<p>My mom heard on NPR that the president said something insulting about women and math and that now they are going to be putting a whole lot of money into their engineering program. Is this true? Will they be recruiting or looking for more women now? I have heard this, but if anyone has more information about it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! </p>
<p>(Sorry that my info is kid of fuzzy...I looked up some articls about it, maybe I will post them later...)</p>
<p>There are long-standing plans to greatly expand the School of Engineering, and to spend $$$ BILLIONS $$$ on new science facilities across the Charles River in Allston. This has been a key goal of Larry Summers since the day he took office.</p>
<p>You may have read about a recent commitment to spend $50 million on task-force recommended "affirmative action" to hire more staff and - apparently - recruit more students - of the female persuasion in math and the sciences, where both the staff, and students, are predominantly male.</p>
<p>Her daddy, apparently, is chair of the math dept. at Harvard, and she says sure there are more males in math, but they're not sexist!</p>
<p>See her interesting letter in today's Daily Dartmouth:</p>
<p>sry I was confusing...but the president did say something (whether he ment it or not)about why more women might not be in engineering. He was saying that men were better at math.I was not saying,however, that men in engineering department had anything against women.</p>
<p>These were allwrittenwithinthe last two days. So I assumedthat their wasa majorchange. It also sounds likehe iskedhis presidency. I was not at all offending the peopleat Harvard. Thanks forth infomation though Byerly!</p>
<p>"You may have read about a recent commitment to spend $50 million on task-force recommended "affirmative action" to hire more staff and - apparently - recruit more students - of the female persuasion in math and the sciences, where both the staff, and students, are predominantly male.</p>
<p>And yes,the above comment was the one I was talking about. Thanks fo clearing that up.</p>
<p>Anyways...how do you all believe that this will have an affect on admissions? Do you believe that they will significantly improve the department?</p>
<p>I tend to agree with the "carping critic" and the Dartmouth girl - but then I don't pretend that my political views are fashionable. I'd say the "math dept" is pretty decent already.</p>
<p>Sorry...I was having trouble with the keyboard! The spacebar was not quite working. Anyways...Byerly...I was not saying that I disagreed with them...I was just presenting articles that related to what I had heard on the news:)</p>
<p>Oh yea...and you did read the articles right? I mean the president did say some politically incorrect things. As I said before, whether he ment it or not does not matter...I am just relating that to how it has had an impact on math and science related departments at Harvard. I was not at all saying that the whole department was not decent...which seems to be what the Dartmouth girl was trying to defend. The articles I presented were stating facts, not opinions, so it is hard to say whether they can be agreed with or not. The president did risk his position, that is a fact, so I do not see how or in what way you are disagreeing with me. </p>
<p>Anyways...I like Harvard and thought that this might have quite an impact on us girls interrested in engineering!!</p>
<p>And I disagree with what you say about what constitutes "fact" as opposed to "opinion."</p>
<p>The forces of political correctness pretty much came out of the outrageous attack on Summers with egg on their faces. More women than men applied to Harvard, were admitted, and enrolled. The yield rate on female admits was even a bit higher than the yield on male admits.</p>
<p>So much for the absurd accusations that Summers was "sexist" and the equally absurd predictions (some by regulars on this Board allied with Yale or Princeton), that the alleged "scandal" would hurt Harvard. His popularity is very high among students, and alumni contributions again led the nation. The Corporation is 4-square behind him.</p>
<p>That certain regressive forces on the faculty tried to seize on this artificial "scandal" to undermine Summers had not a little to do with his efforts to reform tenure, and to <em>make teachers teach</em>!!</p>
<p>Far frlom it! Not only were therere more apps than ever in history, and the lowest admit rate in history, but the yield rate even <em>rose</em> from last year!</p>
<p>I never said that Summers was sexist!</p>
<p>All I was saying was that I heard somewhere that he had said something by MISTAKE,and that therefore caused a big reaction by many. I also posted this to get more information...I was not trying to insult anyone. All I wanted to do was get the facts. Personnally, I do not always agree with the fact that everything needs to be "politically correct." I was just saying that this is the news that is out there...not that I agree with it or disagree with it. That is what people were saying and I was just seeing what the impact on Harvard would be. </p>
<p>Oh, and those articles I posted...were written YESTERDAY...they are not "old, outdated news."</p>
<p>He didn't say it by mistake. He fully meant what he said, but only backed down and apologized when he was bombarded by "feminists" who attacked him for having a politically incorrect opinion.</p>
<p>Yes, although he pobably didn't mean to say that out loud...lol:) Although...Byerly is denying that he said it at all.</p>
<p>That is absurd; I never said any such thing. HH05 has it exactly right.</p>
<p>And THIS article that you linked to wasn't from "yesterday" but from January: <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/01/17/news/11833.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/01/17/news/11833.shtml</a></p>
<p>THIS one was from last month, not "yesterday".</p>
<p>And the other two articles were basically rehashes of the Crimson article I posted previously in this thread:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, although he pobably didn't mean to say that out loud...lol Although...Byerly is denying that he said it at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't mean to say that out loud? Look, it was a pretty long speech he gave, and I'm pretty sure he prepared it. You are pretty dense.</p>
<p>sorry! lol...Well then, the President should have thought about what he was saying. I didn't realize that he had said this in a speach. WOW...you would think that he would have realized that people would take his sexist remarks offensively.</p>
<p>Yeah. Shame on him for thinking that people would attack the merits of his argument, not just have a extremist knee-jerk reaction. Shame on him, really.</p>
<p>Why, the pore feminist prof from MIT had to rush from the room so her fellow academics wouldn't notice the tears welling up in her eyes, and because she was afraid she might "throw up" if she heard another word!</p>
<p>[The forces of political correctness pretty much came out of the outrageous attack on Summers with egg on their faces. More women than men applied to Harvard, were admitted, and enrolled. The yield rate on female admits was even a bit higher than the yield on male admits.]</p>
<p>Don't quite follow the logic on the above: The Summers statements for which he has apologized again and again profusely happened in January after applications were due this year, didn't they? What year are you talking about re. "applied, admitted and enrolled"? Last year, right? Thought you reported more men than women admitted this year.</p>
<p>As a Summers fan, aren't you a little concerned that he was stupid enough to speculate as he did? Doesn't that tarnish Harvard's luster, quite apart from his well documented arrogance and rudeness? It's a real puzzle. </p>
<p>The decisive factor will be the results of the "quiet" phase of the latest capital campaign. I heard from someone present that one very generous alum of a very generous class recently asked about the role of the humanities in the college and its future, particularly re. Allston development... without getting a good answer from the H spokesperson ... probably because there isn't one.</p>
<p>"The Class of 2009 was selected from a record applicant pool of 22,796. It is quite possible that for the second time in Harvard's history, there will be more women than men in the entering class. At this time, women outnumber men - 814 to 813. The yield for women is 79.3 percent; for men, it is 77.8 percent." - Harvard Gazette, May 12, 2005.</p>
<hr>
<p>I applaud Summers for his bluntness, and his aggressive approach. The place was adrift after 10 flaccid years under his bovine predecessor, as the lunatics started to act as if the asylum belonged to them. Putting the faculty barons in their place is a task that has needed doing for some time.</p>
<p>And alumni giving is holding up very well, thank you. In any popularity contest between Larry Summers and his agenda vs the Faculty barons trying to throw roadblocks in his way, Summers wins hands down with the alumni. </p>
<p>Sorry to disappoint you, "Dad"!!</p>