<p>Never mind....</p>
<p>EDIT-Wow. I didn't know Summers made that comment about girls and science/engineering. He is probably right (scientifically speaking), but that is not the most politically correct thing to say.</p>
<p>He seemed like a brilliant guy with great vision, but apparently communication and faculty politics were not his strong points.</p>
<p>That said, Harvard is such a great institution that it will replace Summers with another able president.</p>
<p>no but the point was that Harvard didnt want to rely on their laurels when they appointed Summers.</p>
<p>too bad he had to make some stupid comments because he had a great deal of good ideas for Harvard.</p>
<p>They weren't stupid comments at all, he was simply being honest about his views (which were not at all ridiculous, and in fact far closer to the truth than any political correctness would have us believe) and airing them in an environment which is supposed to embrace free speech, discussion and diverse views.</p>
<p>Yes, his comments were "stupid."
The fact of the matter is that the lack of women in sciences and university professorships is mainly due to sociological factors, discrimination, workplace environment, etc. IF, IF, IF biological differences had anything to do with (an open question) it is a SMALL effect, much, much, much smaller than the primary sociological effects.</p>
<p>I am a scientist, and personally and professionally know many women scientists and they were absolutely OUTRAGED by Summers' comments... because he elevated this tiny, tiny effect and put it on the same level... the primary sociological causes can be changed, but there is nothing one can do about the problem if it is biological. What rightly upset women scientists is that by Summers putting this argument on the same level, then that would allow the less enlightened elements to use it as an excuse to not address the primary causes.</p>
<p>With all due respect to the sincerity of the prior poster, his is the typical "liberal" outlook: "you have the freedom to say whatever you want, as long as you agree with me. If you don't then OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!"</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the FAS at Harvard has far too many people whose minds work this way. It stems, in part, from spending so much time in the academic coccoon, where all the "right" people share your prejudices, and look down on those who don't (ie, most of the country - or, as the prior poster sniffs, "the less enlightened elements") as boobs.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>I'm a liberal, but I don't agree with the "off with your head types," so please refrain from stereotyping.</p>
<p>Most people involved in research with the brain seem to be on the same page with one particular thing: It's too early to tell how men's and women's brains are different. Jumping to any conclusions this early in the game is just too hasty.</p>
<p>Summers wasn't outright wrong, but he definitely should have realized that there are right and wrong times to say controversial things. He didn't seem to catch onto that.</p>
<p>That is because he underestimated the intolerance of academic liberals.</p>
<p>"Harvard's motto is ''Veritas," Latin for ''truth." But at Harvard, as in much of academia, ideology, not truth, is the highest value. Nothing exemplifies the moral and intellectual rot of elite academic culture like the sight of Harvard's president falling on his sword for the crime of uttering statements that the vast majority of Americans would regard as straightforward common sense." - Jacoby column in the Globe today</p>
<p>"for the crime of uttering statements that the vast majority of Americans would regard as straightforward common sense"</p>
<p>But that's the thing. It's not straightforward common sense whether or not women are in any way physiologically limited when it comes to the sciences. I don't think that Summers was even saying that it was necessarily the case that they are, either (I'll have to re-read the comments he made, but if I recall, all he said was that it MAY be the case that they are naturally limited.)</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that we're making common sense conclusions based on the very much nascent scientific knowledge of the brain needs to reconsider what "common sense" actually means.</p>
<p>Well, to my knowledge there are distinct biological discrepancies between men and women. It has been proven that men are usually more adept at math and science, and that women are usually more adpet at the humanities.</p>
<p>Of course, this isn't cut and dry, but the very fact that men and women have their own separate strengths and weaknesses cognitively support this. I am as liberal as they come, but I am not going to deny science.</p>
<p>Mystic Merlin,</p>
<p>Everything I've read has shown that few conclusions as strong as that have been made. Please show some evidence.</p>
<p>Standardized tests don't count, because they cannot isolate several confounding variables. I'd like to see maybe some brain work that shows this to be definitively the case.</p>
<p>Well, from a simple Google search I found this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://ltc.smm.org/buzz/math_is_hard%5B/url%5D">http://ltc.smm.org/buzz/math_is_hard</a></p>
<p>It supports my point that men and women possess different skill sets when it comes to academics, and that men are usually more successful because spatial reasoning is often more practical in a professional environment.</p>
<p>However, one could also point to the "nurture" aspect of this issue. One could argue that women are often times discouraged from developing interests in science and math, thus creating a deficiency.</p>
<p>That's the problem. We just don't know.</p>
<p>Testing doesn't really do a good job of separating the two variables of nurture and nature. Until we can effectively do so, making any conclusions is just bad science.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Freedom of speech does NOT mean you should be shielded from the consequences of making your statements. If you say something incorrect or misleading, it is perfectly valid for others to challenge you on your statements... you seem to have this ridiculous notion that Summers can say misleading statements, and freedom of speech means that he cannot be challenged on those statements.</p>
<p>Second, it is NOT "common sense" that the reason why there are few women in science is because of BIOLOGICAL factors, not when SOCIOLOGICAL factors are still, by far, the DOMINANT factors. And this is exactly the reason for the outrage... the biological factors may indeed be there, but all evidence to date shows that SOCIOLOGICAL factors are still, by far, responsible for the vast majority of the discrepency in rates of men & women entering and staying in scientific professions. </p>
<p>This is why women scientists (actually, most scientists, period) were frustrated... Summers seem to elevate a very minor effect, and put in on the same level as the very major effect of sociological factors. And the fear is that will be used to further ignore the problem or make the necessary sociological/environmental changes.</p>
<p>Summers should rightly be challenged and critisized for his statements. I know it is currently the conservative strategy to portray themselves as the victims, but freedom of speech does not protect you from the fall-out for misleading statements.</p>
<p>My idea of "bad science" - whether the "science" is political or biological - is having the limits of inquiry dictated by your ideology.</p>
<p>Summers fate was similar to Gallileo's in that each challenged the orthodoxies of his day, and paid the price for it.</p>
<p>(By the by, I understand Gallileo also had a "prickly personality.".</p>
<p>Mystic,</p>
<p>Let's put things in perspective... the differences in inate mental abilities
betwen the sexes is VERY SMALL... yes, there very well may be differences in the way our brains are wired. But these differences are relatively small, and in NO WAY can be responsible for the fact that less than 5% of science professors are women. It's frustrating when the major causes of the discrepency, SOCIOLOGICAL factors, still have not been adequately addressed, but then people focus on a relatively minor issue. Heck, if we were talking about the difference between 45% women scientists VERSUS 55% men scientists even after we corrected all the sociological factors, then it would be an interesting debate... but we are not even close to addressing the major, sociological factors.</p>
<p>Oh god...
yeah, Summers is JUST like Galileo... riiiiiiiggghhht.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My idea of "bad science" - whether the "science" is political or biological - is having the limits of inquiry dictated by your ideology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that I buy it, but I remember reading an interesting opinion about racial studies.</p>
<p>The author concluded (this is not verbatim) that, "Even if we can do all the studies and investigation in the world and find out the truth, are we necessarily better off for it if it's bad?"</p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>In 1979 Pope John Paul II asked that Galileo's 1633 conviction for heresy be annulled. However, since teaching the Copernican theory had been banned in 1616, it was technically possible that a new trial could find Galileo guilty; thus it was suggested that the 1616 prohibition be reversed, and this happened in 1992. </p>
<p>The pope concluded that while 17th-century theologians based their decision on the knowledge available to them at the time, they had wronged Galileo by not recognizing the difference between a question relating to scientific investigation and one falling into the realm of doctrine of the faith.</p>
<p>History <em>does</em> tend to repeat itself, so who knows? Some day the leftist academics, despite their enormous self-regard, will come to acknowledge that their "faith" does not justify the persecution of those who question it.</p>
<p>"Yes, his comments were "stupid."
The fact of the matter is that the lack of women in sciences and university professorships is mainly due to sociological factors, discrimination, workplace environment, etc. IF, IF, IF biological differences had anything to do with (an open question) it is a SMALL effect, much, much, much smaller than the primary sociological effects."</p>
<p>For God's sakes, men are, ON AVERAGE, better athletes than women. Men are, ON AVERAGE, better at sciences/maths than women. Women are, ON AVERAGE, better at arts than men. Blacks are, ON AVERAGE, better athletes than whites. Chinese people have, ON AVERAGE, black hair, and they work harder. </p>
<p>These comments are not racist or sexist - they are the truth.</p>