<p>This editorial was published in the Boston Globe yesterday. Three very well qualified individuals make some very good points.</p>
<p>Methinks Larry Summers (and Harvard) have a real problem. I wonder what Harvard's exit strategy is here?</p>
<p>Thanks so much for posting that link!</p>
<p>Like any politician, the President of Harvard has to make nice when he makes such a huge PR mistake (not to mention a pretty stupid set of comments). The most unfortunate part is that, besides the thoughtless comment on "innate biological differences," Larry did make two good points, one about the different levels of encouragement boys and girls get in science, and the other basically refering to the 80-hour workweek, a seeming requirement in fields like academia and I-banking that comes from an era in which men spent very little time "parenting" and these responsibilities were relegated to women.</p>
<p>dmd77 - I actually found out about it through an article in the New York Times online edition. You might be interested:</p>
<p>Calkid has a point. The echo boomers (kids entering college) have seen what "go-getter" career first attitudes can mean: giving up family and life in general. More and more are just saying "Forget it!" the super liberated Working Mom of the 70s and 80s is less appealing. We can't have it all, and more women of our generation are picking kids over time-sucking fields. It comes down to whether acdemia and I-banking are willing to change. They might have to, since more dads are giving up economic success to be more involved dads as well. Soon it's going to be "Give us more flex time or you won't have any employees." IMHO, society will be better off that way too. Both parents should be involved in child-rearing.</p>
<p>A little off topic, but I think that this problem isn't something to be blamed entirely on academia and on the banking industry (or law firms, residencies, etc.). Part of the culprit is our K-12 educational system, in which there are at least two to three throw-away years; if people started college 2-3 years earlier, they would enter grad school earlier and have 2-3 extra years to get tenure, etc., somewhat alleviating pressures of the "biological clock."</p>
<p>Additional Boston Globe coverage:</p>
<p>I read an a great article once on the issue of women in sciences, and it pointed to another issue - which is INTEREST. Although women are just as capable in science and math, they tend to be more interested in people-oriented fields. Thus more doctors, social workers, teachers - less chemist, engineers, etc. There are sex-related differences in people, and this is reflected in our reactions, attitudes, aptitudes and interests. (Remember the experiments where some kids were being raised "genderless" - where the caregivers weren't told the sex of the child? Gender reared its head anyway.) To place all the blame on the status quo, discrimination, poor teaching, and lack of encouragement for women in science, ignores that SOME of this "problem" may be due to women's lack on interest on pursuing these careers.</p>