Comments on: Women in science

By: Roger Sweeny

Roger Sweeny — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:54:51 +0000

Armchair Non-Biologist,

It seems to me that what drives your model isn’t a higher variance but a higher mean. That average of 4 is higher than an average of 3.5. Also, according to your model, the mean of Tribe A is going to get even higher because the 1s and 2s are being weeded out. This will also have the effect of *lowering* variance.

By: BadaBing

BadaBing — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:15:27 +0000

Perhaps this will be the next “crisis” for Mr. Obama to address and rectify.

By: Soapbox0916

Soapbox0916 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:59:51 +0000

I would be a female in a science field if I could get a science job in my hometown. I had no trouble working long hours in the lab in the past and I don’t buy the argument that women are less willing to put in the time. Flexibility is more of an issue. Women such as myself want to be nearby family and that could be a gender difference that women stereotypically value family connections more than men. I don’t know if I believe that for women in general, even though it is true of me.

I moved back to my hometown to be near family, especially to be near my elderly parents, but I had to take a non-science job (working with homeless providers in government) as a trade-off for moving back and being able to live in my hometown. I do enjoy what I do for a living, but I took a very stereotypical female based social work type of job because it was the only type of professional job that I could get hired at, despite being a scientist with a master’s degree, in order to live in my hometown and be nearby family.

(On a side note, I originally started out in science education, and I do help with education programs for the homeless and ex-offenders, but moving back to my hometown meant giving up being a scientist, and I loved being a scientist.)

By: Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:27 +0000

“partner track in a law firm also involves toiling away long hours (though not in a lab), yet there are an awful lot of women pursuing legal careers, including careers at top and very-demanding firms.”

The difference is that earning a PhD. typically takes a LOT longer than earning a J.D. A female lawyer can be done with her education by 24 and possibly make partner by 30. A female scientist might not get out of school until 30 and then be up for tenure at 37. That’s a big difference for women who want to have children.

By: Math and Science: SEND CHICKS NOW

Math and Science: SEND CHICKS NOW — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:41:30 +0000

[...] From a blog post reviewing a book on women in academic math and science [originally found via Joanne Jacobs] Some of the essayists, like Spelke and Ellison, argue that research shows that men and women have [...]

By: meep

meep — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:45:58 +0000

I would not be the least surprised that more women decide they’ve got something else they’d prefer to do.

Here is my question: why should I care? Is there important math being missed, “women’s math”, that is going unexplored due to this “lack” of women in academic math?

To the extent that specific, individual women are being discriminated against, the state of things is bad. But simply noting that there are more men than women in a field does not per se prove injustice of some sort.

Is it injustice that elementary education is overwhelmingly female? Does anybody whining about the paucity of females in particular academic fields also complain about that?

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:24:31 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by kriley19: Joanne Jacobs: Women in science http://bit.ly/6aJP35 Full http://bit.ly/4nAjQ8...

By: John Drake

John Drake — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:09:55 +0000

The law allows for the ridiculous leftist bullshit inherent in gender studies, ethnic studies, etc.

Science doesn’t. Or least usually doesn’t.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the numbers?

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:40:54 +0000

Meant to say: “Hence there is more variance among men, . . ”

Sorry about that.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:39:32 +0000

Here’s an explanation I’ve seen — sorry, I can’t remember where — for men’s greater variance. Women have two X chromosomes; men have one. The X chromosome includes genes that influence our intelligence. Simplifying outrageously, women get the average of those two chromosomes; men don’t. Hence, there is less variance among men, in intelligence, and in other things.

(The Y chromosome is quite small and doesn’t do much other than determine sex. Incidentally, this also means that, on the average, sons are a little more closely related to their mothers than daughters are.)