(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
odditycollector Jan. 18th, 2005 03:04 pm)
odditycollector Jan. 18th, 2005 03:04 pm)via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
daegaer:
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
...In a lengthy address delivered without notes, Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of childcare responsibilities....
...A Harvard spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, or to release the transcript of Dr Summers's remarks. Richard Freeman, who invited the Harvard president to speak at the conference, said Dr Summers's comments were intended to provoke debate, and some women over-reacted....
and, because I'm fair like that, his subsequent attempt at spin, because at no point does it resemble an apology.
Goddammit. You know, there is something seriously wrong with the world when the President of fucking Harvard sounds like my high school guidance councilor (Don't *worry* about the language requirement. You don't have to go to University anyway.).
I've heard rather disturbing things about Harvard before now, but this seriously worries me. I think what pisses me off the most isn't even that they gave an idiot like that the presidency of a university, but that other people are going to *believe* his BS, just because 'Harvard President' has that ring of authority.
If I was attending there right now, I'd put some serious thought into transferring. I wonder how many women who *are* feel the same way.
And no, I don't believe he meant to 'provoke debate' - after *how* many years in an academic setting he should have known that that is NOT how you do it.
So these are the options I can see. If he's serious about not believing his own words, that makes him either a troll, at the same level as someone who posts insults online and then steps back to laugh at the resulting 'furore', or someone way too inept to be running a university.
Or he really *does* believe it and is now backtracking for political reasons.
Guess which option I'm willing to bet on.
*seethes for a few minutes*
And now I'm going back to work on my &*%# cpsc assignment, even though an economist from Harvard believes I may not be biologically predisposed towards that sort of work. Maybe if I calm down later I'll send him a polite letter and some gender studies material and an outline of the proper way to do a sociological experiment, because "My daughter likes to play with dolls" a) says absolutely nothing about the population of little girls as a whole and b) has no bearing on her potential math skills.
Idiot.
daegaer:Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
...In a lengthy address delivered without notes, Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of childcare responsibilities....
...A Harvard spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, or to release the transcript of Dr Summers's remarks. Richard Freeman, who invited the Harvard president to speak at the conference, said Dr Summers's comments were intended to provoke debate, and some women over-reacted....
and, because I'm fair like that, his subsequent attempt at spin, because at no point does it resemble an apology.
Goddammit. You know, there is something seriously wrong with the world when the President of fucking Harvard sounds like my high school guidance councilor (Don't *worry* about the language requirement. You don't have to go to University anyway.).
I've heard rather disturbing things about Harvard before now, but this seriously worries me. I think what pisses me off the most isn't even that they gave an idiot like that the presidency of a university, but that other people are going to *believe* his BS, just because 'Harvard President' has that ring of authority.
If I was attending there right now, I'd put some serious thought into transferring. I wonder how many women who *are* feel the same way.
And no, I don't believe he meant to 'provoke debate' - after *how* many years in an academic setting he should have known that that is NOT how you do it.
So these are the options I can see. If he's serious about not believing his own words, that makes him either a troll, at the same level as someone who posts insults online and then steps back to laugh at the resulting 'furore', or someone way too inept to be running a university.
Or he really *does* believe it and is now backtracking for political reasons.
Guess which option I'm willing to bet on.
*seethes for a few minutes*
And now I'm going back to work on my &*%# cpsc assignment, even though an economist from Harvard believes I may not be biologically predisposed towards that sort of work. Maybe if I calm down later I'll send him a polite letter and some gender studies material and an outline of the proper way to do a sociological experiment, because "My daughter likes to play with dolls" a) says absolutely nothing about the population of little girls as a whole and b) has no bearing on her potential math skills.
Idiot.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Forget sexism, this guy's a moron for his total inability to form a cohesive thought.
From:
no subject
I have very little faith that *any* portion of humanity has evolved towards playing with trucks. So if that's how we test for scientific aptitude we must be all living in the stone age still. I mean, *obviously*.
From:
no subject
Actually, it may, but the sentence must be rephrased, "I think my daughter likes playing with dolls, but I've never tried to see if she prefers toys that promote understanding of spatial relations and geometry." There are a number of studies suggesting that tradionally "male" spatial-relation toys (Legos, Lincoln Logs, K'Nex, even things like toy dump trucks) promote a greater understanding of mathematical concepts later on in life than dolls, tea sets, and other "female" toys.
What we should be doing, instead of saying, "Men are better at this and women are better at that," is take a look at how we raise our kids and just how that effects their future comprehension of various subjects.
From:
no subject
*nods*
No, I get it. Actually, when I was first writing this up, I started going into that. But 5 or 6 sentences later it had degenerated into a summary of genetics vs. upbringing vs. experimenter bias plus many interesting statistics I've seen... and was getting in the way of my rant.
For the specific ancedote he gave in the article though, I'd argue that it proves nothing about anything. So I just went with that. You caught me.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Anyhow, I loved Legos to death and loved math as a kid, but somewhere along the way I lost it (roundabout integral calculus). I think in my case it has more to do with the sort of math my brain works with.
One thing that bugs me about these gender assumptions is that skills which make one good at science == skills which make one good at math -- most people I know in the maths and sciences are significantly better at one than the other, with the exception of physicists. Different mindsets, different skills, and it's amazing how many scientists suck at pure math and how many mathematicians break down when confronted with applied math.
/ramble
From:
no subject
Different mindsets, different skills, and it's amazing how many scientists suck at pure math and how many mathematicians break down when confronted with applied math.
*nods* And compare either math or science people with those in applied science/engineering. Or biologists vs physicists. Or people in different branches of computer science, even. It's difficult to group us all together, although we probably have a lot more in common than, eg, chemists and english majors.
And... I actually don't remember much about toys I played with. Hmm. As well as that repression thing has served me, it kinda gets in the way of drawing conclusions from my childhood.
From:
no subject
1. Statisticians
2. Accountants
3. Abstract mathematicians
4. Scientists/applied mathematicians
5. Engineers
6. People who just hate/can't do math AT ALL.
I fall into 1, 4, and 6, depending on the circumstance. My mother falls into 2, 4, and 5; my father into 3.
although we probably have a lot more in common than, eg, chemists and english majors.
Sometimes! I don't know, really.
As well as that repression thing has served me, it kinda gets in the way of drawing conclusions from my childhood.
See what fun you're missing (http://www.livejournal.com/users/daegaer/317951.html?thread=4339199#t4339199) by not being able to extrapolate your TRUE career path from childhood games?
From:
no subject
*seething with you* WTF, world?
From:
Sarcasm is *definitely* the healthy response.
It's funny (and entirely unrelated) that half the time I feel like that anyway.
Surely armed agents are currently on the way to take away my degree.
And at that... I'm having several thoughts which are totally unwarranted by this situation. Like, that that kind of thing is not entirely unheard of.
Not that the power of that asshole is even remotely comparable, but it's still a move backwards.
From:
no subject
But then Gould died (wah!) and I realized I hate the East Coast. Now I'm really sure I don't want to go to Harvard.
From:
no subject
It's not the first time I've heard this sort of thing about Harvard, so it's probably best anyway.
*They*'re the ones missing out.
(And I wonder how many other talented people are now going to look elsewhere. I can't see this ending well for the university, especially in the long run.)
From:
no subject
KILL!