"The Larry Summers Show" - My long article in the Feb. 28th American Conservative is available this weekend to electronic subscribers. An excerpt:
The         first scientific challenge to academia's traditional assumption that men         were smarter than women came in 1912 when pioneering IQ test researcher         Cyril Burt announced they scored equally -- on average. Yet, as Summers         noted, men are more variable, so they are more numerous among the         extremely intelligent, such as Harvard professors and Nobel Prize         winners (40 of whom have taught at Harvard).
       
        The Nobel Prize lists show a striking pattern: the fuzzier the field,         the better women do. Twelve women have won the most political and least         intellectually rigorous Nobel Prize, Peace (13 percent of all individual         winners), and ten have been Literature laureates (ten percent). In         Physiology & Medicine, there have been seven female laureates (four         percent). In Chemistry, three (two percent), and in Physics, the most         abstract of the Nobels, just two (one percent).
       
        What about mathematics, that most unworldly of subjects? The Fields         Medal for mathematicians under age 40 is the equivalent of the Nobel. No         women number among its 44 recipients.
       
        But, surely, the trendline must be turning upwards as discrimination         lessens?
       
        That's true in Physiology & Medicine, where women won only once         before 1977, but six times (nine percent) since. Yet, by aggregating         Physics and Chemistry, we can see the opposite pattern: five women         ranked among the first 160 Physics and Chemistry laureates, but over the         last 40 years, not a single woman features among the latest 160 winners.
       
        Overall, in the bad old days from 1901 through 1964, women won 2.5         percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then, they've declined to 2.3         percent.
       
        Why hasn't the feminist era fostered more female scientific geniuses?         Perhaps feminism persuaded the top women that they could have it all --         romance, children, and career -- rather than just the lonely         celibacy society once demanded from them, and they spread themselves too         thin. Moreover, feminism encourages women to indulge in self-pity and         resentment, which distract from earning a Nobel.
       
        My wife asked, "So why hasn't the Nobel Foundation bowed to         feminist pressure and started the usual crypto-quotas to make women feel         better about themselves?"
       
        "Because they don't have to?" I speculated. "After all,         they're the Nobel Foundation."
       
        "Exactly," she shot back. "And Larry Summers is the         President of Harvard. So why can't he too stand up to the feminists         who want to make it harder for our sons to get a fair shot?
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment