Submitted by miko (not verified) on Sun, 2006-08-13 23:28.

there are a few assumptions here i'd like to see backed up.

1. Differences in SAT test scores are the result of innate differences. I think the fact that a 1 month test-taking course can bump a score by over 100 points scuttles that. As the ETS itself says "it is a myth that a test will provide a unitary, unequivocal yardstick for ranking on merit." SAT scores also over predict future male performance and underpredict femal performance in university. Students perform lower if their expectations of their own ability are lowered or they are aware of race/gender differences in test outcomes (hmmm, how would that happen?).

2. The sciences as a whole are made up of people that fall at the far-right edge of whatever cognitive ability curve you're talking about. (And you have to do better than anecdotes from particular disciplines, like spatial grasp and certain engineering fields.)

3. Academic science is purely meritocratic, and having a bit more of a particular science-related ability will help you have a more successful scientific career (as opposed to, say, the ability to manage a lab full of students and postdocs, grant writing skills, work ethic, ability to get your name on papers with minimal input/effort, writing a lot of reviews, being buddies with journal editors, being a convincing and charismatic advocate of your ideas at conferences, etc, etc...)

4. Relatedly, the higher you go up in academic prestige (tenure, promotion) correlates with (let alone is caused by) innate abilites.

Given that discrimination that actively excludes and underrates females (and no, I'm not saying the disparity itself is evidence of discrimination--a new favorite straw man) has been demonstrated far more convincingly than the argument that innate cognitive difference--innate or otherwise--determine academic career success, why do you find it so easy to dismiss discrimination as a primary cause? Doesn't it just make sense to work harder toward meritocracy and then see where we stand?

When scientists (male and female) stop consistently rating work based on the gender of the author's name, and female students stop experiencing grindingly regular demeaning and exclusionary treatment throughout their education, I think we'll find the situation much improved. Of course, that requires us to be both proactive and self-critical, rather than shrugging our shoulders from a position of privilege and saying "viva la difference."

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options
Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.
Please enter capital letters only.