Posted on 02/22/2005 4:06:32 AM PST by Pharmboy
Only about one-eighth of the physics professors at Harvard are women, a statistic that might seem to support the recent assertion by its president, Dr. Lawrence H. Summers, that fewer women than men are willing to make the necessary sacrifices. He also suggested that a difference in "intrinsic aptitude" between the sexes might help explain the disparity.
A report released Friday by the American Institute of Physics offers a contradictory conclusion: after they earn a bachelor's degree in physics, American women are just as successful as men at wending their way up the academic ladder.
Physics continues to be the most male-dominated field among the sciences. Men hold 90 percent of physics faculty positions, and earned 82 percent of the doctoral degrees in 2003.
"I'm not saying it was easy for women," said Dr. Rachel Ivie, a sociologist and an author of the report. But she said her statistics showed no indication of discrimination in the hiring of female physicists - supporting one of Dr. Summers's points - or women dropping out of the field at a higher rate than men, countering what Dr. Summers had offered as the most important reason there are fewer women in science and engineering.
Dr. Summers had asked, "What fraction of young women in their mid-20's make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about 80 hours a week?" and answered his own question: "That has got to be a large part of what is observed."
Dr. Ivie said the main reason fewer women made it to the top in physics was simply that fewer started at the bottom. At each job level, she said, the fraction of women matched what would be expected for women advancing at the same rate as men. And at top-tier universities, the percentage of female physics professors is low because many current professors earned their Ph.D.'s in the 1970's or earlier, when the field was almost entirely male, and have not yet retired.
Instead, the sex disparity arises earlier in the pipeline, between high school and college. Nearly half of students taking high school physics are girls, but fewer than a quarter of the bachelor's degrees in physics go to women.
"That's where the drop-off point in physics is," Dr. Ivie said. "That's where they need to look."
Dr. Ivie said the situation appeared to be different in at least some other sciences, like chemistry, where women earn a larger percentage of doctoral degrees but leave academia at a higher rate than men.
The success of women in physics also varies widely from country to country. In France and Turkey, women account for more than a quarter of physics Ph.D. degrees, as against only a tenth of physics Ph.D.'s in Germany and Switzerland.
Dr. Ivie also said that in suggesting that men and women might have different intrinsic aptitude in science, Dr. Summers did not take into account the continuing progress of women in fields like physics. While women earned only 18 percent of the Ph.D.'s in the United States in 2003, that is far higher than 1970, when the percentage was 2.4.
"If it's differences in innate ability, I don't know what innate abilities would have changed so quickly," Dr. Ivie said.
Dr. Judy R. Franz, executive officer of the American Physical Society, said she was surprised by Dr. Summers's response to a question about why there were more women among the top physicists in France.
"I was amazed that he did not know anything about the international scene," she said. "This is clearly a cultural effect. He assumed the pressures were higher in the United States than in Europe. He clearly hadn't checked the facts."
There is NOTHING said or cited by anyone in the article that refutes the fact that--in general--men and women have innate differences in mathematical abilities (it doesn't mean that there will not be brilliant women mathematicians, just fewer than men, proportionally).
I think statistically there are also more stupid males as well... The Bell curve is simply wider...
Or, I could be wrong...
Dr. Ivie said the main reason fewer women made it to the top in physics was simply that fewer started at the bottom.And I wonder, why would that be? </sarc>
You are exactly correct...
When I was in the process of researching graduate programs (in physics), most programs seemed to be more interested in the fact that I was female than in the fact that I was a talented young physicist, regardless of my gender. I found that very offensive, as I felt it made me into a commodity.
The thing is, as a woman with a degree in physics (only a B.S., though, as I went another route for my further education), I genuinely believe that most women are not suited for such a course of study. But I think it has more to do with mindset. So many women are lulled into a feeling of victimhood by academia. They want to be appreciated for the fact that they have ovaries, and not for their brains. And they want people to pay attention to their opinions and feelings, regardless of whether these views are accurate. In physics, you don't have the luxury of being swayed by your feelings and getting a good grade as long as you can shoot enough breeze to fill up your paper. You actually have to master the concepts, complete the assignments, and be correct. And for too many, this hurts their self-esteem. The Oprah-ization of women and the destruction of women's rationality by radical feminism are what keep more women out of the sciences.
Irrelevant study designed to give a specific answer - it addresses the women who actually pursue a degree in Physics, not the overall pool.
Now we got this squared away, lets look at women NASCAR drivers, boxers, auto mechanics, bla, bla .....
Bingo! That's the flaw.
Did you ever hear the joke about why women are given two sets of lips? Read on about Doctor Summers and his theory and you will figure it out.
Interesting insights...thank you.
Imagine two bell curves, the one for women is higher in the center. Women tend to cluster around the average. The male bell curve is flatter. This means that at the extremes, there are far more male geniuses and far more male idiots.
Arguably, this goes back to the fact that of the X-chromosome, which of the two chromosomes holds much more information. Women have two x-chromosomes, so if part of one x-chromosome is missing, the other x-chromosome can make up for it. This tends to prevent the extremes in women, extremes in talent and extremes in lack of talent. The y-chromosome has much less information, so males tend to have more genetic problems and are more likely to be on the extremes on the bell curve. Again, this means far more male geniuses in every area and more male idiots.
Dr Ivie and her fellow Lefties want to deny reality. And there's nothing they can do about it.
Seems to me that lots of feminsists would tell you that women are not only the same as men, but are superior in many ways. Truth is that each sex has areas of superiority.
I have a good friend, retired physics professor, who occasionally, as a good socialist, laments that women have been kept out of many fields through the centuries. While that is true to a large extent, it's also true that motherhood is compelling for very many women, being a mother (one of the more important accomplishments) also tends to hold back professional accomplishments. But my friend was aghast that I thought many or even most women wanted to be mothers first. I think the socialist mind doesn't have much respect for motherhood. But of course, it's pretty obvious that socialism doesn't have much respect for parenthood in general, regarding that as more the job of "the village."
I need to add that the feminist idea that men and women are the same is kind of sick - the very thought of making love to someone that was just a guy in a different type of body is revolting.
DISCLAIMER: I am actually interested, and not trying to pick a fight :)
Ok, with that out of the way, do you have any articles or texts that talk about this? I'm guessing that someone has to have published something on the topic, but I have no idea where to look.
You are correct. The male distribution is flatter with a higher standard deviation.
When I was 16 my coordination was terrible. For some wildly odd reason I didn’t like the game of Basketball, and I still don’t much care for it. So when I was in high school I decided against a career in the NBA. I have now come to understand that social pressures and a lack of proper nurturing in that area robbed me of a highly rewarding and lucrative career as a pro basketball star. I’m sure the people who did this “study” can help me.
The reality is that, generally speaking, the genders are wired differently. Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see men and women are built differently; why is it so very hard for some to entertain the idea that thought patterns just could possibly maybe be different as well? Hmmm?
I know how we could clear this up and kill two birds w/ one stone: get together the researchers and statisticians from advertising who cater to women with the marketing premise that men are idiots interested only in beer and breasts and food, and have them do a study. In the meantime, I would rather not drive across a bridge designed by someone who is stupid enough to believe that men could only keep a lock on the math/science fields through suppression and discrimination.
Every step of the way beginning in grammar school she was considered as somehow 'different' and a problem to be dealt with.
In high school she was constantly asked if she was sure she wanted to sign up for those classes and that continued in college. Are you sure you want to be in this field......
YES, SHE DID!
All thru grammar school we had to supplement the arithmetic at home and sometimes the teacher would just have her helping other students or marking tests.
Without a strong support system at home I am sure many girls would have given up.
Sheesh, tell me your post is a put on and not serious thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.