Is Harvard President's View on Gender and Science Justified?

[Kerrie]

listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

again, you are not paying attention to the other side of this debate-women are not encouraged as much as men to excel in the sciences. women are doing all they can to show their talents and enthusiasm only to be crushed by more generalizations (the whole point of this thread). if your mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, etc was a great scientist but never received the recognition she deserved, wouldn't you feel a little outraged for her?

and please don't preach to me about my english--"tho" is spelled THOUGH.

 

[polyb]

*hearing 'virtual' slaps being delivered across the net which prompts me to say*

"etc. , you got served!"

 

[Moonbear]

these are your "postulates":
(1) an immature response is defined by "running away" and "crying". one can assume that by those you meant a) not confronting the situation (see: running away) and b) being upset by the situation (see: crying).

Being upset is not the same thing as crying! And I said "running away crying" not "running away and crying." In other words, walking away out of disgust is not a synonym there. Your assumptions are wrong.

(2) a mature response is defined by chiding, that is, constructively reproving your opponent.

Chiding? No, I didn't use the word "chiding." That has an entirely different meaning than what I said. I said "challenging." Don't twist my words.

(3) children are by definition immature.

Yes, that's a known biological fact that I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone disagreeing with.

first, i would argue that since most elementary school teachers are female, little girls aren't exactly discouraged from maths and sciences.

If you're going to get into this debate, I suggest you read what we've already covered, because this has been addressed before. 1) The math and science teachers are still predominantly male, not female; 2) Being an elementary school teacher does not require strong math ability. Most will teach the same way they've been taught, even if it isn't the best way to encourage girls to like math and science.

further, most girls (believe me, i kno girls) don't "like" maths and sciences. some do, most don't. the some that do are v. good, the most that don't aren't so good. ****, this almost makes sense.

They don't like it because they've been discouraged from learning it. Read the entirety of posts here. We've covered this too.

second, according to postulate (1) the girls were immature. they walked out upset and hurt and failed to constructively reprove the Harvard dean. They ran away and cried.

1) The faculty who walked out of the talk were NOT girls, they were women. Women is the term used for female adults. Girls refers to pre-pubertal children.

2) Nobody said they walked out hurt, they did walk out, and were offended. That's not the same thing as hurt and since none of us can know what someone else is feeling, you have no basis for that assumption.

3) He wasn't a dean of Harvard, he's the President of Harvard.

4) They did reprove him, by reporting to the media and exposing his attitude on women to the entire country.

5) They did not run away and cry. This is the type of sexist twisting of words to make women appear weak when they react and respond to sexism that perpetuates the uphill battle of fighting it. How would you react if every time you got angry over something or went to your boss demanding to know why you were passed over for a promotion you were told, "Oh, you're just being too sensitive?" Because that is what women are told when they stand up for themselves, and that is what you're doing by twisting the words to say the women were running away and crying.

 

[Moonbear]

*hearing 'virtual' slaps being delivered across the net which prompts me to say*

"etc. , you got served!"

No, I don't slap. I'm very calm-tempered and will take a lot. But push me over the line, and I go straight for the throat.

 

[polyb]

No, I don't slap. I'm very calm-tempered and will take a lot. But push me over the line, and I go straight for the throat.

I can tell!

 

[reasonmclucus]

One aspect of this debate that has been ignored is the prejudice that math and science are more desirable than other fields. My favorite author in high school was George Gamow and my summer reading included books on math subjects, but I recognize that other intellectual activities are also desirable. I recognize that other people may consider other subjects more worthy of their interest.

I also recognize that the most important thing anyone can do is produce a new human being. We don't need as many new humans as we used to, but some are still needed. Women who are interested in this activity often decide that studing math and science isn't that important to them.

There are some interesting facts about computer history related to women. The first computer was actually designed, but never built, in the early 19th Century by a man. The first computer program was written by a woman. When the U.S. Navy decided to conduct a major overhaul of its computer programs in the 1970's, they recalled Captain Grace Hopper to handle the task. For those unfamiliar with computer history, Hopper was the first person to debug a computer, literally. According to the story, a moth picked a bad time to land on a computer relay back in the days when computers used vacuum tubes and other large components. The relay closed on the moth ending its life and stopping the computer. Hopper found the problem and removed the body with a pair of tweezers.

 

[etc]

lol, this is ridiculous. firstly, kerrie, there is a difference of being pedantic (tho "tho" is spelled "tho" for quaint's sake), and simple reading comprehension. w/e i mean.
you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired. i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way. they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

moonbear, it's my understanding that you haven't made much of a point. breaking your argument to postulations wasn't meant to refute, but to make things clear. i meant "chide" as to reprove with tact. i made as much clear, too.
anyway, the rest is a rant 'n rave fest, so i'll leave my piece to my comments to kerrie.

and that's all from me. feel free to continue the tired and true charade w/o SEXISM.

 

[Moonbear]

etc, yes, many of the girls and women who end up liking and staying with math and science have been encouraged along the way by someone. The point you're missing is that our concern is for those who haven't been encouraged, which are far more than those who have been.

You're breaking my argument into postulations made nothing "clear" because you created false arguments in doing so, and changed the meaning of my words.

I can't argue over what you think your understanding is here, but had you read the entire thread, which you started off explaining you hadn't, you'd have seen that much of the argument and discussion has already taken place. I'm not going to reiterate everything for you when it's already here. If you'd like to read everything in the thread, and then present your comments on that, please do so, but I will not repeat it all because you're disinclined to put the effort into following the discussion.

Of course, when you wish to turn a blind eye to what's going on, it's easy to choose to disagree and write-off the issue.

If you think women have been encouraged all along the way and still don't choose math and science or are still incapable, then show me the studies that demonstrate it.

reasonmclucus, you're point is very well-taken. Perhaps that's the true nature of the sexism, not so much that women aren't encouraged to go into math and science, but that the careers and life choices they have made are de-valued relative to the fields men choose.

 

[Kerrie]

you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired. i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way. they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

moonbear, it's my understanding that you haven't made much of a point. breaking your argument to postulations wasn't meant to refute, but to make things clear. i meant "chide" as to reprove with tact. i made as much clear, too.
anyway, the rest is a rant 'n rave fest, so i'll leave my piece to my comments to kerrie.

and that's all from me. feel free to continue the tired and true charade w/o SEXISM.

i am certainly not the oppressed girl...i am a 32 year old mother of 2 and am the main provider for my family. your attitude however, is one that does offend women and young girls who need encouragement to excel in the sciences as much as they can offer. plain and simple, i think your tone is quite sexist, and there is no reason why any (intelligent) female wouldn't be offended by your attitude.

in this forum we promote education regardless of gender, race, or belief system. your words and attitudes expressed in this thread are not consistent with our intention of promoting this.

 

[Astronuc]

I also recognize that the most important thing anyone can do is produce a new human being.

Yes that's true.

Women who are interested in this activity often decide that studing math and science isn't that important to them.

Not necessarily true.

Reproduction and the study of math and science are mutually exclusive. However, since a woman must take time away to give birth, this part can interrupt an otherwise smooth schedule. My wife worked until just before labor, and then took some time off work to recover as well as spend time with the new born. I also took some time off from work, because it was more important then to be with my wife and child than work.

Perhaps a big handicap to professional women are the husbands who do not provide sufficient support, and instead burden their wives with a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the nuturing of the children. (This is in addition to colleagues and managers who fail to accommodate pregnancy and childbirth.) Probably the same men who think women are not suited for science and engineering, but should stay home and raise children.

. . . not so much that women aren't encouraged to go into math and science, but that the careers and life choices they have made are de-valued relative to the fields men choose.

That's part of it.

I taught in the university, and I encouraged 'all' of my students. But I knew professors who were less likely to encourage women, and some who felt that women probably didn't belong in science or engineering. Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

 

[fourier jr]

haven't read much of this thread... here's what this guy from harvard wrote in 1991 when he was chief economist for the world bank:

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." -- The Economist (London), February 8, 1992, p.66 (US edition)

clinton made him treasury secretary in 1999. not long after that he was made president of harvard

 

[Moonbear]

Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

This is certainly a problem I've seen. For some, it's not even how they teach or what they teach or whether they offer encouragement, but their behavior outside the classroom, that the graduate students and young faculty witness. There are a number of men in my field who are great scientists and whose work is highly respected, but who are also well-known as womanizers. There are things in science that are very political (it is still true that sometimes it's more important who you know than what you know, for example to get an invitation to present at a prestigious symposium that will gain you more recognition of your work), so having these well-established investigators on your side really helps. However, early in my career (I was still a grad student), I went up to talk with one and meet him, and he agreed to meet over lunch as long as I promised not to talk about research! I was naive at the time and assumed that being such a "guru" in the field, he was just tired of everyone coming up to him trying to pick his brain at meetings, but when I later told my mentor about my lunch meeting, he laughed and told me he wasn't surprised, because this "guru" was well known for associating with the pretty women, and cautioned me to be careful.

There's another who rarely has women in his lab because they end up all leaving soon after arriving because he just ignores them. I've met him at meetings too, and as long as my male post-doc mentor was present, he ignored everything I had to say when it was my own research we were discussing (and I worked independently enough on that project that my mentor didn't have the answers I could have provided). Somewhat recently, a female post-doc did survive his lab, but only because a LOT of women in the field found out she was going there before she started, and knowing his reputation, provided a support network for her so she wouldn't give up like so many before her. Post-docs are stressful enough without needing to put up with an obnoxious mentor.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

Only the strongest survive. We all know grad school, post-docs and academic careers in general are very stressful for everyone. If anyone wonders about this, just take a look at Humanino's recent posts. He sounds like he's near to having a break-down. I'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't go through this experience at some point during grad school. When you're hitting that wall, almost any extra pressure can be the difference between toughing it out and saying "who needs this?" and packing it all up. Having to spend extra time defending yourself against sexism can be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[Evo]

you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired.

What's tiring is people that post without adding anything of value to a thread because they don't invest the time to read it thoroughly and understand what has already been discussed.

i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way.

Then you are in a minority. I was never encouraged to excell in math, just the opposite, the general consensus was math wouldn't be of much importance later in life for a woman.

they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

That may be your "personal" experience, this doesn't mean you can extrapolate this and claim this is how it is done everywhere.

You are also very young (based on your posts) and unlikely to have seen as much as some of the rest of us have.

 

[Kerrie]

Perhaps a big handicap to professional women are the husbands who do not provide sufficient support, and instead burden their wives with a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the nuturing of the children. (This is in addition to colleagues and managers who fail to accommodate pregnancy and childbirth.) Probably the same men who think women are not suited for science and engineering, but should stay home and raise children.

That's part of it.

I taught in the university, and I encouraged 'all' of my students. But I knew professors who were less likely to encourage women, and some who felt that women probably didn't belong in science or engineering. Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

Can we get a clone of this guy? His wife is one lucky lady!

 

[gravenewworld]

has anyone on the this board even been in the class room recently? girls are much more encouraged to do well in science and math and in academics in general than their male counterparts. At my school the majority of math and chemistry majors are female, by almost 2:1. Look at ANY research experience for undergraduate (REUs) program and they ALL say that they highly encourage and prefer female applicants. I applied for the same REU programs as this girl who is in my class and is also a math major and got rejected by all, yet she was able to get accepted to more than one. Some way she was able to get into the programs even though I still had taken 5 more advanced math courses than her and have gotten all A's in every math class I have taken. Even Grad school programs all say the same thing-WOMEN AND MINORITY APPLICANTS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Why should I be held to a higher standard than a female or a minority just because I am a white male? This day in age white males have to perform 2x's better than a woman or a minority just to get that job or get that school acceptance because of reverse discrimination.

 

[Moonbear]

Can we get a clone of this guy? His wife is one lucky lady!

I think it's worth mentioning, because the wrong impression may have been given overall, that there are plenty of open-minded men in science who are excellent mentors for women (and men). I've been fortunate to have found several of them to work with along the way. I don't want to give the impression that all male scientists are evil bigots, as that stereotype is just as unfair to the men as the stereotypes we are struggling to fight as women. The problem is more that, especially among the more senior scientists, the existence of sexism is not a rare anomaly, and it is still tolerated. To some extent, this is because the lower-ranking men are just as afraid to confront them as are the women because these are people who have a lot of influence in how departments are run, making editorial decisions for publications, nominating people for awards, etc.

One shift I have seen recently, and am very happy to see being supported, at least in my own institution, is replacing the annoying old tradition of men applying for a faculty position, and then the university finding a position for their wife. In that old tradition, the opposite rarely happened of a woman being the primary applicant and the university scrambling to find a position for her husband in order to recruit her. Often, the woman is actually the stronger scientist of the pair and departments scramble to come up with money to make her an offer, but there always carried with it the stigma that she got the job because she was just part of the package to hire her husband. What is starting to replace this now is I've seen women insisting on applying for positions independently of their husbands and we even had one husband/wife couple competing for the same position. However, it's tough for couples to both be in academics. When positions are so few and far between, usually one or the other has to sacrifice and choose a lesser position or lesser department or work in the other's lab just so they can live in the same state. It's also not uncommon for scientists to marry other scientists. Once you hit grad school, your social circle starts to get pretty limited. Traditionally, the woman has followed the man's career rather than the other way around, and that's what needs to start changing.

 

[etc]

yep grave. In Canada ( at least ), the # of girls attending University is greater than the # of males. also, science and math departments actually prefer to accept girls than boys, and regulate their acceptance policy as such.

 

[Moonbear]

has anyone on the this board even been in the class room recently? girls are much more encouraged to do well in science and math and in academics in general than their male counterparts. At my school the majority of math and chemistry majors are female, by almost 2:1. Look at ANY research experience for undergraduate (REUs) program and they ALL say that they highly encourage and prefer female applicants. I applied for the same REU programs as this girl who is in my class and is also a math major and got rejected by all, yet she was able to get accepted to more than one. Some way she was able to get into the programs even though I still had taken 5 more advanced math courses than her and have gotten all A's in every math class I have taken. Even Grad school programs all say the same thing-WOMEN AND MINORITY APPLICANTS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Why should I be held to a higher standard than a female or a minority just because I am a white male? This day in age white males have to perform 2x's better than a woman or a minority just to get that job or get that school acceptance because of reverse discrimination.

They all say "WOMEN AND MINORITY APPLICANTS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY" because they legally are required to include that because of equal opportunity employment laws. Most position announcements are drafted, then have to get sent through the EOE/affirmative action office, and someone there tacks it onto anything it hasn't already been included in.

I'm glad to hear that at your institution, there is a high ratio of women in the classroom; sounds like they are doing something right. I think biology has made huge strides in this regard as well, and it's probably improving even more now that the people who grew up in a culture where sexism was not only tolerated but the norm are not being asked to teach anymore, so the younger women are not being exposed to them quite so early. But, outside of the biology and chemistry classes (because the biology majors need to take chemistry as well as Calc I&II), in general, the numbers dwindle. I attended a women's college, so just having a women's college at the university helped keep the ratios of women higher in the classes.

However, on a single case basis of one woman getting accepted to programs that one man was not accepted to, that's not much to judge by. Actually, it's worth it for you to go back to those programs to which you applied and ask why you were not accepted into the program. Sometimes experience outside of grades is important, such as how one conducts themself in an interview, or the impact of an essay in the application.

I do interview students for our graduate program. Beyond that statement that we encourage women and minorities to apply, I evaluate each person on their own merits once their applications have arrived and those who will receive interviews are selected. On the interview, I can dig past the grades and find out if the applicant really knows what they're getting into with grad school, how much effort have they put into choosing the schools they've applied to, do their interests fit with the faculty we have, and do they really have an understanding of science and that spark of curiosity one needs to have. Some come in with top notch grades and top notch GREs, but cannot demonstrate they have a true interest in research or have even given that part of grad school much thought. I've also run into the situation of an extremely qualified applicant, who was incredibly interested in a research topic for which we had no faculty who could mentor them, and upon questioning how flexible they were about that topic, would they consider other somewhat related areas, etc., learned that really they were approaching grad school with a very narrow focus, so I couldn't recommend them for acceptance; it just wouldn't have made sense for them to join a program where they couldn't learn what they wanted to learn.

So, just because one woman got a position you didn't, don't belittle her ability by saying she got it just because she's a woman. There's a lot more to hiring people into research than grades alone. And there are reasons aside from grades and scores that get applications rejected. My advice to you is to ask why you were passed over for the positions. It's useful to know if there's a weak area on your application or in an interview skill or something like that which you need to strengthen before you start applying for grad school or jobs. It's also possible that you were too advanced for the experiences you were both applying for. Sometimes those programs are geared toward students at certain levels of their undergraduate career, and someone who has passed that point isn't considered.

I have a friend who works as an actuary that ran into such a problem in her career. She passed all her actuarial exams at a ridiculously rapid pace (apparently a lot of people need to take them two or three times before they pass each one, or space them out every year or two; she passed most on the first sitting and just took them every time there was a sitting). What happened is the company she was working for closed, and she had to find a new job. She was over-qualified for the lower level positions comparable to the one she was in because of the number of exams she had passed (in their field, you typically get raises with each exam passed, so more exams means you're more expensive), and under-qualified for the upper level management positions because she hadn't been in her previous job long enough to advance up and get the management experience. This made it very difficult for her to get a job despite clearly having the aptitude for the work and achieving so much so quickly in passing the exams. In the end, she had to take a major paycut in order to get a lower level job in a place willing to then get her the management training she needed to catch up to her exam level. This had nothing to do with her being a woman or anything like that, just an example of why one set of qualifications isn't always enough to determine why one person gets a job that another doesn't.

 

[Kerrie]

has anyone on the this board even been in the class room recently? girls are much more encouraged to do well in science and math and in academics in general than their male counterparts. At my school the majority of math and chemistry majors are female, by almost 2:1. Look at ANY research experience for undergraduate (REUs) program and they ALL say that they highly encourage and prefer female applicants. I applied for the same REU programs as this girl who is in my class and is also a math major and got rejected by all, yet she was able to get accepted to more than one. Some way she was able to get into the programs even though I still had taken 5 more advanced math courses than her and have gotten all A's in every math class I have taken. Even Grad school programs all say the same thing-WOMEN AND MINORITY APPLICANTS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Why should I be held to a higher standard than a female or a minority just because I am a white male? This day in age white males have to perform 2x's better than a woman or a minority just to get that job or get that school acceptance because of reverse discrimination.

Grave, I agree that standards are tougher for white men these days, or so it seems. There should be equal rights, not special rights. It sounds like you are in school now, but for those of us (women) who were in school 10,20, 30 years ago, we felt the same-had to work just hard to prove ourselves until the affirmative action came along. Hopefully someday, gender, race, belief system, age, marital status, etc will not be a factor any longer when it comes to education. Of course the words say "women and minority applicants strongly encouraged to apply", but it is the attitudes of specific individuals that can have a hinderance on some who hold the abilities necessary for the situation.

But believe me, I do understand your frustration.

 

[gravenewworld]

There should be equal rights, not special rights.

Finally, someone with common sense.


The fact that there are now more women in college than men, more women in medical school than men, and girls outperforming males on pretty much all standardized tests seems to beg differently that females are discriminated against. Why is that there are no special scholarships and research opportunities ONLY for white males? Women and minorities have plenty of scholarships and research opportunities available ONLY to them. What would happen to an organization that offered only special scholarships and research opportunities for white males? It would be bombarded with law suits and burnt to the ground by other organizations like NOW or the NAACP. For example, a little while ago a conservative republican group at a college (which I forget right now) had an affirmitive action bake sale. Minorities were charged 25 cents for a cookie, women 50 cents, and white males were charged 2 dollars. Not surprisingly minority and women's groups were all over them. Why? They were simply telling the truth.

Just look at this list of math REU's and quotes from their pages-

http://www.math.byu.edu/~mdorff/SummerMathInstitute/index.htm

Brigham Young University is offering a summer mathematics REU to (1) provide undergraduate, especially female students and
students from institutions with limited research opportunities, to attend
graduate school in mathematics;

http://calcnet.cst.cmich.edu/org/nsfreu/

Women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/class/ma/web/mathREU/

AND IN BIG BOLD LETTERS

Female, minority and physically disabled students are encouraged to apply.

http://www.wabash.edu/academics/math/wsia

Female, minority and disabled students are especially encouraged to apply

http://orion.math.iastate.edu/reu/

Women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply. Women may also wish to apply to the Iowa State University Program for Women in Science and Engineering (PWSE) in addition to applying, as described here, directly o the REU. Minorities may also apply to the AGEP/Alliance program in addition to applying directly to the REU. This site describes the application process for positions funded by the Department of mathematics NSF REU site grant (direct application to the REU); PWSE and AGEP/Alliance programs offer additional sources of funding (and thus additional opportunities to be selected) for REU positions. All applicants through this site will receive full consideration of direct application independent of application to another program.

http://www.math.tulane.edu/reu2005.html

We particularly encourage qualified women and members of minority groups to apply.

http://www.msstate.edu/dept/math/reu/

The objectives are to provide the participants with meaningful research experience, to show them the enjoyment of doing research, to encourage them to pursue advanced degrees in mathematical sciences, and to increase research participation by women and underrepresented groups

http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/REU/2005/announcement.html

Women, minorities, and disabled students are encouraged to apply.

http://www.clarkson.edu/mcs/reu.html

Applications from women and minorities are strongly encouraged

http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/~math_reu/reuinfo.htm

Women and minority students are strongly encouraged to apply

http://www.math.utk.edu/Docs/reu.html

List any groups to which you belong Women, American Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Alaskans,

Now as a white male, I find this highly depressing. WHY AM I NOT STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY JUST BECAUSE OF MY RACE AND SEX? I would have no problem if these programs stated "We encourage talented students to apply." rather than blatantly stating that "Women and minorities are STRONGLY encouraged to apply." Just because I am white male doesn't mean that I have had opportunities that minorities and women don't have access too. All those website were just the math REU's, I am sure the physics, bio, and chem etc. REU's also all say the same thing. There are even REUs ONLY for women and Minorities. Why aren't there REUs ONLY for white males?

 

[franznietzsche]

Now as a white male, I find this highly depressing. WHY AM I NOT STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY JUST BECAUSE OF MY RACE AND SEX? I would have no problem if these programs stated "We encourage talented students to apply." rather than blatantly stating that "Women and minorities are STRONGLY encouraged to apply." Just because I am white male doesn't mean that I have had opportunities that minorities and women don't have access too. All those website were just the math REU's, I am sure the physics, bio, and chem etc. REU's also all say the same thing. There are even REUs ONLY for women and Minorities. Why aren't there REUs ONLY for white males?

C'est la vie.

God, and everyone else hates you. Get used to it.

 

[Andromeda321]

I've always felt guilty about applying to stuff like that and finally went around asking my male colleagues what they thought about it (I was considering not mentioning my sex in the event they didn't know what gender is typically associated with my first name or some such). They told me to stop feeling guilty because the fact of the matter is physics is still 20% no matter what the ratios are in premed and such. Didn't apply to REUs this year after all, though, so I never got around to making my decision on the subject.
But really, those little disclaimers annoy me. They mean that like it or not should I be accepted to one of those REUs there will always be a few people out there who think I got it without my own merits. And I don't understand just how I will be respected by these people in their fields: they will always consider me with the attached stigma that I only got it because I'm female. Just the way I see things in my more cynical moments anyway...

 

[gravenewworld]

Honestly if you wanted things to be TOTALLY FAIR, the applications for all REUs (as well as all school and job applications) should not ask for name, gender, and race at all. An applicant should only be required to send in transcripts with the name blotted out, recommendations from faculty where the person applying is referred to as "candidate" only, etc. No reference needs to be made to gender, race, or sex. If 100% of white males are the only ones who got accepted to REUs based solely on performance than so be it, or if 100% of applicants accepted to REUs ended up being female than so be it also. The point is that applicants, no matter, what should be accepted based on merit and achievement, not any special factors such as race, gender, economic background and other BS. This day in age there are no more excuses. If these programs truly do admit based "solely on merit" then why in the hell do they have special boxes to check off for gender and race? Of course when you asked all your male classmates they all told you not to "feel guilty about it" because if they said otherwise they would have automatically been labeled as a male chauvanist sexist @$$hole. If the field was really leveled, and applicants were accepted based only on merit than I could say with 100% certaintly that any female or minority who got accepted to an REU made it solely on merit alone. But until that box for gender and race still needs to be filled out on applicaitons, there will always be some shred of doubt. Hell, you can be much more qualified than me, but how do you know if you were just as qualified as another male yet made it over that male just because you were female? The system creates the doubt whether or not you made it on your own merit, not you.

 

[Moonbear]

gravenewworld, as I mentioned in my reply to etc., I really don't wish to turn this thread into a discussion of affirmative action. There is a thread in the Politics subforum already dedicated to that issue. It distracts from the issue at hand here. I've already answered your comment about why requests for applications have that EOE/Affirmative action statement on them. I'll repeat that. It is a legal requirement and doesn't necessarily reflect the mindset of the people reviewing those applications. I do think it's a useless statement, but it doesn't reflect anything about preference really being given to women or minorities, only a reminder that they are encouraged to apply, which is to say their applications won't be immediately tossed out because of their sex or skin color.

And, believe it or not, many of those programs geared toward women specifically are also gathering research statistics on those women. The idea of many of them is to employ different strategies for retaining women in the sciences and find out if they work. But, again, the fact remains that there are still fewer women in math and sciences than men. Your university may be an exception. Telling women to apply doesn't help if they haven't gotten that far. Have you read the discussion here? I'm getting tired of repeating myself for people who want to make broad generalizations about sexism, affirmative action, and women without having taken the time to read the entire thread here, which has already covered many of these topics.

The issue here is that of someone in a position of authority (President of Harvard University) who has made statements that undermine the progress that has been made for women in math and sciences.

 

[hitssquad]

Sex differences in g, along with sex differences in abilities

women and men, in in general excel at different sets of skills

In differential psychology, an ability is an aptitude and a skill is "a learned power of doing a thing competently" (M-W Unabr., sense 3). Perhaps you meant abilities when you wrote skills.

of which neither set makes one more "intelligent" than the other.

Helmuth Nyborg recently found an "adult raw sex difference in g" of .37σ, and favoring the male sex.
http://www.google.com/search?q=nyborg+%22sex+differences+in+g%22+%22chapter+10%22

(The book in which the above chapter by Nyborg appears is The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (2003).)

 

[Astronuc]

Gravenworld,

If you are an excellent student, then keep up the good work.

I also agree that there should be equal rights (consideration), not special rights (consideration). Hopefully, the 'system' is moving in that direction.

Please do not begrudge the good fortune of your female peers concerning the REU's. Instead try to develop a good collegial relationship. You might find some good allies in your field of study, and who knows, one might turn out to be a pretty fine wife someday.

If you are interested in a particular REU, send me a PM with some background. I might have some ideas. Also, I hire college students (usually local) as interns (with good pay), and I will write recommendations for opportunities like REUs, if the student demonstrates potential.

 

[gravenewworld]

ALAS! Astron where were you the past two years when I needed you. I am now a senior and it is too late for me to do any research experience.

 

[gravenewworld]

. But, again, the fact remains that there are still fewer women in math and sciences than men.

And what about the fact that there remains FAR fewer men than women in fields such as nursing, education, english majors etc.? Where is the outcry about that? There will supposedly be a huge shortage of nurses in the next decade, why aren't large groups actively trying to promote males to the field? Why aren't their scholarships only for male applicants to nursing schools? Its a two way street. And just to let you know, being a nurse is a damn good job. My dad is one and make close to 90 g's and works whenever he wants.

 

[hitssquad]

nurse is a ... good job. My dad is one and make close to 90 g's and works whenever he wants.

There is a variety of nurse types. Which one is he?

 

[Kerrie]

And what about the fact that there remains FAR fewer men than women in fields such as nursing, education, english majors etc.? Where is the outcry about that? There will supposedly be a huge shortage of nurses in the next decade, why aren't large groups actively trying to promote males to the field? Why aren't their scholarships only for male applicants to nursing schools? Its a two way street. And just to let you know, being a nurse is a damn good job. My dad is one and make close to 90 g's and works whenever he wants.

Grave, what is your point here? If men choose to pursue these fields, then they are free to do so, and if there is any sort of discouragement of them entering this field, then I would like to see some documentation. Men can promote themselves to be more prominent in these fields if they choose to, just as women have chosen to be more prominent in the math and sciences.

And before you cry about no scholarships for men in nursing, you should do some research on it:

AAMN

It would now seem you are just objecting just to do so rather then have an objective outlook on the situation.

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, shortages of people entering nursing and teaching are one of the consequences of women leaving those fields and entering medical school and science research fields, as well as an assortment of other professions in which they were previously underrepresented. Perhaps the same reason they are leaving those professions are the same reason men aren't flocking into fill the openings? There is a need there, and they are good and honorable professions, but if you have a passion for medicine, making $90K as a nurse seems paltry when you compare it to the $250K to $500K you'll make as an MD. Is that $90K a starting salary, or after putting 20 or 30 years into the career? I know MDs going into radiology and anesthesiology who straight out of residency are pulling $450 and $500K salaries. Considering how much more of the patient care is done by nurses and PAs than really is done by MDs, those salary scales seem a little disproportionate, don't they?

With the nursing shortage as it is, nobody is being discouraged from applying for those jobs. Anyone who goes to nursing school and is halfway qualified can get a job in nursing, there is no issue of competition because hospitals are desperately seeking anyone to fill openings. Actually, I think nursing has also benefitted from more men entering the field. Nurses don't appear quite so disrespected by doctors as they used to be (Tsu can probably comment on this more seeing what goes on in hospitals on a daily basis).

 

[gravenewworld]

Grave, what is your point here? If men choose to pursue these fields, then they are free to do so, and if there is any sort of discouragement of them entering this field, then I would like to see some documentation. Men can promote themselves to be more prominent in these fields if they choose to, just as women have chosen to be more prominent in the math and sciences.

And before you cry about no scholarships for men in nursing, you should do some research on it:

You missed the point of my posts. Sure men aren't discouraged from entering a field like nursing, but they sure as hell aren't being encouraged to the extent like women and minorities in the math and sciences. How many nursing college websites can you find that explicitly state "we strongly encourage applications from male applicants." ? I listed more than a dozen summer programs who stated that they encourage specifically women and minorities to apply. Wow congratulations you found 1 scholarship for 1,000 dollars for men who pursue nursing. For every scholarship for men who pursue nursing I can find you 50 scholarships solely for women and minorities for a lot more, even full tuition scholarships, for science and engineering programs.

 

[etc]

many, many people consider nursing a female's occupation. i'd say that's discouraging.

 

[gravenewworld]

Men can promote themselves to be more prominent in these fields if they choose to, just as women have chosen to be more prominent in the math and sciences.

Finally,someone has said what I have waited them to say. The reason there are hardly any males in the nursing profession is because of their own choice, no? If men choose not to be nurses, then there really doesn't exist a barrier for them to over come in order to be nurses. Why is it so hard to believe that the same thing applies for women in the sciences? Not as many women as men choose not to pursue science further. Everyone is wrong. There are no barriers for women to overcome when persuing science. The harvard president was wrong, genetics are not the explanation of why there are fewer women than men in science. I'll tell you the reason for fewer women than men in science--CHOICE. Choice is something that no one can ultimately control. So what who cares if more men than women chose to pursue science. More women than men chose to pursue nursing. Just don't give free handouts and lower the bar for groups of people who choose not to do something. If I choose not to go to work, should I be entitled welfare checks?

 

[Kerrie]

Why is it so hard to believe that the same thing applies for women in the sciences?

You are assuming there is/was no issue. There are many times as a female I have been snubbed simply because I am female. I work with the "good 'ol boys" in the agricultural industry. I have felt many times blown off because they connect my gender to lack of knowledge of their field. I have had to work extra hard with these customers to prove to them I am just as worthy as a male in mechanical knowledge, whereas men will be received much better. Try walking in someone's shoes who has experienced this feeling instead of negating what others may know for themselves.