<p>Read the article...there's a link on the other thread. Does this taint anyone's image of Harvard? Questions especially for current students/alumni...do you think what he said is indicative of a subtle prejudice at Harvard against women?</p>
<p>I just want to come into this as an uninformed participant (I literally got my information about this story from Rush Limbaugh during lunch the other day): Why does everyone "freak out" about the obvious gender differences between men and women? How does this deny the capabilities that both sexes possess as rational human beings? Women are more emotional. Does this mean they can't control their emotions? No. Does this mean it is an observed sexual tendancy? As far as my pea-brain tells me, yes. Men, sexually, are more prone to have short lapses of anger when frustrated. Does this mean we can't control ourselves? No. Does this mean as a sexual tendency it is going to be harder for us to? Yes. </p>
<p>Men are also stronger than women. Does this mean they can't lift weights and surpass the average male? Haha, no. Another thing, I remember reading studies that women have way better color perception than men do, but as far as I know it's not something men really care about on a large scale. Here's something for you: men typically have higher ego problems than women do and are more "ambitious". Does this mean women can't be ambitious or have ego problems? I can attest from personal experience a definite no, but as a sexual tendancy are you going to find as many women who want to be president than you do men? At least not where I live, no. </p>
<p>My rant has a point: As far as I know the speaker at Harvard was basing his statements on observations, wasn't he? I believe there was even analysis of his own daughter which he tried to raise "genderly neutral" tagging her trucks with feminine names. Maybe all he was after was a general statement regarding the observed differences between men and women, then again maybe he and I are both sexists and need to be shot. What I see is a false outrage breathing on the thick and hazy steam of political correctness. It sort of angers me actually (oh no!, an angry white male, call the cops). Something ironic I noticed is that amidst all of this "outrage" that originally started with the feminist MIT professor (I believe anyway) "slamming her laptop" and "prancing out of the room" angrily, is that it actually feeds the negative stereotype regarding women that they truly act purely on emotion. Rather than listening to the whole speech and making constructive criticism, our "lady" acted upon her emotions and stormed out of the room like a child.</p>
<p>From the unedited post, no, GeorgeS, I definitely don't think you need to be shot. I see what you're saying, too.</p>
<p>These stereotypes just bug me because I just can't believe in them. A personal example: at my school, the person that pretty much everyone would agree is the best at math and science is a girl. Our calculus BC class, the highest math class in our school has more girls than boys, and last year's AP Chem class, the highest math class in the school, had more girls than boys; not to mention that in both of these classes, the honor of highest and second highest grade (and maybe more) belongs to a girl. </p>
<p>I thought that being president of a university as respected as Harvard, he'd stop to think a bit more before jumping to stereotypes. After all, we're talking about HARVARD. </p>
<p>Just MHO, though. Please let me know what you guys think.</p>
<p>Well, it sure taints my image of Harvard. It's all very well to say that Summers was just being provocative or reporting his own observations, but his reported statements merely recycled worn-out old stereotypes instead of addressing the current state of research. As for the argument that he was raising legitimate questions for scientific inquiry, that sounds like the preferred tactics of the most inflammatory media: "Gee, I didn't say that women were incapable of high-level work in math and science--I merely raised the question."</p>
<p>No wonder Harvard is falling behind in attracting and promoting world-class female professors. Why on earth would the best and the brightest women--students or faculty--want to go there as long as Summers is president? He should resign.</p>
<p>"More women than men admitted to Class of '08</p>
<p>Records set for percentages of Asian Americans, African Americans,and Latinos admitted</p>
<p>For the first time in Harvard's history, women comprise more than 50 percent of the students admitted to the freshman class.</p>
<p>"This milestone is a long way from the 4-to-1 ratio of males to females in the
1960s," said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid. "We are grateful to the visionaries at Harvard and Radcliffe who instituted equal access admission for women in the 1970s, as well as to faculty, students, staff, and alumni/ae who have worked so hard over the years to recruit outstanding women to the College."</p>
<p>Women outnumbered men by only three: 1,016 to 1,013.</p>
<p>"We knew that more women than men had been admitted in Early Action, but we did not know how close the final numbers were until after the last vote was taken," said Fitzsimmons.</p>
<p>By standard measures of academic talent, including test scores and academic performance in school, this year's applicant pool is impressive. For example, 56 percent of the candidates scored 1,400 or higher on SATs; 2,700 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT mathematics test; nearly 2,000 scored 800 on their SAT verbal test; and 2,800 are valedictorians of their high school classes.</p>
<p>Harvard's new financial aid initiative to attract talented low- and moderate-income students underscores the critical importance of need-based scholarship assistance in encouraging the best students to apply to Harvard. The $2 million plan, announced at the end of February by President Lawrence H. Summers, eliminates the need for parents with incomes of $40,000 or less annually to contribute to their child's Harvard education and lowers the contribution expected from parents with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.</p>
<p>"We want to send the strongest possible message that Harvard is open to talented students from all economic backgrounds," Summers said. "Too often, outstanding students from families of modest means do not believe that college is an option for them - much less an Ivy League university."</p>
<p>Records were set for the percentages of Asian Americans (18.9 percent), African Americans (10.3 percent), and Latinos (9.5 percent). Native Americans will comprise nearly 1 percent.</p>
<p>"Students, faculty and alumni/ae worked extremely hard during the year to recruit students throughout the country. We are very grateful for all of their efforts," said Roger Banks, director of undergraduate minority recruiting.</p>
<p>Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of admissions, cited the efforts of the Undergraduate Admissions Council, the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, and the undergraduate tour guides and greeters in working throughout the year to ensure that the students interested in Harvard were well served. "</p>
<p>How fortunate for "Itsallgood" that he is a Yale candidate anxiously awaiting his alumni interview. Although we will miss him in Cambridge, we appreciate his willingness to go slumming on the Harvard page in order to lecture President Summers.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting the '08 info...however when it comes to the Hard Sciences and Engineering, the info is not relevant. While Harvard has a near 50-50 balance overall, this is not nearly true in Engineering (where it's about 30% women) and presumably elsewhere including math and physics. It is no coincidence that Summers ignorant, mis-informed and biased comments focused not on women in general, but on women in science.</p>
<p>Everybody knows they discriminate against female faculty. Just compare Summers to his predecessor</p>
<p>"During Dr Summers's presidency, the proportion of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36 per cent to 13 per cent. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women."</p>
<p>Even worse in my view as an applicant, is discriminstion against women who have applied to Harvard DEAS.</p>
<p>I think you'd be happier elsewhere. Yale would be a very good fit. Or perhaps Wesleyan, if that doesn't work out.</p>
<p>And that message is...</p>
<p>If you are a talented woman, interested in Engineering and Sciences, you would do better to go elsewhere. You see, at Harvard, Engineering and Sciences is the domain of our Manly Men--they have an inate talent for it.</p>
<p>By the way, Byerly, do you work in the admissions office? It seems like your attitude might be shaping policy there.</p>
<p>30% female admits to engineering? That's pathetic...especially in light of MIT's ratios.</p>
<p>And, yes, I've applied to MIT too.</p>
<p>Hmmm. Spammeister NYCFan has made member.</p>
<p>My women's studies professor and I have actually been talking extensively about this article.</p>
<p>Whether or not men have an innate advantage over women in the hard sciences/pure mathematics is a question that can't be answered, but is instead reflected from societal and ideological gender norms/expectations that are placed on boys and girls in this country. It's common sense: even now, girls (and I'm saying this as a pure generalization) usually are expected in high school to study things like art, literature, and english. These essentially "softer" subjects have in the typical sexist ideology of the past few centuries seen to be more "fit to the feminine mind": as women are the "weaker" sex, therefore their minds must be weaker as well. This trend dates back hundred's of years to when the "great" Thomas Jefferson said, and I quote: </p>
<p>"...women should not waste time with...intellectual metters. Their time is much better spent in drawing, painting...and the idleness which becomes the gentleness of their sex."</p>
<p>Now of course, these particular typifications aren't very much of an outstanding problem now, but the general stereotypical gender role expectations for men and women really have not changed that much in the past century. Granted there has been progress, though gross discrepancies still exist. Take just for one example the natural acceptance society has for a stay at home mom. It's almost expected. Compare that to the view society has toward a stay at home dad. All of a sudden we get reactions like "well we know who's wearing the pants is THAT family", or "what's wrong with you??", ect.</p>
<p>It seems that because somewhere in the back of society's (and mr. harvard prez's) conciousness there still exists the idea that women belong in the home, and that their minds are naturally more "weak", there naturally follows the idea that women have no place in the sciences or math. (again, I'm speaking as a pure generalization.)
I believe that each and every person is born with the ability to do anything, just as every baby is born being able to speak any language. It just comes down to what each sex is trained and encouraged in in school that determines what they will be good at. And the overwhelming trend in American schools is that boys are encouraged to do math and science, and likewise girls in the humanities. These examples the Harvard president gives reflect a horrible self inflicted societal TREND; not at all a reflection of innate abilities of any kind. I'm only a freshman and I have the common sense to know this.</p>
<p>nattiebee, Thanks for the more scholarly analysis. Some women scientists who were there when Summers spewed the slanders had this to say...and they echo your comments:</p>
<p>Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who walked out midway through Dr Summers's remarks, said: "This kind of bias makes me physically ill. Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."</p>
<p>Others said Dr Summers's comments were depressingly familiar. "I have heard men make comments like this my entire life and quite honestly if I had listened to them I would never have done anything," said Donna Nelson, a chemistry professor at the University of Oklahoma.</p>
<p>"It was really shocking to hear the president of Harvard make statements like that," said Denice Denton, who is about to become president of the University of California at Santa Cruz.</p>
<p>I would like to add in, "There's no bigot like an old, rich white bigot."</p>
<p>"It was really shocking to hear the president of Harvard make statements like that," said Denice Denton, who is about to become president of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
agreed exactly! Harvard is supposed to be like a city on a hill. The world's universities look up to it. You can argue against that as much as you want, but, though you might easily find someone who's never heard of YPSM, it's pretty hard to find someone who hasn't heard of Harvard. that, I must say, is why I created this thread. How have the article and Mr. Summers's comments changed your image of Harvard?</p>
<p>Stop defending him Byerly. Even Summers now agrees that what he said is wrong. And yes, itsallgood, you would be better off at Yale, and so would everyone else who is not a vitriolic "ayatollah" defending any statement (no matter how unfounded) that comes from the president of a college you can't separate your identify from because of deep rooted insecurities.</p>
<p>I am extremeley disturbed by the fact that Summers was forced to apologize and not at ALL disturbed by the fact that he made those comments.</p>
<p>The silent majority who cheered when Summers maneuvered that fraud, Cornel West, out of town, then smiled understandingly when Summers said he was "sorry", will be equally understanding now. </p>
<p>Summers does not accept the status quo in academia, which is hardline leftist, wedded to victimology, quotas, and politically correct nostrums of all kinds.</p>
<p>He is a threat to the faculty barons and tenure-protected ayatollahs who are used to running things their way.</p>
<p>Larry Summers is a REAL Liberal, to be sure, but takes no guff from the ideologues, unlike his bovine predecessor who never once stood up to them.</p>
<p>He is a much-needed breath of fresh air in academia.</p>
<p>I bet he apologized because of the public execution headed in his direction if he did not...</p>
<p>The proof will be if Harvard removes the 70% men, 30% women quotas that has been in place for Engineering (DEAS) for years.</p>
<p>After all, the first and worst discrimination at Harvard is done in the admissions office when it comes to Women in Science. Best way to keep the Science girls down is to keep them out.</p>
<p>30% women in Engineering is absolutely pitiful, an totally unacceptable.</p>
<p>Stop making those silly claims for which there is no basis whatsoever.</p>
<p>We all know you hope to go to Yale. What is the percentage of engineering majors at Yale who are female? Or Princeton? Or Cornell? Or SEAS at Columbia? Or at Penn? Or at Stanford? Or at Caltech?</p>
<p>This is slightly off topic, but just out of curiosity, Byerly can you explain why you keep referring to Cornel West as a "fraud"?</p>