Posted on 02/28/2005 6:53:50 PM PST by Utah Girl
THE REAL scandal at Harvard is not that university president Lawrence Summers suggested, at a private symposium, that the small numbers of women in math and science departments at top research institutions may be due less to sex discrimination than to personal choices and inherent sex differences. The scandal is that his fairly innocuous, carefully hedged remarks sparked an irrational, intolerant outcry -- and that Summers was forced to offer groveling apologies in order to save his job.
Now that the transcript of Summers's remarks at the National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce on Jan. 14 has been released, let's clarify what Summers did not say. He did not say that women are intellectually inferior to men or that women can't be great scientists. He did not say that young women shouldn't be encouraged to pursue careers in math and science or that there is no need to combat discrimination. (In fact, he said just the opposite.) He did suggest that even with the best efforts, full parity might be unattainable.
One reason for the imbalance, Summers said, is that science is one of those fields where highly successful people must have ''near total commitments to their work" -- and fewer women than men are willing to make such a commitment, particularly women with families. (He added, ''That's not a judgment about how it should be.") That is, quite simply, true. In a 2001 study by University of Vanderbilt psychologists David Lubinski and Camilla Persson Benbow, nearly a third of talented female graduate students in math and science -- and only 9 percent of the men -- said it was important to work part-time for at least a part of their careers. More egalitarian family roles would solve the problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
He should be fired -- for apologizing.
"University of Vanderbilt?"
Has Vanderbilt seceded from Nashville?
The hilarious part of this whole affair is that the feminists involved acted so... well:
hysterical!
In the original, psychological sense of that word.
How many men pursue a degree in 'Child Development' and 'Home Economics'?
How many women pursue a degree in 'Computer Science', 'Electrical Engineering', 'Mechanical Engineering', 'Physics' and 'Math'?
Seems he was merely stating a very observable fact. No discrimination here, in fact when women DO get the harder degrees (and yes; I will state flat out that a degree in any form of engineering is tougher than Home Ec, or Child Development), women not only get offered jobs over more qualified men, they get offered more.
A whole career down the tubes , a lifetime of work in the toilet because of one remark that wasnt Politically Correct, How many time have we seen this?
Hillary with her Jewish Basket remark and Jessie Jackass with his Hymietown remark are the onyl two who have escaped unscathed.
A related thread: "Harvard Science Women Overcome with Fellowship, Ice Cream - Women In Science Discuss Changes
Students make recommendations to Summers' "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352952/posts
This sums it up real well LOL.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352952/posts
Fortunately Rhett Butler was nearby and revived her with a manly kiss and a growled "I don't give a damn".
I majored in Pre-med (I wanted to be a pharmacist.) The first time I applied, I didn't get into Pharmacy School at the University of Utah. I had an opportunity to work for a computer software company and took it, and I've been in computers ever since. Without a degree in Computer Science.
"the issue isn't average mathematical ability, which is quite similar for men and women; it's that many more males are clustered at the high and low ends of the scale, among the geniuses and the learning-disabled, while women are more likely to be found near the middle."
martin gross 10 years ago made that point in his book on medical malpractice.
gross claimed that the feminists' insistence on equal numbers of doctors of both sexes had lowered the composite i.q. for medical doctors because it eliminated some of the brightest men.
DUH! This is exactly what Affirmative Action has done to bright and hard working blacks.
I think Summers is right on the money. I spent 8 years in college taking Math and Science but chucked it all for my kids. Since then I've been a volunteer Math teacher in an elementary school for the past 4 years. Most girls just don't like it. To think our brains may be wired a bit different is hardly a sin.
The difference between men and women is not as black and white as it use to be but there still is a difference. I say Viva La.
I think you will admit that YOU were LUCKY.
I know engineers who are working as engineers; yet do not have a 4 year degree. These people tend to be very smart, very self-disciplined, quick studies, and also lucky. They are lucky in that they got in the door to interview, without the degree. The degree will not garantee you a job; but it will open the door for the interview, where you can begin to prove your capabilities.
I'm glad you got in.
I think that a college degree taught me to be more disciplined in my thinking and be more logical. And the degree is what employers are looking for. Unfortunately a degree does not guarantee a good employee. Right now I am working for a health information systems company, and I hadn't worked in the medical field for 13 years. But because I put it on my resume, they were interested. And it is surprising how fast the medical knowledge came back. Anyway...
That is why you post articles from that bogus resource known as the Boston Globe???
Please, if it were worth FR commentary.......................
LOL. I thought the article was worth posting.
Likewise. My degrees are in microbiology and an MBA, but now I spend my time raising kids and volunteering with science enrichment at our elementary school. My husband and I have organized a robotics program for our elementary school, and we typically have a preponderance of boys in the class. One of our well-meaning teachers started making noise about "reserving" half the slots for girls, which we've managed to avoid doing. Some girls are interested, and do very well with it, but the interest levels among boys are definitely higher. There are some inherent differences between boys and girls, which raising boys has amply illustrated for me!
Sorry, but in The New World Order, that is not a defense.
You did good Me Lady.
The problem, of course, is that women faculty are demanding that science departments should be non-discriminatory, which can only be proved by hiring 50% women. In many fields that is simply impossible, without hiring third-raters. There just aren't that many top women scientists available.
I don't know why they seem to think that Madame Curie is a good argument for hiring more woman scientists. Isn't there something a bit funny about having to go back a full hundred years to find a famous woman physicist? She isolated Radium in 1902. Have there been no famous women physicists since then? If not, how come? Most college humanities departments now have more women than men.
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.