<p>@PG - I’m not sure, but it sounds like you are saying that systemic biases against women in STEM would be incompatible with STEM people being smart/geniuses. Is that your idea?</p>
<p>Of course, I think it’s a huge problem that there is so much sexism etc. in STEM. Such a huge problem that I am devoting my career and a lot of hobby time to fighting the --isms in STEM education at the K-12 level. I still see that there are smart people, even though some of them need an attitude adjustment (e.g. the mathy boy above). Luckily, in HS, attitude adjusting is part of what we do. :)</p>
<p>PG, #959: I wish it were true that “In the liberal arts, men’s and women’s talents are equally respected and developed.” </p>
<p>Harold Bloom.'Nuff said.</p>
<p>I think the evidence that women’s talents are equally respected in the liberal arts is unclear. A quick survey of web sites indicates that the faculty composition in the liberal arts at the “top” schools has shifted from a largely male group to a more gender-balanced group, within the past generation. So they may be ahead of the STEM faculties by a generation–but probably not by more than that.</p>
<p>My female faculty friends in the English department and in business have no fewer stories of discrimination to tell than I do.</p>
<p>Frances Conley, Professor of Neurosurgery at Stanford, had to overcome really awful discrimination, both before and during the time she was on the faculty. She wrote a book about it, Walking Out on the Boys.</p>
<p>Working on this issue with high school students has a lasting impact.</p>
<p>Re sevmom, #956: “For most people, it is not all about academics.” </p>
<p>Absolutely! I totally agree. My highest priority for children and (so far hypothetical) grandchildren is that they be kind and thoughtful. I am well aware that I myself fall short on that count from time to time, and more frequently than I would like. (End of sermon.)</p>
<p>It is interesting to re-envision a university where kindness was the highest value. Actually, it forms a pretty humorous contrast with what I see around me.</p>
<p>While I agree 100% that academics should not be the chief goal in anyone’s life, a university is fundamentally an academic institution. So if a university prioritizes academic qualities in admissions, to me that makes sense. </p>
<p>I think it’s the role of our religious institutions to encourage us to practice kindness. And families. Kindness does matter very much in lower school and should be encouraged throughout some K-12. </p>
<p>But do you hire based on kindness? Or is it more the cushion in interactions? Before you jump on that, realize that a lot of this discussion always cycles back to kindness, niceness, not treading on another’s possible feelings, word choices, giving some kid a chance because it may help him and, by extension, the world.</p>
<p>Our own desires to be nice people can translate into hs kids thinking of others and spending some time both interacting with peers (and how they do) and service for others. It’s one of the things I think one either has as a value or not. Why not ask it of hs kids applying to competitive colleges and look for evidence of it in their apps? Isn’t it nice to aim for a community of caring young adults, who can do for others, as well as for themselves? </p>
I think this is a good question, and I actually agree with this. There are such people, and unless there is something positively bad in their record, their weaknesses should be outweighed by their potential. But these people are few and far between, and I think they can be pretty readily recognized by places like MIT. These are not individuals who simply scored very highly in some competition. These individuals will almost always have already gained the attention of some big cheese in the field–somebody who can pick up the phone and call his colleagues at MIT (or Harvard, or Juilliard, or wherever). It may be that once in a while somebody with this kind of potential will be overlooked (how many publishers rejected “Harry Potter?”), but not very often.</p>
<p>So I don’t see the problem. There may be a few really bright but not world-beating students who would thrive best at MIT who don’t get in. That’s a disappointment, but not a tragedy, for them. For the rest of the world? Eh.</p>
<p>To put this another way: I’ll bet MIT, year in and year out, admits the ten best math students who apply there. They may occasionally miss the eleventh-best. So?</p>
<p>Hunt, the quote was my one line digest of QM’s position, imo- and pulled free of all the extraneous, the speculation, assumptions, anecdote, allusions and life views. It could have been the simple core of a focused discussion. </p>
<p>All interesting questions, lookingforward. I agree that there is a religious connection to kindness, although it is certainly possible for an atheist to be very kind. In my view, kindness is a major component of character. </p>
<p>When I hired for our department (at the recommendation of Search Committees, of course), I only hired people I thought were “good people” as well as strong scientists. But that was actually fortuitous–we didn’t look at personal characteristics at all. If Ebenezer Scrooge (pre-ghost visits) had emerged as the strongest candidate, I am sure we would have hired him without a second thought.</p>
<p>When one looks at service for others in college apps, I would guess that one finds a mix of students who have served others out of genuine fellow-feeling (fellow referring to both genders here), and students who have served others in order to fulfill the “required voluntary service hours” at their school–in one of those oxymorons one often runs into. It’s no secret that a lot of college admissions committees look for volunteer service–and look harder at what was really contributed, beyond just hours of service. I think you can sometimes, but not always tell the types of “service” apart. </p>
<p>It’s a bit difficult to gauge sincerity. I am reminded of the quotation from Ronald Reagan, “Once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.” [I think someone else said it first.]</p>
<p>Now, in real life, I also value “kind” and emphasized it to my kids. I referred to manners as a small gift we give others. But character is more than being kind or nice- it includes focus and resilience, the ability to be collaborative as well as go heads down on a challenge. Character does include integrating, as well as doing for others.</p>
<p>The most competitive colleges have the opportunity to look for compassion alongside other skills. We don’t look for hours as much as what and how consistent- and the work actually done. The kid who vols at the hospital because it looks good, is doing the work. The kid who gets comm svc credit for being a tour guide at the hs, not so much impact. At a minimum, these uber bright kids can try to be collaborative and, eg, mentor in their specialties. These things reflect awareness as well as willingness. Show, not tell.</p>
<p>A lot of LoRs, btw, refer to niceness. Freddy is a nice kid, always has a smile for me (next to “takes good notes.”) And so what? You look at the ECs and see if Freddy could also get off his duff in other ways. </p>
<p>I think it’s a mistake to fetishize community service in the context of elite college admissions. There are kids whose track records of volunteerism is so outstanding that it can compensate for other weaknesses in the application. But next year everyone at that HS looks at Jonny who got into Princeton even though he was ranked number 4 in the class, while the numbers 1, 2 and 3 were rejected. So the new mantra is “community service”.</p>
<p>Like anything else- context matters. A kid with a strong sense of purpose who can demonstrate at the age of 17 that he or she can really move mountains- that is special and akin to being a world class debater or sailing team member or whatnot. But for the hordes to then run off and try and show that their 100+ hours at the animal shelter over three years, or handing out orange slices at the Cystic Fibrosis 10K run is their “world class” accomplishment… well, I pity the adcom’s who have to read through this stuff. Especially if the hours requirement is imposed by the HS.</p>
<p>Is anyone else on this thread having an issue where, when a new comment is posted, this thread does not move up to the top of the Bookmarks list? And the time stamp doesn’t update? Mine shows last post Blossom Aug 14- and seems fixed way down below inactive bookmarks. Lenitus is looking into this.</p>
<p>You don’t have to move mountains. But that walkathon once/year, with a couple of buddies, having fun, isn’t “it.” </p>
<p>No, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying that there are all different kinds of intelligence out there, and that what’s being discussed on this thread is overvaluing one kind of intelligence at the expense of other kinds. </p>
<p>And if you’re smart enough to come up with (insert physics theory I couldn’t possibly understand) but you’re not smart enough (or aware enough of your own biases, or have the emotional intelligence or managerial / leadership skills) to create an environment in which both men’s and women’s talents can flourish, then guess what? Your smartness isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.</p>
<p>To be sure, I’m not laying this at the foot of any one person. But it’s interesting to me how so many other fields, including my own, don’t seem to have this problem. Even though we were the dumb liberal arts kids and all. </p>
<p>I agree with you in general on post #967, lookingforward. There are many components to character. Someone who crumples under stress or disappointment is unlikely to have much of an impact. I might say the same for someone who reacts with outrage to stress or disappointment, if it weren’t for the example of Galois (<a href=“Évariste Galois - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois</a>), whose work forms a significant component of the advanced undergrad courses in abstract algebra. I have heard that Galois threw erasers at the mathematicians who were examining him for the Ecole Polytechnique, when they could not understand his explanations, but that is probably an exaggeration.</p>
<p>Resilience is very important. Doing for others is very important.</p>
<p>The ability to collaborate is absolutely crucial in many fields. I don’t think this can be tested very well by group projects in high school, especially if the groups are assigned. I have had a number of collaborators. When there is a true collaboration, it is incredibly productive. Other times, it is a partial collaboration, or a collaboration in name.</p>
<p>I think of focus as more a characteristic of personality, rather than of character. Someone might have uncontrolled ADHD, and I think the person could still be of sterling character.</p>
<p>I am not quite sure what is meant by “integrating”? Not meaning to pick apart word choice, here. Just wondering what you meant.</p>
<p>In general, I agree with your comments, blossom, in #968 (though for me the issue of compensating for other weaknesses through outstanding volunteer work would depend a lot on the future plans and the specific weaknesses). I do feel sorry for admissions personnel who are wading through a large number of descriptions of minor volunteer efforts. </p>
<p>Not collaboration as in homework teams/group projects or even having a “little buddy” assigned. That can be passive. Collaboration is important in engineering, eg… Uncontrolled ADD? Ha. Filters are always good, in self-expression and discussion. Yes, you can have some ADD qualities and have good character. But let’s not parse.</p>
<p>My kids have been very fortunate to attend a great public school system. As far as I can tell, STEM support is given to both boys and girls. My guess is that girls are encouraged even more due to the fact that boys outnumber girls in STEM activities.</p>
<p>As far as the IMO, I believe that girls are given equal chance to prepare for and to participate on the team. However, I don’t think they are able to pass the qualification bar, especially because making the US team is quite competitive. To keep their interest alive, a lot of these high performing girls are able to participate in the China Girls Math Olympiad.</p>
<p>I understand that there are situations where institutional and social barriers exist (thank you @fretfulmom for doing your part to eradicate those barriers), but when there is equal opportunity for success, it seems generally boys still out perform girls. Would it be politically incorrect/ignorant/cruel to suggest that maybe boys have some innate qualities which make them better at and have more of an affinity to math? I fear that stating such things is just asking for people to be offended. </p>
<p>In my 20’s, in a tech business run by engineers, and later in a similar environment, I had no issues being female. We needed people to get a job done and gender couldn’t stand in the way. But many of us in business noticed that the whole structure still reflects the fact that, historically, much had been male run, per male strengths, styles, and expectations. It takes a few generations of more women, to influence and evolve practices. (I used to joke that we took clients on golf outings, not for an afternoon at an art museum.)</p>
<p>A couple of generations of more women in tech or science, some depts or industries, really isn’t enough for the sea change we need. Look at the lit, the talk of leaning in and yet still being everything to everyone. </p>
<p>@sevmom - thanks for that great link. I found it very interesting, though it reminded me how annoyed I am with Larry Summers. :)</p>
<p>Another researcher who has done a lot of work on this is Cordelia Fine, particularly her book “Delusions of Gender”. I found particularly notable her work with f-MRI scans of people’s brains. “Reminding” women of their gender (e.g. question of what sex are you before test) changed the use of parts of their brains that were engaged in math or not, vs. controls who were asked what sex after the test.</p>
<p>FWIW, similar results have been found for race, by other authors. We’re working in my school to counter this kind of “stereotype threat” by making sure that the art on the walls reinforces positive role models that look like the students, of all races, genders, etc., to the extent possible. Oh, unlike, say, when I was an undergraduate at Pinnacle and there was a big mural in the math department, “Great [Dead, White] Men in Mathematics”. Exclusively…</p>
<p>Studies have also shown that when teachers say things like, “you are the kinds of kids who can do well on this quiz!” that kids’ brains engage better. There is hope!</p>
<p>I don’t exactly know why any of this works, or doesn’t work, but it seems pretty clear that the brain’s elasticity leads to some wonky results that can be used for good if done right.</p>
<p>By the way, I totally forgot that there was a previous discussion about Ralph Ellison, even though I participated in it. He just popped into my mind as a person who seemingly didn’t accomplish much.</p>
<p>I agree with fretfulmother, in thanking sevmom for the link.</p>
<p>An earlier analysis appeared in Monthly Notices of the American Mathematical Society, comparing the presence of young women on International Mathematical Olympiad teams from various countries. There is a striking contrast between the % of women on the teams from East vs. West Germany (before reunification), the Czech Republic and Slovakia (after the break-up), and South Korea vs. Japan. (I am certain about the first two and think I recall the last one correctly.)</p>
<p>It is true that there is a very high bar to be on an IMO team. Continuous high-level mathematical development from about age 11 really helps–the kind of thing that few schools offer.</p>
<p>The M/F ratio of the number of students scoring above 700 on the SAT I M before turning 13 was a little over 13 when the studies of gender effects were first done by Stanley and Benbow. Now it is more like 3 to 4 to one, instead of 13 to 1. I think it will be time to see whether there is a real gender advantage when that ratio has stopped changing, and [probably later] when the % of women among the IMO teams and the Fields Medal winners has stopped changing.</p>
<p>Stereotype threat, as mentioned by fretfulmother, is a real thing and it is great to do things to counter it! Meg Urry mentioned a really interesting study on this effect, though there have been many–I will try to hunt up the Urry link.</p>
<p>And, oh yeah, Great [Dead, White] Men! Mathematics doesn’t have a lock on that. This reminds me of the episode of Big Bang where Sheldon is attempting to interest 7th grade girls in science and mentions that they could follow the example of Marie Curie, become great scientists, and die in agony due to the materials they were working with. I admire Marie Curie, and don’t mean to insult her memory with this comment. But if you are a young woman in science, “Marie Curie” offers a pretty slim thread of hope, as a seemingly singular example of a successful woman in science.</p>
Just wondering what you meant.</p>
There is hope!</p>