Well, in the guy's defense, he mentioned the possibility of innate differences while speculating about a bunch of different factors that could be contributing to the continued lack of women in certain fields. I agree that the comment was a bit out of line for the president of Harvard, but it's been blown really out of proportion.
Also, women face big obstacles to childbearing/-rearing if they go for Ph.D.'s and tenure in any field, not just math, science, etc. -- so while that may be a contributing factor to the gap, I wouldn't label it the most important one.
I agree it's blown out of proportions...but that's what controversial comments by people in prestigious positions become...after all he was the president of the country's most elite university. It's true that all women professor face child-rearing obstacles in pursuing PhD's and tenure, but I believe it's particularly rigorous in the fields of math and science because these are very socially respectable and competitive fields in terms of how much grant revenue and recognition they generate for a university. Thus, women who pursue academic careers in math and science face tougher competition because they have to compete with more people overall.
Well, there probably is tougher competition in some of the fields relevant here, but I wonder how great a role this actually plays in women's choices -- I don't think you and I were considering that when we picked biology and psychology instead of engineering and math. (BTW, my understanding of the context was that he was talking about engineering in particular, which I'm sure does get a lot of funding; but then, so does psychology stuff, and lots of women go into that.)
Oh, and another point you may want to check out for yourself: in his comments I believe he was trying to say that he thought a bunch of factors including employer demands, family issues, and innate ability were probably more significant than "cultural factors" (e.g. conditioning in childhood, differential encouragement in high school). So he'd probably agree with you. He was mainly disputing the idea that we're still raising boys and girls to like different fields.
Hmm...I think factors like employer demands and family issues are very well connected to "cultural factors", which makes them all equally important. I know psychology, especially clinical, gets lots of funding...but probably like biology, there is a big difference between the number of women who go into it as undergrads versus those who actually get Phd's and become professors.
Comments 4
Also, women face big obstacles to childbearing/-rearing if they go for Ph.D.'s and tenure in any field, not just math, science, etc. -- so while that may be a contributing factor to the gap, I wouldn't label it the most important one.
Reply
Reply
Oh, and another point you may want to check out for yourself: in his comments I believe he was trying to say that he thought a bunch of factors including employer demands, family issues, and innate ability were probably more significant than "cultural factors" (e.g. conditioning in childhood, differential encouragement in high school). So he'd probably agree with you. He was mainly disputing the idea that we're still raising boys and girls to like different fields.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment