Re:Philip Greenspun's take on Women in Science
by timr on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:56PM
(#74938)
There may well be fewer men as a percentage of those pursuing a PhD in English Literature (or maybe not; don't know), but that's different than saying that there are fewer women pursuing PhDs in science than in English Literature.
English Literature PhD programs are usually quite a bit smaller than those in just about any scientific field, and 100% of five people is still only five people.
Put another way: the "scientific careers suck and men are irrational" argument is perfectly consistent with a universe where out of every 100 women, 80 go to professional school (business/medicine/law), 15 go into science PhD programs, and 5 go into humanities PhD programs -- even if those 5 women represent nearly all of the humanities' enrollment. It just means that the few "irrational" women are disproportionately attracted to the humanities.
English Literature PhD programs are usually quite a bit smaller than those in just about any scientific field, and 100% of five people is still only five people.
Put another way: the "scientific careers suck and men are irrational" argument is perfectly consistent with a universe where out of every 100 women, 80 go to professional school (business/medicine/law), 15 go into science PhD programs, and 5 go into humanities PhD programs -- even if those 5 women represent nearly all of the humanities' enrollment. It just means that the few "irrational" women are disproportionately attracted to the humanities.