Thing is, everyone just stops there. “THEY’RE JUST DIFFERENT!” Does anyone ever ask WHY?
I have a hard time believing we’re doomed to suck at math because we’re not men, or they’re doomed to suck at English because they’re not women. Could the former be related to subtle discouragement of girls by teachers and peers in math and science, some studies saying it starts as early as elementary school? Could the latter be related to it not being “cool” to excel at school, let alone in ~girly~ subjects like ~poetry~? (Easy enough to reject such crap at an older age – more insidious when you’re young.) Or a plethora of other possible causes besides which genitalia we happen to have?
There seem to be almost as many people who seem to know what Larry said and meant at the NBER meeting as there are people claiming to have attended Woodstock.
Here is Larry Summers’ transcript. Where exactly does he say women are unable to perform science?
Larry Summers:
“issues of intrinsic aptitude”
"On the question of aptitude for science, Summers said this: “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes – height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability – there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means – which can be debated – there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top 25 research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it’s not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it’s talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/18/summers2_18
I don’t want to go into Sommers more deeply. I loathe giving the man voice again, after all theses years. Aa professor, I have heard Way too much subtle misogyny, packaged as pseudoscience or qualitative difference or reproductive distraction. . .both in public and behind closed doors. Even you, Ohiodad51, suggest that it is only the law that keeps male committees promoting and hiring women. Very sad truth.
I don’t have a son for comparison, but I can compare types of schools. I was thrilled with my DD aid from elite LACs and HYPS. All 4 engineering schools gave small aid or even deferred, and she was a strong candidate. I was particularly surprised by the tech school that I attended; it came in very low in aid.
@bodangles, yes, exactly. Although again I object to the idea that the “deficit” on the female side is cast as external, while the “deficit” on the male side is internal. And personally I do not think it is a good idea to try and make men and women the same. We have different strengths and weaknesses. I think the trick is to figure out how to most efficiently utilize those strengths and minimize those weaknesses.
You read that as"girls don’t do science"? Did you even read the rest of what he said!
And how do you get that I implied that it is only the law that keeps males from discriminating? Being extremely charitable, the law kinda works to compel some type of favoritism/outreach to certain females, in order to protect the firm/company whatever. If the lack of this type of outreach is discriminatory, then I have no idea what we are talking about anymore.
I’m just reporting what the Prof observed from her stint looking over undergrad admissions at that Ivy in the mid-'00s and what she gleaned from adcom stats for the admission years concerned.
I believe the evidence supports what Summers stated. However, this is related to a point brought up earlier in this thread, which is that statistics about a group do not imply conclusions about individual people. Most people with a statistics backround implicitly know that. Perhaps Summers mistakenly assumed his audience did too.
Basically you agree with sSummers: there are differences that limit each gender. Here are your words, “And personally I do not think it is a good idea to try and make men and women the same. We have different strengths and weaknesses. I think the trick is to figure out how to most efficiently utilize those strengths and minimize those weaknesses”
Your words on male hiring committee: “Believe it or not, most men responsible for promotion and hiring want to see women succeed, if only because it keeps the EEOC awayand protects a bit against discrimination lawsuits.”
The common attitudes expressed in theses two quotes create a society where women still struggle for a place at the (engineering) table.
Whether or not any particular man feels like the college environment is hostile to men is purely subjective. You can’t say, “No, you’re wrong, because other men (likely from different schools) disagree.” I think that a person’s ideologies coming into college affect how sensitive they’ll be to different “micro-aggressions” (for lack of a better term). I think that it’s conservative men at mostly-liberal schools that are most likely to articulate that they are demonized on campus. You can say that makes them “snowflakes,” but many people call women who claim that society is hostile towards women snowflakes, too.
I do think that because people tend to go to schools that align with their ideologies, this isn’t a huge issue. But regardless of gender (or any other facet of identity), if a group of students feels like their campus is hostile towards them, that should be addressed in some capacity.
The 2015 AEI institute study found that girls made up 55% of the students in advanced math classes at high schools, and that girls had overall higher GPAs. If girls were discouraged from math years ago, that effect seems to have disappeared.
How weird that women gravitate towards the degree stereotyped (unfairly or otherwise) as “easier” (industrial) and those involving bio and chem, while computer engineering and others involving more physics are as little as 4.7% female. And none of them are less than 2/3 male.
Something happens to make women avoid this field, or to drop out from it after they start. Maybe several somethings. It’s not just ~biology~ that women hate physics and math.
As one of those ~30% of ChemEs, I just started an internship where I’m learning about following a problem back to its source. They have a method of asking lots of “why” questions. If you stop at something that’s explained by “it just is,” you’re getting your form given back to you, because that’s not good enough – you stopped your questions too early. And if you only address the symptoms – like offering scholarships for women in engineering – you won’t fix the real problem. It might help a bit, but the overall issue won’t go away.
“The 2015 AEI institute study found that girls made up 55% of the students in advanced math classes at high schools, and that girls had overall higher GPAs. If girls were discouraged from math years ago, that effect seems to have disappeared.”
In my experience, it would not surprise me if this were true, but it is also misleading.
Our high school offers:
AP Calc Stat
AP Calc AB
AP Calc BC
Multi-variable calc ( this is the highest math course they offer)
There are a lot of girls in AP Calc Stat and AP Calc AB. However, when you look at MV calc it is about 80% boys. In my daughters MV calculus class there were 21 boys and 4 girls. I think you will find this is typical. By grouping all of the classes together as “advanced math” this study obscures what is really happening.
@PetraMC, nobody here is “focusing solely on blaming women”. As I said in my first post, nothing significant is ever all one thing or another. What some of us are pointing out is that it is inconsistent to point to statistics of say the number of women pursuing engineering degrees and find discrimination, while at the very same time ignoring statistics that show an ever widening gender gap in those attending college and say men should stop whining and suck it up. But of course, that makes us sexist.
Maybe it is true that all of the differences we see in test results which are percieved as negative towards women are the result of misogyny. Of course to accept that, one would be compelled to also accept that the variance in those same tests that favor women are the result of mysandry. But of course, that is crazy talk. It is far easier to just ignore the intellectual inconsistencies. Everyone knows that when women succeed relative to men it is because they overcome obstacles. When men succeed relative to women it is because they cheat.
Personally, I think there are a lot of reasons why fewer men are going to college relative to women. But overlaying it all, I think there is a defecit of skilled trades in the US, which are mostly jobs populated by men. So those jobs are relatively easy to get and relatively high paying. I think you combine that with worsening job prospects for people with bachelors over the last decade or so, and the increasing cost of college, and trade school makes a ton of sense for certain kids. I also think that many jobs that have been historically female dominated (nursing, physical therapy, etc) now require bachelors degrees where a few decades ago they required associates degrees. You add these two simple things together and you would expect to see a trend of more women attending college then men. No misogyny, no mysandry. But boring.
All that said, and not to get too far afield, I think it is wrong to ignore the trend of women continually outperforming men in school, particularly at the lower levels. I find it difficult to harmonize in my own mind how women consistently outperform men relative to GPA, but do not do so on standardized tests. i do think that while we should continue to look at gender bias in testing, an effort that has been ongoing for a long while, we would be remiss in not examining why the converse occurs as well. Of course, I am offended by the logical asymmetry of the prevailing opinion here and elsewhere on this topic, but also I believe strongly that as the world continues to shift towards globalization we will need all of our resources running efficiently in order to maintain our economc future.
Hm, perhaps I’m misreading the tone of most of these posts, but 56 of the last 76 posts have to do with how women play a role in this problem with male dropout rates. The article itself is mostly about student debt, other opportunities, unrealistic expectations, and immaturity, with a hostile gender environment also playing a role. All of those problems require different approaches.
In my own experience, the students who tend to drop out for academic reasons are simply missing too many classes. I’m sure it varies from college to college but getting butts in the seats during class time is something that our professors bring up constantly. I don’t think we track male vs female attendance rates specifically but it might be worth pursuing.
I think there is a big difference between saying “women play a role in this problem” on the one hand and “focusing solely on blaming women” on the other. I also think that what is under discussion is less prejudicial, namely do policies that favor women in general also have a negative effect on men’s attendance/performance in college? That to me is an interesting question and one worth talking about. But again, both sides of that issue are but a piece of a far larger puzzle, and that should certainly be acknowledged to the extent it hasn’t already. In my opinion, the reason you seem to perceive this question as one of “blaming women” is because it appears that many here seem to react strongly to the idea that women are not necessarily or always the victim of the patriarchy.
And yeah, I absolutely agree about attendence. I am not sure why, but it does seem that boys/men generally have a bigger problem with the knucklehead stuff like that then girls/women. But it is absolutely true that the world has always belonged to those who show up. Go to class. Sit upfront. Participate. Go to office hours. Stuff like that counts in school as well as in the “real world”. Going really far afield, I think it is one of the great lessons you can learn from athletics where if you don’t practice you don’t play. Same principle applies.
No, if ONLY looking at my own institution and my own personal work experience, it would be hard to make the case that women are victims of the patriarchy (as I’ve always worked in at least a 50/50 environment, and the college where I work is roughly 60% female. And that is not new, mainly because of the nursing school (which actually attracts more and more men every year.)
I guess I didn’t read fairness or the lack thereof as the main takeaway from the article. It seemed to mainly be about maturity and readiness, honestly. And that’s a different conversation to have.