The feminist quota-mongers screw with science education
Not to content with their undermining of academic excellence in the humanities, feminists have turned their sights on science education.
Christina Hoff Sommers investigates the quota-mongers’ plan to “fix” the “problem” of gender equity in the physical sciences:
Women now earn 57 percent of bachelors degrees and 59 percent of masters degrees. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2006 was the fifth year in a row in which the majority of research Ph.D.’s awarded to U.S. citizens went to women. Women earn more Ph.D.’s than men in the humanities, social sciences, education, and life sciences. Women now serve as presidents of Harvard, MIT, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, and other leading research universities. But elsewhere, the figures are different. Women comprise just 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, 10 percent in computer science, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. And the pipeline does not promise statistical parity any time soon: women are now earning 24 percent of the Ph.D.’s in the physical sciences—way up from the 4 percent of the 1960s, but still far behind the rate they are winning doctorates in other fields. “The change is glacial,” says Debra Rolison, a physical chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory.
Rolison, who describes herself as an “uppity woman,” has a solution. A popular anti–gender bias lecturer, she gives talks with titles like “Isn’t a Millennium of Affirmative Action for White Men Sufficient?” She wants to apply Title IX to science education. Title IX, the celebrated gender equity provision of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, has so far mainly been applied to college sports. But the measure is not limited to sports. It provides, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex…be denied the benefits of…any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men’s and women’s college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men’s participation being calibrated to the level of women’s interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.
The road to hell…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education, Feminist Nonsense
Mudville Gazette
» A healthy debate
Stop The ACLU
» So, Obasocialist Care Passed. What Next?Pundit & Pundette
» Our new overlords are just getting startedRedstate
» Things we were told we couldn’t do.Daily Caller
» Bart Stupak is either not very smart of he’s not very honest. There really is no other optionprotein wisdom
» The way ahead [Darleen Click]NewsBusters.org
» New Republic: Hated Senate ObamaCare Bill Suddenly Becomes 'Masterfully Crafted Piece of Legislation' Upon Passage
…in a hand basket, no less.
It seems we can’t get there fast enough for some people…
As a young woman, I am just baffled by modern feminism. Why does there need to be an equal number of women and men teaching math/science?!
“Equity crusaders.”
Ah, no…dangerous idiots, is more like it.
Oh jeez, what nonsense is this? First, there ARE differences between men and women, and at the risk of being un-PC, I will say this:
There is a reason the are more men in the sciences. There is also a reason there are more men playing football. Men are simply more inclined by thier biology to seek to excel in different areas then women. I am NOT saying men are better at Math, I believe any women that seeks to excel in the sciences can do every bit as good as any man. But I believe men are more inclined (for whatever reason) to pursue these careers.
I have no idea how they are going to try to get more women in the sciences. The sciences are diferent then the “arts.” You can’t skew the grades. You either can or you can’t, not like in the humanities where you are special and your opinions count.
Though the road to hell maybe paved with good intentions….it’s still the road to hell. I’ll take the northbound lane thank you.
I’m missing the bias. The sciences WANT women. There isn’t a conspiracy to keep women from science…there’s a conspiracy to keep women from thinking. Little to no thought is required to be an angry feminist. Little to no thought is required to come up with theories and conclusion based on cherry picked data (as even evidenced by Rolison’s conclusion) and hairs on the back of the neck and gut feelings. In the hard sciences one has to prove themself by not only supporting their original thesis, but proving they’ve considered and satisfied critics of that thesis. In otherword actuallyfollow the scientific method. That method doesn’t care what race, sex, or religion one is. Most of all the hard sciences require a spine, something emasculated liberals have dutifully donated to the state.
That will be the next quota. Like so:
You won the Superbowl! What are you going to do now?
I’m going to Disneyland! And, of course, an equal number of women and men will be going to Disneyland with me.
mmmhmmmm.
bloghooligan:
Yes, my sentiments exactly. Well said.
Forcing people into career choices is one sure way to alienate folks. Maybe they missed that whole “pursuit of happiness” phrase in the constitution. There is no right to happiness just an ability to pursue it. I might get a little ticked off if somebody told me I could only get a scholarship to college if I majored in a certain area.
If I want to pursue Underwater Basket Weaving instead Nuclear Biological Nano Physics that is nobody business.
Viva ‘la difference
God made men and women different for a REASON! He, in His infinite wisdom, made men to go out and work, so he gave us greater upper body strength. Women are made to be nurturing. They have greater patience and empathy.
In the work place, men have a greater ability to manipulate things in our mind. A man can look at an object and, in our mind, know how it looks from different perspectives.
In the workplace, women’s greater patience and empathy makes them better nurses, doctors, child-care providers, and teachers.
I know it’s politiclly incorrect to say so. But it’s true.
Would this idea apply to Hillary’s campaign workers?
I think not.
I started college as a chemistry major with the intention of going to pharmacy school, but later shifted gears completely. I liked chemistry and had enjoyed my work as a pharmacy technician, but I was not best-suited to all the math and science requirements (like Calc III.) I ended up getting my BA in English.
When I first met with my advisor for my new major she spent a good 20 minutes talking to me about acedemia’s inequality and how I didn’t need to switch majors just because chemistry is “traditionally a man’s discipline.” No amount of assuring her that I was switching majors because I desired to study literature and language seemed to convince her and I left her office with her still telling me to return to chemistry because “science needs more women to balance to ridiculous amount of men in the field.” (She practically spat the word “men.”)
What a skewed view. As an advisor to a young student she was trying to tell me to ignore my interests and aptitudes because, apparently, all disciplines need to be gender-balanced.
ooh how about a title IX for political persuasions as well? So I fully expect to see scholarships to encourage conservative womens studies majors.
LOL…yeah right. Conservative believe in being more than human paper weights.
Amen sir, I’ve been saying that for years.
In my national guard unit, we had a commander that wanted to apply that idea to the local population. He felt that the makeup of the unit should reflect the %’s of race in population. The reality was that you couldn’t attain this if the people from certain backgrounds just didn’t want to join. He also missed the point that members are recruited from a 120 mile radius. With that taken into affect, the %’s in the population changed drastically.
no need to wonder why the rest of the world think Americans are stupid.
I’m sorry but that made me LOL!!!
For someone with an “education”, you would think she would at least have some sort of wisdom.
Does this lady not understand that what she wants to enforce is EXACTLY what she is fighting against? Just like reverse racism, reverse sexism is still sexism. Reward those that excel, regardless of race, gender or creed. period.
Tre, are you honestly arguing that women aren’t as well suited to be scientists as men are? Because that would be crazy talk.
Lord, save me from equality for equality’s sake.
Idiots Gone Wild.
Rusty:
Though I am not sure I agree with Tre’s point of view (although I do believe men are more inclined towards different disciplines than women), I have to say this:
In general, men have greater upper-body strength. It is a fact. Is it such a leap to reason that men might have (in general) a more evolved ability to visualize spatially (for example)?
Is that so crazy?
All the more reason to support America’s private colleges and universities, many of which far exceed their publicly funded counterparts in both curricular content and standards.
As one component of my teacher certification is in middle grades math, I find it very upsetting that there is actual discussion about lowering the caliber of talent required to properly instruct the natural sciences – a field of study vital to our country’s med-tech advancement, and one in which instructor competence is key – all in the name of gender equality!
I wonder if Ms. Rolison would prefer to be treated by a physician whose degree was earned through talent and ability, or by one whose degree was awarded via the need of some med school to meet a Title IX quota?
HAH.. where I lived for years, native or indigenous peoples are given excessive privileges – med school for example – I was required to maintain an A- average to continue each year thru med school, my friend who was something like 1/8th native was required to maintain a C- average to be able to continue. As a result nobody goes to doctors of native descent, which is really unfair on those who worked hard and earned their qualification like everyone else had to.
It is this ‘politically correct’ ideology that actually creates resentment and disparity, the exact opposite of what it is supposed to achieve.
Wait a minute! A point of clarity, please. Does that mean I am in hell, if I live in the South?
As a woman at a small engineering college myself, I can say that the ratio of men to women is about 4:1 here. We try to attract women to the field, which I think is fine-but many of us don’t care about the ratio! I definitely wouldn’t have wanted to get into a top notch engineering school simply because I’m a woman. I want to feel that I ACHIEVED something and that it wasn’t just handed to me. Doesn’t anyone today understand hard work and accomplishments? Feminism is ruining our country.
Absolutely, completely asinine. Look for it to become law in short order.
Only after the election results are in!
There are obvious tangible differences between males and females. One of the most obvious is physical stamina. But, there are also differences in learning methods and academic areas in which they excel. Language Arts tend to be a female heavy are, not because of any conspiracy but because of their ability to master that subject. Males tend to be more inclined toward Math and Science.
I suppose, I am an anomoly. Math was never my forte. My strong suits in high school and college were History, English and Political Science – not necessarily in that order.
People should be hired based on their ability, regardless of skin color, gender or any other irrelevant qualifier. Our education system is already going downhill fast, due to a secular-progressive agenda that focuses on too much besides actual academics.
If a female can excel in Math and Science and there is a consisten standard for all, across the board, then, by all means, they should pursue it. But, there should never be any exceptions made, just so that you can say that there are an equal number of males and females in the field.
Oh. Well, thanks for putting my mind at ease, Soap.
Barry,
You know how it is in Floriduh. Vote, count the vote, let the judges decide. Anotherwords, all hell breaks loose in Floriduh!
On March 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am, Rusty said:
Tre, are you honestly arguing that women aren’t as well suited to be scientists as men are? Because that would be crazy talk.
Madam Curie, Jane Goodall, et al, are proof that women can make good scientist and engineers. A certain device on your car right now that is absolutely indespensible was invented by a woman; the windshield wiper.
My point is, though, men and women ARE different, we THINK differently, and just because someone doesn’t like it doesn’t change anything.
*Whew*
Okay. I don’t live in Florida, at least not anymore. I was only there for a few years, before I got promoted out and now live back in the Volunteer State.
In the affirmative action world, nobody can be better than anyone else, or have a greater ability in any given endeavor. It is all based on race, sex or whatever. If you are not a mathematician, it is because someone doesn’t WANT you to be one, not your innate ability or desire to be one.
What a load of crap!
This is the road to mediocrity, one which we see beginning in the K-12 grades, where nobody wins anything anymore, lest the “self esteem” of someone else be injured.
What a crying shame that the real world doesn’t work that way, either when competing here in the US, and particularly when competing with those from other countries. It is a real shock to those that have been handed everything and told that everyone is a “winner” that they will be the first losers when they get out in the real world (now you know why libs never leave the womb of college!).
Should we base the membership of national sports teams on sex and race? Of course not! Whoever makes the cut, makes the team.
This is an interpretation that had to have been made by liberals. There is no logical or commonsense way that the statement “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex…be denied the benefits of…any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” can be construed as meaning “statistical proportionality” unless you assume (the operating word) that there has been a conspiracy to keep that person out.
This is liberal social engineering rubbish that will further destroy the country by making us weak and noncompetitive compared to the rest of the world.
Road to hell indeed.
must…fight…urge…to…correct…
You know what gets me – universities across the country have spent decades designing and promoting fluffy majors like African American Studies and Women’s Studies in order to “attract” more minorities and females into higher education, and then turn around and wonder why there are not larger proportions of minorities/women in the more substantive majors.
“There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
– Like thinking that if we only sledgehammer enough round pegs into square holes and square pegs into round holes, then all the pegs and holes will be “equal.”
A folk-Marxist denial of human nature is a cornerstone of modern-day liberalism. It is reflected in the idea that humans are little more than a “blank slate” at birth, and can be molded into anything -anything at all – if only their education and upbringing can be properly guided from an early age. By forcing the boys to play with dolls and the girls to play with dump trucks, then a return to the Garden of Eden can be realized.
In fact, if you’re a liberal there are all kinds of ways to “improve” humanity – if you only use enough compulsion and force.
The only difference between a liberal college administrator or professor believing that math and science “sexism” can be cured by shutting down math and science programs (and make no mistake, that’s what would happen if an academic version of Title IX were ever implemented) – and the Khmer Rouge believing that a classless utopia could be realized by force-marching everyone from the cities onto collective farms at gunpoint to be starved, beaten, tortured and shot into “egalitarianism” – is that the Khmer Rouge were further down the same line of Marx-inspired thinking.
“One only need be dedicated enough to achieving Heaven on Earth to be sure of raising Hell.”
Michelle alludes to “good intentions” as paving the road to hell. I beg to differ. I fail to see any benevolent motive behind the kind of thinking that, having already made men a minority on college campuses, still can’t tolerate departmental enrollments not in thrall to percentage-based feminist/vicitimologist jury-rigging.
Put another way, one of the writers for National Review once had a conversation with some liberals of the, “Soak the uber-rich” tax-hiker variety. What it came down to was that, even if he could get the libs to accept *hypothetically* that lowering tax rates would raise tax revenue, they still wanted to hit “the rich” with higher taxes.
Why? To punish them. Actual amounts of revenue raised had nothing to do with their desire.
Similarly, “uppity women” like Debra Rolinson who want to take what is already a proven discriminatory concept behind Title IX and apply it to other “bastions of the patriarchy” strike me as not being so much for “equality” as much as they’re for sticking it to men. All their talk otherwise is just window-dressing to conceal what they’re really agitating for.
From the linked article:
Scientific brainpower is a precious national resource. Shouldn’t we do whatever we can to make sure we use all of it, not just the male half?
Notice that Christina Hoff Sommers works at the American Enterprise Institute, a hotbed of ignorance of academia. They pretend, for example, that academics are significantly divided on global warming. If she were familiar with the great tech schools in the US, she would not have called the one in Pasadena “Cal-Tech”.
How does one gain self esteem when the person is a zero…no wins, no losses, no gains, no defeats to learn from. Just more Utopian bs. Now wonder American has such a difficult time competing in world wide academics. This will fix it…remove 75% of the brilliant scientific men from society…for gods sakes people pull your heads out.
lgm – You can offer us the perspective of an insider. Do you think that women are not as prevalent in math and science because of a gender bias? Do you, as a math educator, find that one sex has more of a natural mathematical aptitude or inclination over the other?
Don’t these folks have better things to do with there time? No, really this is just Orwellian insanity. Stupid, crazy, and foolish.
Worst mistake we ever made was giving lunatics like that the right to vote.
Raisedright.
Good point to the troll. Most of my psych, sociology, and english classes have more women in them than men in my math and biology courses.
Sadly because of a major crisis of academic vocation in psych; I have reached the conclusion that psych is not a science (like chemistry, biology, math, and the like) but a pseudoscience-big on interpretation and severely lacking in hard rigourous scientific application. Hense, another guy is leaving psych at the end of the semester and heading to the science of radiology and nuclear medicine.
GSP
If we carried this to the logical end of the feminist’s demands, wouldn’t some women have to step aside and let more men have those advanced degrees? Or is this one of those liberal plans where it only goes one way?
RaisedRight said (#39):
Yes. This often is subtle: girls getting the message that they can’t do math, women seeing that it’s hard to have kids and build a science career. People being judged by their manner and self confidence in making presentations as much as for the technical content.
No.
Looks like men are getting the short end of the stick here… more women are getting degrees.
So, do we now need affirmitive action for men?
Lacy better be careful what she squaks about…
Grrr…. Lady that is…
It’s not just aptitude that differs, it’s interest. I’m sure there are many girls/women that are fairly good at math and science, but just aren’t interested in the subjects.
Just like my son likes action movies and my daughter likes relationship movies. They just do.
Rusty said:
Actually yes, on average. But it’s all about averages, not absolutes. Generally speaking, there are more men who have the natural aptitude that makes the hard and applied sciences enjoyably challenging than women. There are some women that do, but most don’t. How will you force equal numbers of girls into the dork classes if they just don’t have the knack?
Dumb down the classes so they are more comfortable? Sure, go ahead. Less competition for me in years to come when those classes start graduating idiot engineers who can’t design a Popsicle stick bridge.
lgm said:
GaijinBob
The people who are too shy to give a convincing presentation do not get to the top. Those superstars in academic science may not dress up, but they certainly believe in themselves.
Pay me more and I’ll be glad to teach science.
…oh wait…I already do.
Scratch that idea.
From my experience going to school in the 1930-40 era and university in the lathe 40-early 50 era and then teaching from 1954 through 1987, I do not think the school system was the problem with the so-called lack of women in the math-science fields. Rather was it possibly the preceived roll that women belonged in the home,not the work force that seamed to be held by the public?
My mother had a master degree in mathematics. Several of my highschool teachers of mathematics were women. In university there were very few women in the engineering or geology classes, however there was no reason for that due to school-university policy. Even in the mining engineering field women could take that subject though there was a real barrier to the woman graduate working in the mines due to superstition of a certain cultural group who often worked in the mines.
I found in my teaching years in the earthscience field that often the better student was a woman. Certainly the college did not have any policy against women in the engineering-physical science field.
Thus I think it is the culture not the school systems that cause few women to take the Math-Physical Science-Engineering courses.
I already see this happening in graduate school. I had a professor two years ago in an ENGINEERING class who couldn’t shut up about Bush and Cheney.
If they go through with this, they will weaken our nation and put us on the path toward being another EU, which in turn is about to squashed out of existence by radical Islam.
So, do we want to place ourselves on such a road, or are we going to just leave the politics and humanities nonsense OUT of the pure sciences!
Feminists, let us do our job and stay
OUT of my field!
LGM I presume you are a male so why don’t you do the honorable thing and resign your teaching post and give it to a woman and more preferable a muslim minority women? After all don’t you agree in fairness?
I don’t get it. If women now earn 57 percent of bachelors degrees and 59 percent of masters degrees, shouldn’t these people be telling them to stay out of college, until it’s back to 50-50? I guess the numbers game only works in one direction.