More on LHS, Math, Boys and Girls
Posted on July 30th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 36 Comments »
We seem to be having a lot of Larry Summers news lately, but don’t blame me: For better or worse, the man makes far more news than does his replacement (which will be the subject of a later post).
Anyway.
There’s been some interesting second-guessing about how the media reported on that boys-and-girls-are-the-same-at-math study. The MSM almost uniformly declared that the study showed that boys-and-girls-are-the-same (you get the point) and went out of their way to remark on the Larry Summers incident and say that the study proved Summers wrong.
Except…hold on a minute. Listen to the Wall Street Journal lede:
Girls and boys have roughly the same average scores on state math tests, but boys more often excelled or failed, researchers reported.
…The researchers, from the University of Wisconsin and the University of California, Berkeley, didn’t find a significant overall difference between girls’ and boys’ scores. But the study also found that boys’ scores were more variable than those of girls. More boys scored extremely well — or extremely poorly — than girls, who were more likely to earn scores closer to the average for all students.
Since that’s pretty much what Summers said in his infamous Cambridge talk, shouldn’t the consensus MSM story have been not that the study proved Summers wrong, but that it actually supported his argument?
Canada’s National Post says,
Unfortunately, journalists of both sexes tend to not be math geniuses. Few of them anywhere on the continent noticed that [the study’s] data actually come a lot closer to supporting Mr. Summers’ hypothesis than they do to refuting it.
The blog Marginal Revolution (new to me) also argues that this UC-Berkeley study shows that Summers was right.
….consistent with many earlier studies (JSTOR), what this study found was that the ratio of male to female variance in ability was positive and significant, in other words we can expect that there will be more math geniuses and more dullards, among males than among females.
Fascinating comments after the post, by the way.
I’m no expert, so I won’t comment on the nature or existence of differences between boys and girls in math aptitude. (Nancy Hopkins, are you there?)
But I do know something about the media, and it seems to me that the general spin on this study has been inaccurate—which, dare I say it, looks like it may be the result of the authors’ politics, and the way that they spoonfed the story to the MSM.
36 Responses
7/30/2008 10:03 am
Richard,
Of course, the general spin has been inaccurate because of…author’s politics. This general spin is not surprising in this pc world, and particularly the world of academia.
However, isn’t it more than a little upsetting to have The New York Times ( “The paper of record”…not) cite a study that validated Larry’s major controversial claim, and then, in effect, say that the study repudiated his conjecture!
This was an article by Tamar Lewin; this wasn’t an editorial in The Times.
Why is it so difficult for reporters on The Times to keep their personal politics out of the news?
7/30/2008 10:38 am
I think reportorial laziness is a much much bigger factor than anything else in the rampant distortions of press coverage of almost anything of substance. Reporters just can’t be bothered to read the stuff they’re writing about. In this case the contextual hook for the story wrote itself — though it would be interesting to see what the press release looks like.
Lazy, lazy reporting. The politics of the scientists involved are a much smaller factor, almost certainly.
Incidentally, Sam, or anyone else — want to hear a wicked-simple, wicked-hard economics puzzler I just recalled?
SE
7/30/2008 10:45 am
I think SE is right on this one, Sam. It’s more that reporters are lazy and/or stretched thin, especially newspaper reporters. Blame the state of the business-even at the Times. The financial cuts hitting newsrooms around the country have forced reporters to write ultra-fast about things about which they know little because their beats are so widely defined (for economic reasons; there are, simply, fewer reporters). So newspapers are far more likely to regurgitate the press release fed to them, especially if it’s by “scientists,” especially if they get it close to deadline, when they’re competing with all the other papers to get it in for the next morning…..
7/30/2008 10:46 am
By the way, Sam, for several years now anti-PC has been the new PC.
7/30/2008 12:40 pm
First, it is absolutely true that Summers did not say that women are dumber than men. That paraphrase of his artless speech was unfair.
But second, having acknowledged that, I want to caution against a new myth: that Summers is an intuitive genius whose original, unconventional idea about the nature of variance in human intelligence caused him to be unfairly pilloried for something about which he alone was right.
Here is the history.
1) It’s an old saw in anthropometric circles that men have higher variance than women in lots of attributes. I heard that from Dean Whitla, formerly of the Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation at Harvard, at least 20 years ago, maybe 25.
2) Summers told the Crimson that his source for this idea in the case of certain academic abilities was Steve Pinker’s “Blank Slate.” And indeed, there it is, on page 344: “Also, confirming an expectation from evolutionary psychology, for many traits the bell curve for males is flatter and wider than the curve for females. That is, there are proportionally more males at the extremes …. At the right tail, one finds that in a sample of talented students who score above 700 (out of 800) on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Assessment Test, boys outnumber girls by thirteen to one, even though the scores of boys and girls are similar within the bulk of the curve.” Then on page 354: “[T]here is no question of whether women are ‘qualified’ to be scientists …. That was decisively answered years ago: some are and some aren’t. The only question is whether the proportions of qualified men and women must be the same.” Elsewhere, this book also talks about boys and girls playing with different toys, a finding that Summers personalizes when talking about his own children at another point in the NBER talk. Summers was repeating what he had read in a book that millions of other people were reading. (Or perhaps what he had been told personally. Pinker and Summers know each other and, I believe, admire each other.)
3) The proportion of tenured appointments who are women had gone down under the Summers administration, and in the fall of 2004, there was considerable concern in the Faculty about why. In September, Summers and Kirby responded to a letter from 26 women faculty by blaming the departments for the appointments they were putting forward. The matter was the subject of discussion in a full Faculty meeting. In October, Summers and Kirby met with a sizable group of women faculty who proposed programmatic remedies to address the decline. According to the Crimson story of October 10, Summers and Kirby acknowledged the importance of the issue and promised to work on it, but were not specific about how. In none of the statements Summers made in the fall of 2004 while the issue was under debate, in the full Faculty meeting or in the meeting with the women faculty or in the response to the letter from the 26 women faculty, did he offer the “different variances” theory.
4) By January 2005, goodwill toward Summers had deteriorated for a variety of reasons unrelated to the tenure rate of women faculty (though also because of his non-response to that issue). Given the great power of the Harvard president to make or deny tenured appointments without explaining his decisions, the NBER speech, in which he parroted a popular book (without attribution) in providing an explanation he had never mentioned in public before, led some to suspect that his “high variance” theory, which he acknowledged was speculative, might, through his judgments at the margin, have CAUSED the change in the rate at which Harvard was tenuring women. It was as though a judge had been particularly hard on men in child custody cases by comparison with previous judges in the same family court, and then turned up giving an “off the record” after-dinner speech, complete with witticisms about Jewish farmers and basketball players, on the subject of his biological theory of why women are intrinsically better caregivers. It would cause alarm-or worse, if you had been party to any of his decisions.
6) The press ran with the story the way they wanted to run with, and so did individual members of the Faculty. And the theory may be right or wrong. But the bottom line is that by this time the Faculty had lost confidence in Summers for lots of reasons (the Shleifer affair, etc., etc.) and he was not given the benefit of the doubt when he put forward his previously unannounced, but unoriginal, theory about why so few women are tenurable in science and math at places like Harvard. He was given especially little leeway because he was daily sitting in judgment in Mass Hall on the very kinds of decisions on which he was then going over to NBER to theorize about.
7) So when the Faculty voted their lack of “confidence” in Summers, that’s just what they meant and why they meant it. The NBER speech was part of they got there, but not the way the press made it out to be.
7/30/2008 1:23 pm
Sorry to go on, but I want to clarify one point.
Pinker does not state as a fact that men would outnumber women at the 5-9s part of the math distribution were Harvard gets its professors. That’s a speculation, as Summers said. But it’s a speculation based on taking to the extreme the quoted statements from Pinker’s book (and also assuming that environmental factors are less significant out on that extreme right tail, etc.).
In fact what’s interesting on the two points of tangency between the NBER speech and the Blank Slate is that in the toys example, Summers states as an observation from personal experience something that Pinker notes has been established scientifically, while in the women-professors example he makes no mention of personal experience and simply reports a theory based on authority he did not mention at the time. In other words, the worry is whether the theory derived from these passages in Pinker’s book reinforced his personal observations, or whether he accepted this extrapolated theory and that affected his judgment about the tenure decisions he was making every day.
7/30/2008 2:06 pm
Harry Lewis, as always, sets the record straight in all sorts of ways. Laziness indeed rather than politics, and uncharacteristic that the Times would be unfair on this topic, but on balance . . . Where’s John Tierney when we need him? Actually where IS John Tierney?
7/30/2008 2:08 pm
Could we please let go of LHS? His most significant contribution to Harvard was the appointment of this Task Force. See where the three co-chairs ended in the power structure of the University? Shouldn’t we thank Larry just a little for his foresight? Who now rules Harvard is the math that counts, and it is clear who is in charge.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/05/16-wtaskforce_release.html
On the consequences of the wonderful outcomes of the Task Force. Has anyone noticed the outstanding decanal appointments DGF has made? Or the terrific new appointments in the Provost office? Did you notice the great report on Faculty Climate released by EH? Probably written mostly by her successor. Again, this is the math that counts.
There is much to celebrate at Harvard, including much about the new math, so let go of Pinker and the boys and girls old math.
7/30/2008 2:20 pm
It truly is remarkable how much of the senior leadership of the University has changed in the year President Faust has been in office. She has done this quietly but effectively. She also has clear and high benchmarks she is using to judge the performance of those in the team. Those who do not measure up know their days are counted. This was very obvious to all at the recent Council of Deans.
7/30/2008 2:25 pm
Which Dean was called on the carpet at the last council and why?
7/30/2008 6:06 pm
It is truly is remarkable how much of the senior leadership of the University has not changed in the year that President Faust has been in office. Does she have a clue in managing a large organization. No priorities, hasn’t chosen the right people, no time management, no idea. Her go to dean also has none and seems to have a problem with strong women who can think for themselves . Why is this dean still there. No surprise, her closest confidant is a policy wonk who has no operating experience. Smith and scalise are so lost. Spendthrift Steve still keeps on spending. Nothing is getting done and a lot needs to be done. EH, really nice and very smart, but lacking in admin skills; is lost, very much needs an administrator. But Harvard will cover it all up with money and a we are Harvard mentality and will pretend that all is well in the kingdom. DF, very nice person, but as a manager, not too good.
7/30/2008 9:48 pm
What the hell are you talking about? Who the hell is the Go to Dean? ‘Strong women who can think for themselves’ are you talking about Kagan? She is well respected by Faust and her team. Remember Kagan was a finalist for the top job.
Spendthrift Steve? What the f… What’s your problem with him? He has kep the University afloat during a period of intense turmoil -the LHS presidency, the worst in H history.
You are talking from hearsay, twice removed from the action in the center. There IS a lot of action, good action, and good direction. You can’t see it because you are out of the loop. Why don’t you go and take Larry out for a cup of coffee?
7/30/2008 9:53 pm
Yeah Anon, why don’t you and Larry go and visit Jeff Epstein in his prison? Maybe bring him some of the toys he likes… Leave Harvard’s administration to the pros. Trust me the University is in very good hands.
7/30/2008 10:08 pm
Okay, now this is an interesting thread…as a woman I am always interested to know how someone like Drew Faust is really doing as President of Harvard. Same reason I’m curious to know whether there really is any difference between the math and science abilities of boys and girls…can’t help it if it was Larry Summers that opened that can of worms and that he happened to be President of Harvard at that time. So how are things at Harvard really? Which one of you Anons is telling it like it is?
7/30/2008 10:16 pm
Impaulsen,
Things at Harvard are very well indeed. Thank you very much. What do you mean ‘someone like Drew Faust’?
She is doing a terrific job. She still has to replace a few bad deans, but give her time, she will.
You should have seen her great ice-cream bashing a few weeks ago.
Now go back to your business and let Harvard follow its good course.
7/30/2008 10:35 pm
I mean a somewhat reserved, classy, intelligent lady like Drew Faust…the very polar opposite of Larry Summers. And I don’t like your tone…who peed in your corn flakes this morning? Is that how they teach you to behave at Harvard?
7/30/2008 10:36 pm
Impaulsen,
As I recall you are driven to worry, starting with the Cuban Missile Crisis and of late with the economic situation. Why don’t you worry about whether refinancing your mortgage could prevent you from Apocalipsis? Could Harvard help you refinance? do you qualify?
7/30/2008 10:42 pm
Impaulsen,
Why don’t you move to Allston instead? I hear there are some great values available there.
7/30/2008 10:46 pm
Don’t be a wanker, CMC. What’s with all the ad hoc monikers, btw? Mascheranda seems to have started something.
7/30/2008 10:48 pm
Not likely…my house is mostly paid for…I worry more about everybody else…and I don’t know what an “Apocalipsis” is. I’ll look it up and then I’ll worry about it, okay?
7/30/2008 11:02 pm
Thanks RT…the voice of reason…a gentleman and one of the very best of Harvard. You know, I really would have liked to read a reasonable take on how things are going under the leadership of Drew Faust…thought it would be interesting. Appears it was a mistake to ask.
7/30/2008 11:09 pm
Sam,
Your good offices are needed here. Can you please reassure these underemployed bloggers that all is well at Harvard?
7/30/2008 11:10 pm
no doubt, correct that smith is lost. too bad, he’s a good guy, but too much has been dumped on him and he can’t handle it. he should have been the one called on the carpet for poor choice of priorities, but probably was not, dgf’s good soldier and she will protect him for a while. watch news of senior faculty departures over the next months. not that many will pay attention over the summer…
7/30/2008 11:20 pm
Here you’re mostly going to get personal agendas, Imp., at least from the anons and the new breed of thematic versions of anon (nothing against anon in principle, as I’ve said before, for obvious reasons, but I don’t think HL, WG, JR and I are the only tenured faculty who post here). The only actual anon on this post may or may not be right, and is presumably a vulnerable person in University Hall, who’s unhappy with the state of affairs, with or without reason.
7/30/2008 11:34 pm
Who could that enigmatic voice be?
Maybe someone working for Steve?
A loyal Summers friend?
What’s your guess Richard?
and would you stop using prophanity? You wouldn’t use ‘wanker’ in the academy down under, would you?
7/30/2008 11:37 pm
And as for senior faculty departures (‘fas advocate’? give me a break), yes, I’m heading for vacation in Scotland in a couple of weeks!
7/30/2008 11:51 pm
to rt: no kidding. watch for skocpol, matory, others. questions of whether intentional losses or simply lack of attention should be raised.
7/30/2008 11:53 pm
Yes indeed I would AVV, down under and up here both, and do so all the time; it’s a handy term, so to say.
No guesses from me on your questions. I only take the named posts seriously.
And make that ‘profanity’.
7/31/2008 12:00 am
FA: Many come and many go, for many reasons. I always regret the ones who go (thought about doing so myself a couple of years ago and may do so again if McCain is elected), and welcome the ones who come. What I do expect is that Harvard do its best to keep the departure rate low, esp. in the cases you mention. But you can’t interpret broadly on the basis of individual decisions to leave.
7/31/2008 12:03 am
RT only takes named posts seriously!!?? So what are we to make of all his lengthy exchanges with SE while SE was still anonymous?
Double standard. Sorry, I don’t know how to say that in Latin. But it applies here.
7/31/2008 12:09 am
Take seriously on political Harvard views I should have said DK (loved the movie btw). SE didn’t come on with stuff like “her go-to dean is really out of his depth”. And SE is also very smart (you may be too), so always worth noticing.
7/31/2008 12:23 am
Actually SE did sometimes come up with stuff like that-allowing us to think he was a tenured professor when he wasn’t-which is something I hold against him now that he’s exposed himself.
7/31/2008 12:32 am
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, RT, I suppose. Am I smart? Shall go to sleep contemplating, and hope it doesn’t keep me up. Probably the last 8 consecutive Sox losses to the LAA will, though. Not to mention the Yanks’ trades today, fodder for RB gloating.
7/31/2008 12:39 am
I don’t recall that being the case, Anonymous (finally!), and in my recollection SE always made the opposite quite apparent, e.g. by addressing JR as “Prof. Ryan”, myself as “Prof. Thomas”, etc. Letterman over so I’m done for the evening, but your homework is to dig into RB’s extensive archives and refute me. JR and I had a guessing game about who SE was and we never came up with a faculty candidate.
7/31/2008 7:16 am
It’s true I didn’t correct people who thought I was faculty. But I was pretty careful never to be dishonest. The implications that I had inside knowledge were usually always true — Senior Tutors are voting members of the faculty, after all. And you’d be surprised how much you learn about fellow faculty from the way they treat students when it gets down (as LBJ used to say) to the nut-cuttin’, with struggling kids.
RT, with his comment about ‘stuff like that,’ surely meant that I was almost never, vague, portentous, and baselessly insulting to people. I always try to give real reasons for criticisms.
SE
7/31/2008 11:52 am
I think you may be rewriting history here.