For the past two weeks, my e-mail in-box has been overflowing with messages from women — and some men — about the hypotheses offered by Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers to explain the dearth of women in the academic sciences. One woman wrote, “It is not surprising that people are angry when they see such full-blown contemptuous arrogance.’’ Others were shocked at his apparent insensitivity: Had he no concern for the female students and faculty in math and science at Harvard or other academic institutions?
That’s an important question. Although we can’t do anything about Summers’ manner in calling for more research into whether women and men have innate differences when it comes to mathematics and science, we can address the resulting controversy. There is a wealth of data about men and women in science, about cognitive sex differences, about the effects of expectations on people’s behavior, and about unintended misjudgments of women and men.
By far the most provocative discussion inspired by Summers’ comments is whether women may be innately inferior to men in math. Women do score lower, on average, than men on standardized math tests such as the SAT and GRE (Graduate Record Examination). We already know, from research by sociologists Yu Xie of the University of Michigan and Kimberlee Shauman of the University of California (who were examining the reasons that women do — and don’t — leave science), that the differences on math tests do not account for the gender gap in who chooses to major in science. The gender gap persists even when you take test scores into account. So in a sense the question is moot.
We also know that the differences within each sex are far larger than the average difference between the sexes. And we know that sex differences in math are smaller than cross-national differences. One study, comparing the United States, Taiwan and Japan, found that Japanese girls in grammar school scored almost twice as high on certain tests as American boys and almost always scored distinctly higher.
Maybe Asians are innately better at math than Americans. If so, following Summers’ reasoning, Harvard should be preferentially hiring Asian women over American men. (We don’t know what’s behind the large cross-national differences — although education is key — and, as Americans, we’re a little reluctant to think we’re inferior.)
In the meantime, we don’t cultivate women who are strong in math. A study of seventh and eighth graders in the top one percent of math performers shows that the girls do not improve their scores over a four-year period to the same extent that boys do; nor do girls in that top pool continue in math and science at the same rate as boys. We cultivate and nurture mathematically inclined boys. And children — like adults — have a tendency to fulfill expectations. We expect boys to excel at math and treat them accordingly. Shouldn’t we do the same for girls?
The National Science Foundation has recognized that the nation loses out if colleges and universities squander the talents of women faculty members. And if women are going to thrive in math and science fields, academia has to change.
Summers now says he was wrong to have spoken in a way that has sent an unintended signal of discouragement to talented women. He also has pledged $25 million to promote the hiring of women and minorities at Harvard.
That message would have been a welcome addition to the comments he delivered at the Jan. 14 conference. The most important message, though, is that if we raise expectations of women in science and give them the resources they need, they will make it to the top.
— Virginia Valian is a professor of psychology and linguistics at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center in New York and the author of “Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women’’ (M.I.T. Press).
