Read the original transcript guys. Â Fabienne, you will find that Summers disagreed with your post. Â Larry Summers suggested three contributing factors explaining the relatively low representation of women in academia, specificall the sciences. Â The first was that women often had different priorities, and thus different career trajectories. Â The second of which was that the standard deviation in analyical "intelligence" was higher in men than in women. Â Under this hypothesis, there would be statistically higher ratio of extremely bright men than extremely bright women. Â The thrid was societal factors (generally - don't want to protract this post with a big explanation). Â Only the second is really controversial. Â He (Summers) then went on to say that he thought that the first two were by far the most important. Â This evaluation of the importance of the various suggested contributing factors is what caused all the brouhaha. Because I am not a biologist or sociologist, I cannot comment on whether his last and particularly important suggestion was at all reasonable. Â Summers is an economist, and probably shouldn't be making statements he is not an expert in either. Â That's my personal opinion. And yes, his apology was the typical political non-apology.
he also seemed to be saying "please try to prove this right or wrong" - if the meeting was trying to address the problem, then he is write in suggesting that every option should be studied. I have no doubt what so ever that their are inate differences in the way men and women think. I have no doubt that there are sociological factors at play, pushing us in specific dirrections. I have no doubt that the majority of the burden of raising children fall on women and that it is very difficult to raise children and hold a challenging career. the interesting thing is to figure out how true each argument is, and how much each contribute to the status quo