The fact that there are fewer women than men in the sciences and engineering has been found to arise from institutional bias, a higher education Malibu Barbiearianism (or, to be fair, for once, Malibu Stacyism). So says the National Academy of Sciences' committee charged with studying the problem, a panel chaired by the Pride of the Hurricanes, Donna Shalala:
Women in science and engineering are hindered not by lack of ability
but by bias and “outmoded institutional structures” in academia, an
expert panel reported today.
The panel, convened by the National Academy of Sciences,
said that in an era of global competition the nation could not afford
“such underuse of precious human capital.” Among other steps, the
report recommends that universities alter procedures for hiring and
evaluation, change typical timetables for tenure and promotion, and
provide more support for working parents.
Sure. I'd only add that these would be nice reforms for other fields besides the sciences and engineering, as well.
This I found pretty damning:
For 30 years, the report says, women have earned at least 30 percent of
the nation’s doctorates in social and behavioral sciences, and at least
20 percent of the doctorates in life sciences. Yet they appear among
full professors in those fields at less than half those levels. Women
from minorities are “virtually absent,” it adds.
These numbers do not seem to me to be explicable by a Lawrence Summers-like recourse to "innate differences." For some reason.
This bit amused me:
Dr. Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services who is now president of the University of Miami,
said part of the problem was insufficient effort on the part of college
and university administrators. “Many of us spend more energy enforcing
the law on our sports teams than we have in have in our academic
halls,” she said.
Oy. Fewer straight lines, if you please, Dr. Shalala.
On another note, it is pretty fun that the NY Times calls her "Dr." and Summers only "Mr." Heh. (He does have a PhD, of course.)
UPDATE:
In comments below, Echidne reminds me that the problem with Mr-Dr Summers' comments was not that he offered "innate differences" as a hypothesis, but did so in a glib, condescending way.
Scott follows up Echidne's comment by noting that Summers actually mentioned "innate differences" as just one (actually the second) potential explanation. The Deposed Tyrant of Harvard gave precedence to the argument that women are less represented in these fields because they have to take care of children, something that takes away time from their pursuit of academic brass rings. Scott observes:
his "high powered job" hypothesis is just sexism in a different form;
why does having children limit the hours of women but not men? (It's
also worth asking why men have also dominated academic departments in which, if Summers is correct, women must have as much or more innate ability.)
-- a point that makes me laugh mordantly, because this is dead right.
A woman I know quite well, ahem, was once told as a bit of well-intended advice that it would be a good idea not to be seen on campus so often with her children, as this might be held against her if she ever were to apply for a full time job in the department where she was adjuncting. The amazing bit about this advice was that her husband was at the time a full-time professor at that very college -- and since this couple's kids went to daycare on campus, and he was the one who ended up taking them to and from that daycare, he could be seen almost daily dragging some red-cheeked squalling brat aroung with him. And you know what? He was routinely praised for his obvious joy at being a family man and a good Daddy and so good with his adorable little progeny.
Go figure...
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Oh, and the only reason I mentioned Summers at all was that the NY Times did. From the link above:
The panel dismissed the idea, notably advanced last year by Lawrence H. Summers, then the president of Harvard,
that the relative dearth of women in the upper ranks of science might
be the result of “innate” intellectual deficiencies, particularly in
mathematics.
Odd how sometimes the wingnut and the MSM version of events sometimes dovetail precisely, ain't it?