<p>dmd - I also had the same thought. But even if we ardently believe that their is no biological basis for it, the fact remains that performance on objective measurements like standardized exams vary by both gender and race. We cannot do anything to lessen the disparity if we don't understand it because political correctness requires us to pretend that a difference does not exist.</p>
<p>It's one thing to call for research to understand the process; it's another thing to announce a conclusion!</p>
<p>I second you, Texas. It is far better to scientifically explore the reasons and implications behind the disparity rather than refuse to discuss them or label any one who explores them as sexist. As long as the issue is approached with an objective, rational view, I think we will all end up with more information. </p>
<p>Just to stave off criticism, I very soundly believe that the reasons are cultural.</p>
<p>And I suppose the blame for women dominating in Art programs must be laid at the feet of female sexism. Hummm. What do you propose we do about that!?</p>
<p>Where's your evidence that women dominate in art programs?</p>
<p>Summers' statement: <a href="http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/womeninscience.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/womeninscience.html</a>.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where's your evidence that women dominate in art programs?
[/quote]
Three minutes with Google:
<a href="http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/enrollmt/FACTS03/A20_21_MAJORS_Gender.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/enrollmt/FACTS03/A20_21_MAJORS_Gender.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.roanoke.edu/IR/PDF-Files/MajorStatistics2.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.roanoke.edu/IR/PDF-Files/MajorStatistics2.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.iwu.edu/%7Einstres/factfile/mjrsbygender04-.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.iwu.edu/~instres/factfile/mjrsbygender04-.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.usao.edu/infoservices/2004data/MajbyGenderF04.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.usao.edu/infoservices/2004data/MajbyGenderF04.htm</a>
<a href="http://pie.tamucc.edu/fact/hc/charts/student%20enrolement%20fall%202004/webqry_Undergraduate_Majors_by_Gender_f2004.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pie.tamucc.edu/fact/hc/charts/student%20enrolement%20fall%202004/webqry_Undergraduate_Majors_by_Gender_f2004.pdf</a></p>
<p>Sac: Nice analysis.
Regarding tenure: I understand that in math and science, the Ph.D. takes less time than in the humanities and social sciences. Thus, it is not unusual for someone to receive his or her Ph.D. before the age of 30, though in the humanities and social sciences, many receive theirs after they turn 30. Once they start teaching, they are on a track in which they are reviewed for tenure by their seventh year and thus have to provide a body of work during that period. These are the child-bearing years for most women, of course. While some universities have a stop-the-clock system, it may not fully compensate women for the time spent bearing and caring for their children. I know some commuting couples who have children, but these are all in the humanities and social sciences. However burdened the mothers are, they do not have to spend all night in the lab. My s-i-l, a Ph.D. in biomedicine, delayed childbearing for this very reason. And as one poster noted, in the sciences, it is hard to resume a career that has been interrupted for several years.
Dmd: I was not aware of the stats of MIT applicants and admits. Could you provide links? Thanks.</p>
<p>Marite: The articles I have seen have been in The Tech and the AMITA (alumnae association) newsletter, which unfortunately don't seem to google as independent articles. When I have more time, I'll try to track down something more useful.</p>
<p>Edit: While this isn't the article I was looking for, I was intrigued to notice that while the number of men admitted for the 2008 class increased from 2007, the number of women admitted decreased. <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/admissions-0414.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/admissions-0414.html</a></p>
<p>Well, a lot happened while I was asleep.</p>
<p>Just to clarify my position on the 80 hour week: I'm not in favor of anyone working him/herself to death at the expense of family, health and personal life. (The Japanese have a wonderful word, Karoshi, for death by overwork.) I've done it and it wasn't fun, but for our family, it was the right thing for me to do at the time. We made accommodations and personal sacrifices so I could get ahead in my field. </p>
<p>Right or wrong some jobs require this kind of commitment. What distresses me about the point of view that women are categorically unable or unwilling to devote intense time and energy to their careers. They are eliminated before they can even throw their hats in the ring. I can't tell you how many times interviewers told me that as a wife and mother I would be able to handle a job that required extensive travel. I even had one genius tell me that a woman would be a liability to her company in an Islamic country! </p>
<p>I think Larry Summers comments are just more fuel for the stereotype fires . Two working parents (assuming there even are two parents) are a fact of life for most American households. I happen to agree that kids are happier with a stay at home parent. Did anyone think that maybe that's why I worked crazy hours? So that my husband could be the one who stayed home? People do what they have to do to juggle jobs, kids, LIVES and every family has a different solution. We don't need Larry Summers to tell us what we're able to take on.</p>
<p>I have seen just about every permutation of working moms/dads/stayathomemoms/dads--as probably have the rest of us. I have seen every combination work beautifully and I have seen every combination be a disaster. Whether one or both parents work or not is one of the less important parts of the equation. How comfortable one feels with one's choices always seems to me far more determinative.</p>
<p>Patient, I agree. One thing you can say about childcare in America. Lots of choices, most bad.</p>
<p>Patient,</p>
<p>I suppose the question is, who is comfortable with the decision: The parent who is the only one with a choice, or the child who is the subject of the choice.
I'm sure you are right that every combination of parenting has the capacity for disaster; however, all the statistics I have seen or heard suggest that the probability for disaster, or simple negligence, are far higher for children with absent parents then children with a stay at home parent. That's not even considering the idea that one or both of the parents work 60-80 hour work weeks.
What craft or responsibility really benefits from a lack of compassionate attention? I can't think of a thing. Ask a child if they would like to have less time with their mother or father. That would be an interesting take on choice.
Many parents cannot survive without having both parents working. This is always understood to be a bad thing. Not just because they are forced to work, but because of the implications this has on the family as a whole.
Why would the same not apply for a parent who, though they are not forced to work to survive, chose to pursue their careers, as is likely the case with most people posting on cc.
Is it only because wealthy parents will have surrogates who will provide the necessary but not sufficient care for their children?
I'm not comfortable with the implications of what Summers said. I have no idea whether or not what he said will prove to be in part true or not. Although, I congratulate any parent that chooses intimacy with their child over career advancement. Women make this choice more than men. Too bad for men and too bad for their children, and thank god for women who have selflessly made such a choice for the sake of their children. My mother was a single parent. She had to work. I had to have child-care workers; on any given day I would have chose to be with my mother, or father had I have had one, over the sequence of child care workers that I was assigned to.
If it turns out that this choice has made women as such have less professional success in the sciences, who will bemoan that choice in the absence of such a choice by fathers?</p>
<p>Perhaps my opinion on the subject is too informed by my own personal experience, but I am sometimes heartened by the idea that some women/mothers forgo their own professional ambitions for the sake of their child even if it means that women as a whole are under-represented in science or some other profession.
I would be equally happy if men had as much devotion to their children and were also subject to professional under-representation.
Maybe women are also genetically more compassionate among other possibilities.</p>
<p>Woodwork, it would be great if the only needy kids in the world were those who wanted more time w/Mom and Dad. In my town, I observe the most messed up teenagers are those whose professional mom's gave up the partner track, tenure track, neurology fellowship to parent full time, much to the detriment of the kids. It's tough being 8 years old and having to fulfill all of your mom's professional dreams while you're just trying to learn subtraction.</p>
<p>Lots of women make better mothers if they have other forms of validation going on in their lives. Kind of like what men have...</p>
<p>I think men and women need to make informed choices. Your comments, while heartfelt, assume that all women make great mom's so that the loss of a few spectacular scientists is a small price to pay for all that loving care. I think some women make terrible mom's-- and if they have the wherewithall to be superb scientists instead we should celebrate that fact. There are lots of lousy fathers in the world as well, but nobody seems to notice....</p>
<p>does anyone know what percentage of tenure-tract faculty in, say, mathematics are women? If we knew what the number is, we could compare it to the number of middle school girls in, say, Mathcounts (premier math competition for middle schoolers), or how many high school girls are in, say, AP calculus, or how many college girls major in math. I suspect that the disparity btwn males and females may not be <em>that</em> much worse for the faculty than it is for the female students. I'm guessing that there is a steady downward progression in the ratio of females to males in mathematics that starts in middle school, rather than a sudden drop off at a high level like faculty. That would mean that the root of the problem occurs much earlier than child-rearing or 80 hour work weeks.</p>
<p>blossom mentioned - "It's tough being 8 years old and having to fulfill all of your mom's professional dreams while you're just trying to learn subtraction."</p>
<p>This can indeed be a downside. Our own situation was that we had my parents help out when my son was young - now he helps his grandfather who is crippled and vision impaired. Good and bad sides to this situation, but I know that I would have made a very bad stay at home mom. </p>
<p>I think that it is important to look at this historically. The 1950's and 1960 formed an icon of white middle-class utopia with mom at home and dad working for a wage - the culmanation of Victorian middle-class sensibilities. If you venture outside this bubble, or indeed this country, you see a far different pattern of life, with more economic contribution by women, and shared child care responsibility among relatives. And we need to remember that as far as fully expressing one's talents in the upper realms of business or academia the vast majority of humanity - male or female - doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hades. </p>
<p>At a personal level, I would like to see the Harvard prez be assigned required viewing of 1950's and '60's sitcoms. A hefty dose of Leave it to Beaver (in re-release, btw), Father Knows Best and so on might provide an interesting viewpoint for him.</p>
<p>Texas137, I have seen some figures on faculty in math but don't recall them exactly. What I recall is that the percentage of women decreases at every step as you proceed up through the following levels: students getting an undergraduate degree in math; students getting a graduate degree in math; junior faculty; senior faculty. I have not seen these numbers compared to the numbers of pre-college women involved in various math activities or classes.</p>
<p>Blossom,</p>
<p>You seem to be implying that mom's who chose to spend more time on their careers do so because they believe they would be bad parents, although I don't think you mean to say that.
I think men should want to spend more time with their children. I don't think women should be the ones who must take responsibility for the child. Unfortunately, they are the only ones who are willing to give up there own ambitions to do it as a rule.
In this case, women morally rule!</p>
<p>Here is a link to statistics for tenure track faculty teaching mathematics at the "top fifty" institutions:</p>
<p>The numbers on the far right are the total numbers versus the number of females. For example, Harvard has 16 tenured math professors, and 1 is female = 16.001. </p>
<p>In total, for the "top fifty," there are 2083.173.</p>
<p>Because of this choice, if it is a choice, women will probably not be equally represented in professional and upper academic careers (amongst other reasons to be sure, its just that this reason seems to be a very good reason).</p>