Harvard President's remarks

[Dr.Cait]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I was curious to see how some of you felt about Lawrence Summers' comment that "innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers." I know that some of you may attend Harvard or wish to go there, and I was curious about your reactions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[10minutes]

I guess I might get flamed for this, but I said the same thing to some of my classmates a couple of months ago and got attacked badly by some female students. But don't get me wrong though because I know there are always exceptions. One happens to be my girlfriend who studies engineering at MIT. She once was selected for US Mathematics Olympiad finalist. But I think that from my experience (look at my major) there are definitely some differences between male and female brain. I think in general females are better at learning language.

 

[japhy]

of course you are going to get flamed...

what evidence do you have to demonstrate these innate differences? that women generally do not go into science and medicine? it needs to be a more thorough evaluation, for those are manifestations of the symptoms, not the problem. all you have given us is anecdotal evidence, at least give us some published studies.

and i love your copout

But don't get me wrong though because I know there are always exceptions. One happens to be my girlfriend

so what you are trying to say is that most other women are dumb at math and science, except your woman OF COURSE

 

[skoaner]

Chicks are good

 

[tigress]

hmm, I think there's definitely a difference in the male and female brain, but I think saying "science and math careers" is just too broad. In my grad school class we have 15 women and 3 men, and I"d say half the faculty are women, so certainly women are succeeding in science. I also have a sister-in-law who is an engineer. But there are definitely fewer women in physics and engineering type fields, and I do think that is partly because of basic differences between men and women. Probably overall men are better at physics/engineering type stuff. But I certainly wouldn't extend that to all sciences, because it doesn't seem to be true in biological sciences. I don't know that much about math but I think women are just as capable in math. But with the physics/engineering, it seems to me that men (on average!) have better spacial reasoning skills and such.

All that said, Lawrence Summers should have known better than to say something like that. Shame on him. How can any comment of that nature ever help anybody?

 

[dhoonlee]

.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

I dont think it has anything to do with being smarter or dumber between the sexes.

What does happen is that women are inherently catty. When guys get into a fight, they argue and it blows up and then resolves. When girls get into a fight, they start backstabbing each other through mutual aquantances and try to ruin each other's day. Basically, women don't work as well together as men because they get really competitive and start getting catty at one another-- and the thing is academia is all about working together as a team (or even cross-institutionally)

You might ask yourselves, why are there so few women in engineering but a good number of women in medicine? Well, I think its is because engineering is DEFINITELY a team affair, while medicine in the private practice area can be a fairly autonomous (or at least, hierarchecal with the woman in charge).

This is my theory. So in summary, while I dont believe women and men are different intellectually, I do think men work in team sports better than women (and numerous female friends of mine have stated that they would rather work with men on a project than women for that very reason)

 

[doc05]

you ladies are being overly sensitive. did it ever occur to you that men and women are, in fact, DIFFERENT? there have been numerous studies which show that there are very different patterns of brain activity in men and women; this has in part been attributed to hormonal influences...

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I was curious to see how some of you felt about Lawrence Summers' comment that "innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers." I know that some of you may attend Harvard or wish to go there, and I was curious about your reactions.

I'm stunned to see the President of Harvard and a former Democratic Secretary of the Tresuary say that. On the other hand, every standardized test that measures math/science skill given to men and women shows a pretty decent sized male over-performance on math/science skill, whether the administered group is kindgergardners or grad students. On top of that, the fact that women have been pretty successful in narrowing the gap in literary and humanistic achievements over the last half century, but still have had very little success in science/math does kind of argue that there may be more biology than socialization at work.

Also, I've always found it pretty phony that men and women are both half of the student body at Stanford, Harvard, and the like, but when you look at the break-down by major, you see about 80% women in psychology and English, as compared to 80% male in engineering, physics, and math. I'm not sure why that's a "symptom" of discrimination, rather than just a manifestation of different interests/aptitudes among the sexes.

 

[skoaner]

when you look at the break-down by major, you see about 80% women in psychology and English, as compared to 80% male in engineering, physics, and math.

Thats 'cause for psychology and english all you do is sit around coffee shops talking. For engineering and physics you crunch numbers.

 

[swifteagle43]

Different does not mean more or less!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Women have better memories but are not the best at math. Yes you guys can throw up what you learned in class but if a new math problem is given or a new situation you struggle more than men do. On the other hand when it comes to memory you blow us the hell out of the water. Women are better at biology than men. It is a matter of the science. In physics men blow women out of the water. In chemistry I think it is almost a 50 50 but leaning towards the mens side. There are always exceptions to the rule as we all know. But in general this holds true.

In my humble opinion I think women make better doctors than men when it comes to primary care-and NOT because of their "nuturing instinct." Women are just better at memory and holding the fort down. However, I don't think women are the best researchers. Again- there are exceptions but for the most part this holds true.

Some of my best math teachers have been women. They are not the most brilliant researchers but they have truly mastered it and have found new techniques to pass it on to the next generation.

Put Simply: Men discover and create. Women perfect it.

 

[Lester]

Very interesting - I find it surprising that Lawrence Summers would say that. Out of curiosity, in what setting or context did he make that assertion? (Is there a link to an article somewhere?)

And speaking of Larry Summers, maybe this link/animation may soften images of the man before he gets torn down: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mcwilson/shaniqua.html . (It's a Flash animation made by a fellow student and friend of mine. Larry Summers, a few weeks later, called her and said he liked the animation. He eventually printed a still from the animation, signed it, framed it, and gave it to my friend as a present.)

 

[ishaninatte]

Richard Nesbitt authored "The Geography of Thought," a book that explores the differences between the Eastern and Western brain and ways of thinking, and he took very little criticism (that i've seen). But move the argument to different races, or god forbid, gender, and then you have a serious problem.

Different doesn't mean better or worse, just different. Are there exceptions to every rule? Yes, of course. But could there be innate differences in the brain structures of different races, and even genders, based on evolutionary history and what have you? Well, prove it and I'll believe it. As of right now, I'm hovering between "maybe" and "it's likely."

As for the president's remarks, I believe he was trying to relate scientific findings to his audience, not denegrate women. I'd hate to see an obviously intelligent man be persecuted by this often-not-so-intelligently-examined issue.

 

[MStewart]

After 2 years in biotech, men are without a doubt better at solving business problems than women are. But women are equally capable at marketing. I don't need a damn clinical trial to prove it. Go join the workforce for a few years

 

[swifteagle43]

Richard Nesbitt authored "The Geography of Thought," a book that explores the differences between the Eastern and Western brain and ways of thinking, and he took very little criticism (that i've seen). But move the argument to different races, or god forbid, gender, and then you have a serious problem.

Different doesn't mean better or worse, just different. Are there exceptions to every rule? Yes, of course. But could there be innate differences in the brain structures of different races, and even genders, based on evolutionary history and what have you? Well, prove it and I'll believe it. As of right now, I'm hovering between "maybe" and "it's likely."

White people are like thissssssssssssssssssssss

Black people are like THIssssssssssss





When the lights go off
White people panniiicc


When the lights go off
Black people PLAN IT!

-Chapelle Show

 

[tigress]

Richard Nesbitt authored "The Geography of Thought," a book that explores the differences between the Eastern and Western brain and ways of thinking, and he took very little criticism (that i've seen). But move the argument to different races, or god forbid, gender, and then you have a serious problem."

Hmm, at least in these responses I don't see too many people getting all worked up. A lot of people, myself included, have agreed that there are indeed differences between the thinking of men and women. But I still think he shouldn't have said that.

Actually so far the responses here have been thoughtful and I think that's great.

edit: MOSTLY thoughtful

 

[10minutes]

of course you are going to get flamed...

what evidence do you have to demonstrate these innate differences? that women generally do not go into science and medicine? it needs to be a more thorough evaluation, for those are manifestations of the symptoms, not the problem. all you have given us is anecdotal evidence, at least give us some published studies.

and i love your copout

so what you are trying to say is that most other women are dumb at math and science, except your woman OF COURSE

Don't take it too hard, buddy. I just gave my opinions. And my girlfriend is just one of the exceptions, not the only one. I don't know how to explain that at least 70% of high level math and physics classes I took were composed of men. Could you explain that to me?

 

[Law2Doc]

Very interesting - I find it surprising that Lawrence Summers would say that. Out of curiosity, in what setting or context did he make that assertion? (Is there a link to an article somewhere?)

Here's a link to an article on the comment.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20050117/ap_on_re_us/harvard_president

 

[swifteagle43]

Here's a link to an article on the comment.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20050117/ap_on_re_us/harvard_president

Nobody is going to jump on the stage and say "Women are stupider because they were born that way." Especially the PRESIDENT OF HARVARD!

He was talking about research done by another party....

 

[chitown82]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I was curious to see how some of you felt about Lawrence Summers' comment that "innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers." I know that some of you may attend Harvard or wish to go there, and I was curious about your reactions.

Has anyone noticed how things said by people at schools like Harvard, Oxford, etc make it into the media and are quoted by others as if what they are saying is amazingly profound. I'm sure Lawrence Summer isn't the only person to have pointed something out like this before, but when HE mentions it, more often than not, it is considered, debated, etc. Obviously these institutions have proved themselves and have a lot of media attention, but when it comes to remaks like these - they are certainly not original. I'm sorry if this is incoherent, I'm really really tired.

 

[vhawk]

Hmm, at least in these responses I don't see too many people getting all worked up. A lot of people, myself included, have agreed that there are indeed differences between the thinking of men and women. But I still think he shouldn't have said that.

So, you are saying "Yeah, he's basically right, or at least not entirely offbase, and I sort of agree. However, he shouldnt have said it because you arent allowed to say anything that might possibly be misconstrued as offensive to people who refuse to actually pay attention to what is said and have their own agendas to push. Basically, he should have been more cowardly?

 

[dentite001]

Women: 1/2 serotonin
2X dopamine

1/2 serotonin - Usually depressed
manipulating/lying -serotonin spike (love)

2X dopamine - Symbolic processing (language/dress)
Egoism
emotion/(dis)simulation - spikes serotonin

Thicker corpus callosum - 'Scatterbrained'

Men: 2X serotonin
1/2 dopamine

2X serotonin - Rarely Depressed


1/2 dopamine - Efficiency/Economy
- Object oriented (genius)

Frontal cortex dimorphism - Consistency
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say BRAVO for Lawrence Summers speaking his mind. I highly endorse
their human cloning program. It is only a matter of time ...

 

[funshine]

hmmmmm

While I do agree that GENERALLY SPEAKING, women's and men's brains are different and thus better at different things, I totally understand why some of the women at the conference were deeply offended....they're the women who ARE naturally inclined toward the engineering/physical sciences--the traditionally "male" disciplines--and they view it as insulting when they're told that they are merely exceptions to the rule.

I don't think it's surprising that a Harvard president said that. He was a what, Econ major? *snort*(ok, that was mean, sorry). But my point is, if he had been a Chemical Engineer or Physicist or something like that, he would have been MUCH more careful. I have found that the male professors in those traditionally male disciplines are so very PC .

Also, of the women and men I know who are really outstanding at physics, engineering, mathematicians, chemistry, etc., the girls are just as brilliant as the guys. No doubt about it

 

[funshine]

Basically, he should have been more cowardly?

OK, so GENERALLY SPEAKING, there are differences in the brains between diff races as well. (actually, i'm not sure of it, but why not? There are differences in muscles/bonestructure/immune systems among the races, why not diffs in the brain?

Does that mean we should start using it in speeches to explain why there are less of certain races/ethnic groups in certain occupations?

 

[tigress]

So, you are saying "Yeah, he's basically right, or at least not entirely offbase, and I sort of agree. However, he shouldnt have said it because you arent allowed to say anything that might possibly be misconstrued as offensive to people who refuse to actually pay attention to what is said and have their own agendas to push. Basically, he should have been more cowardly?

No. I am saying that there is truth to his statement, although it was too broad (see my earlier post). I'm also saying that even if there is truth to it, saying so won't help anybody. It's not a matter of offending anybody, just a matter of knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Academic studies on the issue are welcome, as they lend clarity to our understanding of the modes of human thought. However making public statements like this can and do affect our perception of reality. So, like everybody would agree, there are definitely women who are good at physics and engineering, even if this is a minority. So by making broad statements you color other people's opinions about these very women as well as the women who aren't good at physics and engineering.

I realize I'm not being very articulate. I had a long day. But I still stick to what I said. And aside from all of that, part of having a post like president of Harvard is knowing what to say when. And if it offended multiple people in the audience (highly educated people, and not even random people reading a news article either), it was probably not an appropriate thing to say.

That doesn't make the issue any less interesting to think about, however.

 

[vhawk]

OK, so GENERALLY SPEAKING, there are differences in the brains between diff races as well. (actually, i'm not sure of it, but why not? There are differences in muscles/bonestructure/immune systems among the races, why not diffs in the brain?

Does that mean we should start using it in speeches to explain why there are less of certain races/ethnic groups in certain occupations?

If there has been some finding, which is what he was referring to, that implies that innate differences may lead to some understanding of differences in representation, you should certainly use it in speeches, so that people know about it!! Its one thing for me to tell a bunch of people that its actually possibly that women and men are different(i.e. they will NOT believe me and call me misogynistic) but if the President of Harvard says it people might actually pay attention. Yeah, I think people in positions of respect need to be less worried about stepping on toes and being PC, but that is exactly what a few of the posts on this thread have been saying, that even if its true or possibly true, you cant say it cause "Its just not done."

 

[dentite001]

Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860).

On Women ....

Absence of genius Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

 

[vhawk]

Also, how can you say it "cant help anyone?" People operate under this bizarre notion that everyone is exactly the same(not just equal, but identical) and perpetuating this myth(through omission or comission) certainly doesnt help anyone. Maybe by bringing attention to this he can spark debate on whether or not this is common in other areas, and we can understand why our best efforts at creating homogeneity in all fields(just so I can really get people worked up and bring up things like AA) might not be working.

That being said, I understand what you are saying, and there is definitely a political side to being President at Harvard. Its just depressing to me to think that all people in leadership are glad-handing politicians. Give me Howard Roark.

 

[vhawk]

Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860).

Yeah, and then someone had the audacity to go against politcal correctness and state that it was possible that women were capable of greatness, and to challenge peoples notions. I doubt this was some senior at a small liberal arts college, but rather some powerful and prominent man who said, "You know what, Georgia O'Keefe aint bad, and I kinda like some of these other broads, too."


Or powerful and prominent woman.

 

[funshine]

If there has been some finding, which is what he was referring to, that implies that innate differences may lead to some understanding of differences in representation, you should certainly use it in speeches, so that people know about it!!

Yeah, I did learn there were innate diffs between male and female brains. BUT IN MY PSYCHOLOGY class, not in a president's speech. And I think that most people are aware that there are differences. They don't need the President of Harvard to tell them that.

But I do agree that being PC is overrated.

 

[LadyBulldog]

And speaking of Larry Summers, maybe this link/animation may soften images of the man before he gets torn down: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mcwilson/shaniqua.html .

hahaha...quite entertaining

 

[funshine]

Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860).

On Women ....

Absence of genius Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

most likely, you are not a genius either.

this reminds me, i have a very smart (girl) friend who says that there may be more male than female geniuses, but that there are also far more male idiots...and that girls are usually of more moderate intelligence, whereas the male brain CAN achieve brilliance, but in most cases, does not, and in fact is far infererior to the female.

just thought i'd share

I will now leave the thread that has suddenly turned misogynistic

 

[tigress]

Also, how can you say it "cant help anyone?" People operate under this bizarre notion that everyone is exactly the same(not just equal, but identical) and perpetuating this myth(through omission or comission) certainly doesnt help anyone. Maybe by bringing attention to this he can spark debate on whether or not this is common in other areas, and we can understand why our best efforts at creating homogeneity in all fields(just so I can really get people worked up and bring up things like AA) might not be working.

That being said, I understand what you are saying, and there is definitely a political side to being President at Harvard. Its just depressing to me to think that all people in leadership are glad-handing politicians. Give me Howard Roark.

Yes, you have a point that it's important to bring things like this into discussion, and perhaps I was too quick to blame.

One interesting thing that occurred to me was an article I just read in the February Scientific American about this guy Claude Steele and and his theory of "stereotype threat." Here is a quote:

"Mathematically accomplished women react comparably, Steele has observed. When given a difficult set of problems, they assumed their math abilities were under fire and scored significantly lower than men. But when told that gender could not affect their scores, the women did as well as equally skilled men. Steele developed the theory of stereotype threat -- that is, when people are challenged in an area they care deeply about, such as intellectual ability, the fear of confirming negative stereotypes can hurt their performance."

So I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that women do worse in math because we're expected to, but this is an interesting thing to consider, and possibly a reason not to make public statements like this even if it is based in reality. Like I said earlier, the difference between men and women is probably more in physics/engineering than math, at least intellectually, but I think this still applies. If you tell women they will do worse, even if it's based on biological evidence, perhaps they will be more likely to do worse?

Anyway an interesting thing to consider.

edit: I should probably mention that "this guy" Claude Steele is a social psychologist at Stanford University

 

[ishaninatte]

It's not a matter of offending anybody, just a matter of knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Academic studies on the issue are welcome, as they lend clarity to our understanding of the modes of human thought.

He was reporting academic findings.

 

[dentite001]

Yeah, and then someone had the audacity to go against politcal correctness and state that it was possible that women were capable of greatness, and to challenge peoples notions. I doubt this was some senior at a small liberal arts college, but rather some powerful and prominent man who said, "You know what, Georgia O'Keefe aint bad, and I kinda like some of these other broads, too."


Or powerful and prominent woman.

Revolutions are by there very nature cyclical. Only, this time around there will be biological evidence to take away women's right to vote, testify, etc.

Funshine - I agree, men are at opposite ends of the bell curve, but women are rarely ever better than average. If your girlfriend is smart, it will be used to screw you over, not for the benefit of man kind. Incidentally, I figured by your name that you were either a women yourself or were gay.

 

[Penelope1]

Also, how can you say it "cant help anyone?" People operate under this bizarre notion that everyone is exactly the same(not just equal, but identical) and perpetuating this myth(through omission or comission) certainly doesnt help anyone. Maybe by bringing attention to this he can spark debate on whether or not this is common in other areas, and we can understand why our best efforts at creating homogeneity in all fields(just so I can really get people worked up and bring up things like AA) might not be working.

That being said, I understand what you are saying, and there is definitely a political side to being President at Harvard. Its just depressing to me to think that all people in leadership are glad-handing politicians. Give me Howard Roark.

I agree with most of what you're saying about political correctness and differences between people, and even groups of people, like women and men. But a difference between two groups of people doesn't necessarily mean that the grouping criteria (e.g. gender, race, etc.) is the cause of those differences. I think a lot of the outrage over these remarks stems from the fact that he called the differences "innate", which suggests a causal, not just statistical, link.

I think that many of the differences between men and women are primarily a matter of choice rather than determined by brain structures. I think people on both sides of this issue take it for granted that if there are differences in brain function, those differences must be the cause of differences between the sexes. Another possibility is that some of the biological and hormonal differences are the effects of the ideas that individuals choose to live by. Hormonal levels can change in response to how a person is feeling, can't they? I'm thinking of the studies that show an increase in testosterone in men after engaging in a competition like a wrestling match.

The women who do succeed in science probably have some of the traits associated with men who do the same, and I don't think any studies have shown that brain differences are the cause of behavioral differences rather than a correlation. If any of the psych majors on here know about such studies, please correct me.

Sorry for the insanely long and rambling post. I'm procrastinating from studying.

 

[reLAXgirl]

On the other hand, every standardized test that measures math/science skill given to men and women shows a pretty decent sized male over-performance on math/science skill, whether the administered group is kindgergardners or grad students

It was my impression that children tested the same (or even girls slighty better) until they reached ages closer to puberty. I wonder where "every standardized test" came from because I have heard differently.

 

[funshine]

He was reporting academic findings.

Yes, she said that. Did you not read the rest of what she wrote?

"However making public statements like this (meaning public statements on INCONCLUSIVE academic findings) can and do affect our perception of reality. So, like everybody would agree, there are definitely women who are good at physics and engineering, even if this is a minority. So by making broad statements you color other people's opinions about these very women as well as the women who aren't good at physics and engineering."

You missed the most important part of her post!

What I have such a hard time understanding is, if guys claim to be so smart, why they can't understand half of what a girl says to them. Their attention span is about 2 seconds!

In the end, girls will succeed because by in large, we all work harder and care more than the vast majority of men. Perhaps our past civilization was based on the brilliance of men (men who keep in mind, depended on the support of their mothers and wives) but the future belongs to the women

OK, I know that became just general off-topic ranting. Anyway I have a final tomorrow so I have to go study

 

[BAM!]

Yeah, I think people in positions of respect need to be less worried about stepping on toes and being PC, but that is exactly what a few of the posts on this thread have been saying, that even if its true or possibly true, you cant say it cause "Its just not done."

It's very easy to speak your mind or spit out every thought when you're not representing a giant organization. However, people in positions of leadership need to careful of what they say. Otherwise, they could offend some people, and it might even go to a lawsuit. Also, represetatives of large groups need to act repsonsibly by representing the organization truthfully and not necessarilly their own ideas. It would not be right to use the spotlight to add to your own publicity.

cheers

 

[vhawk]

It's very easy to speak your mind or spit out every thought when you're not representing a giant organization. However, people in positions of leadership need to careful of what they say. Otherwise, they could offend some people, and it might even go to a lawsuit. Also, represetatives of large groups need to act repsonsibly by representing the organization truthfully and not necessarilly their own ideas. It would not be right to use the spotlight to add to your own publicity.

cheers

Well, this might be offtopic, and I no longer claim to be talking about this specific example, since I dont know the President at all and didnt hear his speech. However, I theoretically disagree with what you are saying. I think it is incumbent upon people in positions of leadership to speak their minds and pursue what they find to be right. This is why, although I personally disagree and am a little sickened by televangelists, I respect the fact that they understand they are in a position of power and have the ability to express what they feel is right. The worst possible thing is for people to fear saying what they believe or to preach something they believe to be wrong simply because it works out easiest for them. Thats what I meant by cowardly.

 

[Penelope1]

It was my impression that children tested the same (or even girls slighty better) until they reached ages closer to puberty. I wonder where "every standardized test" came from because I have heard differently.

Anecdotally, I believe that the differences arise closer to puberty. At my younger sisters' elementary school, they test the kids with some sort of pass/fail standardized math test in 4th grade and again in 8th grade. In 4th grade, about 90% of both boys and girls pass the test, but by 8th grade, only 50% of girls pass while 90% of the boys pass. I think it has a lot to do with the girls deciding that boys and makeup are cool and being smart is uncool, whereas the boys think competition (a la sports) is cool, so they will approach tests with the idea that they want to do well. I don't know why more of the girls are affected by the anti-smart-kids phenomenon, though.

 

[BAM!]

it would be nice if someone could post the entire speech/address he gave. It seems to me that this quote could be taken out of context very easily.

btw, in my lab, 7/14 are women. and 1 more woman is about to be hired.

 

[reLAXgirl]

Revolutions are by there very nature cyclical. Only, this time around there will be biological evidence to take away women's right to vote, testify, etc.

Funshine - I agree, men are at opposite ends of the bell curve, but women are rarely ever better than average. If your girlfriend is smart, it will be used to screw you over, not for the benefit of man kind. Incidentally, I figured by your name that you were either a women yourself or were gay.

What a sickening post. I hope you are being sarcastic. And the quotes saying that there have been no genius women painters or many chemists or mathematicians--while some may be biological differences, there is a huge social aspect. Women were to be seen and not heard so how could they possibly be commended for great works for hundreds or even thousands of years? Even great poets and writers that were women used male pen names. Likewise, women are only beginning to feel comfortable in the sciences. Social pressures influence choices and interests. Girls are taught math is for boys, and that they aren't good at it. Additionally, studies have proved that females receive less attention in school from teachers and that success is based on hard work, not aptitude. Such demeaning socialization clearly has an affect on success. So, unless you want to be like a boy, most girls decide it is hard and boring because that is what we are taught.

 

[funshine]

Revolutions are by there very nature cyclical. Only, this time around there will be biological evidence to take away women's right to vote, testify, etc.

Funshine - I agree, men are at opposite ends of the bell curve, but women are rarely ever better than average. If your girlfriend is smart, it will be used to screw you over, not for the benefit of man kind. Incidentally, I figured by your name that you were either a women yourself or were gay.

ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!?!?!

I thought you were half-joking with the Schopenhauer quote, but now I see you have very little respect or understanding of your sisters
this makes me sad but mainly furious.

The only reason why women are still unequals (and they always will be) is because of sex. If you've read Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata, then you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Sunflower189]

As much as I'd like to rearrange his testicles, he's probably right.

Male IQs have a flatter distribution, so more smart outliers - plus, they're more willing to singlemindedly follow an interest. (Ever try to get a remote control away from one? Now substitute "math problem" for "remote".) Females tend towards a more integrative mindset, which would rather write poetry, shower, etc. every so often. It's different. Not bad overall, just different.

Culture may have a role, but it ain't everything. When I did science contests abroad, I was always struck by the chicks from places like Saudi Arabia, running around in full hijab and not even allowed to shake our guys' hands. And they did fine. That's hardcore. Did Barbie really fry our circuits that badly?

I did a lot of high-level science competing back in the day. It's a small subculture; we mostly know each other, two degrees of separation max. And the only gender ratio approaching 50:50 was the ratio of X to Y chromosomes.

I was pretty good, and I worked hard - saying I must suck because I'm a girl is like saying Yao Ming must be short because he's asian. But some of those guys were insane, much better than me. That's Harvard's future professor pool, and it isn't Harvard's fault that various ratios just aren't there.

 

[ishaninatte]

As much as I'd like to rearrange his testicles, he's probably right.

Male IQs have a flatter distribution, so more smart outliers - plus, they're more willing to singlemindedly follow an interest. (Ever try to get a remote control away from one? Now substitute "math problem" for "remote".) Females tend towards a more integrative mindset, which would rather write poetry, shower, etc. every so often. It's different. Not bad overall, just different.

Culture may have a role, but it ain't everything. When I did science contests abroad, I was always struck by the chicks from places like Saudi Arabia, running around in full hijab and not even allowed to shake our guys' hands. And they did fine. That's hardcore. Did Barbie really fry our circuits that badly?

I did a lot of high-level science competing back in the day. It's a small subculture; we mostly know each other, two degrees of separation max. And the only gender ratio approaching 50:50 was the ratio of X to Y chromosomes.

I was pretty good, and I worked hard - saying I must suck because I'm a girl is like saying Yao Ming must be short because he's asian. But some of those guys were insane, much better than me. That's Harvard's future professor pool, and it isn't Harvard's fault that various ratios just aren't there.

well said

 

[DrCarebear]

The statement is short-sighted at best. More PhDs are being awarded to women in science and engineering than ever before. In addition, women like Frances Conley, M.D. who have credentials in excess of her male peers and have never considered having children because their careers come first are STILL passed over for the jobs appropriate to their accomplishment level. This seems to indicate that some other factor than just aptitude is at play. Whether that other factor happens to be social baises or otherwise is up for debate, but it should at least be discussed before blanket statements are made.

 

[DrCarebear]

it would be nice if someone could post the entire speech/address he gave. It seems to me that this quote could be taken out of context very easily.

btw, in my lab, 7/14 are women. and 1 more woman is about to be hired.

Unforunately, the president of Harvard University has refused to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks. Thus, all we can do is take his comments either out of context or from the mouths of others who attended the event.

 

[GuyLaroche]

His refusal to provide a transcript, in addition to the recounting of a story in which his daughter named her play trucks "daddy truck" and "baby truck" convince me that this fellow has said the most flagrantly offensive things. Quite honestly, I think academics in prominent positions should be fired when they make these kinds of awful statements. These sorts of statements do a disservice to academic diversity and the search for equality and respect. A PBS documentary on race once highlighted a research papr published in 1913 by a Columbia professor in which he points out the "decidedly beastly look of the negroid." Unbelievable! I am sure this bigoted fellow at Columbia had also claimed his work was in the spirit of "academic inquiry." This is the same claim Summers is making. Academics in prominent institutions should be held to their words. This president should resign because there simply is no room for any slips when you are playing at that level. To me the president of Harvard, MIT and such schools should be held to the same standards as a neurosurgeon. Both positions are prestigious, but more than that both positions - that of a surgeon and a president - hold in their hands the preservation of life. For a surgeon it is life actually. For the president it is life in the sense that diversity is life. For both positions, there can be no mistakes.

 

[ERJunkie]

It is difficult to say men are better at physics/engineering. You also have to look at the type of career, such as mechanical engineering. I know very few women interested in working in this field. As for differences in the male and female brain my lab studies cognition and and differences in the HPA axis and have found there are many differences in the male and female brain. Yes, men are better at spacial recognition than women in general. But, it is not to say women are incapable of effective spacial recognition or succeeding in physics/engineering.