3 ms·

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.

by mhartl 19y ago

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.

brlewis 19y ago
What part of a history or literature career involves insane hours? Those fields are a perfectly good thing to do during the day if you don't need money.
- mhartl 19y ago
  All jobs in academia demand long hours if you're serious about getting tenure.
  - testapplication 19y ago
    It is hard to be serious about getting tenure in an English department, which amongst typical universities tend to have orders of magnitude less tenure spots available per actual tenure-track position.
geebee 19y ago
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 19y ago
  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.
Agathos 19y ago
All true. It also doesn't explain why there are so few female programmers or engineers, given those fields offer much more than the academic payscale. Greenspun's points are well worth thinking about (as a grad student, I ponder them frequently), but the rant is a complete non sequitur. It offers nothing to explain the gender difference.
- herdrick 19y ago
  He suggests that young women have better perspective, plan more for the future, and don't consider themselves bulletproof like young men do.
  - Agathos 19y ago
    He does suggest it so I guess I shouldn't say he lost track of the point of the argument. But he certainly doesn't show it. If that were the difference, women would avoid academic humanities and biology jobs, which they don't. And they wouldn't avoid programming and engineering jobs, but they do.
timr 19y ago
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.

by mhartl 19y ago

brlewis 19y ago

What part of a history or literature career involves insane hours? Those fields are a perfectly good thing to do during the day if you don't need money.

mhartl 19y ago
All jobs in academia demand long hours if you're serious about getting tenure.
- testapplication 19y ago
  It is hard to be serious about getting tenure in an English department, which amongst typical universities tend to have orders of magnitude less tenure spots available per actual tenure-track position.

geebee 19y ago

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 19y ago
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.

Agathos 19y ago

All true. It also doesn't explain why there are so few female programmers or engineers, given those fields offer much more than the academic payscale. Greenspun's points are well worth thinking about (as a grad student, I ponder them frequently), but the rant is a complete non sequitur. It offers nothing to explain the gender difference.

herdrick 19y ago
He suggests that young women have better perspective, plan more for the future, and don't consider themselves bulletproof like young men do.
- Agathos 19y ago
  He does suggest it so I guess I shouldn't say he lost track of the point of the argument. But he certainly doesn't show it. If that were the difference, women would avoid academic humanities and biology jobs, which they don't. And they wouldn't avoid programming and engineering jobs, but they do.

timr 19y ago

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.