Summers ignites controversy at Harvard

[southsider2k5]

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505349.html

[Kid Gleason]

Few, and here I thought they were thinking of moving the cow out of town!

[jackie hayes]

I'm glad this got posted, I'm very curious how people here (esp the women) will respond to this. Another link, to the NYT article. (I think the NYT article is a bit more fair to Summers -- for example, the Crimson has a quote that characterizes Summers' view as saying there's a "genetic flaw in women", which is a stretch, at least.)

 

Summers is saying that it is possible (he does not say that he endorses this -- actually he says that he hopes it's wrong) that a man picked out at random is more likely to be brilliant, and more likely to be a moron, than a woman. They may on average be the same, or women may even be more intelligent on average in math and science. But, there may be more men at the extremes of the distribution. Because math and science professors are more likely to be culled from the upper extreme, the percentage of men in academic professorships would then be higher.

 

The question is, Is it sexist to suggest that the sexes may not be exactly alike in aptitude? NOT, Is it sexist to suggest that women are always bad in math?, which is how it's being portrayed.

[Soxy]

I read the NYT article earlier today...

 

I think that as far as pure ability and raw intelligence go in academia they are not the best predictors. I think that more needs to be reported here than simply more men have PhD's in the Sciences and Math. For example: of the top PhD producing schools (i.e. their grads go on to do terminal degree work in their field) what has been the male/female ratio of the past 20/30/40/50 years. I imagine that the ratio has gotten distinctly more equal as time goes by. As, I imagine, has the amount of men/women seeking terminal degrees in those areas. I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees.

 

Also, I took some classes in the "hard sciences" in my undergrad career--and, this is CERTAINLY not true for all professors, but many of them treat male students differently. Professors will ask men if they're pre-med and women if they're nursing. Or women are more likely to be asked if they're taking the class for a Gen Ed. I'm not saying that would deter women from going far in those subjects--but it is demoralizing to say the least. And embarressing.

 

Basically, I think this goes much deeper than any of the articles go into. I think that the Old Boy mentality is pretty entrenched in academia--a lot of institutional sexism (heck, racism, classism, lots of isms) there.

 

Well, I meant to put in my 2 cents but ended up putting in a whole nickel. Sorry.

[jackie hayes]

I read the NYT article earlier today...

 

I think that as far as pure ability and raw intelligence go in academia they are not the best predictors. I think that more needs to be reported here than simply more men have PhD's in the Sciences and Math. For example: of the top PhD producing schools (i.e. their grads go on to do terminal degree work in their field) what has been the male/female ratio of the past 20/30/40/50 years. I imagine that the ratio has gotten distinctly more equal as time goes by. As, I imagine, has the amount of men/women seeking terminal degrees in those areas. I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees.

 

Also, I took some classes in the "hard sciences" in my undergrad career--and, this is CERTAINLY not true for all professors, but many of them treat male students differently. Professors will ask men if they're pre-med and women if they're nursing. Or women are more likely to be asked if they're taking the class for a Gen Ed. I'm not saying that would deter women from going far in those subjects--but it is demoralizing to say the least. And embarressing.

 

Basically, I think this goes much deeper than any of the articles go into. I think that the Old Boy mentality is pretty entrenched in academia--a lot of institutional sexism (heck, racism, classism, lots of isms) there.

 

Well, I meant to put in my 2 cents but ended up putting in a whole nickel. Sorry. 

I'm glad to hear the full price response, actually. But let me pick out one part: "I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees." I don't think that's correct. He's not saying that women are men, just take away a bit. That's how I take your statement that "genetic make-up...makes them worse". He's saying that the whole distribution is altered, w/ fewer great minds and fewer nitwits. It's worse only if you first condition on being in the upper echelon, not just on being female.

 

It comes down to the definition of sexism -- I really wonder how women in academia think about this argument.

 

Now, you may think this is a backdoor method of the same old argument, instead of an honest argument. I doubt that -- most big U presidents are very glib, but Summers was not the usual appointment. He's MUCH better as an academic than as a U president. I think he's never really escaped that predilection, hence the track record.

[Soxy]

I'm glad to hear the full price response, actually.  But let me pick out one part:  "I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees."  I don't think that's correct.  He's not saying that women are men, just take away a bit.  That's how I take your statement that "genetic make-up...makes them worse".  He's saying that the whole distribution is altered, w/ fewer great minds and fewer nitwits.  It's worse only if you first condition on being in the upper echelon, not just on being female.

 

It comes down to the definition of sexism -- I really wonder how women in academia think about this argument.

 

Now, you may think this is a backdoor method of the same old argument, instead of an honest argument.  I doubt that -- most big U presidents are very glib, but Summers was not the usual appointment.  He's MUCH better as an academic than as a U president.  I think he's never really escaped that predilection, hence the track record.

 

Yeah, I think the distributional comment is interesting--but if you're looking at a smaller sample size and that sample is biased (and presumably the kids that are getting IQ tests or into college are already, at least historically for women, the better ones with more opportunity) I am just not sure that any valid comparisons CAN be drawn. I think that in the history of academia the playing field is just now becoming truly level (or approaching it)--I would hesitate to answer the distributional claim but I think that might change more down the road, because I think there will be more brilliant women and more dumb women going to school.

 

Also, and this is an argument I HATE, but it seems pretty valid. Men speak more in class and in academic like that settings. So, the more you talk the more you have an opportunity for brilliance or idiocy...Maybe if he was somehow the pres at Wellsley or Bryn Mawr he might have a different take...

 

I've got a meeting with my mentor tomorrow, and I'll ask her for her take on this. She's a hardcore academic, and I am sure she would have some interesting insights...

[jackie hayes]

Yeah, I think the distributional comment is interesting--but if you're looking at a smaller sample size and that sample is biased (and presumably the kids that are getting IQ tests or into college are already, at least historically for women, the better ones with more opportunity) I am just not sure that any valid comparisons CAN be drawn. I think that in the history of academia the playing field is just now becoming truly level (or approaching it)--I would hesitate to answer the distributional claim but I think that might change more down the road, because I think there will be more brilliant women and more dumb women going to school.

 

Also, and this is an argument I HATE, but it seems pretty valid. Men speak more in class and in academic like that settings. So, the more you talk the more you have an opportunity for brilliance or idiocy...Maybe if he was somehow the pres at Wellsley or Bryn Mawr he might have a different take...

 

I've got a meeting with my mentor tomorrow, and I'll ask her for her take on this. She's a hardcore academic, and I am sure she would have some interesting insights...

Thanks for the response -- I've actually been thinking about this all today. It's the most interesting, nuanced controversy I've heard for a long time.

 

Some replies -- Why does speaking in class matter? There's a lot less subjective grading in math-science courses (by necessity). I'm not sure why this would matter. Also, iirc he was citing test scores of relatively young kids, which would mitigate the argument about opportunities, although one could argue about relevance and development.

 

Although noone in the mainstream media has pursued either course. This actually has the ability to spur an interesting discussion, not the same old stupid "Are women less talented" thing. I'm sure it won't go that way, but I still feel that's the really fascinating direction.

 

Edit: I was wrong, he was referring to high school. Which makes me wonder what the scores look like at younger ages... Which Soxy may actually know...

[Soxy]

Some replies -- Why does speaking in class matter?  There's a lot less subjective grading in math-science courses (by necessity).  I'm not sure why this would matter.  Also, iirc he was citing test scores of relatively young kids, which would mitigate the argument about opportunities, although one could argue about relevance and development.

 

I think speaking in class can matter because it provides a bench marker for a teacher on what is getting through and what isn't. So, classes tend to move at the speed of the talkers not, necessarily, the general trend of the class. Kids that push the class ahead or hold it back are really what form the concept of if they're getting it or not--while the rest of the class is assumeably just going along with them, whether they really are or not is another issue. Not the most cogent argument ever--but it might be one small piece of the puzzle.

[jackie hayes]

I think speaking in class can matter because it provides a bench marker for a teacher on what is getting through and what isn't. So, classes tend to move at the speed of the talkers not, necessarily, the general trend of the class. Kids that push the class ahead or hold it back are really what form the concept of if they're getting it or not--while the rest of the class is assumeably just going along with them, whether they really are or not is another issue. Not the most cogent argument ever--but it might be one small piece of the puzzle.

Okay...

 

But I still don't see how that would create a bias if both men and women were exactly the same. The average talker would be average on the whole, as well, and as many women as men would be more apt than the talkers.

[Soxy]

Okay...

 

But I still don't see how that would create a bias if both men and women were exactly the same.  The average talker would be average on the whole, as well, and as many women as men would be more apt than the talkers.

I think teaching style might influence this. I had one class this past term with my lab partner who answers every question--even if no one else understands. A good prof should be able to sniff out overall class consensus--but I'm not sure the class "talkers" are average students. I usually feel like they're a box of rocks or else head and shoulders above everyone else...

[jackie hayes]

I think teaching style might influence this. I had one class this past term with my lab partner who answers every question--even if no one else understands. A good prof should be able to sniff out overall class consensus--but I'm not sure the class "talkers" are average students. I usually feel like they're a box of rocks or else head and shoulders above everyone else...

Still have questions about this response, but I don't want to sound like I'm advocating anything. I'm really just curious. Thanks, great discussion.

[Soxy]

Still have questions about this response, but I don't want to sound like I'm advocating anything.  I'm really just curious.  Thanks, great discussion.

I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. But it's pretty much that argument that keeps single sex schools in business. Myself, being brash and over-confident, I've never been one to keep my thoughts to myself in class. But I am, perhaps, an atypical student.

[jackie hayes]

I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. But it's pretty much that argument that keeps single sex schools in business. Myself, being brash and over-confident, I've never been one to keep my thoughts to myself in class. But I am, perhaps, an atypical student.

I think you'd have to have some particular correlations between intelligence, gender, and brashness to make this argument convincing, but it doesn't sound untenable. I am curious to hear what your mentor says. Please post or pm, if it's not too much trouble.

 

I'd love to know everyone else's opinion of Summers' comments, too. It's one of the most popular stories on the NYT, other people must be thinking about this.

[Texsox]

Most benchmarks that are used to determine similarities and differences between the sexes as usually very cultural and societally biased. And perhaps that is the best way to study this. What roles do societies place their members? Humans are grouped together in a shared cooperative society for their mutual benefit. Some amount of efficiency to maximize each members roles eventually surfaces as every system strives to be efficient and survive. The US has become a world power by how well we use every member of our society and ultimately may fail based on whacking those efficiencies out of line.

 

Each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. Taking any of these strengths and forming a set will generally surround both men and women. If we see that more men than women are in that set, we will on some conscious or subconscious level want more people like that in that role. It makes us more efficient. If I have seen 14 women and 2 males in elementary education, and the females have been excellent teachers, I will be encouraging of more people like that to enter the profession. It will probably not be overt, but more subtle. If you ask me "would men be good elementary teachers, I would answer yes, and offer many reasons" but I may not think of that career path when talking with a young male undergrad.

[southsider2k5]

I find it interesting that this guy was our Secretary of the Treasury for a couple of years, and I haven't seen that mentioned in any articles about this incident.

[Soxy]

Met with my advisor and here's her take on it (for background, she's, obviously, a PhD and is a full prof with tenure):

She doesn't think it's true, her quote: I know lots of brilliant women. But she says that the way academia works there are lots of little subtle sexist kinks to it.

 

In order to determine brilliance of careers she says that they should do a study looking at yars of employment/publishing record before getting tenure and compare the stats for men and women. She thinks that there would be a rather large disparity there. And she also said to look at men and women and how long they have the associate professor rank--and to see if one more than the other tops out there.

 

Also, at faculty meetings the women will often say something that will later be attributed to a male faculty member--or they have to repeat themselves to be "heard." Also, women faculty member are more often referred to by their first name and men by their last.

 

Essentially, her point was that there isn't an intelligence difference--but it's much harder for a woman to have a "distinguished" academic career, more work, more obstacles, glass ceiling.

 

She also recommends a book by Virginia Vallian called Why so Slow? That really looks at this issue.

[Texsox]

Let me toss this out for consideration, not necessarily my view.

 

On some subconscious or cellular level we believe females are the key to our survival. Lots of females and a few males will perpetuate the species better than lots of males and a couple females. We also are imprinted with a belief that females are the nurturers, and care givers.

 

To survive and thrive like the animals we are, we subconsciously push females into that role and the males into the hunter gatherer, protector roles. Perhaps in it in our genetic makeup. On an intellectual level we are able to see past this view, but instinctively we are not.

[Queen Prawn]

I won't say much on this topic because if I start, I may never shut up.

 

What I would like is for customers to quit f***ing asking me if I am in tech support when I answer the damn phone!!! They don't ask my coworker (guy) that. It isn't just male customers, female customers ask the same damn thing after I spew out my initial greeting. (I work for a resistor manufacturer.)

[Texsox]

I won't say much on this topic because if I start, I may never shut up.

 

What I would like is for customers to quit f***ing asking me if I am in tech support when I answer the damn phone!!!  They don't ask my coworker (guy) that.  It isn't just male customers, female customers ask the same damn thing after I spew out my initial greeting.  (I work for a resistor manufacturer.)

 

Wait, Honey, I thought you were the real guy's secretary.

 

I kid because I care*®

* used by permission

[jackie hayes]

So, just to be clear, would it be sexist to suggest that (say) women are more intelligent on average, but are less likely to be on either end of the spectrum?

 

I'm not even that interested (for now anyway) in the statement's truth -- I am very curious about the reaction to it, and what it says about the definition of sexism. Some people clearly believe that Summers is sexist for even throwing it out there. I'm not sure -- I can understand how women in academia would be offended by it. But there are at least physical differences between the sexes. Is it sexist to suggest, not that women are less than men, but that talents are distributed in a different way?

 

Obviously some people are inferring more into his comments than were actually there (like the Harvard student w/ the "genetic flaw" comment). I want to avoid that -- on the face of it, taking the argument literally, is this type of argument simply unacceptable?

[southsider2k5]

Summers apologizes

[Soxy]

I think the article hit it right on the head when they said "Earlier this week, a Harvard faculty committee told Summers he may have damaged the school's efforts to attract more top female scholars with his suggestion that innate differences between the sexes may help explain why fewer women succeed in math and science careers."

 

And Summers' comment that: 'Summers spoke of having learned much in recent days from a number of e-mails and calls that he said "made vivid the very real barriers faced by women in pursuing scientific and other academic careers."

 

He acknowledged there had been "frustratingly uneven and slow" progress made in luring more women to the sciences.' Direct quotation from article

 

I think it's sad if he honestly believes what he said, but even sadder for Harvard--how would you like to be a woman on that faculty after that remark...