Larry Summers is in trouble for attempting to lead a provocative discussion on the role of women in the hard sciences. Why didn’t he just think of this:
While professors and deans took to Lowell Lecture Hall yesterday to discuss Harvard
by John Cole| 14 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
Larry Summers is in trouble for attempting to lead a provocative discussion on the role of women in the hard sciences. Why didn’t he just think of this:
While professors and deans took to Lowell Lecture Hall yesterday to discuss Harvard
Comments are closed.
Kimmitt
Larry Summers is in trouble for attempting to lead a provocative discussion on the role of women in the hard sciences.
Larry Summers is in trouble for attempting to cover his ass for the decrease in women hired and tenured during his administration, nothing more or less.
TJ Jackson
See what happens when academia is run by a bunch of right wing, sexist, religious fandamentalists?
Aaron
Kimmitt,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a statistical phenomena of less women in science and math, regardless of school?
If so, is that Larry Summers covering his ass there as well?
My humble solution: no more BA degrees. Only double major BA/BS gets a diploma…not very libertarian of me, though.
Kimmitt
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a statistical phenomena of less women in science and math, regardless of school?
Of course — but it got worse at Harvard under Summers’ tenure.
I won’t deny that Summers also engaged in a series of political missteps.
The thinking Summers displayed was also startlingly sloppy.
Aaron
Kimmit,
If you think the phenomena is because of “politics” or male patriarchy, then I assume you’d also want to run the numbers on Gender Studies/Women Studies, etc. If it’s not a 50/50 split among sexes, then we know that there is some “climate of fear” and we have to purge those department chairs until we have exactly 50% of womens studies being male students. Right? Because it couldn’t be some sort of predisposition to choose certain fields of study based on sex.
Actually, I’d be interested to see the overall breakdown for each major.
Terry
“The thinking Summers displayed was also startlingly sloppy.”
If one were to replace the name “Summers” with that of “Kimmitt,” one would have it exactly right!
Kimmitt
Because it couldn’t be some sort of predisposition to choose certain fields of study based on sex.
I just want to make sure — are you saying that women are by and large too stupid to study hard science, or are you saying that women are by and large to lazy to study hard science?
John
“I just want to make sure — are you saying that women are by and large too stupid to study hard science, or are you saying that women are by and large to lazy to study hard science?”
I know this will come as a shock to you, but perhaps he was implying that women by and large do not *enjoy* studying hard science.
Aaron
Kimmitt,
Choosing a field of study has nothing to do with intelligence or work ethic.
It has to with preference.
Kimmitt
I know this will come as a shock to you, but perhaps he was implying that women by and large do not *enjoy* studying hard science.
Right, and I’m going to ask the question — is this because they are too lazy are too stupid? Or because women lack curiousity as to the nature of the world? Because we’re not talking about choosing “gender studies” as versus “medieval studies.” We’re not even talking about “high-energy physics” as versus “field biology.” We’re talking about “hard science.”
So, is this predisposition genetic or cultural? If the former, is it because women are too lazy to do the hard work, too stupid to get the job done, or too incurious to be attracted to hard science in the first place?
Mikey
Kimmitt: Drop the strawmen. Summers said neither lazy, nor stupid, nor lack of curiousity.
The point was that women’s brains may be constructed differently than the brains of men, and that could be a cause for the lack of women in those fields.
Not lazy, nor stupid, nor incurious. Just different.
Kimmitt
Summers said neither lazy, nor stupid, nor lack of curiousity.
No, that’s precisely not what Summers said. Summers referred to “long-tail” arguments, which hold that women are genetically incapable of competing at the higher levels of talent.
Not lazy, nor stupid, nor incurious. Just different.
Math is hard! Let’s go to the mall!
Mikey
No Kimmitt, he didn’t say that at all. I’m a male. I must be a math wizard. I’m not. There’s a woman in my office, obviously she shouldn’t be able to handle math; she’s a CPA.
Sorry, a gender-based predisposition is not destiny. Most men are stronger than women (upper body strength). That does not mean that there aren’t some women who are stronger than most men.
If you don’t understand that argument, I’m wasting my time.
Kimmitt
Right — you’re saying that, on average, women are stupider than men, just like, on average, women have less upper-body strength than men.