This is very typical of "must I believe this" versus "can I believe this"

Becker says sex discrimination causes a lack of participation on the sciences by women. A study comes out and supports it, he asks himself "Can I believe this?" Because it supports his thesis.

Then Posner ("That pesky consitution just gets in the way of proper law enforcement") sees the same study, disagrees with it and asks himself, "Must I believe this?"

See, it doesn't agree with his view, so he requires it to be held to a higher standard than Becker.

The study does discuss at length the detrimental impact of family caregiving on female careers (as is true in most professions) but still rests mostly on its conclusion of pervasive structural gender discrimination and subtle personal bias being the predominant factors in differences in numerical representation and career outcome between men and women in the sciences.

Depending on one's standard of evidence, however, this claim could require more or less evidence to be persuasive. There are several ways to evaluate the claim that have different burdens of proof. You could require that the study show significant evidence excluding the likelihood of contribution from other factors, or you could conclude that differential representation is, in itself, sufficient evidence of discrimination. Suffice is to say that meeting a scientific standard is more difficult than meeting the legal standard of disparate impact which does not even require any discriminatory intent - overt, subtle, or unconscious.

I would think that if the study stands up to scientific scrutiny then it would more than support a Tital VII action against almost all top tier institutions. Conversely, if one believes that such an action were likely to fail in court for lack of convincing evidence, it would most certainly fall far short of being scientifically convincing.

So, if the authors of the study are truly convinced that their work accurately describes the reality of hiring and promotion practices, provides sufficient evidence to be persuasive, and that action is desperately needed, then they should be encouraged by the fact that the legal system already provides an opportunity for redress should their recommendations not be enacted.

Before the discussion begins, I'd like to ask about something that wasn't mentioned here. I wonder if anyone has hypothesized yet about path dependency and/or the Schelling model? I bring it up because it's plausible that at least part of the lack of women at the top science schools is caused by the fact that there have been few women at such schools in the past. Thus, as a result of historical accident [past discrimination against women in education] the relevant fields came to be dominated by men. Even if all discrimination were lifted [which it probably is not, though I'm sure it has declined], it is very possible that most women don't want to enter a field where they would be a minority. The Schelling model explains self-segregation by positing that no group wants to be a minority in its immediate neighborhood. It's plausible that women simply don't want to enter a field where this would be the case. [The same probably applies to men who consider top fields dominated by women, like the mentioned primatology.]

I can paraphrase the beginning of Judge Posner's essay for you:

"The report claiming discrimination agaist women in academia doesn't have to be taken seriously, after all, it was written by WOMEN."

I have not read the NAS report, so I cannot comment on it. But the biggest question, to me, is why does Judge Posner seem to be invested in the theory that men are "innately" superior to women in science?

I have a few theories:

(1) Judge Posner believes that Larry Summers was shafted and wants to avenge this perceived wrong. Perhaps Posner is correct that Summers suffered disproportionately for his inartful musings. But, as was discussed at length in previous blog entries, I believe that Summers was forced out because, first, he handled a sensitive issue indelicately, and, second, he had already drawn the faculty's ire with his combative attitude toward reform. He was a victim of his own series of blunders, not just for suggesting that "innate" science ability ought to be studied.

(2) Perhaps Judge Posner objects in general to the idea of making professions more "women friendly" (I am just speculating here; I don't know this for a fact). If that is the reason, I think Judge Posner is wrong, once again. Perhaps this is a problem of terminology. In my opinion, all professions -- science and law included -- should adopt "family friendly" policies that allow men and women professionals to excel at their jobs and also to have a personal and family life. Unfortunately, too many of the best and brightest feel that they must choose between a family and a career. This is unnecessary and oppressive. While most professionals are well paid, they still should not be treated as nothing more than cogs in an ever-turning wheel. We can trade a bit of productivity in return for a bit more *life*. Moreover, it is undeniably true that the demands of professional life cause women, disproportionately, to forego career opportunities.

(3) Perhaps Posner sincerely believes that men are better at science than women. If so, he ought to take that up with Marie Curie. And, more seriously, if he styles himself a scientist (to the extent that he is an aficionado of economics, and economics is sometimes called the "dismal science"), he ought to know better than to accept such generalizations absent hard evidence of a genetic link to science ability.

Just some thoughts to consider, anyway..

Larry Summers was forced out of Harvard for being a bore. The battle of the sexes was just the final nail, he was uniformy hated by the faculty due to his management style.

It's easy to say, "Summers got forced out because he refused to be politically correct", but it is more accurate to say, "Summers management style was atrocious, so he got shown the door."

Once my computer broke down. After failing to solve the problem myself, I called the technical support of the computer's manufacturer for help. The moment I heard the voice of the tech support person, my heart sank: the voice was that of a woman speaking with a distinct African American accent. I would hate to admit, but I am biased against women and blacks when it comes to a matter to do with engineering or technology. The bias was baseless because the woman helped me solve the problem without a hitch. I am a male professor in science at a major research university. The bias is wrong, is in existence, and yet very difficult to overcome in the absence of a constant and explicit warning. Shalala's report, however deficient it may be, serves as one of such warnings.

There are more female professionals in law and medicine than in science and engineering. But there is reason for why in medicine and law women are sometimes more preferred than men. When we were looking for a family doctor for our daughter, we insisted that the doctor be a female, perhaps on the subconcious belief that a woman doctor would be more caring. When a female friend of mine was going through divorce, she made it very clear that she wanted to talk to a female lawyer first. No such factors exist in science, math and engineering.

This NAS report kind of reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw quote, "Those who can do, those who can't, politic". Just another broadside hiding behind the NAS from the gender/race front. Instead of spending so much time, effort and resources on something like this, why can't we spend them on doing science/engineering instead?

This also reminds me of another GBS quote, "A fools brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstitution, and art into pedantry. Hence a University education. As for myself I'm going back to the Lab and get some real work done. ;)

David,

Marie Curie is pretty much the only outstanding female physicist. She was also an empiricist. This is why people wonder if perhaps male brains handle abstract stuff (relativity for example) better than females that handle the concrete (radiation for example). Personally I don't know what all the factors are behind the segregation, I do know that when you teach a class of males and females how to do a problem in a left handed coordinate system (rather than right handed) the females tend to have a much harder time performing the rotation in their heads.

Before the discussion begins, I'd like to ask about something that wasn't mentioned here. I wonder if anyone has hypothesized yet about path dependency and/or the Schelling model? I bring it up because it's plausible that at least part of the lack of women at the top science schools is caused by the fact that there have been few women at such schools in the past.

Yet in the past there were few women in law or medicine, and yet far more women have entered those professions when they were all opened up.

And even earlier, all lecturers in English or History or Art History or the like were male (because all lecturers were male, and universities only accepted male students), yet women have entered those subjects very happily.

So any such path dependence model would need to explain why path dependence would matter for the hard sciences, but not for law or medicine, or the humanities and arts degrees.

(I am female and have degree in electrical engineering).

Simple Logic:

If one gender's brain is wired in a way that predisposes it to a certain activity, then a larger number of members of that gender will engage in that activity. Thus, odds are that the "best of" that activity will be of that gender. That does not mean that it's impossible for the "non-predisposed" gender to be the best, but it does mean that it's unlikely.

I have something else that is really off the wall and completely subjective, but may tie in somehow. Many people who are interested in science are also interested in science fiction and, if they are young, video games. For the most part, women abhor both of these things (e.g., Star Trek conventions and video arcades aren't the best places to go looking for women).

Video games are actually a perfect example of something that illustrates how the sexes are predisposed to different things. When video games first came out, was it taboo for women to play them? No. Were games like "Pong" and "Pac-man" geared to a specific gender? No. Were arcade owners discriminating against women and driving away their quarters? No.

Software companies have been trying for years to create video games that appeal to women. Not only are they not discriminating against women, they are actively trying to draw women into their market base. And although they have succeeded a few times, their problem remains: girls are not interested in playing video games.

Granted, math and science aren't as "gender polarizing" as video games and science fiction, nor do all scientists like science fiction and video games. But I think this correlation does mean something...

I wonder if anyone has hypothesized yet about path dependency and/or the Schelling model? I bring it up because it's plausible that at least part of the lack of women at the top science schools is caused by the fact that there have been few women at such schools in the past.

While I intuitively agree that a historical lack of women in the science departments at top universities probably plays a substantial role in this continuing lack thereof, I am unsure as to how applicable Schelling's model is in this scenario. As you say, he did his work with racial segregation in spatial modeling, finding that neighborhood seclusion by race will naturally happen as people move away from neighbors who may be prejudiced against them.

But moving to a different neighborhood presents far lower transaction costs than moving to a new career. As has been noted in both academic and popular literature, the problem is not a lack of women obtaining doctorates in the sciences. The problem is that those female PhDs then somehow fail to obtain tenured positions at top universities. If Schelling's model was at work here, wouldn't the expected result be that women would just choose to not enter the science field at all, and instead apply themselves in an area where they were not a minority? Why would they go so far as to earn that PhD, but then drop off somewhere along the line afterwards? It seems that a path dependency model cannot explain the full extent of the phenomenon here.

Marie Curie is pretty much the only outstanding female physicist.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "outstanding," but Hedy Lamarr, if not an academic physicist, did invent spectrum hopping: www.demimondeonline.com/blog

I wonder if anyone has hypothesized yet about path dependency and/or the Schelling model? I bring it up because it's plausible that at least part of the lack of women at the top science schools is caused by the fact that there have been few women at such schools in the past.

While I intuitively agree that a historical lack of women in the science departments at top universities probably plays a substantial role in this continuing lack thereof, I am unsure as to how applicable Schelling's model is in this scenario. As you say, he did his work with racial segregation in spatial modeling, finding that neighborhood seclusion by race will naturally happen as people move away from neighbors who may be prejudiced against them.

But moving to a different neighborhood presents far lower transaction costs than moving to a new career. As has been noted in both academic and popular literature, the problem is not a lack of women obtaining doctorates in the sciences. The problem is that those female PhDs then somehow fail to obtain tenured positions at top universities. If Schelling's model was at work here, wouldn't the expected result be that women would just choose to not enter the science field at all, and instead apply themselves in an area where they were not a minority? Why would they go so far as to earn that PhD, but then drop off somewhere along the line afterwards? It seems that a path dependency model cannot explain the full extent of the phenomenon here.

Marie Curie is pretty much the only outstanding female physicist.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "outstanding," but Hedy Lamarr, if not an academic physicist, did invent spectrum hopping.

It is ironic that those of a particular political mindset react with venom against anyone who makes generalisations about aptitudes and anything with which they happen to disagree, yet themselves make endless generalisations about the existence and causes of bias and discrimination.

I don't think institutional factors or some kind of discriminatory measures are still working against women's performance. To a large extent, both men and women are playing in a level field now, especially in these intellectual areas, in which physiological differences donot matter much.
But how can we explain women's underperformance than men in maths and engineering areas etc., as is the plain fact. Just as professor Becker said, Women have a lot of other things to do, they usually share more household responsibilities, thus cannot possibly devote as much time and energy to their work as men.Still, I think another reason may also contribute to this problem.It's relevant to women's preferences. Although women's participation in the labor force has increased a lot these years, but their involvement are still not so extensive as men's, probably in these scientific areas.Maybe some really high-potential women just don't want to do it.
Finally a small defense for Larry Summers. I don't think there's any tone of discrimination in his remark on women's performance in science and engineering.What he said is just a possible explanation to the situation.What if future researches did show the innate differences have led to this?Will you still say:"oh,God, why are you discriminating me?" I think men and women are born to be distinct in this society, even if genetic differences make them perform differently, whether the worse side are men or women, what bad was it?

Are men better basketball players than women? Is this due to discrimination, innate differences between the sexes, or both? It seems that society has no problem in accepting that innate (i.e. physical) differences account for some of this performance gap in sports. Why do we refuse to accept that this could be the case in some fields of study? The NAS should have recommended we study the human brain more closely, that would be the best way to get the bottom of this debate. Maybe a woman would have been the scientist to make the ground breaking discovery!

Men are more prolific murderers as well. Could we extrapolate that the police/jurys are biased against them.

From what I remember of the sumners deal. One of his assertions was the performance distribution was different between men and women in science.... there was more variance among men. Is this an accepted fact? if so do some try to explain it by citing bias?

Dr. Rebecca Goldin and I have published a piece on www.stats.org which may be of interest to the owners and contributors to this blog. It's a tad too long to post the entire piece, so I encourage you to follow the link to

http://www.stats.org/stories/curveballs_math_sex_oct02_06.htm

Curveballs: The Fuzzy Math Behind Sex Discrimination in the Sciences[/b]
October 2, 2006
Trevor Butterworth and Rebecca Goldin Ph.D
As the evidence for sex discrimination in the sciences mounts, media pundits continue to cite math test scores for innate differences between women and men. Here’s why the numbers don’t add up

Best -

Trevor Butterworth

Mr. Butterworth's and Dr. Goldin's analysis is quite lacking. Again, it is very easy to dismiss the "pundits" who are not statisticians as being idiots. It's quite another thing to actually prove that it is _impossible_ for innate differences to account for lack of female representation in the higher echelons of the physical (as opposed to life) sciences, which is the attempt of the article he links to.

For example, they cite a survey of mathematicians and physicists as to what they believe. But presumably, since they are not cognitive neuroscientists, they have no more authority on the subject than the economist Larry Summers. I'm not sure why their opinion of what the truth is ought to trump what the actual facts are or be indicative as to why we should not pursue this line of research.

Here is an example. Microbiology (esp. virology and immunology), currently, is dominated by female graduate students, while the faculty is predominantly male (no doubt due to past discrimination against women in addition to previous pressures on women to stay home and raise the kids rather than burn the midnight oil at the lab). Biochemistry, a very closely related female, still has predominantly mostly male graduate students. So, a) it's not really the lack of female mentors or b) the daunting task of entering a male-dominated field that are keeping women out of biochemistry. It is either due to lack of interest, or due to the lack of ability to perform what are often more mathematical (e.g. a substantial portion of biochem involves molecular simulations in addition to benchwork) tasks.

Let's not look at SAT scores. Let's actually look at the research Summers was discussing (which the organizers of the NBER conference actually asked him to look at). This research was by a cognitive neuroscientist at Ohio State, who was using serious experimental investigations of young children's brains in her research. So, it's not like Summers speculated out of thin air by looking at SAT scores. It seems that there is some actual scientific research behind this. When people talk about the SAT, even those stupid pundits, they are using it as an example of where this innate difference appears, not as evidence in and of itself, I think. Maybe some are, but I think what they are trying to say, even if ineffectively, is that this is but another symptom.

Finally, why might SAT scores matter? Well, if a student gets a 650 on the math portion of the SAT (still well above the mean), they are likely not to become research mathematicians or physicists worthy of tenure at Harvard. Those people get probably somewhere in the 770-800 range. So, yes, SAT scores do measure the ability to do simple mathematics in a time constraint. But, I can't imagine there being many distinguished physicists or mathematicians (male or female) who scored below a 750 or so. Just because one scores an 800 doesn't mean he will understand Feynman Path Integrals. But it does mean that a person who got a 650 probably never will.

By "closely related female", I meant "closely related field."

Incidentally,

There have been some good scientists who also happened to be women. Cecilia Payne and Lise Meitner (See Otto Hahn) in addition to Marie Curie. That aside,

anyone truly interested in science does not have the time nor energy to devote in defining their ideas within the boundaries of current social science, politics or gender politics of the day. At least not their scientific ideas.

Anyone interested in science must keep a fundamental sense of wonder and awe at how the natural world works. This includes a solid base in mathematics and physics. Trust me, lots of people drop out. One must be very persistent, against-the-odds persistent, to make discoveries among a community of people who have grappled with similar problems, and enriched one another through experimentation and competition and discussion.

What disturbs me is that the best social science, and even the subtly and analysis that the best jurists offer, is not the same as the best science. Each field has its great benefit to mankind, but to mix them stridently is foolish.

It is interesting that many people, mostly from the PC crowd, steadfastly refuse to admit the possibility that there is any innate aptitude differences between male and female when they argue about women in the hard sciences, yet in the next paragraph, they say the when they choose a family doctor for their daughters, they would insist the doctor be a woman doctor because she would be more caring.

Young women make a decision, either consciously or unconsciously, about which profession to pursue. For example, let's say a bright and academically motivated young female graduate has the following career options: medicine, law, business, science/engineering. If she also desires to have children during the next 10-15 years, she knows that she may need to ramp down her working hours during that period. The bright young woman considers her options:

1) Medicine - She can begin medical school right away and will finish at about the time she's ready to have children. Once she's finished her residency, she will have strong earnings potential and she may even have some scheduling flexibility. She could work in a hospital or private practice, and she could work days or nights and weekends. She is also entering an attractive pool of potential marriage candidates...

2) Law - She could begin law school right after graduation and start earning a strong salary at a law firm once completed. Once she has children, she could make a decision to ramp down her hours and go corporate, or leave the workforce altogether. Either way, she's likely earned a significant sum during her pre-baby work years.

3) Business - Business school is a complicated path for the young woman due to timing. Expected returns appear low because she must spend 3-5 years working for a relatively low wage, followed by 2 expensive years in business school. When she leaves business school she really needs to outperform at work, but she is conflicted because she is also at the age where she wants children. A further complication is the commonly-held view that business women have difficulty returning to their business careers on the same trajectory after taking time off or ramping down for child-rearing.

4) Science/Engineering - She could pursue a career in science and engineering, but the sad reality is that expected earning potential is just not as strong as it is for the other professions. If she wants to take some time away from work to care for children, then she knows that she needs to maximize her earning potential during the years that she does work. She knows that a career in science or engineering, while it may be intellectually stimulating, may not produce the level of income she desires during her shorter working years. Further, similar to business professionals she has the complication of difficulty returning to the work force after taking time off. Not to mention that the pool of potential marriage candidates may be less appealing... just my honest opinion!

I happen to be a young woman that faced the above options and did pursue a career in engineering...only to realize later that the value proposition was insufficiently attractive. I went on to business school and now question whether continued work or more time with my child provides greater utility for me and my family. I don't know the answer, but I do believe I would have chosen another path if I could do it again.

I realize that my views are biased by personal experience and observation. I do believe that more women would pursue careers in science or engineering if the potential payoff were greater. A better question might be why so many bright and capable young men work in the sciences if they could earn more in other fields!!!

A better question might be why so many bright and capable young men work in the sciences if they could earn more in other fields!!!

Perhaps they have an innate desire to pursue scientific inquiry that is more intense than their materialism.

"Perhaps they have an innate desire to pursue scientific inquiry that is more intense than their materialism."

That's absolutely a possibility! A similar rationale follows for women that choose care-giver careers (nursing, early childhood education, etc.) despite lower relative salaries.

That is not to say that individuals do not make value judgements in weighing one career path compared to another. So the "innate desire to pursue scientific inquiry" must have implied value greater than the salary delta.

I find this somewhat surprising, though. The mind is amazingly flexible and can find challenge and intellectual stimaulation across a wide range of problems or work endeavors. So why not pick an equally intellectually challenging job that happens to have a higher market value?

Perhaps economics pays better than physics, but I imagine that both offer opportunities for scientific inquiry...

Shalala was the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin when I attended its mechanical engineering program. My class consisted of several hundred males and two or three females. The women did not excel.

Could the answer be as simple as noting that females have a 3-4 point lower IQ in general (Prof. Richard Lynn) and a sharper differential in math (per the 2001 SAT, men scored 533 while women scored 498; year-after-year results are consistent)? Why do our progressives have such a hard time with the numbers?

My wife is so good with our daughter, better than I could ever be. Is it possible that God and/or evolutionary pressures have caused the genders to develop specialized skill sets?

First, I respectfully note that the previous responder has not been cowered into silence.

First let's distinguish truth from rhetoric.

Myth # 1: All men (and women) are born equal. This is plain false. A healthy baby born to a healthy mother with months of pre-natal care has vastly superior prospects than one who is born pre-mature to a drug-addicted mother who dropped the baby into the toilet bowl at birth – let's not even talk about genes.

Myth # 2: If you make up your mind to do something and devote your energy to it, you will succeed at it. This is true for relatively simple pursuits. A person can often compensate for his comparative inaptness at something by working harder. To achieve greatness in a field of study, working hard alone is simply not sufficient. Most people who have studied mathematics know that at some point, you'll hit the brick wall. It may be algebra in high school, or it may be (abstract) algebra, or complex analysis or differential geometry in college. When you hit the brick wall, you know it.

My point is this: we all would like to believe that everyone has equal potential and, given the opportunity and motivation, will achieve equally, or at least comparably. The truth, at least as much as there are data to support it, is that there are differences between between the sexes. Some of these differences manifest as aptitude of doing certain things in a statistically significant pattern. This may be blasphemous to faith-based "scientists," but I believe that without these differences, the human species will not survive.

First, I respectfully note that the previous responder has not been cowered into silence.

Let's distinguish truth from rhetoric.

Myth # 1: All men (and women) are born equal. This is plain false. A healthy baby born to a healthy mother with months of pre-natal care has vastly superior prospects than one who is born pre-mature to a drug-addicted mother who dropped the baby into the toilet bowl at birth – let's not even talk about genes.

Myth # 2: If you make up your mind to do something and devote your energy to it, you will succeed at it. This is true for relatively simple pursuits. A person can often compensate for his comparative inaptness at something by working harder. To achieve greatness in a field of study, working hard alone is simply not sufficient. Most people who have studied mathematics know that at some point, you'll hit the brick wall. It may be algebra in high school, or it may be (abstract) algebra, or complex analysis or differential geometry in college. When you hit the brick wall, you know it.

My point is this: we all would like to believe that everyone has equal potential and, given the opportunity and motivation, will achieve equally, or at least comparably. The truth, at least as much as there are data to support it, is that there are differences between the sexes. Some of these differences manifest as aptitude of doing certain things in a statistically significant pattern. This may be blasphemous to faith-based "scientists," but I believe that without these differences, the human species will not survive.

Well, if Posner can discount the study because most of the panel was female, we could say that both Becker and Posner are men, so their collective opinions on the study are equally worthless.

To those of you who think that men and women are treated fairly equally in the workpace, I urge you to speak to some of your female colleagues. It's irritating when men talk down to you when talking about computers. It's irritating when men call you a "girl," as in, you're going for an interview and the security guard congratulates you on being "a very smart girl" because you managed to scan your visitor pass correctly. It's irritating when men help you out because they think you're a woman, so you can't help yourself. And it's even more irritating when they don't cooperate, because they think you're acting like a b-tch, but all you're doing is being professional and not stupid-helpless-giggly.

No, no one goes up and says to your face "We don't make women partners at this firm," or "you can't do derivatives because women can't do math." But it's still quite pervasive. It's just much more subtle.

Men and women are not the same. Standup comics have established this ages ago. In fact, hasn't recent research shown that the brain structures of men and women are fundamentally different, and that the two halves of the female brain are connected by a much wider bridge than the two halves of the male brain? Isn't it conceivable that different brains may partially cause different preferences and abilities? [A little part of me wishes that the above research was conducted by female scientists. Someone look it up.]

On a more serious note, I posited earlier that some of the absence of females in top research institutions could be simply the result of past accidents; that is, it could be that women don't go into these positions because women historically haven't been in these positions. Many of you correctly pointed out that the same was the case in many other fields, like law and medicine, where women have overcome past iniquities to achieve some measure of equality or even dominance. My question then, is, does the NAS report explain why male researchers in science and engineering are so much more successful than all the other men at protecting their industries? How is it that male scientists can keep women out of the lab, while male lawyers could not keep them out of the courtroom and male doctors could not keep them out of hospitals? How are scientists protected from all the forces that brought about gender integration/equality in all these other fields? How can a market that demands the best lawyers and doctors and teachers [many of whom are women] be satisfied with leaving some of the best scientists out?

all interesting points. I don't think people should be shouted down for expressing opinions as to innate strengths or weaknesses, although I do think it is very convenient to start believing the majority of the cause of underrepresentation of women is because of innate differences. Social pressures would seem to me to approximate innate differences and would be very hard to distinguish between the two. Since others are expressing personal anecdotes, I will share some of mine as well.

My mom, who was born in the later 1940s and who had three kids, was always really good at math. She now wishes she had thought about going to engineering school instead of becoming a foreign language teacher. The way she explained it to me, the idea that she could have been an engineer only occurred to her about one year ago. I mean, that is how pervasive the social cues were back then.

I am interested in what engineernig classes will look like in 60 years. As for the assertion that law amd medical classes are much closer to evenly represented now, I think that this is not really a good argument for innate differences any more than it is for there being no differences. Yes, science and engineering may be the last hold-out, but is there a good reason for that, or simply because they are the last fields to be conquered? In the 1960s and 1970s, the legal profession was kind of at the forefront of change. Doctors have been respected for centuries. I think it makes sense that these professions would be "infiltrated" first.

I studied Chemical Engineering at Wisconsin, during the last couple years of Donna Shalala's tenure and the start of David Ward's. We had more women in our program than the Mechanical Engineering program, but still fewer women than men. Perhaps we had more women in our program due to the wide variety of industries a career in Chem Eng offered: food, cosmetics, semiconductors, polymers, medical devices, etc. Some of our female students later attended medical school - easier transition from Chemical Engineering than Mechanical or Electrical I would think based on the similarity of pre-requisite classes. Another factor may have been the higher published starting salaries at the time in Chem Eng vs. other Eng disciplines. I believe Industrial Engineering had the highest percentage of female students at Wisconsin during those years. I'm not exactly sure what Industrial Engineers do - perhaps quality systems and other things not directly gearbox/motor/process related.

I did not conduct a study of the performance of female students compared to the male students, but the general feeling was that there was no noticeable difference. More importantly, females seemed to do better landing highly sought Chemical Engineering jobs than their male counterparts on average, but that could be just a subjective perception on my part, rooted in unconcious bias. I really don't know for sure.

I did get the impression that the smaller group of females do get more attention on average than the typical male, concerning non-class related activities, from the male (or female) students. This may be an explanation for the Mechanical Engineering person's note in a previous post. However, I think the work load kept us occupied so that the guys did not have sufficient time to distract the girls, and vice versa. Staring at an excel spreadsheet or mathcad till 5am each night/morning must numb the brain equally between the sexes.

The report is worth looking at. It's well organized and not terribly long. I think its useful because, presumably, this panel of experts pointed to the data which supports their conclusions, so far as it exists. Since the cited data does *not* logically support the conclusions, this is pretty strong evidence, from a lawyer's point of view, that data which actually supports the conclusions is unavailable and the conclusions are bad science, even if good politics.

The key chapter is chapter 2, which discusses the evidence as to whether there are innate differences in the cognitive functions of men and women, taken as groups. The key "findings" are:

1. Although there are physical differences between men's brains and women's brains (taken as groups) there is no convincing explanation available as to why these physical differences should cause different cognitive functioning. The report does not assert that there is a convincing reason to think that the differences *don't* cause different functioning.

2. Women do relatively poorly in top-top end science and engineering. Women do relatively poorly on standardized tests for math (left unsaid, but not for verbal skill). Women do well in top-end education overall. Therefore, the tests must be poor predictors of academic success, and the differential performance in science and engineering can't be explained by what they measure.

Astonishingly, the fact that the tests predict actual performance is cited as evidence that they lack explanatory value. Anyone who scored over 750 on the SAT math section would recognize immediately that the most "progressive" conclusion that could be drawn from this data is that the difference in performance *may* be the result of something other than innate group differences. What data there is *suggests* that innate group differences may exist, but other possibilities cannot be conclusively ruled out based on present knowledge.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the panel couldn't do better than this in an advocacy document. As a lawyer, I know that if the facts are iffy for my case, the best strategy is to present them in a confusing cloud of BS. I can only conclude that none of the panel members saw the (fairly obvious, I think) logical problem with its foundation. Of course, when one is emotionally commited to a position, it is harder to spot its logical weaknesses, but it isn't completely impossible. I'm not in the Becker / Posner / MIT prof intellectual league, and I know that there are women out there who are better logicians than I am. Why this report, structured this way?

The uber-cynic in me suggests that maybe the panel, being as a group verbally gifted, saw the necessity for structuring it just like other reports, with clear numbering, a good paragraph structure, etc., and faithfully copied the conclusions from their source studies. On the other hand, if the panel was less sharp in logic, they may not have seen how the pieces didn't fit together.

Or, perhaps the panel, being more capable academic politicians than I, realized that it just didn't matter - that press reports and public reaction would just focus on the conclusions, at least in the short term. Whether the conclusions follow logically from the data is, largely, politically irrelevant. I can't believe this, because my experience has been that the equity feminist movement generally is extremely sincere, and this level of cynicism isn't at all typical. It would, however, explain failure to protest these "findings" in the academic community - why make yourself unpopular if it isn't going to change anything?

Perhaps the best qualified women (and men) suspected this outcome, saw little point in having to choose between intellectual dishonesty and political unpopularity, and sat this out. That would explain the composition of the panel. Just a theory, but it seems to fit the data.

NB: I suspect that this conflict will work itself out over the long run. Younger women, as a group, seem more comfortable with the idea that there are group differences between men and women (many of which reflect very favorably upon women) than their mothers are, and seem to feel less oppressed by the patriarchy. Once one accepts the idea that group differences don't necessarily indicate individual differences in every case, and talent in one area doesn't necessarily mean talent in another, all of this is much less scary.

1. Although there are physical differences between men's brains and women's brains (taken as groups) there is no convincing explanation available as to why these physical differences should cause different cognitive functioning. The report does not assert that there is a convincing reason to think that the differences *don't* cause different functioning.

As a non-scientist, I don't know much about the actual differences between male and female brains, but it's been explained to me by people who do. The way I understand it [and I'll gladly accept corrections] is that one half of the brain is responsible for logic and reason, and the other for emotions and judgment. The bridge connecting these two halves is much wider in women, meaning that they can [or must] think and feel at the same time. Also, male brains are generally larger than females, so that male peak performance of either brain half is probably larger on average. This all makes sense to me as at least a contributor to the gender divide in science and engineering.

First, the explanation makes evolutionary sense. Prehistoric man was a hunter. Since his livelihood depended on his success as a hunter, the men who could block out distractions [such as emotions] and could focus on the task at hand were probably more successful at passing on their genes. Additionally, these men honed exactly those skills that science and engineering require: careful observation, spatial relationships, patterns and causations, etc. Meanwhile, women spent most of their time in a setting that was ideal for people who can form and manage social relationship, for which empathy and understanding were ideal skills. Thus, the ultimate difference in brains may well be the result of evolution, which you'd think scientists would be able to at least accept as a working hypothesis.

Second, the brain structures I descibe fit with the differences in the labor market that we are discussing. It is no coincidence that women are succeeding and even dominating in professions in which the ability to work while feeling is important. Lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, etc. all depend on constant human interactions, something that female brains are better suited for than male brains. [The Economist recently pointed out that the future of western jobs is in these fields, and women will dominate many of them, including higher management.] Meanwhile, scientific research isn't dependent on such skills; in fact, such research is best done by individuals who are able to block out such distractions and are able to use the skills that prehistoric man honed over time. The fact that men have larger brains also means that they are more likely to be peak performers in that field, although of course, if they aren't using that half of the brain, they're contributing nothing.

Finally, the brain structure theory also explains common stereotypes. The fact that women feel and think simultaneously explains why women are always thought to be too emotional. At the same time, the fact that men either think or feel explains why they are always thought of as callous and insenstive, and why you can never have a logical conversation with a sports fan at a game.

I don't know why NAS said there's not plausible explanations for innate differences. This makes perfect sense to me. But that's probably why I wouldn't be allowed near the NAS.

First, I suspect the tenor of Mr. Summers' offense may be better captured by "boor" than "bore" (or maybe even "boar"). Most people at Harvard are boring, and they get tenure.

Irrespective of the merits of the NAS report, men and women appear into the Earth-Life realm bearing different gentialia. Why is it such an impropriety to even hypothesize that we may be given other, less overt differences? It's just one possible answer to a question that science is obligated to ask, and ask openly and in good faith, without excluding possible truths just because some people may see the implications of those truths as ugly.

Like so many other broad questions, I suspect this one has no single narrow answer but is an aggregate efrfect, i.e., most if not all sides are at least partly right. I don't think all women avoid science because they can't cut it or think they can't, and I don't think it's a lack of opportunity to be educated. Rather, if a big picture answer must be given I concur with Birdwin03 above, that women don't choose science because they don't want to. If you want to ask why they don't want to, I quote my wife: "YOU KNOW VERY WELL WHY!!!"

Men are more prolific murderers as well. Could we extrapolate that the police/jurys are biased against them.

We could so extrapolate, because they are (biased). Sex is a better predictor of sentence than race, color, and socioeconomic status. Men are more likely to be incarcerated, and when incarcerated are given much longer sentences, than women.

Ever since reading Harvey Mansfield's book, "Manliness," I have been taking more note of things that men do but not women (and vice versa). Two that come to mind: women almost never play lead guitar, and women almost never manage hedge funds. These are both extremely abstract mathematical activities. In the case of the latter, a huge dose of testosterone in the blood helps quite a bit, too.

From my experience as an engineering professor for many years, female faculty have a HUGE advantage over their male counterparts. It starts with enormous pro-female bias in NSF and DoD graduate fellowships, crazily pro-female faculty hiring,
set-aside federal and state funding for female faculty, watered-down tenure requirements for females, and phony promotions to positions of power. All of these give aways are done to "correct historical wrongs" or because of pressure from higher sources (deans, vice chancellors, chancellors). Every faculty member I have ever met
knows that females have a totally unfair advantage these days. Many female faculty are quite inferior
in quality as well but no one would dare say such in public. There are a few top notch female faculty members who earned their status but unfortunately they are often prejudicially thought of as being "affirmative action cases" due to the prevailing environment.

One reason there are fewer women in physics than in other sciences is that it is hostile work enviroment for women, especially experimental physics. The women who do work as physicist cluster together in theoretical and computational fields. I think the problem is that in experimenal physics you must interact with technicians, machinist plumbers etc. who resent being bossed around by women. Any list of women physicists is always dominated by women who are married to physicists which provides them with some degree of protection.

People who have have not studied math overestimate its importance and its difficulty. The best physicist include many who are not particularly good at math. Since IQ is a composite score for a set of abilities only a few of which you need to excel at to succeed in physics, it also is not a good indicator.

sex,adult,porn,pic,picture,free sex picture,adult pic,porn pic,gay,teens,video,videos,Free video,online dating....http://www.89site.com

"....Most people who have studied mathematics know that at some point, you'll hit the brick wall. It may be algebra in high school, or it may be (abstract) algebra, or complex analysis or differential geometry in college. When you hit the brick wall, you know it."

Getting OT, this seems a terribly fatalistic attitude. People "hit the wall" in other endeavors all the time (it's a common term in running). That doesn't mean the obstacle is insurmountable.

It seemed to me that the issue that Mr. Summers was addressing was studies that show the apparent predominance of men at the very top of the science and math IQ curve (and the sometimes noted predominance of men at the other end, or perhaps more accurately, the frightening predominance of men suffering from such mental problems as autism, at the "other end."). Reframing that question as simply a question about women in the math and science fields obscures this very real, perhaps smaller, question. There are certainly a lot of very smart women - really smart women - with high math and science skills. However, what happens at the very, very, very tail end of the math and science IQ curve? Does anyone want to know? Is this just too hot a topic, too politicaly incorrect to tackle. Are we sacraficing logical inquiry and potential knowledge to social and political expediency? Aren't those important questions?

The Shalala committee of female academics is riddled with obvious financial conflicts of interest that make their report useless as science. Indeed, monetary corruption is a rampant theme among powerful academic feminists, as the Denton-Greenwood scandal in the University of California shows:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/061001_diversity.htm

In response to Haris:

Another reason for men having bigger brains is that they are physically bigger. As for the whole brain evolving because men are better hunters, I think that is possible, but also a huge guess. It should be noted that in prehistoric times, women also hunted, gathered, and scrounged, or engaged in other activities just as likely to make the "concentrating" part of the brain evolve.