tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post5800074994052194830..comments2024-03-14T04:53:49.513-05:00Comments on FemaleScienceProfessor: But I Don't Want to Write about John Tierney AgainFemale Science Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-75697031646684548772012-07-13T18:04:06.325-05:002012-07-13T18:04:06.325-05:00"..someone at the 99.9 level is more likely t..."..someone at the 99.9 level is more likely than someone at the 99.1 level to get a doctorate in science or to win tenure at a top university."<br /><br />Someone at this level on what day? after a single test? There is no such thing as "someone at the 99.9 level" vs. "someone at the 99.1 level," and if there is, the average college search committee can't determine which is which (btw, on what measure is this a statistically significant difference?). When people are at these kinds of levels, the difference is insigificant and undetectable--and the judgments are far more likely to be based on subjective criteria.oriflammehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182779041569300966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-59856032830426083762010-06-13T19:47:56.580-05:002010-06-13T19:47:56.580-05:00On one point I reluctantly sort of agree with him:...<i>On one point I reluctantly sort of agree with him: i.e., workshops to "enhance gender equality", mandated if certain legislation becomes law, could be kind of grim. In all likelihood, these would be yet another sounds-good-in-theory administrative requirement that PIs and others would have to sit through to be allowed to run our research groups.</i><br /><br />A nit, but nevertheless I must pick: It is my understanding that the workshops are not "to enhance gender equality" per se, as in teaching people how to play nice, etc. According to the AAUW press release about the America Competes act, the workshops are supposed to "educate program officers, members of grant review panels, and others about methods that minimize the effects of gender bias in evaluation of federal research grants and faculty hiring and tenure practices." In other words, they are supposed to teach people who are operating in decision-making capacities what the relevant research says about how gender bias can operate in those decision-making processes, and what steps one can take to avoid or minimize that bias. "Enhancing gender equality" (or equity, as I prefer) would not be an outcome of the workshop itself - that eventual outcome would depend upon whether the attendees actually paid attention and decided to try using any of the information they were presented with at the workshop. <br /><br />The information is all currently available, and many universities that have ADVANCE grants have gathered a lot of it and made it readily accessible on their websites. Sadly, faculty search and hiring committees, tenure and promotion committees, program officers, and grant review panels either remain unaware of these resources or choose not to avail themselves of this information. <br /><br />If you were doing a scientific experiment, and there was information available that would help you minimize artifacts in your setup and data collection, you'd want to know about it, no doubt - you'd do everything you could to get your hands on the information and learn from other colleagues. But when someone wants to offer similar information about minimizing gender bias in your decision making, we roll out the jokes about how wretched workshops are and how they will do no good and we cross our arms and declare that we will make sport and just not learn a damn thing. Yay! We are such independent free-thinking scientists! No damn workshops and surveys for us! Nobody can teach us anything unless they are just like us! And doing what we do! Because we are absolutely sure there's no knowledge outside of our scientific field we need to know! Yay!<br /><br />It is possible the workshops will be poorly constructed and implemented with a heavy hand. But it is also possible that they will contain useful information that people with willing hearts could take home and use to try and make things just a tiny bit better. It would be great if everybody would spontaneously go on their own and read the stuff on the various websites, but they won't.Zuskahttp://www.scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuskanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-45645263624151139732010-06-10T12:59:02.361-05:002010-06-10T12:59:02.361-05:00FSP, you should do a post on workshops about teach...FSP, you should do a post on workshops about teaching first year students, because I'm sure that you and many readers have some stories akin to this one by Dr. Pion:<br /><br /><i>I have a colleague who loves to go to presentations like that. Within 5 minutes his hand shoots up with a question about the presenter's first-hand experience with such students in an algebra class. It is priceless. So was the time that we were given a poorly designed Powerpoint LECTURE about why we shouldn't give lectures, and someone asked why the presenters had given a lecture if that delivery mechanism was so poor. They were speechless. </i><br /><br />My own story is when an education research was lecturing about not lecturing, and one reason he gave was that we need to be strong in science and engineering to be competitive with China and India. So my hand shot up and I asked whether we should teach science the way that China and India do.<br /><br />He was not happy.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-88308932930039471042010-06-09T18:44:26.575-05:002010-06-09T18:44:26.575-05:00Can you post a link to the article with that inane...Can you post a link to the article with that inane comment about female civil war re-enactors? I needed the laugh, but couldn't track it down.Doctor Pionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12513786840852469648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-87375919705178837472010-06-09T18:44:26.574-05:002010-06-09T18:44:26.574-05:00Not necessarily. My son scored 720 on math at the...Not necessarily. My son scored 720 on math at the end of 6th grade without "several hours every day". He did math for fun occasionally and had some extra instruction at home (mainly when he bought himself <i>Calculus for Dummies</i> with his birthday money and wanted clarification on some points not covered well there), but not nearly at the level Anonymous implies is needed. He *did* have "non-standard curriculum"---he got the geometry in school (well, mainly teaching himself from the Art of Problem Solving geometry book, but the teachers did grade the homework he assigned himself).<br /><br />Some kids are just good at math and learn it without intensive instruction and laborious practice.<br />Historically, there have been more boys than girls in that group (still are if you look at the high scorers on high-ceiling tests like AMC-8 or AMC-10), but that could be as easily because of socialization as anything innate. In fact, similar measurements in other countries do get different ratios by gender, making genetic explanations less convincing.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14528751349030084532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-75969638365085822182010-06-09T18:38:49.015-05:002010-06-09T18:38:49.015-05:00I have to start with your side comment about "...I have to start with your side comment about <i>"a workshop I went to about teaching those delicate creatures known as 'first year students' -- a workshop at which we professors were instructed by people who had never in their lives taught a first year, or any, student."</i> I have a colleague who loves to go to presentations like that. Within 5 minutes his hand shoots up with a question about the presenter's first-hand experience with such students in an algebra class. It is priceless. So was the time that we were given a poorly designed Powerpoint LECTURE about why we shouldn't give lectures, and someone asked why the presenters had given a lecture if that delivery mechanism was so poor. They were speechless. <br /><br />Tierney writes, about the 700 SAT 7th-grader sample:<i>"In the early 1980s, there were 13 boys for every girl in that group, but by 1991 the gender gap had narrowed to four to one ...."</i> (I am snipping off his explanation of this bit of data because it is his speculation, not data.) If that spectacular change is unlikely to be explained by genetic changes in the population, how do you know that ANY of the remaining differences are? You don't. <br /><br />But my real question is whether Tierney knows what the symbol "beta" represents in the equation being whispered seductively by the woman in the side graphic. He is, after all, a science writer, not a scientist.Doctor Pionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12513786840852469648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-76347749621475109482010-06-09T11:44:43.988-05:002010-06-09T11:44:43.988-05:00Posts like this are why I, as a female scientist, ...Posts like this are why I, as a female scientist, often feel alienated from the "women in science" community. Misstating Tierney's and Summers' arguments, scoffing at data if its implications are unacceptable, attacking those like AnonProf who call for open discussion--these are not the actions of people committed to free and open inquiry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-77741747619816152332010-06-09T11:02:03.800-05:002010-06-09T11:02:03.800-05:00You sure sound like you still are an 8-year old.
...<i>You sure sound like you still are an 8-year old.</i><br /><br />And I'll bet she has *cooties* too!<br /><br />(In other news, perhaps sir would like a nap and a snack? And not to be hand-held through basic research into gender bias?)Bagelsannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-60431104969091664432010-06-09T04:15:56.944-05:002010-06-09T04:15:56.944-05:00Anonymous Professor, you wanted evidence for point...Anonymous Professor, you wanted evidence for point A: Would cross temporal shifts over time work for you? <br /><br />Stephen Ceci, Wendy Williams, and Susan Barnett looked at these issues. One interesting thing is Tierney cites the extremes in intelligence as a biological factor, but there is evidence that they aren't fully explained by variables like genes and hormones. For example, among the seventh graders scoring 700 or higher on the SAT-M, there were 12.9 males for every female in the earliest years of the SMPY studies, compared to 2.8 now. The numbers declining before the shifting SAT scoring scale as well. <br /><br />Key Quote: "We found that evidence for a direct effect of innate hormonal<br />differences on math and spatial ability (the basis for the intrinsicability-<br />differences biological model in Figure A2) is contradictory<br />and inconclusive, with scant data on right-tail samples. Despite the<br />failure to link sex differences in mathematical and spatial ability to<br />prenatal and postnatal hormones, the fact is that there are persistent<br />sex differences in spatial reasoning and mathematical ability at the<br />right tail, on the order of approximately 2 to 1 on various gatekeeper<br />tests such as SAT-M and GRE-Q (e.g., Hyde et al., 2008),<br />which may reflect purely sociocultural factors, purely biological<br />factors, or some combination. On the basis of transnational data<br />showing very inconsistent sex differences at the right tail, including<br />countries where they are absent or even reversed (e.g., Guiso<br />et al., 2008; Penner, in press) and U.S. data showing a narrowing<br />of the sex gap at the right tail over time (Gates, 2006b), we<br />conclude that the bases of mathematical and spatial differences are<br />almost certainly not purely biological but rather must include a<br />strong sociocultural component."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-38900370683492777152010-06-09T00:12:50.479-05:002010-06-09T00:12:50.479-05:00Anon, on the contrary. Being an eight year old is ...Anon, on the contrary. Being an eight year old is seen as an asset in my field. It took me decades of training to give up the nice little lady behaviour.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-15390079600715480682010-06-08T23:10:29.052-05:002010-06-08T23:10:29.052-05:00What bothers me most, is that this discussion seem...What bothers me most, is that this discussion seems to be focusing on the problem of women (and some races) in obtaining top positions in academia. <br /><br />To me, this seems to be just one symptom of a much larger problem. From the AAUW (formerly known as the American Association of University Women), <br /><br />"As early as one year after graduation, a pay gap is found between women and men who had the same college major. In edu- cation, a female-dominated major, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. In biological sci- ences, a mixed-gender major, women earn only 75 percent as much as men earn. Likewise in mathematics—a male- dominated major—women earn only 76 percent as much as men earn. Female students cannot simply choose a major that will allow them to avoid the pay gap."<br /><br />Many people attribute this to poor negotiation, or the like. It surely can't be because of academic record, since women tend to have higher GPAs, on average, then men. In all these cases, it is easy to point the finger and blame one thing or another, which can't be easily changed. Eventually, when all else fails, then you just put up your hands and say it is innate. That way, we don't have to think about how to fix the problem.ryanonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-14888852668452592802010-06-08T22:23:54.665-05:002010-06-08T22:23:54.665-05:00@Kea
AnonProf: you're a professor? Really? An...@Kea<br /><br /><i>AnonProf: you're a professor? Really? And to think I can't even get a postdoc! My research abilities were better than yours when I was 8 years old.</i><br /><br />You sure sound like you still <i>are</i> an 8-year old. <br /><br />Maybe that's why you cannot get a postdoc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-46069073245280202272010-06-08T19:05:06.981-05:002010-06-08T19:05:06.981-05:00Wow. Somehow I almost completely missed Tierney&#...Wow. Somehow I almost completely missed Tierney's article (and like Eilat, I'm glad I never paid attention to him before). <br /><br />Excellent post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-86374602414820791052010-06-08T18:19:58.577-05:002010-06-08T18:19:58.577-05:00Hmm. Well, in my department, yes, I would guess th...<i>Hmm. Well, in my department, yes, I would guess that probably all of our grad students and faculty are likely from the top 1% of the population, in terms of math/science ability.</i><br /><br />1) Tierney referenced work on the top 0.01% of mathematical achievement, which is 2 orders of magnitude smaller of a group. We're talking about 1 in 10,000 Americans, or about 32,000 people. Of those 30,000, only about 20,000 are old enough to be in or past college but young enough to not yet be retired.<br /><br />Let's assume that the top 50 physics and math departments (100 departments total) each have of order 30 faculty and 70 grad students (on average, and keeping to nice round numbers of 100 people per department). <br /><br />Now consider the upper echelons of academic engineering and computer science and materials science and quantitative biology and other math-intensive fields. And all of the people who got advanced degrees in these fields and went4 into industry. Put them together, and the top tier of math-intensive professionals is easily a few hundred thousand people, or 10x the size of the narrow cohort that Tierney limited his attention to.<br /><br />So, even if (for the sake of argument) there is evidence of a biologically-based disparity in a certain group, that group is much smaller than the elite tier of math-intensive professionals. A study on a small, special group cannot explain more than a fraction of the entire profession, even if (for the sake of argument) the study is sound.<br /><br />2) Most people working in STEM did not get advanced degrees from the top 50 departments. They got bachelors degree from a much wider range of schools. No way are they in the top 0.01% or even the top 1%. My understanding is that when you study the top 10% on math tests taken in middle school there is little or no statistically significant gender discrepancy. (I can't find the cite right now.) Despite that, the students in STEM still skew male. Clearly there are factors in play other than mathematical ability.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-42289493849845811262010-06-08T18:12:04.825-05:002010-06-08T18:12:04.825-05:00Another thing that should be noted: even Summers n...Another thing that should be noted: even Summers never claimed that this "long tail" effect was the <i>only</i> cause of underrepresentation of women in top STEM positions, but that it was one of multiple factors, including work expectations that seem to assume the faculty member has a stay-at-home spouse that does everything (the long hours) and gender bias/discrimination (though Summers thought this was a minor factor, and I think it's a major one). Many, many more could be added (bad parental leave policies and a macho culture in some environments leap to mind as but two). <br /><br />Personally, I don't put much stock in the long tail hypothesis, but that may be in part because it sounds too much like arguments in other fields that vanished once women achieved parity. But it's not the case that even Summers argued that "women can't do STEM" or "the long tails explain everything". I think everyone agrees that the barriers to equality are complicated and messy, and that we need to keep eroding them.<br /><br />If the ideas are that wrong (and I think they are), there's no reason to distort them to make them an even juicier target. We can be scrupulously fair to our intellectual opponents and still carry the day with data. Many people here have done exactly that, and that's been too rare in this debate.Minoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00719509027451701396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-11981149568320126132010-06-08T18:08:25.638-05:002010-06-08T18:08:25.638-05:00AnonProf: you're a professor? Really? And to t...AnonProf: you're a professor? Really? And to think I can't even get a postdoc! My research abilities were better than yours when I was 8 years old. OK, then, since you are incapable of doing 5 minutes of intelligent reading on your own ... <br /><br />IQ SCORES ARE NORMALISED SO THAT THE CURVE IS IDENTICAL FOR MEN AND WOMEN. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES ON SPECIFIC TASKS SUCH AS SPATIAL REASONING (WHICH WOMEN DO BETTER AT IF THEY ARE TAUGHT) ARE SMALL AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ENORMOUS MALE FEMALE RATIO IN STEM FIELDS.<br /><br />Moreover, whatever gave you morons the idea that a super high IQ makes a good STEM professional? In my experience it most certainly does not (and since I am way up there in the tail and a theoretical physicist, my experience is not negligible).Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-44738984884259745912010-06-08T18:03:06.544-05:002010-06-08T18:03:06.544-05:00Hah. My field often still has 100% male conference...Hah. My field often still has 100% male conferences. There are so called legal requirements at some places for PIs to report on gender equality measures. Goodness knows what they write in their reports, because they sure as hell aren't doing anything to help women in the field. Believe me, I know, because I AM the woman in the field. Oh, some of them THINK they are helping ... eg., by introducing you to male colleagues who are desperate to find postdocs to exploit ... problem is that they do this without bothering to read anything that you ever wrote to check whether or not there is, say, some conflict of interest. <br /><br />It doesn't occur to them to actually ASK you about it either. It's like, "here you are, honey, go work for Max. He's super smart and cool and it will do you good. Never mind your pretty head about ... now what was it you were researching for the last 10 years? Oh honey, it's not important."Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-82697637023981469242010-06-08T17:33:54.886-05:002010-06-08T17:33:54.886-05:00If a man doesn't get tenure, someone didn'...If a man doesn't get tenure, someone didn't get tenure. If a woman doesn't get tenure, it is a sign of how unfair the system is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-40023094942061314472010-06-08T17:28:48.853-05:002010-06-08T17:28:48.853-05:00...we need to look at the numbers. Given the alleg......we need to look at the numbers. Given the alleged means and standard deviations in ability for males and females, ...So for anyone who wants to respond in this way, I think this response will only be convincing if you can show us the numbers and show us the math<br /><br />Im glad you refer to it as "alleged" means and standard deviations. The signals we are inputing into the model are very noisy and (as much research has shown), highly biased. So like I tell many of my students, you can show me the math... but what does it mean? I think we need to be careful. Bad data is bad data. Differences between individuals seems to have greater variance. <br /><br />How many of you knew that Florence Nightengale was the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society (1859), and credited with developing polar area diagrams?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-90655572951086857022010-06-08T17:20:06.077-05:002010-06-08T17:20:06.077-05:00Anonymous prof,
I think the reason why we can'...Anonymous prof,<br />I think the reason why we can't give a well-reasoned, quantitative response to the article is because the argument in the article was not quantitative and provided no metric or predictions which we can attempt to disprove.<br /><br />Such is the problem with these speculative issues. It's prob also the reason why people shudder at having to read some random guy's opinions on them.Grumpynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-52715527686887041492010-06-08T16:43:09.662-05:002010-06-08T16:43:09.662-05:00anon@3:53
I'm "falling prey to the old w...anon@3:53<br /><br />I'm "falling prey to the old white man locked alone in a lab stereotype"?<br /><br />Maybe I'm a medium-old white guy, but I'm not locked in a lab. Check my web page, I sometimes look out the window.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-26516651513994347552010-06-08T15:54:44.261-05:002010-06-08T15:54:44.261-05:00I'm very sympathetic to the concerns about gen...I'm very sympathetic to the concerns about gender inequity. But I have to admit I was mildly disappointed with this blog post: I felt it was a missed opportunity to patiently identify the holes in Tierney's arguments, one by one (if indeed they are faulty).<br /><br />I came to this blog hoping to find a substantive response to the claims in Tierney's column. I was hoping folks on this blog could supply me with some ammunition to respond to the people who make these arguments -- if the arguments are faulty. Ad hominem attacks, while satisfying to someone who is already convinced that Tierney is wrong, do not respond to the substance of his arguments. I understand there is a lot of frustration about having to respond to these arguments, but can anyone point me to a reasoned response to the arguments?<br /><br />Let me articulate the main hypothesis that I'm interested in hearing substantive discussion of.<br /><br /><i>Hypothesis: When it comes to math/science ability, the male and female means may be the same, but the male standard deviation may be higher than the female standard deviation.</i><br /><br />Here are the responses I've seen on this blog:<br /><br />Response a) Sure, the hypothesis might be true, but that doesn't prove it is nature instead of nurture. [I agree this is a good point. That said, as good scientists, shouldn't we also acknowledge in the same breath the possibility that nature could play a significant role? Is there strong evidence pointing one way or another? ]<br /><br />Response b) The hypothesis doesn't seem to explain observed gender inequity, as math/science folks aren't always from the top 1% of people. [Hmm. Well, in my department, yes, I would guess that probably all of our grad students and faculty are likely from the top 1% of the population, in terms of math/science ability. And in any case, it still misses the point. Even if all math/science faculty were drawn from, say, the top 5% of the population in terms of math/science ability, then there could still be significantly more males above that threshold than females, under the hypothesis of same mean but different std dev. Or, to put it another way: to evaluate this response, we need to look at the numbers. Given the alleged means and standard deviations in ability for males and females, and given the median math/science ability of faculty, we can then do the calculus to calculate the relative numbers of males vs females above that threshold, and compare to the actual number of male and female math/sci faculty. So for anyone who wants to respond in this way, I think this response will only be convincing if you can show us the numbers and show us the math.]<br /><br />I write anonymously because, after the Larry Summers incident, there is no way that I would ever dare say a single word about this subject without anonymity -- this is apparently too sensitive a subject. It's too bad, because I think the best way to get to the truth is to have a robust discussion from all sides, but at least we have forums like this one that are open to intelligent discussion. In any case, I'm very interested in hearing substantive responses to this hypothesis, evidence for or against it, reasons why it should or should not be taken seriously, etc. Thanks for your thoughts!AnonymousProfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-56744830574939386302010-06-08T15:53:15.708-05:002010-06-08T15:53:15.708-05:00@JohnV I think you're falling prey to the &quo...@JohnV I think you're falling prey to the "old white man locked alone in a lab" stereotype. In reality, most scientists today need a host of interpersonal skills, as they work with collaborators, advise grad students and post docs, and teach students. As a woman who has worked both in science research and in industry, I can say that I felt more fulfilled both intellectually and on an "interpersonal" level working in the lab than working in a cube.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-79515028265169724392010-06-08T15:46:47.559-05:002010-06-08T15:46:47.559-05:00Steph said: … science should be thinking about ho...Steph said: <i>… science should be thinking about how it can KEEP the women who can compete with the oh so wonderfully smart men, but leave science for OTHER reasons. Yeah, we should do something at all levels, but there are tons of women who have proven their skills at the BS or PhD level who still end up leaving science. Why not focus more on keeping them? </i><br /><br />I think this is an important point. A disproportionate lack of advancement of women with BS in STEM to PhD and beyond points to a clear bias; this issue is also a very good immediate target for fighting against bias as it is conducive to corrective measures by academic institutions. <br /><br />In contrast, addressing society-wide stereotypes at the level of individual families and communities is very hard to do directly, and these changes require many generations. Teenage socialization plays a significant role in why some girls simply drop the idea of science in middle and high school, and this issue is difficult to combat because it's at the society's core. <br /><br />However, if the image of a top-notch scientist changes fairly rapidly (as a result of ensuring we don't lose women who do get science PhDs through focused efforts by academic institutions) and women STEM profs and researchers are no longer extreme rarities, this change has the ability to diffuse into the broader population at all levels and help change the overall perception of women’s role in science.<br /><br />In a nutshell, I think more focus on correcting the gender bias at the PhD and above levels has the ability to significantly enhance the efforts focused on direct outreach to middle and high-school girls.GMPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872461021953583473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-52233048136284183822010-06-08T13:06:47.234-05:002010-06-08T13:06:47.234-05:00@Cloud
Thanks for the Pink/blue brain book tip, I...@Cloud<br /><br />Thanks for the Pink/blue brain book tip, I checked the Amazon reviews, just what I wanted, and it's now on my phone to read on this evening's plane trip.<br /><br />My personal hunch (based on my daughter) is that girls tend to distain inhumane STEM fields in favor of richer interpersonal occupations, rather than much disparity in skill, but many factors are possible.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.com