<p>Every time Harvard is the subject of negative media, the trustees become involved. That's their job. </p>
<p>My guess is that they sent in a team of Public Relations experts to "help" him draft the letter and look contrite.</p>
<p>By the way, if the trustees told him to put on a skirt and run around Harvard Yard, he'd ask "what color?"</p>
<p>No I can't be more specific because I know nothing about how it relates specifically to Engineering in Sciences, nor do I care enough to do any research. The point is that women and men are obviously different in fundamental ways, and the suggestion that one of those ways might be in the way they think and in the areas/types of thinking they may be stronger in doesn't amount to some huge statement of inferiority.</p>
<p>itsallgood, can you please point to some research that shows that men and women are exactly the same in every way? Thanks. :)</p>
<p>Reading your recent posts defending Summers comments, you have implied --using words like "predisposition" and "inate" -- that women somehow are "different" when it comes to engineering and sciences. I just want to know what you think those differences are and how they manifest themselves, so we can have reasoned discussion.</p>
<p>I believe -- from an inate ability standpoint -- that any differences are minimal, and not significant.Socialization and discrimination--now that's a different matter.</p>
<p>Did you know that 50% of graduating MD these days are women? </p>
<p>Why would a woman have an inate ability for the math, logic, memorization, engineering and biology involved in being a Doctor, but not for Chemistry, Physics, EE?</p>
<p>Oh, wait, 50% of PhDs in Chemistry are women.</p>
<p>Oh, I know. You might be among that group that thinks women are strongest in the humanities. Apparently Harvard doesn't think they're very strong: fromTHE BOSTON GLOBE </p>
<p>"Harvard University has seen a sharp drop in the proportion of women serving as junior professors in the humanities, according to newly released numbers, leaving officials anxious about a problem they had never expected to face in 2004."</p>
<p>Summers, as usual, is "Very Concerned"</p>
<p>Carmel, are you a Harvard student? I'm curious, What is your major?</p>
<p>I thought this was an interesting read: <a href="http://darwin.baruch.cuny.edu/faculty/guyot/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://darwin.baruch.cuny.edu/faculty/guyot/index.html</a> . Not that it applies specifically to engineering, but the data they refer to is similiar on most tests.</p>
<p>Thanks, Patrick. I'll look it over.</p>
<p>Why didn't you apply to Stanford like your brother? Or did you apply EA and not get in?</p>
<p>A lighter note: <a href="http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i7286%5B/url%5D">http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i7286</a></p>
<p>byerly, I applied to most of the top engineering schools and to most of the Ivy League. I know the odds are tough. Hope to get a few fat envelopes and then make the best choice. Also, don't be so blindly defensive. Harvard is a great school, but even it and its President can, on occasion, make mistakes.</p>
<p>llamaPJs, that's funny. Thanks</p>
<p>I am not "defensive" in the slightest, itsallgood, but you seem to extraordinarily "offensive."</p>
<p>Hope your attitude doesn't come off this way in interviews at all these schools.</p>
<p>caramel I totally agree with you !!! women and men and different and all this feminist and male chauvanistic bullsh!y must stop!!</p>
<p>Someone made a similar point, but I'll put this out there anyway.</p>
<p>Just an interesting study I learned about in AP Psychology... Random
samples of top male and female math students at Stanford were given an
advanced math test. The first group of men and women was told that
generally men do better on this test than women. They proceeded to
take the test, and low and behold, the men did significantly better.
The second group of students was told that there were generally no
differences in the performance of men and women on the test. When they
took the test, the men and women did equally well. It seems that the
mindset that the women had upon entering the test affected their
performance. This does not mean they were inherently worse at math
than the men.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there are <em>no</em> differences between men and women
when it comes to math/science, but it's a combination of nature and
nurture, as are most things in life. We are constantly told that males
do tend to outperform females in math/science on average, but maybe
this is part of the reason <em>why</em> males continue to outperform women. I
think this issue has much to do with our social environment, not just
our biological make-up. The right mindset is one of the most important
factors of success. When you <em>believe</em> you are capable, you often are.
When you are convinced you are not, you often aren't. So when women
are told from birth that men are better, aren't they that much more
likely to be worse at math and science? It's what everyone already
expects.</p>
<p>Another interesting point is that studies have shown that until
middle-school age, girls outperform boys in math. This would suggest
that once those social pressures kick in, females perhaps get
intimidated or are pushed to pursue more traditionally female roles.
"In fact, upon entering school, girls perform equal to or better than
boys on nearly every measure of achievement, but by the time they
graduate high school or college, they have fallen behind."
(<a href="http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html</a>) Maybe
somewhere along the line, they lose confidence. Or maybe it's much
more complicated.</p>
<p>As for President Summers, it didn't sound to me like he was insulting
women, but of course I don't know all the details. It sounded like he
was trying to explain a phenomenon. If we understand how women are
different from men, we can find a way to work with these differences
until women perform up to their potential in math and science. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he actually said that women are
inferior when it comes to science. Yet, I think he overlooks the
social factors, in favor of biological ones, that contribute to
differences in performance.</p>
<p>djmack--thank you, thank you, thank you! that is exactly the point I've been trying to get across.</p>
<p>Don't boys also develop at a later age than girls?</p>
<p>byerly, a woman in math/science that isn't assertive, isn't in math/science very long.
Anyway, for you to make a comment like that is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. No?</p>
<p>I would say that anyone that isn't assertive isn't in math/science very long.</p>
<p>I emailed Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post today (columns can be found here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/columns/belowthebeltway/%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/columns/belowthebeltway/</a>) asking him what he thought of this whole topic. He frequently write columns that are a conversation between him and his feminist co-author/friend Gina Barecca about some issue regarding gender differences. His response was that the Summers thing would probably be their next column. That should be an interesting read. A new column comes out every Sunday.</p>
<p>The Stanford experiment is cited in this article: <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/#ContinueArticle%5B/url%5D">http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/#ContinueArticle</a></p>
<p>And the research study itself can be found here:
<a href="http://www.nber.org/%7Esewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec5-Steele_Threat-in-the-Air.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec5-Steele_Threat-in-the-Air.pdf</a></p>
<p>That first article makes valid points, but still I wonder: If Summers had said the same things but replaced "women" with any other minority from African-Americans to homosexuals, would people still defend him?</p>
<p>If it were anyone else, it would still be WAY to non-PC to defend him. And in homosexuals, I don't think you could find ANY physiological differences. So, no, you wouldn't, but not for the reasons you are suggesting.</p>
<p>llamapyjamas--any OTHER minority? I'm offended now (wasn't aware that women were a minority)...haha.</p>
<p>and one of the reasons I CAN defend him as strongly as I want to now is that I'm a future female scientist who comes from generations of female scientists...if it was a different group, I'd still defend his right to pose whatever questions he wanted, but probably more cautiously, because I wouldn't want the possibility that I was also prejudiced to take over the discussion and make it impossible for me to make any other points.</p>
<p>The 5 to 4 ratio using SAT and LSAT seems like it might be valid.
Using Federal Judgeship takes it somewhat afield, I'm sure you agree.
Appreciate your research. I'm going to try to find more SAT info that is broken down by sex.</p>