Re:Philip Greenspun's take on Women in Science
by DocSavage on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:12PM
(#74821)
Medicine is not what I'd call a "quant" field, and I bet lit Ph.D.'s have precisely the skills necessary - focus, attention to detail, ability to memorize large amounts of knowledge, and good reasoning. So women who get lit PhD's probably could go to med school.
I think Greenspun is off the mark on his reasons why people choose science, literature, or any relatively low-paying field. They get compensation in other ways, like being able to use their mind in creative ways. I consciously choose not to continue in Medicine because it's boring to me compared to building things. I've traded money and stability for more chaos and the ability to work more on my terms. If you talk to docs, you'll get another set of complaints -- malpractice insurance, hours (for some), paperwork.
That said, we do need to distinguish between fields. Phil argues that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." Would you make the same statement for jobs in literature? Are Lit professors as capable of pursuing these highly paid alternative career paths as the Math/Hard Sci/Engineering Ph.D's? It's a highly contentious question, I know.
I'd say that most lit Ph.D's probably don't have strong quant skills, nor do they have much of a science background. So they clearly are not choosing lit over a career in high finance or medicine. However, law is probably an option, so the women who pursue a lit Ph.D may be exhibiting at least some of the "irrationality" that the men are.
I guess it comes down to how you feel about the Science Ph.D vs Medicine, Finance or Law relative to the Humanities Ph.D vs Law only. If the situations are analagous (which is open to debate), I'd say you've uncovered a major flaw in Greenspun's "men are more irrational" argument.