Gotta Love Harvard's Larry Summers

"Gender Slurs" and "Sexist Remarks" are just some of the headlines being hurled at Harvard University President Larry Summers for his recent speculations about why there are relatively few women scientists during a National Bureau of Economic Research Conference.

Summers claimed that many women choose not work the 80 hour weeks required to get to the top of the scientific and engineering heaps because they want to devote more time to their children. Setting aside Summers' views on women's preferences regarding child rearing, there certainly are average cognitive differences between men and women that will have some effect on which careers they are likely to choose. Of course, all people should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of some "average." On the other hand, while we should definitely be attentive to gender disparities, they are not necessarily always the result of oppressive social discrimination.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Women are under-represented in these fields for SOME reason, and we'll never figure out why if we castigate anyone who comes up with any theories other than "The Man is keeping them down."

[linguist]

While discussing this issue a while back with an astrophysicist friend, he pointed out that because of affirmative action the few women who are in fields like physics aren't trusted by the men. Some of them *are* complete idiots, but unfortunately the ones who do know their stuff aren't listened to because of the others.

Makes me want to go into physics...yeah, right.

[Warren]

Speaking as an engineer who got his degree in the mid 90's, it is my opinion that the lack of women can not be ascribed to university discrimination. As an electrical engineer, I observed female enrolment in under-grad core courses ran between zero and five percent (mechanical engineering classes averaged about twice that). The department couldn't beg or bribe women to matriculate as EEs. Interestingly, all the women in my classes did very well, while there was a high dropout rate amongst men (until senior year, by which time the chaff had already washed out).

I for one, think we as a people suffer immensely from a lack of fem-geeks (feeks?). Most women just don't want to be scientists or engineers. I have no idea why this is, but I can tell you no amount of grousing or cajoling will convince them that they do.

[PintofStout]

Maybe a right-brain/left-brain difference?

Is it chemical?

[Karl]

Follow up on Warren's point (PhD, astrophysics, 2000, so's you know I have some experience). There's no way low numbers can be ascribed to
University discrimination - such does not exist in my experience, at least against women. Women where invariably pursued much more vigorously, even to the point that a male with the same quals wouldn't make the short list. Women often got the better fellowships as well relative to their abilities; a specific case was one who had a very posh fellowship - lot's of money, no responsibility. A male with her set of qualifications may not have even been admitted, let alone gotten the most coveted fellowship. That said, most women I knew were competent and qualified - there just weren't many of them. If they expressed interest in the field, they were welcomed, encouraged, and supported. I tend to agree that there are innate differences that lead to disparities in numbers, but I haven't given it a lot of thought or research, so I could certainly be wrong. But my experience at the undergrad, grad and faculty level is that there is very little discrimination against females - quite the opposite; so if discrimination is the culprit, it occurs long before college.
-Karl

[PintofStout]

Is there under-representation in the fields of auto mechanics or garbageme...garbage people? Why do we simply worry about the field of science?

I bet men are under-represented in the child care industry (not counting business managers or owners). What exactly are we hoping to accomplish here?

[rst]

we castigate anyone who comes up with any theories other than "The Man is keeping them down."

Jennifer my dear, if preventative factors to your young female students' sucesses are not depicted as the usual suspects that you've always "needed" the state to legislate away for you, how else could the left condition them to be dependent upon the state to secure that success? It's for the kids, dammit.

Women are under-represented in these fields for SOME reason

I don't know about physics, but for engineering Summers is likely missing one aspect: women don't generally study engineering, and women in high school generally are not interested in pursuing engineering. ASWE was started in the 50's not because women engineers noticed universities weren't producing female engineers, but because high schools weren't producing female graduates who would pursue engineering.

Although his argument about rearing children makes sense. One does not simply graduate with an engineering degree and become an engineer...that doesn't happen until after you've taken your FE and PE, *and* you've done an apprenticeship. It can be a sizeable investment, 5-10 years, largely incompatible with any kind of making of a life for yourself.

I think it is still a vast minority of women who choose that path. I don't think this is something to lament.

[Ayatollah Usoe]

Well why do so many women want to be cashiers? Even if they are scientists!

I've learned when choosing a line at the cash registers, to avoid the ones with the most women. Invariably they pick through their wallet, open this compartment, pull out the dirtiest, ugliest bills, then close it, open that compartment, pull out two quarters ? no not the West Virginia one, need that one for my collection, close that compartment, open another, find a nickel and three pennies, all this while there are people on line behind, and a perfectly trained cashier with modern electronic equipment ready to handle the transaction.

Its not discrimination, but it is action upon individual preference.

[Guy in the back row]

I never understood the idea that woman are afraid of science, since they benefit from science and technology more than men do.

[Gilbert Martin]

"I never understood the idea that woman are afraid of science, since they benefit from science and technology more than men do."

That is indeed true. In fact it has been advances in science and technology that is the primary reason that women have the access to as many career choices as they do now.

Before the industrial revolution, most jobs required hard physical labor and since men are, on average, physically larger and stronger than women it was natural that they would predominate in occupations.

Technology reduced the manual labor aspect to many jobs and created new jobs that don't require it at all. That's what opened the outside world or work to women more than anything else.

That is also why in the remaining jobs that do require hard labor and/or a lot of physical danger, you won't find many women in those occupations. How many women do you see roofing houses or walking the high iron on a skyscraper construction project?

Not many.

[Kirsten]

rst: "One does not simply graduate with an engineering degree and become an engineer...that doesn't happen until after you've taken your FE and PE, *and* you've done an apprenticeship. It can be a sizeable investment, 5-10 years, largely incompatible with any kind of making of a life for yourself."

Sorry- not true. There are many, many engineering jobs for which such credentials are not required. In fact, I suspect that this is true for the majority of engineering jobs. People regularly get an engineering degree and then within weeks begin a job as an engineer.

[ed]

Old people are worse, Ayatollah, but for all the same reasons. When I am King they will be required to use special "65 and older" lanes.

[Evan Williams]

Summers claimed that many women choose not work the 80 hour weeks required to get to the top of the scientific and engineering heaps because they want to devote more time to their children.

This is not a "slur", it has been proven true by various studies. Since when is scientific fact a "slur"?

I forget the links, but, basically, they showed that if you're in a profession that requires the usual 40 hours per week, then the gender disparity is much smaller than in professions where 60 to 80 hours per week is the unwritten expectation. Hmmm.

"Of course, all people should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of some "average."

You can judge people as individuals during the interview or during their employee reviews. Fine. But group trends and averages are incredibly useful in determining sound business decisions. Damn, I'd sure like to be judged as an individual all the time, but in a country with 250+ million people, that's a fools wish. The sheer number of applicants, relative to the amount of hours in a day, dictate that group trends will more than likely be implemented as a method of determining decisions. If a man and a woman show up for an 80-hour/week job, and their credentials are identical, and the woman still has untied fallopians and possible designs on future offspring, then, abstractly, the sound decision would be to hire the man. This has nothing to do with gender discrimination, and everything to do with numbers and statistics. Women don't complain when they get lower auto insurance premiums based on averages...nor do they typically question why female health insurance prems are higher than male.

[AJS]

I read an article covering Summers' comments and I'm not surprised that some women were offended by them. Yes, there are several technical fields where women are underrepresented, but you need to be careful about going public with speculation as to why. This guy didn't quote any scientific research, but made some half assed guess. Not good from a leader of a fine academic institution like Harvard. There could well be neurological differences or some scientific explanation for lower female participation in the sciences, but he didn't posit any of that.

[rst]

People regularly get an engineering degree and then within weeks begin a job as an engineer.

Regardless of your job title (I'm a software "engineer," the guy who'll be around later to get my trash is in some circles a facilities "engineer"), you are not a engineer until you get your PE.

I never understood the idea that woman are afraid of science

I don't know that anyone proposed there was a phobia pervading the gender. It's simply a choice. A woman choosing a profession such as law, medicine, or engineering knows that during her prime childbearing years she will probably be too occupied to bear children or pursue a relationship. I would imagine that decision weighs far more heavily on a woman than on a man, and as such she'd be more likely to choose a less involved career.

[Kirsten]

rst:
"Regardless of your job title (I'm a software "engineer," the guy who'll be around later to get my trash is in some circles a facilities "engineer"), you are not a engineer until you get your PE."

Again, not true.

dictionary.com:
"en?gi?neer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nj-n?
n.
1. One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering."

Licensure has nothing to do with engineering save to put an official stamp of approval on it. What you are saying is akin to claiming that no lamp can rightfully be called a lamp unless some official body agrees that it is actually a lamp- as if the agreement of some arbitrarily forumlated collective changes the nature of the lamp.

Poppycock.

[James Leroy Wilson]

Not being President of Harvard, and not having children, perhaps I am permitted to make a half-assed guess? How many little girls want to play with Legos compared to boys? And then graduate to the computer screen?

Perhaps there are gender disparities beyond maternity leave. Trying to figure out an explanation for a disparity is not than same as trying to find an excuse for discrimination.

[rst]

doc?tor
n.
7. Any of several brightly colored artificial flies used in fly fishing.

I own several such flies. Next time you're not feeling well, stop over my place for a check up. I'm sure I have a fly that can help you out.

Trying to figure out an explanation for a disparity is not than same as trying to find an excuse for discrimination.

Far too many activists feel that stopping advocacy is equivalent to erecting a glass ceiling. Because after all, if we're not browbeating young girls throughout their teen lives into flooding a professional job market they may want no part of, then we're doing them a vast disservice.

[rst]

While we're at it, we should probably put blacks at the front of the bus. After all, they worked so hard to get out of the back.

[Jennifer]

Women don't want to be scientists? I do. My life's ambition, as a little girl, was to be either an astronomer or a meteorologist/climatologist. (I fluctuated between the two.) Alas, my ambitions were thwarted when I learned that there was a LOT more involved than just looking at stars or clouds and describing what you saw--you actually had to be good at MATH, and I just don't have what it takes to be a mathematician. A lot of females don't.

Why don't people just accept that, while there is some truth to generalizations, no individual should be held captive to them? Boys in general are better at math, but that doesn't mean all boys MUST be mathematicians, or girls forbidden from it. Girls in general are better at linguistic things, but that doesn't mean that all girls MUST be English majors, or boys forbidden from it. And so forth.

[serafina]

Most men don't have what it takes to be mathematicians, either.

Many smart women don't pursue a career in the sciences not because of the work itself or the hours but because of the working conditions and the people who would be their colleagues. Happily, others are willing to compromise and work with people like Richard Freeman because they're passionate about their field of inquiry.

[SixSigma]

Kristen -

RST is correct. Not only do you need your PE, but due to engineering degree mills, most of those "jobs" directly out of college require 8 hours of testing on math and physics to make sure you actually learned what your degree says you have.

Jennifer -

Completely agree. Why can't we simply admit differences exist and move on. My wife works in the medical field, and her present job includes patient care. There's no way I could ever do any job like that, as I'm not the most empathetic individual. It takes a certain type of person to handle those situations, some of them with bad consequences and still return to work the next day to face it again.

[Kirsten]

rst:
"doc?tor
n.
7. Any of several brightly colored artificial flies used in fly fishing.

I own several such flies. Next time you're not feeling well, stop over my place for a check up. I'm sure I have a fly that can help you out."

This is a nice way to ignore the point completely. (I see you had to dig past the two relevant definitions all the way down to the bottom of the barrel for that red herring.)

Let's take your doctor example, except using the applicable definition for medical purposes rather than purposely being obtuse as you have chosen.

From dictionary.com:
"doc?tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dktr)
n.
1. A person, especially a physician, dentist, or veterinarian, trained in the healing arts and licensed to practice.
2.
a. A person who has earned the highest academic degree awarded by a college or university in a specified discipline.
b. A person awarded an honorary degree by a college or university.
3. Abbr. Dr. Used as a title and form of address for a person holding the degree of doctor.
4. Roman Catholic Church. An eminent theologian.
5. A practitioner of folk medicine or folk magic.
6. A rig or device contrived for remedying an emergency situation or for doing a special task.
7. Any of several brightly colored artificial flies used in fly fishing."

Note that in licensure is included in the primary definition for doctor, whereas it is NOT included for an engineer. Further, one could still correctly be referred to as a doctor by practicing medicine unlicensed and nonprofessionally under definition five.

[Kirsten]

SixSigma: "RST is correct. Not only do you need your PE, but due to engineering degree mills, most of those "jobs" directly out of college require 8 hours of testing on math and physics to make sure you actually learned what your degree says you have."

Again this is utter nonsense. I am working professionally at a major corporation as an engineer, and I am neither licensed nor credentialed through NSPE and neither are the vast majority of those I work for even at the most advanced pay grades in the technical track. I know for a fact that such a claim is utter bullshit.

Jennifer:
"you actually had to be good at MATH, and I just don't have what it takes to be a mathematician. A lot of females don't."

A lot of males don't either. In fact, most people I know outside of work believe that they aren't good at math or erroneously believe that they are good at it. And most of those I know who believe that they simply aren't good at it really mean that they find math difficult, and they would rather blame biology for their woes than to put the time and effort into mastering it.

[Kirsten]

Found a paper on the website of the Pittsburgh Society of Professional Engineers- a chapter of NSPE (who administer the FE and PE)- which acknowledges that only a fraction of engineers (20%) are actually licensed.

A relevant passage:

"Presently, only about 20% of all engineers in the United States are licensed. We typically provide five or six primary reasons why entry-level engineers should pursue licensure: jobs, promotions, money, credibility, respect, and security. Of these reasons, security has a high level of relevance today as individuals have become more mobile and companies are focusing on downsizing, profitability, and outsourcing. Many engineers who are employed in industry today may need to be licensed tomorrow in order to sell the same services as an outside consultant. If these benefits are real, why aren't
more engineers licensed? There are many reasons why, but the main reasons are:

Exemptions allow non-licensed engineers to practice in industry, so most engineers do not fall under the regulatory umbrella and have no need to become licensed in order to practice.

Many employers and some engineering educators see little value in licensure and don't require or encourage it.

Preparing for the licensing exams is demanding and time consuming-especially four or more years after college."

Reference:
http://www.pittsburghpe.org/Licensure/licensed.PDF

[Jennifer]

Kirsten-
Yes, I know some guys stink at math, too. But generally speaking, if you grab one hundred males and one hundred females at random and test their abilities, you'll find more males with math and engineering skills, and more females with linguistic and empathetic skills. So what?

As for "finding math difficult" being different than "not being good at math," that's nonsense. Look, in college I managed to pass my required math courses with respectable (tho' not impressive) grades, whereas in my English- or history- type courses I got straight 'A's. And yet, I had to struggle and work very hard to earn those lukewarm math grades, whereas my impressive non-math grades came with almost no effort on my part.

So you tell me: am I just buying into sexist hype when I say of myself things like, "I am not good at math" or "I really should avoid a career like astronomy and meteorology that would require me to spend a good chunk of my life performing complex mathematical equations?"

[Kirsten]

Jennifer:
So you tell me: am I just buying into sexist hype when I say of myself things like, "I am not good at math" or "I really should avoid a career like astronomy and meteorology that would require me to spend a good chunk of my life performing complex mathematical equations?"

I, of course, have no way of knowing that since I don't know anything about you. For that reason, I am not commenting on your particular circumstances.

I do, unsurprisingly, know something about the people I actually interact with regularly, and for most of them- men and women- "I'm not good at X" really means "I don't want to work at becoming good at X".

Math wasn't a slam dunk for me either, but I became better at it than most people by putting time and effort into mastering it. I made the choice to become good at it, rather than writing it off simply because it was harder than other things I did.

[Jennifer]

Kirsten--
I'm glad to hear you're doing well with the math (I know it well enough for budgeting, interest rate calculations and other basics of everyday life, but none of the fancier science-and-engineering stuff).

So tell me, are you working in one of those science-and-engineering jobs where people fret about the paucity of women? If so, could it be possible that you are unusual/exceptional in this regard, rather than conclude from your example that the average woman is as good at math as the average man?

Incidentally, I also know a girl who is six feet tall. Could it be possible that she is unusual/exceptional in this regard, rather than conclude from her example that the average woman is as tall as the average man?

[SixSigma]

Kirsten -

To begin with, most jobs labeled "engineers" aren't truly engineering in the scientific since of the word, so I'd be wary of studies. And this isn't to say anything about sanitiation engineers, but jobs like "software engineering" is not the same as developing new products and such.

Also, to your

I do, unsurprisingly, know something about the people I actually interact with regularly, and for most of them- men and women- "I'm not good at X" really means "I don't want to work at becoming good at X".

I completely agree with this, that most people use their weaknesses as crutches as part of a self defeating attitude. But I certainly wouldn't push someone into "math" simply to prove it can be learned by anyone if they aren't that good at it. If they wanted to be scientists, I might encourage the math anyway, and use your logic as well.

But in general different types of people are better at different things. And humans, typically enjoy doing things they can do well.

I've always said, anyone can learn anything and still believe that. You can learn to play golf like the professinals if given enough time and devotion to do so. Unfortunately for most, Tiger Woods and others have some natural ability that will always carry them further, but this doesn't mean you can't learn.

[Kirsten]

SixSigma:
To begin with, most jobs labeled "engineers" aren't truly engineering in the scientific since of the word, so I'd be wary of studies.

And what exactly is the scientific sense of the word and your source for it? Does this definition include a requirement that an engineer be credentialed through NSPE as a PE? That is, after all, the point of contention here.

I demonstrated that engineering does not require licensure either
-under a common dictionary definition of the term,
-or according to a paper on the website of one of NSPE's chapters.

So what we have here is unsupported assertions that you can't be an engineer without a PE vs. two independent sources of evidence that indicate quite the opposite.

But I certainly wouldn't push someone into "math" simply to prove it can be learned by anyone if they aren't that good at it. If they wanted to be scientists, I might encourage the math anyway, and use your logic as well.

To be clear, I'm not for pushing anyone into any particular academic or career path that they wouldn't choose for themselves- I think self-motivation is a major factor in success. Regardless of whether or not a person can become good at X which they are not naturally good at, whether or not they will become good at X is largely dependant on their taking the initiative to do so rather than being pushed and prodded into it by someone else.

[Mo]

Kirsten,
The thing is, based on my experience, you are unusual for your gender. Currently, women outnumber men for university enrollment and still are vastly outnumbered by their male counterparts in engineering majors (which is self-selected, unlike faculty). At my alma mater, MIT, the student body was almost universally interested in technical and scientific careers and were pretty much universally good at math, the proportion of males to females in math, physics and engineering was weighted more with men than women. The majors with the highest proportion of women were biology, economic, business and chemistry, iirc. This doesn't mean they couldn't cut the mustard, but that they didn't even want to try to, out of preference.

I am aware that MIT did an internal study and found problems with the advancement of women professors relative to males for faculty positions and this may have had secondary effects on female student preferences. However, I believe the primary reason that there are fewer women engineers and scientists is the same reason why police officers are disproportionately conservative, professors liberal and construction workers male, they choose to be. Of course, I don't have any scientific evidence for my speculations and I don't doubt there may be some discrimination out there, but I think that the discrimination effect is relatively minor compared to the self-selection effect.

And I know tons of engineers that, like Kirsten, are not licensed.

[Kirsten]

Jennifer:
So tell me, are you working in one of those science-and-engineering jobs where people fret about the paucity of women?

I have yet to meet an engineer who frets about the paucity of women. OTOH, the managers from time to time get spun up over this when corporate headquarters deems it a topic of concern.

If so, could it be possible that you are unusual/exceptional in this regard, rather than conclude from your example that the average woman is as good at math as the average man?

I have made no conclusions of the average woman or average man's abilities. I have yet to meet the average woman or the average man, and I suspect that they are mythical creatures who do not actually exist.

[Kirsten]

Mo:
I believe the primary reason that there are fewer women engineers and scientists is the same reason why police officers are disproportionately conservative, professors liberal and construction workers male, they choose to be.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Dave]

http://www.president.harvard.edu/biography/
Larry Summers Biography

Seems like a pretty squared away chap to me.

I can see why so few women want to go into science and engineering from the looks of this thread. Jennifer doesn't think she is good enough and Kristen feels insecure about being a female engineer, so much so that she is engaged in a pointless arguement about what exactly it means to be an engineer. As a side note I have seen CEO's of company's that were not PE's but getting your PE can't hurt either.

Who can blame people for not wanting to be scientist or engineers. For the most part those intelligent types are either arrogant or so weird that it is difficult to communicate with them. Unless of course you are talking about SciFi or Steven Hawkings latest novel. Most chicks I have dated weren't that much into SciFi. Between that and not being able to have as much family time I think we have our answer.

(All coments tongue in cheek please do not take offense)

[thoreau]

I think Jennifer's first comment was astute.

I don't know why there are so few women in science. I know that the numbers are growing. I know that in some fields (medicine, biology), women comprise a near-majority or even outright majority (in some cases) of new entrants to the field (as measured by degree recipients). Supposedly the numbers are better in math and astronomy than in various areas of physics. I've even heard that in certain European countries women constitute a majority of physicists.

But I have no clue why any of these things are the way they are. I rarely discuss this with the female scientists that I work with. The women that I work with all seem to enjoy the type of work that they do, and have rarely brought up the big question of why there aren't more of them. The handful of times that I've discussed it with them I've either gotten something like "Well, I like science, and I don't know why other women don't", or else they give me something about the difficulty of working in a male-dominated field.

But the difficulty of working in a male-dominated field doesn't really explain it. Not so long ago (in the grand scheme of things) just about all fields were male-dominated, but some integrated more successfully than others. I don't know what sets science apart from other professions, and anybody who claims to know should be treated with great skepticism.

[rst]

Further, one could still correctly be referred to as a doctor by practicing medicine unlicensed and nonprofessionally under definition five.

Sure, you just wouldn't want to get caught doing so. I'm not sure how many individuals caught acting as doctors without licenses avoided prison by pointing out definition number five of "doctor" in the New American Heritage dictionary.

The credentialing is not as formal as that of the medical field, nor as legally binding. But...

Exemptions allow non-licensed engineers to practice in industry

...and not your dictionary, is why non-licensed engineers practice in industry. An exemption ("immunity from an obligation or duty") implies a standing certification process of some kind, without which (the exemption or having completed the process) one could not practice in industry. Adherence to certification standards may have fallen out of vogue, or grown more lax due the fact that a person who studied engineering and worked in the field for ten years is likely qualified as-is to be a PE, but that doesn't change the industry standards.

Licensure has nothing to do with engineering save to put an official stamp of approval on it. What you are saying is akin to claiming that no lamp can rightfully be called a lamp unless some official body agrees that it is actually a lamp

Oh it'll be a lamp, but if all engineering was about was delivering a product, our race would be long extinct from mishaps of our own design.

[sulla]

Most women I knew in school left engineering school because they just didn't care for the work. Aptitude wasn't an issue, just desire. And then you have my wife, who finished her EE degree, but only worked 5 years before quitting to raise children. She's still interested in the field, but it's highly unlikely that she'll ever return after such an extended absence. Much more likely that she'll try something with more flexibility, like teaching.

[thoreau]

As to the dictionary debate, it's really quite silly.

The title "Professional Engineer", complete with the capital letters does require a special license. But words sometimes have multiple usages, and intelligent people can figure out how it's being used based on context, and interpret the statement using that word without getting upset.

There are people in this world who study engineering in school, get jobs that require engineering degrees, and work on developing new technologies. With or without a license, it seems perfectly reasonable to refer to them as engineers.

What's the big deal?

[Kirsten]

rst:
...and not your dictionary, is why non-licensed engineers practice in industry
and
Oh it'll be a lamp

Thanks for admitting you were wrong, rst, no matter how indirectly you did so. Clearly we agree that licensure is not a requirement for being an engineer. I think then we can wrap up the debate over your initial claim that, "One does not simply graduate with an engineering degree and become an engineer...that doesn't happen until after you've taken your FE and PE, *and* you've done an apprenticeship. It can be a sizeable investment, 5-10 years, largely incompatible with any kind of making of a life for yourself." It was obviously in error. I won't respond to the rest of your points as they were not in contention and merely serve to divert attention from the point that was challenged.

[Warren]

my 2 cents
I am an engineer. My business card identifies me as a 'controls engineer', the personal department regards me as an 'Engineer Level 2'. I have worked at several corporations. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE LICENSED AS AN ENGINEER.

As for girls aren't good at math, again I agree with Kristen. Most people aren't good at math. Getting good at math requires actual thinking. As opposed to getting good at English, History, and all the other Liberal Arts, which only requires effort. OTOH I do think there is something to the left/right brain thing. I think most women just aren't interested in math. Most men aren't either, but more than women.

[feek]

30 years ago, my engineering professor dad suggested I study engineering in college. Although I was good at math, engineering was the farthest thing from my mind--not because of long hours, or kids, etc, but because it didn't interest me. I wanted something more people oriented (typical girl?). So I was an English major. And now I'm an investment manager! So the numbers thing came in handy, and I still get to do the people thing, too. Nothing to do with long hours, I think it's how my brain's wired.

[serafina]

>I think that the discrimination effect is relatively minor compared to the self-selection effect.

The two interact. Many women self-select out because life is too short to be working with assholes who think the only reason you got the job is because you're a woman.

[Gilbert Martin]

"I think self-motivation is a major factor in success. Regardless of whether or not a person can become good at X which they are not naturally good at, whether or not they will become good at X is largely dependant on their taking the initiative to do so rather than being pushed and prodded into it by someone else."

That depends on what X is relative to the capabilty of the person who wants to do it.

A midget will never be good enough at basketball to play in the NBA no matter how much initiative they have.

[mjs]

rst & Kristen:

Kristen is right that it doesn't take a PE to be an engineer. However, it is much more important in some engineering disciplines than others. I graduated with a BS in chemical engineering and passed the FE for the hell of it (I'm in law school now). A PE for a ChemE adds one more thing to build on, but I don't know very many practicing ChemE's that have a PE.

The PE for a chemical engineer means less than to, say, a civil engineering. Taking (not passing) the FE was a graduation requirement for civil engineers at my school and it's hard to find work without passing it from what I've heard. I know an electrical engineer from my school who passed the FE, but it wasn't a requirement for his current job (transmission and distribution engineer for PG&E).

I consider myself an engineer, never plan on becoming a PE, and I don't know too many people who would dispute that I am an engineer. Unless you, rst, think engineering is limited to civil and mechanical disciplines.

On an aside, I also fail to see how "software engineering" is any less engineering than any other discipline. It's design and implementation the same as building a bridge or piping system is.

--MJS

[Rikurzhen]

Here's some math for you...

Men as a group have greater measured variance in a large number of physical and cognitive traits.

Men also have a higher average aptitude for spatial skills and math.

College professors are selected from the tails of the ability distribution (e.g., > 3 sigma).

Thus small differences in variance and mean aptitude in math between men and women can produce large differences in the fraction of men and women with >3 sigma math aptitude scores.

[linguist]

Here's a thought, to tie two threads together:

Why *don't* we have more femgeeks? If the root of the problem of underrepresentation begins early, could it be that being geeky is somehow harder on adolescent women than it is on men? Perhaps at that age, society is accepting of the pre-Gates geek male, but the female is a pariah.

[tzs]

Hmmm. As an MIT-trained female physicist, I remember noticing that there were far more women in the engineering and bio/chem classes than in physics. There were even more, proportionally, in math, then in physics.

Never had any problem with math. Great stuff. Love it--quantitative finance is fascinating.

In my opinion major reason women don't stick around in physics is because they don't like dealing with the arrogant assholes in the field, especially for rotten salaries and 80-hour work weeks. If we're going to have to put up with idiots, we might as well do it in a field that pays well. Which is why a large number of my female friends from MIT have ended up in patent law. Yes, and we'll chew off the heads of any male who doesn't treat us with respect.

[Alison]

This is cheap because I already posted it elsewhere, but this is how I feel:

So, I am one of those rare women approaching the upper reaches of academia in mathematics/science (specifically, computer science). While I do agree that men and women do have different tendencies in some areas, I strongly disagree that it is scholastic aptitude that is keeping women from the upper reaches of the ivory tower. I think a lot of it has to do with culture and societal expectations.

I joined a society for women in computer science not because I needed a support group against those mean old boys, but because I needed to speak frankly with other women about timing their pregnancies and child care around a teaching schedule and a tenure clock. I have no children now, but I?ll need at least 5 years of planning before I can even think about it, plus worries about the ?two-body problem? when my postdoc rolls around. It?s not like any of us are expected to put in 80 hour weeks, but it is difficult to find a male partner who will make sacrifices in their career in the same way that women in our society are expected to make sacrifices. I know we can?t switch places for things like childbirth, but it is clear that finding the support necessary to nurture a full fledged academic career is difficult as a woman. I need someone who is willing to move to another city if I don?t get tenure or who will pick the kids up from daycare if I need to stay late and write a grant proposal. Or, I could choose to be alone. Sometimes it seems like it?s not worth the trouble and I dream about jobs bagging groceries.

[SixSigma]

MJS -

On an aside, I also fail to see how "software engineering" is any less engineering than any other discipline. It's design and implementation the same as building a bridge or piping system is.

I do admit to parrallels in the design process, but much of the high level math and physics required for an engineering degree isn't a requirement or a need in software engineering. It's basically Com Sci with project management experience, or an MIS type degree. This is of course a very small point of contention. They also have software architects.

[Mo]

linguist,
Interesting question. As a young geek, I remember there being the one or two token geek gals and maybe a couple of other closeted types while there were a dozen of us geek guys. The majority of the smart girls wanted nothing to do with us .... back then (now is a whole other story). Adolescent socialization is an interesting factor that I hadn't taken into account and is probably a huge reason.

tzs,
Actually, that's true for both genders. One of my buddies just got his Bio PhD, said screw it and is selling out to McKinsey after he gets his degree, for the reasons you cite.

[mtc]

I'm about halfway through getting my BS in electrical engineering. I'm working in industry right now on a co-op, and with the companies strong enforcement of policies against sexual harassment, I doubt I'll get to hear the real opinion of the males of the female engineers until turn 21 and can go out and have a beer with them. At this point however, I've seen so few women ee's, my reaction is almost disbelief when I do encounter one. Class size in my core courses runs about 30-40. Average number of girls: One. And in most my classes, it's the same one, me and my buddy actually refer to her as "Only." Not very imaginative, but it's the truth.

I don't really have any speculation as to why thinga are the way they are other then what's been offered. I think it may have something to do with the fact that girls in high school seem to be more suseptible to the social pressure that steers people away from being geeks. And if you haven't fully embraced your geekdom by your junior or senior year, you're probably not going to go to college to do science or engineering. I guess that's a cultural factor, though having more to do with the immaturity of adolescene than society directly telling women they need to remain barefoot and pregnant.

And to go back to my point about how there already so few women in engineering, it's probably self reenforcing in away that might not apply in other fields. When women started out in any other field, they were alone perhaps, but at least the men would probably talk to them socially and befriend them. Not so much with the nerd and introverts of engineering. Women in engineering don't have any other women around, and the guys aren't really much for companionship, regardless of whether or not they resent your being a female engineer. I might go so far as to speculate that the aforementioned "Only" girl I have class with has benefieted from being quite goodlooking; Not because she gets by any easier, but because even the nerds can over overcome their social inhibitions for a pretty face to the point where she always has a posse of 3 or 4 guys hanging off her in any given class. I think that really might count for something, having the social contact that would otherwise be lacking. Please note I'm not saying that woman need any extra social support to succeed, just that men can get it from each other whereas it's a bit trickier for a woman in the sciences as opposed to other fields.

[Gary Gunnels]

Its not my impression that women are poorly represented in the biological sciences; shit half my wife's department (immunology) are women. You know, the folks developing cures for the things that ail us.

[The Real Bill]

There are fewer women in the physical sciences because:
1) Most American physical scientists are geeks, and most American women aren't. (By the way, this does not seem to be true in Europe. Scientists get much more respect and are not necessarily geeks or nerds.)
2) There are many arrogant assholes in the physical sciences.
3) Physics, EE, etc. are very difficult subjects that require insane amounts of time to master. It takes a somewhat anti-social person to spend so much time studying. (English, history, etc. are ridiculously easy in comparison.) Men tend to be more anti-social than women.
4) There is some bias. I was born in 1970, and while I was in school, the "girls are bad at math" canard was alive and well. The most brilliant female students I new were insecure about their math abilities. The fact that math was hard reinforced this idea. (I had two girlfriends and one wife who thought they were bad at math--their teachers had told them so. All three became proficient in math after I spent many hours convincing them that they could do it. All three had asshole male teachers that put them down for being female.)

I'm sure there are many more reasons. I don't know how much they will matter over time. Young women and girls today are much more computer-savvy. Young men and women seem to have less gender bias than older men and women. Certainly, there are biological differences, but, as much as it hurts me to say it, bias does still exist. I saw little if any on the university level, but much at the primary and secondary level. This should be no surprise, since the average school teacher is much less intelligent and educated than the average college professor, and the public schools are so fucked-up.

[thoreau]

A few hypotheses on the situation with women in science:

1) Although I can't come up with a good explanation for why science has integrated less rapidly than other fields, within science I have a speculation on why biology has integrated more rapidly than physics: It used to be that nursing was one of the few professions available to talented women. It seems plausible that the first scientific field to integrate would be one related to a traditionally female career path.

2) Although I don't buy the notion that women in general are too delicate to hold their own with the boys, a field with a lot of arrogant people will take longer to change in any respect. And physics is a pretty arrogant field. It's not that the women are too meek to keep up with us, but whatever factors kept women out in the first place will remain in place longer if those in the field believe that they are infallible.

3) Some of the people have suggested that the nature of scientific careers might keep women from entering science. I think we need to distinguish between factors that discourage somebody from beginning to study a field in college, vs. factors that discourage a college graduate from continuing to work in a field. I knew very little about what's really involved in a scientific career when I started college. I just knew that science was interesting. Whatever my reasons for remaining in science, the fact is that my initial decision to study physics was based on very little information other than my general interests.

There are many reasons why women might leave scientific careers or change majors in college. However, most 18 year-olds entering college lack access to that information when they initially declare a major. Perhaps 18 year-old women know things about scientific careers that this uber-geek was unaware of when entering college, but I somehow doubt it. Whatever the reason may be for fewer women seeking to study physics and engineering in the first place, those reasons must derive from the experiences and/or inclinations of college freshmen.

[cdunlea]

Kristen,

Because someone calls him/herself an engineer doesn't mean the general public will accept that, regardless of the dictionary's definition. My father in law was a state civil engineer--actual job title--with the DPW for thirty years. He worked on building offramps on I-93 and I-95 when he wasn't watching the ponies run. His entire "training" for that job consisted of working a fuel pump on a destroyer in the Solomon Islands during WWII. To this day he cannot quote Boyle's Laws on gases or explain how a level/fulcrum works. But he is an "engineer", and came from a poor working class background without powerful friends.

My wife, on the other hand, went to UMass Engineering school in civil, passed the PE, is working in the field, and can pack a suitcase better than most people due to her spacial abilities.

I don't know about you, but I'll bet I know who most people would rather have design their bridges.

[Anonymous]

At the very least, I think we can all agree that the vast majority of women are not men.

[The Real Bill]

Oh, Anonymous! It's funny cuz it's true!

[Jeff Smith]

A couple of quick remarks.

1) Scholarly conferences should be places where
controversial ideas can be raised and seriously
addressed. The woman professor who first
walked out in the middle of the talk and
then ran to the press should be censured
and should be ashamed of herself for acting
to undermine the conditions necessary for
serious scientific inquiry. I hope her
chair or dean makes her teach giant intro
classes for the next ten years.

2) Someone made a nasty crack about Richard
Freeman above. First, Richard is a lefty,
but is, first and foremost, a serious
scholar. That is why he is defending
Summers. Second, he is personally a very
nice, tolerant and open guy. He would be
a great colleague regardless of one's
sex.

3) Someone said above that Summers had done
no research for his talk. This is clearly
false as a reading of the articles in the
Harvard Crimson make clear.

What a giant waste of time and energy. Glad
I went to Chicago.

Jeff

[serafina]

Freeman might be a nice guy who loves babies and puppies, but based on his reported comments, I wouldn?t want to work for him. He comes off as smug and disingenuous, saying he invited Summers as a top economist rather than a Harvard official and colleague. He asks Summers to be provactive and then mocks the people who are provoked with personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of their comments about why they left the talk.

[jessica]

In college I started out in civil engineering, which in my experience was more female-friendly than the other branches of engineering. The reason I dropped out had much more to do with my boredom than "the man," but I will say that the program seemed to be designed by men for men. Women learn differently, and this is not taken into account by universities when developing teaching methodology.

A more controversial stance is that the nerdiness of engineering students might have a little something to do with it. Women are more social by nature, and when half of your classmates can't hold a normal conversation, it can get dull pretty quickly.

[Kirsten]

cdunlea, Whether or not the general public likes PEs better than other engineers was not the point in question. I have no comment on that other than to say that it is irrelevant to the point I was addressing.

[Rikurzhen]

Commentary from Steven Pinker.

[The Real Bill]

Women learn differently

What a ridiculous, sexist statement.

[cdunlea]

Kristen, your reply was irrelevant to the point I was making. Whether the public "likes" an engineer has nothing to do with it; it's more about whether society believes an unlicensed engineer is competent. Nothing in the dictionary will overcome that perception.

[kevrob]

I'm no engineer, just a B.A. in those "ridiculously easy" fields of history and political science (sic).

I don't understand why someone who earns a B.S. in Engineering from an accredited institution would not be considered an engineer. Would earning a certification from a professional engineering group be a plus? Sure, it would. But why would the added step of government licensure be necessary? States requiring a further license are erecting barriers to entry in order to limit access to the job market. It's a bad idea when they require it for barbers, and I don't see any difference when it comes to engineers. If a civil engineer is going to take contracts from government, the state can always make him sit a civil service exam, if private certification isn't enough for them.

Oh, and doctor is merely Latin for "teacher." It acquired the sense of "a learned person" on its journey into English, and doesn't always refer to body mechanic, though that's its most common meaning.

I could excel at math in high school, when I pushed myself. I just didn't like it. I horrified my 12th grade Advanced Algebra teacher once, after she referred to a skill we were learning as "something you will use next year in Calculus." I mentioned the fact that, since I planned on studying the Humanities, I wouldn't be going on to Calc. "But why are you in this class, then?" Sister queried. "So I can pass my math requirement in college without putting in effort that should go to my major," said I. I took 2 semesters of freshman pre-Calc math, mostly stuff I already knew, with little harm to my GPA.

Aptitude =/ interest, though they often go together. I wound up taking 9 more credits in statistics and computer science in my senior year as electives, because they interested me, and were useful to a polisci type for survey research. Maybe I should have minored or majored in CompSci and learned Mad programming Ski11z, but roads not taken...

Didja ever notice how few ugly chicks are Theatre Majors? Seems they don't get the choice parts in student productions. 🙂

Kevin

[Kirsten]

Whether the public "likes" an engineer has nothing to do with it; it's more about whether society believes an unlicensed engineer is competent. Nothing in the dictionary will overcome that perception.

Again, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the point in contention- that is, whether or not getting a NSPE credential magically turns an engineer into an engineer. "Society believes" a lot of nonsense- that doesn't make it true.