• STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

harvard pres and gender issues

globetrotter

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
414
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....6R1.DTL I have been waiting to see if anybody commented on this. what do you think? about what he said, and about the inherent differences between the sexes and/or lack their of
 

Bergdorf Goodwill

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
6
Christ, that seems really blown out of proportion.
 

drizzt3117

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
13,141
Reaction score
14
I'm a big Summers fan and I'm glad he's shaking up Harvard a bit. This is the type of stuff they need to avoid educational intertia at Harvard. The issue in question is an interesting one, IMO, and people aren't willing to discuss it due to political correctness. It was also asked in the spirit of knowledge and should have been taken in that context IMO.
 

Kai

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
811
"What is known is that he claimed that girls are less likely than boys to get the highest scores in standardized math and science tests, and that he suggested several explanations. Among those possible explanations, he said, was that the differences are innate that is to say, genetic."

His first statement about test scores either is true or not true. My guess is that it's true. I think where he got in trouble is that he didn't follow the politically correct route of denouncing the tests as gender biased and unfair to women.

It doesn't look like he was saying that women shouldn't or couldn't be top level scientists. It looks more like he was pointing out that there may be biological differences between the genders which affect the way that men and women think and reason (and perform on certain tests.)

Does anyone really doubt that there are generally differences between how men and women process information and make decisions? Why is this such a dangerous idea? Understanding the differences between how men and women process information seems like a good thing if you're trying to figure out how best to educate men and women (which seems like a something a university president should be interested in.)

I'm tired of the politically correct article of faith that requires me to believe (or at least pretend) that everyone has equal aptitude at everything. I believe that biology plays a role in a person's aptitudes and abilities. It's sad that this belief is considered taboo. It means that we will never come to any real understanding of the interaction between biology and aptitude.
 

imageWIS

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
20,007
Reaction score
102
"What is known is that he claimed that girls are less likely than boys to get the highest scores in standardized math and science tests, and that he suggested several explanations. Among those possible explanations, he said, was that the differences are innate that is to say, genetic."

His first statement about test scores either is true or not true. My guess is that it's true. I think where he got in trouble is that he didn't follow the politically correct route of denouncing the tests as gender biased and unfair to women.

It doesn't look like he was saying that women shouldn't or couldn't be top level scientists. It looks more like he was pointing out that there may be biological differences between the genders which affect the way that men and women think and reason (and perform on certain tests.)

Does anyone really doubt that there are generally differences between how men and women process information and make decisions? Why is this such a dangerous idea? Understanding the differences between how men and women process information seems like a good thing if you're trying to figure out how best to educate men and women (which seems like a something a university president should be interested in.)

I'm tired of the politically correct article of faith that requires me to believe (or at least pretend) that everyone has equal aptitude at everything. I believe that biology plays a role in a person's aptitudes and abilities. It's sad that this belief is considered taboo. It means that we will never come to any real understanding of the interaction between biology and aptitude.
Exactly. We can't all be Mozart, we all can't be Monet, and we all can't be as talented as everyone else at everything they are. Life is horses for courses. What's next? men complaining that they can't give birth?

Jon.
 

Fabienne

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
4
Of course biology may play a role in who we are. And I think the reaction to his statement was indeed too strong. However, we have to keep in mind the effects dictated by social environments. I see too many parents around me limiting their child's options because of gender.

When I was 6, I wanted to play soccer. There was no female team, where I lived. My dad played soccer, so I spend many a Sunday watching him. He thought it was cute enough that I would kick the ball around, but as soon as I became more pressing, asking if I could play with the boys, he made me understand it just "wasn't done".
 

LA Guy

Opposite Santa
Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
48,167
Reaction score
22,711
Read the original transcript guys.  Fabienne, you will find that Summers disagreed with your post.

Larry Summers suggested three contributing factors explaining the relatively low representation of women in academia, specificall the sciences.  The first was that women often had different priorities, and thus different career trajectories.  The second of which was that the standard deviation in analyical "intelligence" was higher in men than in women.  Under this hypothesis, there would be statistically higher ratio of extremely bright men than extremely bright women.  The thrid was societal factors (generally - don't want to protract this post with a big explanation).  Only the second is really controversial.  He (Summers) then went on to say that he thought that the first two were by far the most important.  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.  Summers is an economist, and probably shouldn't be making statements he is not an expert in either.  That's my personal opinion.

And yes, his apology was the typical political non-apology.
 

globetrotter

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
414
Read the original transcript guys.  Fabienne, you will find that Summers disagreed with your post.  

Larry Summers suggested three contributing factors explaining the relatively low representation of women in academia, specificall the sciences.  The first was that women often had different priorities, and thus different career trajectories.  The second of which was that the standard deviation in analyical "intelligence" was higher in men than in women.  Under this hypothesis, there would be statistically higher ratio of extremely bright men than extremely bright women.  The thrid was societal factors (generally - don't want to protract this post with a big explanation).  Only the second is really controversial.  He (Summers) then went on to say that he thought that the first two were by far the most important.  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.  Summers is an economist, and probably shouldn't be making statements he is not an expert in either.  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
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

How did Covid-19 impact your personal style?

  • My style hasn't changed at all.

  • My wardrobe hasn't changed but I am wearing casual clothes more often.

  • I invested in new good quality leisure and casual clothes.

  • I invested in new sartorial clothes taking advantage of the sales.

  • I purged my closet during quarantine and I have nothing left to wear.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
444,546
Messages
9,609,019
Members
200,892
Latest member
nyc-winter
Top