Harvard Pres.: Women so-so scientist.

<p>I'm just not sure I agree that women are discriminated against in the admissions process. I am a girl applying to Harvard and other schools for Physics, and my guidance counselor was thrilled that I was going for a science degree. She told me that girls are given the advantage in admissions when it comes to the sciences at pretty much all of the top schools (she also majored in a science. I think she went to Notre Dame???). Also, my Harvard alumni interviewer said that Harvard will be really interested in a girl indicating physics on her application. Now, does the opinions of these two individuals necessarily mean anything? No. They are not the admissions officers themselves, so they cannot be sure of what goes on in the admissions office. However, trying to come up with the number of "qualified applicants" for Harvard without seeing the actual numbers is too much of an assumption for me. I absolutely believe women are as good as science as men. My physics class, for example, has far more girls than boys in it. However, it is also true that fewer women are interested in the sciences than men. Why? I don't know. It certainly isn't because men are better at the sciences, but I am not going to rule out some "genetical" thing that sparks the interest of women into a different direction (Note I said "interest" not "ability"). Until I see several solid statistics from thorough researches, I will not take any hypothesis very seriously. I don't think Summers was trying to suggest men were better than women, but it is how it came across.</p>

<p>Here's a Brian McGrory column from today's Boston Globe which puts this whole Summers dustup into perspective. Worth reading, IMHO.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/21/chill_sets_in_at_harvard/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/21/chill_sets_in_at_harvard/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Yale has an even smaller engineering component, with even fewer engineering concentrators. Does this mean there is a "quota"?? I'd hardly put it that way.</p>

<p>itsallgood suffers from paranoia so that she thinks everything is a quota to make women struggle</p>

<p>Look guys, your post beg the question:</p>

<p>Why are the departments the size that they are if not by University design? </p>

<p>and two</p>

<p>Why do women make up such a small percentage in these small departments?</p>

<p>What is your theory?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>I predict that Harvard will fire Summers and try to take Columbia's Lee Bollinger, his closest challenger for the position at the time. Bollinger has something that Summers, whatever else he has, does not: class and style, as well as more than a passing acquaintance with the humanities. Harvard doesn't need a bully, intellectual or otherwise, for a president. It was uncharacteristically tone deaf when it chose him.</p>

<p>since harvard doesn't accept the appropriate number of women into these small departments, obviously harvard thinks women are dumb just like most people do :-) are you happy now itsallgood?</p>

<p>jono, please give me another, more reasonable, theory. Lacking that, we can only assume the worst.</p>

<p>Summers is well entrenched ay Harvard where he will remain for many years. When he steps down, he will have totally remade the institution, and be recognized not only as one of Harvard's greatest presidents, but as one of the nation's preeminent educational reformers.</p>

<p>Bollinger? Surely you jest. The man is an empty suit - a perfect match for colorless Columbia, which was grateful to take sloppy seconds. </p>

<p>Bollinger got early consideration at Harvard - but was ultimately rejected - because he was the Warren Harding of college presidents - a handsome midwesterner who <em>looked</em> the part, but was, on closer examination, a boring, conventional bureaucrat with very little to offer.</p>

<p>Harvard had "been there/done that" with Rudenstine for 10 years, and the powers-that-be clearly recognized that the china shop on the Charles needed a raging bull!</p>

<p>Fewer female applicants, admissions standards that don't overly-compensate for the smaller female applicant pool.</p>

<p>all undergrad unless specified</p>

<p>Princeton Bachelor of Science and Engineering 2004 121 Men; 46 Women 27.5%
Yale School of Nursing (Graduate) 20 Men; 262 Women 92.9%
Columbia Fu Foundation SEAS 70% Men 30% Women
MIT 55% Men 45% Women
CalTech 66% Men 34% Women
GeorgiaTech 73% Men 27% Women
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 76% Men 24% Women
Rochester Institute of Technology 73% Men 27% Women
Indiana Institute of Technology 50% Men 50% Women 92% applicants admitted
Harvey Mudd College of Engineering (a Claremont college) 71% Men 29% Women
New York Institute of Technology 61% Men 39% Women
Illinois Institute of Technology 75% Men 25% Women
Cornell Engineering 74% Men 26% Women
Cornell Engineering Graduate Enrollment 79% men 21% Women
Stanford School of Engineering 877 Men 333 Women 27.5%
Stanford Engineering Graduate 2,282 Men 488 Women 17.62%
Berkeley Engineering 76% men 24% Women
Berkeley Engineering Graduate 78% Men 22% Women</p>

<p>I could go on</p>

<p>But what is your point? That they all discriminate? Yes, its a men's club.</p>

<p>Hmmmm. Maybe MIT is the better model.</p>

<p>It's not the best mix. Indiana Institute of Technology, which accepts 92% applicants and has 50:50, is.</p>

<p>My point is that Summers isn't some monster who has established engineering quotas at Harvard for female engineers. Okay?</p>

<p>In fact, Harvard isn't even among the worst in terms of percent women in engineering. It's not bad, in fact.</p>

<p>Please note that the order of top engineering programs (undergrad institutions that offer graduate programs) are 1. MIT, 2. Stanford, and 3. Berkeley. Check out 2's and 3's numbers. Among the worst.</p>

<p>Obviously, a better balance CAN be achieved and it doesn't seem to hurt the quality of MIT's program. </p>

<p>Doesn't Harvard pride itself on leadership?</p>

<p>It can be done, why yes! You're very observant. Write Harvard a letter. Might as well start tackling the other schools while you're at it.</p>

<p>In fact, I'm not sure any "compensation" is occurring, let alone "overly."</p>

<p>Actually, compensation is going on. You see those 27.5%s and all those? That's after compensation. Females are given an extra push in engineering admissions.</p>

<p>If this really troubles you, by all means write letters to these schools.</p>

<p>jono, you're right, I'm picking on Harvard. But that's because Summers openned up his yap and repeated what all the guys say to each other when they're at the club, smoking those big cigars and drinking brandy. He painted a big bullseye on himself and science/engineering at Harvard.</p>

<p>Who knows, some good may come from the attention.</p>

<p>I don't know if you're already admitted EA or waiting to hear RD, but I hope you're admitted (and that I am too.)</p>

<p>Wow thanks for that very friendly response! Yes good luck to you, too. I got in ED to Columbia, so I haven't applied. I just poke around on the Harvard board to see what's going on at other schools.</p>

<p>Yeah the attention is a bad thing for Summers, but it could be a good thing overall.</p>

<p>"But that's because Summers openned up his yap and repeated what all the guys say to each other when they're at the club, smoking those big cigars and drinking brandy."</p>

<p>Who is stereotyping and discriminating now? ;)</p>