Harvard President's Comments on Women Prompt Criticism

New York Times ^ | 1-17-05 | AP

[cyncooper]

I missed where it was said only a small minority have the "capability". I'm sure I have the capability if I really really studied and had to achieve it. But I don't so I won't.

[OldFriend]

It's all about aptitude and I believe it's pretty much (But not totally determined by the discipline of the student.

My mom and dad excelled in math as does my brother.

I, on the other hand am a complete dope when it comes to math.

Hubby is excellent in math so luckily for my kids, they take after their father and their grandparents.

[Ex-Dem]

LOL.....uh oh, how does this explain my daugher with her BS in physics with a minor in math statistics?

Erm, because she's insane? Kidding :). I had a horrible physics professor who I had the misfortune of taking two classes with, and who turned me off of physics forever.

[longtermmemmory]

lmao

[LibFreeOrDie]

"Very bright women in the sciences were just slandered by this buffoon..."

The buffoon here is Hopkins, not Summers.

Please read the critique (by a woman scientist) of the "study" Hopkins did at MIT about discrimination. See link at #17.

The last half of the critique includes evidence to support Summers, at least regarding the distribution of math talent.

Hopkins is becoming the Jesse Jackson of feminist academe. I'm outraged at the cr*p these idiot feminists are getting away with. How many bright females have been sidetracked into the academic ghetto of "Women/Gender Studies" because they believed the feminist rants of the last 30 years?

(P.S. I'm a woman with an undergrad degree in Biology, an M.S. in Computer Science, and additional grad work in medical lab science.)

[CedarDave]

Hinckley Buzzard used the word "aptitude". I used "capability". They are not exactly the same.

I scanned the article mentioned in post #17 -- it does give one a lot to chew on, especially the part about men being at the top of the heap and the bottom! But it was good to read that intellectually we are generally equal, but it's those statistical outliers that makes men both geniuses and dolts! Sort of goes back to what all of us that have been around awhile have known all along. Women are more likely to be the stabilizing influence for us all.

[CedarDave]

Thanks for the link!!

[Endeavor]

I couldn't care less about Hopkins. I'm talking about Summers' statement and my personal experiences with female scientists in the academy. I'm no idiot either, in the diploma department. I'm just always amazed that some women wish to perpetuate the stereotype that math and science is something women cannot, or should not, do well.

[LurkedLongEnough]

I know a woman who was told she could not take computer science in high school because the classes were, naturally, for "the boys". Nevertheless, she later became the lead inventor on a utility patent in an artificial intelligence software application. Leads to two questions:

1) How much more could she have done if given challenging training? and
2) Does schooling matter with regard to an individual's drive to accomplishment?

[LibFreeOrDie]

"...some women wish to perpetuate the stereotype that math and science is something women cannot, or should not, do well."

I am not saying anything of the kind.

What Summers and others are saying is that the distribution of abilities and preferences is gender-specific. What should we do? Mandate that the females who score in the top 1% of SAT-Math MUST study physics or engineering in college, in order to fill someone's idea of a quota? Females tend toward less abstract fields, more people/life-oriented - law, medicine, biology. (Notice I didn't say "all" females...)

Women can study anything they damn well please. If they have the ambition and they're willing to put in the hours, no one is stopping them.

The "study" about discrimination Hopkins did at MIT in 1999 (and yes, this is about Hopkins) is bogus.

[AZLiberty]

Maybe, just maybe, there is a relationship between testosterone levels and the ability to do math and science. Perhaps someone should look into that...

Someone did something related. A study of high-math, high-mechanical ability (HMHM) women supposedly showed that such women had "much higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths than the controls. Between the ages of 19 and 27, 47 percent of those who had been pregnant reported miscarriages or stillbirths, versus 8 percent in the control group. This was astonishing for a cohort that had such high intelligence and reported none of the common risk factors for losing a pregnancy."

This suggests the possibility of hormonal differences between HMHM and other women.

[Dark Fired Tobacco]

As a licensed engineer I can tell you that 15 percent is overly optimistic. I've heard it given as low as five percent of the general population. The 15 percent may be among college graduates. Add to that the reality that the better engineering schools admit only about 30 percent of applicants to the graduate level, and the selectivity becomes even more evident. We are talking 700 plus GRE scores just to get into some land grant schools at the master's level. In contrast to the 80 percent of law students that can anticipate passing the bar the first time, the chances of an engineering graduate passing the first eight hour exam is around 85 percent, but the actual license exam, given four years later, has a pass rate in the 30's to low 40's in many states. It's not so much a matter of raw intelligence as it is the ability to think in a particular way. By the way, females are having a good success rate in engineering, and it is becoming a very open profession in terms of gender.

[repub_phdstudent]

I'm a young woman working toward my PhD in a science and math-related field. I don't take offense to these comments--I've noticed at the conferences I've attended that the people in my field are primarily men. What people seem to forget is that when studies comes out like this, the results are not suggesting that *all* individuals are lacking in some way...so, I like to think that I'm one of the few women who will be successful!
:-) Besides, why should anyone take offense? I'm little and certainly can't bench press as much as my boyfriend, so should I walk out on him and be angry? Of course not! Take care!

[Lorianne]

The reason why some are so sensitive is that Biological Determinism has been used so often in the past to prevent and preclude individuals from pursuit of their aspirations.

It would be the same sensitivity to pointing out that men go to prison in higher proportion to women. This is a true statement, but it can be used inappropriately stereotype all males ... rather than to promote that each individual as unique potential

[Mr. Jeeves]

Truth Offends Feminists. Details at 11:00. ;)

[CDB]

I'm a young woman working toward my PhD in a science and math-related field. I don't take offense to these comments--I've noticed at the conferences I've attended that the people in my field are primarily men. What people seem to forget is that when studies comes out like this, the results are not suggesting that *all* individuals are lacking in some way...so, I like to think that I'm one of the few women who will be successful! :-) Besides, why should anyone take offense? I'm little and certainly can't bench press as much as my boyfriend, so should I walk out on him and be angry? Of course not! Take care!

Rush had a fantastic caller on his radio show today--sure hope he posts the transcripts on his website--a female chemistry prof. She stated, among other things, that just because she was successful in math and science not all women statistically should expect to be similarly successful. She explained that she was a "statistical outlier," several "standard deviations" outside of a "bell-shaped curve" of American females. Definitely NOT part of the "norm." Of course, this kind of talk is not PC, and is unlikely to be picked up by the MSN.

[the invisib1e hand]

viva la difference!

[the invisib1e hand]

She explained that she was a "statistical outlier," several "standard deviations" outside of a "bell-shaped curve" of American females.

True enough. Empirical observation indicates that most women fall inside an hour-glass-shaped curve.

And that's just fine by most of us.

[FreeTheHostages]

"Maybe, just maybe, there is a relationship between testosterone levels and the ability to do math and science"

Do you want me to look that up? I'm female and graduated Phi Beta Kappa in mathematics from Harvard. I could look that up for you.

Hmm, nope.

Let's apply the scientific method to President Summers' analysis, shall we?

Fact: His daughter prefers to play with dolls
Inference: His daughter wouldn't be as good in math
Hidden assumption: To be as good in math as boys, girls have to have as much testosterone
Fact: In algebraic geometry, you don't deal with trucks or with dolls.

Maybe testosterone is correlated to better performance in math and physics. Maybe something else about guys. Maybe not at all. No one has any evidence.

I played with dolls when I was young, that's all I know. Ah, except one thing. I know more about math and logic and the scientific method than President Summers (an economist! ha ha ha, that's the most dismal thing to call a science). And his recent comments are just further proof of that cold, hard fact.

Oh, and for the record, there was PLENTY of sexism at the Harvard math department. And further for the record I could have CARED LESS and it did not HOLD ME BACK. Nice thing about math: you should up as an undergrad in a graduate level math course and do the best in the class, then they can't say otherwise. Testing is objective.

But the idea of spending a professional lifetime with such neanderthals. Well, I think not.

Are Republicans more sexist than Democrats? I hope not. I hope they're more logical and meritocratic. I hope they realize the jury's out on why women still aren't as well-represented, and that meanwhile they'll treat specific high-performing women with perfect fairness. Will scads of the Freepers here post things like "President Summers is right?" I won't even read the rest of the thread to find out, because I doubt it would be a good statistical sample of Freepville generally.

I do hope -- and I secretly suspect -- that all in all there's less actual sexism (of any sort, men against women and women against men) here than in a Democratic-infested setting.

I think all people of substance are feminists. Unlike President Summers, I don't purport to have a proof for that. It's just an article of faith.

[KC_Conspirator]

Of course Summers is right.

Take a look at the preferences for men and women. Women do not gravitate science and math. Its not just enrollment numbers that prove this fact. Just go to any Trekkie convention or comic book store and see if you can find a girl. Women gravitate towards other fields, like psychology and communications, where conversely, areas where its hard to find guys whose claim to fame is that they are a 39th level Beastlord in Everquest.

Of course liberals make the claim that all of these are artificial gender roles enforced by an oppressive phallocracy, while at the same time, arguing that being “gay” is “natural”.