such a thing called admissions. You see, they don't admit everybody. That's why people say Harvard is hard to get into. So you say MIT and others make numbers of men and women equal in the school, for quality of life. But the only thing those schools offer is engineering. They HAVE to accept 50% women into engineering, for quality of life, school desirability. Harvard doesn't have to do that. They already have 50:50. If you're really fixated on having 50:50 IN ENGINEERING, you should be satisfied with losing the 50:50 in the school as a whole or throwing the ratios off in other departments. </p>

<p>You're getting obsessed.</p>

<p>Who really cares about a small department like that having slightly off ratios. . . . It's not like Harvard is becoming an all-male school. Why don't you go analyze all the other departments now. Further in-depth research on the unfair admissions policies at Harvard because of Summers is required. . .</p>

<p>Okay, the point is not whether the admissions policies are wrong. The fact is that fewer women are interested in engineering than men. I am a women interested in engineering, so I know what I am talking about. I have looked at the percentages. Yes, women are giving an advantage in the admissions process, but a college would never accept an applicant who cannot handle the work. Adcoms aren't accepting stupid people just because they are women. The point of this thread is that Summers made a sexist comment with absolutely no proof. He shouldn't have said it. End of story.</p>

<p>I dont get your post Sara7246. Lets see... you say </p>

<p>"The fact is that fewer women are interested in engineering than men."</p>

<p>Why? Well, perhaps is a sociological reason. Perhaps its a biological reason. This is what Summers claims. Did he make a hypothesis? Yes. Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. Is he sexist? ...No. Is somebody claiming that only women can breast-feed children sexist? No! (of course, thats a bit of an oversimplification, but bear with me.)</p>

<p>Now you say: ", women are giving an advantage in the admissions process, but a college would never accept an applicant who cannot handle the work. Adcoms aren't accepting stupid people just because they are women."</p>

<p>So? Theres 20000 qualified people that can do the work. Harvard needs a tenth of that. This doesnt prove anything - I fail to see your point. </p>

<p>"The point of this thread is that Summers made a sexist comment with absolutely no proof. He shouldn't have said it. End of story."</p>

<p>Who are you to tell us what to think or to close our arguments?</p>