
Philip Greenspun's take on Women in Science - apu
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
======
mhartl
I agree with Philip's basic observation that scientific careers are overrated,
but a lot of his arguments would appear work against academic careers in
general. The "scientific careers suck but men are irrational" hypothesis
doesn't explain why there are so few women in mathematics and chemistry vs.
history or English literature, or indeed why there's so much variation
_within_ science, with plenty of female biologists but very few female
theoretical physicists.

~~~
geebee
That's a good point. The large number of women pursuing Ph.Ds in English
literature and Bio does tend to undercut the argument that women are avoiding
Ph.D's in math and hard science because they are more rational.

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.

~~~
DocSavage
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.

------
naish
This article should give everyone pause for thought--women and men. It is a
little disheartening to think that I went into engineering as a path to
medicine (with better security and compensation) and got sidetracked by
interesting work. As a tenure-track professor with an itch to pursue a
startup, I am wondering if I should start scratching. If only there wasn't a
family in the equation...

~~~
geebee
As a professor, you're probably in a pretty good position to start a family.
As a professor, you're probably going to have to give the university a big cut
of whatever benefit you generate, but at the same time, you probably have more
freedom and autonomy than most. Plus, you have a steady salary. On the down
side, I don't know how hard you're working to get tenure - maybe too hard to
launch a meaningful effort at a startup.

I read that at Stanford, it's pretty common for a CS professor to have started
a company, almost a rite of passage. So maybe this would work out for you...

------
bdr
Here's another response to the Larry Summers incident.

Why are there more men than women in mechanical engineering? Elizabeth Spelke
debates Steven Pinker:
<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html>

(watch the whole video, it's brilliant)

------
dhbradshaw
People who think they can't have children or get married are cheating
themselves. You don't have to make 150k per year to have more than you need.

We had our first child when I was an undergrad and my wife was working. My
wife quit working and I graduated so that I could be paid to go to school
rather than the other way around. We bought a cute little home on a graduate
stipend and had another child. I graduated with a masters degree and worked
for a year and we had another child.

I started my PhD a bit over 4 years ago and we have had two children since
then, bringing the total up to 5. We have always had more than we need and our
children are doing great. I'll graduate in a couple of years, perhaps after
having a couple more kids and I think we'll have substantial savings. My wife
has never had to work and we have never relied on the state for health care or
income.

Graduate school demands some focus but it is also extremely flexible. I choose
my schedule and it's been a great life.

The bottom line is that it doesn't cost that much to live comfortably and take
care of children. Choose what you want to do and then find a way to do it.

It might be wise, though, to look at home prices near the schools that you
apply to . . .

~~~
Agathos
Where did you buy this cute little home on a graduate stipend? There are
certainly some places where you can. I heard from several students who did
this when I visited Wash. U. in St. Louis.

But I ended up in Cambridge, and here there's just no way.

~~~
dhbradshaw
Baltimore. Biophysics.

------
mynameishere
Women don't go into science because the behavior of inanimate objects doesn't
interest them.

~~~
pythondude
This was downmoded? wtf. My girlfriend does a Phd in relationship therapy and
she says that it is interesting to her because it has both and emotional
component and an analytical component. For me anything to do with emotions is
a no no. Women are into those areas because they need something more than what
the hard sciences has to offer not because they have less to bring to the
table.

------
ivankirigin
Science jobs are often the most free.

