thoughts about harvard after: Harvard Pres.: women so-so scientist

<p>I don't think that was addressing my posts, but you won't even consider Summers' hypothesis, and I think that is horrible. For someone (I'm assuming) interested in math and science, it does not bode well for your future to dismiss hypotheses and ideas without considering them just because you don't like them. Also, I don't think your comparisons to racism are valid. Social Security IS in trouble for a variety of reasons, but that is a topic for another thread. Vioxx hadn't undergone all of the proper clinical testing and was rushed through by the FDA. Long term side effects aren't/weren't known because long term clinical trials weren't done because in today's world people need immedeate success, so they didn't wait for the ten year trial on the medicine's long term success.</p>

<p>Numbers don't lie. The person presenting them may, but the numbers themselves don't lie.</p>

<p>But, none of thay may apply to you, so if it doesn't, ignore it. :cool:</p>

<p>Itsallgood-Are you suggesting we throw out all of science, and replace it with your own personal observations? Is that what "truth" is?</p>

<p>I find it hard not to be emotional, when you're being so incredibly ridiculous.</p>

<p>I don't think she was suggesting that, just<em>forget</em>me. It is true that in many cases observed or anecdotal evidence and behavior has led to more serious studies and research.</p>

<p>It could be that daughters of college educated parents who grow up in an upper middle class environment, who have good teachers in math and science and whose parents expect, demand and support high performance in math and science will perform at the same levels as the highest performing males.</p>

<p>My guess--and it's a guess--is that none of these studies have measured the performance of a universe of women who were specifically rewarded for high performance in math and sciences. </p>

<p>Think that one over.</p>

<p>J-F-M and Patrick, sorry for being difficult. I'm just trying to present a case as directly and forcefully as possible. I lack the patience for the Socratic method. But I mean no offense and do respect your opinions. Anyway, you guys give as good as you get.</p>

<p>Sorry the tabs are out of place. 1st column is engineering specialty, 2nd column is total enrollment in that specialty(men AND women), the 3rd column is the number of women and the percent they represent.</p>

<p>Engineering Enrollments, Fall, 1994</p>

<pre><code> all women
</code></pre>

<p>1st year full time: 85,047 16,502 (19.4%)
Undergraduates 328,463 60,931 (18.6%)
Aerospace 8,494 1,294 (15.2%)
Agricultural 2,807 696 (24.8%)
Architectural 3,046 793 (26.0%)
Bioengineering 5,121 1,784 (34.8%)
Ceramic 765 129 (16.9%)
Chemical 30,720 10,169 (33.1%)
Civil 44,619 8,994 (20.2%)
Computer 24,958 3,972 (15.9%)
Electrical 62,000 7,688 (12.4%)
Engr. Science 4,742 982 (20.7%)
Environmental 3,548 1,133 (31.9%)
General 9,899 1,813 (18.3%)
Industrial/Engr.Mgmt. 809 184 (22.7%)
Industrial/Manufact. 842 148 (17.6%)
Industrial/Other 10,669 3,292 (30.8%)
Marine/Naval Arch. 2,183 252 (11.5%)
Materials/Metal/Welding 3,175 658 (20.7%)
Mechanical 61,035 6,935 (11.4%)
Nuclear 1,041 140 (13.4%)
Petroleum 1,205 170 (14.1%)
Systems 1,189 199 (16.7%)
Other Engr. 1,400 346 (24.7%)
Pre-Engr/Undeclared 42,671 8,796 (20.6%)</p>

<p>MS/PE 41,746 7,039 (16.9%)</p>

<p>All PhD: 32,850 4,780 (14.6%)</p>

<p>Ugh, that list is impossible</p>

<p>here's the link</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/enrollment.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/enrollment.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>itsallgood, no problem. But to your point, of course they havn't had a study like that because it isn't possible. Unless you want to steal a sample of 100,000 children from birth and keep them isolated, such a study can't be done. I do see your point, however. Although I would like to point out that men aren't specifically rewarded for success in math and science. I have never been awarded for my "successes" which mainly consist of high grades without studying. I havn't been held back, but I've never experienced the bias you suggest. When I was little I was just naturally fairly good at math and my grades etc made sure I was moved to the highest level in sequence. No one ever told me I should do math or science, or that I should concentrate on that. Heck, my sister used to dress me up in tutus and I had a doll house when I was little (amazingly I'm very hetero now, but back then I was a little light in the loafers). I don't think my upbringing has anything to do with my "success" in math. I was better than my parents at math in about the third grade, so there wasn't any push coming from them. My algebra teacher disliked me so there was no push early on from her. They even made me repeat a grade because they didn't have anyone to teach me an advanced course.</p>

<p>Patrick, thanks for the personal revelations, funny stuff. Glad you turned out OK.</p>

<p>I get your point...but believe that society gives lots of prompts that Boys are naturally good at Science and Math, while giving the opposite prompts to women. I also think that mothers and fathers often push their sons harder to achieve than they do their daughters. Hence, my goofy demographic, where I know the girls have had high expectations AND high resources heaped upon them. </p>

<p>Here an article I found about the Summers uproar that has some quotes from women scientist who came up through the ranks, and their observations. I edited to make it a faster read.</p>

<p>Are women not wired for science?</p>

<p>By Lauren Gold
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer</p>

<p>Monday, January 24, 2005</p>

<p>"My e-mail activity that morning was staggering," said Telle Whitney, a computer scientist and president of the Anita Borg Institute for Women in Technology, a Palo Alto, Calif., nonprofit dedicated to attracting women to the sciences.</p>

<p>Whitney spent much of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday fielding messages and reading press coverage. By Tuesday, she was helping circulate a letter of protest.</p>

<p>The letter, drafted by Stanford consulting associate professor of mechanical engineering Carol Muller, argued that different expectations — not different genetics — are the biggest reason for the achievement gap.</p>

<p>"If society, institutions, teachers and leaders like President Summers expect (overtly or subconsciously) that girls and women will not perform as well as boys and men, there is a good chance many will not perform as well," Muller wrote.</p>

<p>More than 100 scientists and academicians signed it, including former astronaut Sally Ride. </p>

<p>Whitney was one of the first. "I don't think that particular conversation was an effective way of bringing up the differences between men and women," she said. "It's easy to take on the status quo and believe that represents some kind of right. But there have been too many times in history when there have been massive changes in the population."</p>

<p>Women have made dramatic advances over the last 30 years in medicine and law. By applying the same things that worked in those fields — including mentoring programs and changes in the workplace — she expects women to make similar strides in science and engineering.</p>

<p>Momentum builds</p>

<p>Whitney passed the letter along to Stanford University physicist Cherrill Spencer, who added her name.</p>

<p>"There's no strong evidence for innate ability being the reason for why there are fewer women in science and engineering," Spencer said. "When somebody harps back to this, or when that's the implication, then we do get a bit annoyed.</p>

<p>"International comparisons show the USA test scores being below the average of 41 countries' test scores," she added. "So are USA-ans genetically less good at math than the citizens of 20 other countries? By President Summers' reasoning they are."</p>

<p>Test scores show there's not much difference in ability between boys and girls, she said. (The American Sociological Association reports that while fourth-grade boys outperform girls in math and science in the U.S., the disparity disappears — or is reversed — among kids of the same age in other countries.)</p>

<p>The difference comes in what American kids have been conditioned to expect of themselves. "Boys will get Bs in class and barrel along," she said. "Girls will get a B and say 'I'm no good.' "</p>

<p>But even though she disputes Summers' hypotheses, she wasn't offended by them. And certainly not sickened.</p>

<p>Actually, she's hoping the controversy will lead to some changes.</p>

<p>"It gets the topic into the newspapers," she said. "I don't see anything wrong with getting it into the newspapers — as long as people read to the end."</p>

<p>The letter made its way from Spencer to Emily Carter, Princeton professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and applied and computational mathematics.</p>

<p>Carter was less forgiving. "My first thought jumped to the book The Bell Curve (which) proposed genetic differences in IQ for black versus white people, which was incredibly offensive," she said. "What Larry Summers said is akin to that."</p>

<p>In her 16 years in academia, Carter said she's heard male colleagues argue that gender discrimination is a thing of the past, and that hiring committees bend over backwards to recruit women.</p>

<p>She disagrees.</p>

<p>"What they don't see was what (Summers') words really embodied — an unconscious bias." But she said the research — some of which was presented earlier in the day at the same conference — doesn't support the idea that women are genetically less suited to science. "I think if you speak in front of a bunch of people, you have a responsibility to do your homework."</p>

<p>I'm assuming the rest of the article expanded on the letter referenced in the beginning which is why I'm not going to read the whole thing. This really struck me:

[quote]
The letter, drafted by Stanford consulting associate professor of mechanical engineering Carol Muller, argued that different expectations — not different genetics — are the biggest reason for the achievement gap.

[/quote]

That's what Summers was saying! That's EXACTLY what I've been saying! The article is slamming him by saying the same thing he said. He mentioned biological differences as a possible difference, and I read a quote somewhere that he mentioned societal pressures being the largest influence.</p>

<p>No, Summers speculated about "inate" differences. Inate is biological and/or genetic. </p>

<p>"Facing mounting pressure on campus and in the national press, University President Lawrence H. Summers issued last night his most extensive apology since suggesting on Friday that “innate differences” between the sexes may account in part for the underrepresentation of women on elite science faculties."</p>

<p>by the way, what college/university did your sister go to? What major</p>

<p>Right..."may account in part." The article you pasted was about a letter saying that sociological factors were the largest ones. It said nothing about there being no innate factors. Summers was suggesting the same, pretty much.</p>

<p>My sister was not as, um, "gifted" as my brother and I. She isn't currently in college.</p>

<p>You find the book disturbing and depressing? You almost quoted the themes of the book in some of your posts here--don't you find it interesting? As a quote in the article you posted said, "The truth cannot be offensive..."</p>

<p>Give Summers a break. Anyone who stopped Cornell West's tenured scam can't be all bad. Let's just say that Harvard's loss is now Princeton's loss.</p>

<p>Mensa, I suggest you look at the independent local Boston (Boston Globe) paper before reaching any conclusions. Much has been written there, both pro and con. Cornel West may have been the most sought after Af-Amer studies teacher in the country.</p>

<p>Cornel West is and was a joke. Let's not try and boost him because he is one of the few people that "teaches" African-American Studies.</p>

<p>Few as in two or three or few as in several thousand? If its the latter, then to be the best among two or three thousnd teachers, must, by definition, make you very good. Don't you agree?</p>

<p>Not if it's in African-American studies and involves making a rap album.</p>

<p>What if it is a white history teacher recording Sinatra tunes in his spare time? Is that a concern? Careful, your colors are showing!</p>

<p>Ooooooh, my colors are showing because I don't value his field? I wouldn't value white studies either, although white studies would never make it because it would be considered racist and oppresive. Uniting because we're black is great, uniting because we're white is horrible. Study black african civilizations if you can find one with enough history to make a major out of. Study any European culture you want. I just don't see the need or value in Cornel West or his field.</p>

<p>Edit: Just to clarify, I don't value any race studies or people who are professors in them. That includes Jewish studies, African-American studies, "White" studies if you can find them, etc.</p>