WoW Blog

Just out of curiosity, could this actually cause a stir going in the other direction?

That women are earning the majority of the doctorates in both life and social sciences suggests a gender differential, albeit the opposite of the original focus of Title IX.

Not that I am suggesting gender bias against men, by any means, but if the investigation is to look for gender inequity and not just gender inequity against women, is this a potential negative issue for women in that they are the majority achieving degrees in both of the aforementioned areas (although I don't know how much of a majority it is).

Where is Kate when you need her? :-)

This just seems to be bureaucrats looking to extend their influence. There are certainly differences in the numbers of women in different fields but there are probably lots of reasons for this rather than just discrimination. Especially in universities, which are probably in the lead in equality for everybody.

I think they are on a snipe hunt, but I guarantee it's going to cost everybody in the long run.

"but I guarantee it's going to cost everybody in the long run."

That's one item you can always count on. No matter what they find or what they say they find, it will be costly and probably result in just lost opportunities.

Really, the idea of Title IX is excellent. But how many times were sports teams cut to level the field instead of opportunities for women created?

Nothing like moving everyone to the lowest common denominator to create equality. It would be crazy talk to elevate groups to the highest (or even a higher) standard.

If Title IX does what it is supposed to do: to reduce or remove bias against the women who ARE interested in positions in the sciences (not to eliminate the underrepresentation) then I think it's a good thing.

However, I think the fact that women earning the majority of doctorates in the life and social sciences points to a huge gender bias in the in the physical science and engineering fields, otherwise the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.

And I think that's the issue here, why are women choosing NOT to go into these fields?

Julie,

You are probably right, but could Title IX officials argue it the other way? I think societal pressure would prevent this from happening, most likely, but it's a question that I think one has to consider.

Having degrees in both "soft" and "hard" sciences, many of my classes were populated with women who were in social science because of interest, not because of prejudice/discrimination in physical science.

That does not mean, however, that this is always or even often the case. I attended college at a small school in the Northeast (fairly liberal enviornemnt) and if anyone thinks that gender prejudice is a thing of the past, they are fooling themselves.

Julie,

One important point to note is the wording of Title IX, though (particularly, the Carter Administration's official "Three-Prong Test" Interpretation - Prong 3):

"Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex." (I emboldened the text - not in the original quote)

Title IX is not necessarily about women's rights. Its about gender opportunity/condition equity. While it has rarely happened, if ever, it is a sword that can cut both ways.

I think you are right that we have to ask why women hesitate to go into the physical sciences. But then, in the name of equity, do we have to ask why fewer men are going into social science?

Well first we have to ask the question if males are interested but not being accommodated? As they are now becoming underrepresented if the case is they are not being accommodated then we certainly do have to apply Title IX. And if the case is that they aren't interested why aren't they? What kind of social forces are at work here? Good stuff to ponder here.

It certainly does give me fodder for the 40 mile motorcycle ride home today!

Just as an aside, when the scientists that make up these evaluations conduct their studies, do they use a solid statistical basis for their conclusions and analyses, or are they already biased at the "get go". I for one am frustrated by the involvement of politicians and those with an activist mentality defining the agenda for the rest of us. Personally, I dont believe that a woman (or a man) or a disabled person or a person of colour should be given preferential treatment. No, I dont believe they should be discriminated against, but they are two different concepts to most politicians and activists.