The Right Rebuttal

By: Shannon Laughlin

Before taking this class, I had heard of Larry Summers, former President of Harvard, but did not know much about him. After all, I was only in third grade when he triggered an uproar in the math and science community. Now, I am aware of the magnitude of controversy typically associated with his name. In January of 2005, Larry Summers, then-President of Harvard, made remarks at a conference stating why he thought less women were represented in top math and science positions. His remarks were extremely controversial, and caused him to step down from his position shortly after. We read these remarks a few weeks ago in class and they left me perplexed. How could someone say such things? How valid is his evidence? I questioned most of the points he made, but couldn’t quite articulate a differing opinion because I had no data to support any assertions, due to the fact that my initial reaction was almost entirely emotionally-based. However, after reading experts Elizabeth Spelke and Ariel D. Grace’s essay, I now feel justified to oppose Summer’s comments. Their article was entirely dedicated to exploring and/or dispelling the views of Larry Summers. It was compelling and research-filled, and for the most part, left me agreeing with their claims.

I found the format of this essay to be tremendously different from the others. It was extremely formulaic, and immediately laid out its three main topics: women and men’s sex differences in motivation for STEM careers, differences in cognitive function, and sex discrimination in the workplace. Spelke and Grace, sticking to the formulaic format, then described the three main arguments for differences in cognition between males and females. They included the tendency of boys to favor objects while girls favor people, the increased aptitude of math in boys, and the increased variability of boy’s abilities. All three of these were refuted with research, coming to the conclusion that there is not a difference in cognition between the sexes, at least not until later adulthood. That section reminded me of parts of the Why So Few? PowerPoint, where it was also stated that cognitive abilities can be taught and are not innate. It also seemed like a direct refutation of Kimura’s argument in Ch. 2, and when comparing them side-by-side, I support Spelke and Grace’s argument. As I talked about two blogs ago, Kimura’s essay seemed to jump to conclusions quickly, while Spelke and Grace did a good job of walking through each point. One part of it I especially liked was their challenging of the SAT-M scores I’ve seen so many authors write about. I’ve always questioned the validity of those SAT scores relating to boy’s supposed superiority in math, and Spelke and Grace articulated research on the matter. They state that most research on this agrees the SAT-M performances cannot assess a gender difference because it doesn’t provide an understanding of “the nature of mathematical aptitude and its distribution across the sexes (60).”

To tackle the subject of discrimination, Spelke and Grace referred to two studies about the innate discrimination parents show against their daughters and the discrimination shown in the hiring process. Similar to Valian’s argument in Ch. 1, they discussed the impact gender schemas make on the overestimation of males and underestimation of females, although they did not refer to them as “gender schemas”. I do agree that gender schemas affect society’s perceptions of the sexes and women’s lives in the workplace because of the evidence Spelke and Grace provide, but also because of Valian’s evidence (a computer program that simulated even the smallest amounts of bias piling up). Also, the study on babies mentioned by Spelke and Grace completely blew me away. It is troubling to think that my parents could have been more confident in the abilities of my brothers than me, even before we were old enough to reasonably show a difference. Spelke and Grace finished this section with the comment that these perceptions are malleable, so there is hope for future generations.

Lastly, Spelke and Grace handled the point of motivation for women and men to choose a STEM career, specifically centered on family life as a factor. This point, however, was decided to be inconclusive because of the lack of research comprehensive enough to come to a consensus. Despite this, I did find an interesting article pertaining to women and family life. It is titled “Rethink what you know about high-achieving women,” and it discusses truth and falsity in common beliefs people have about the working woman. This article also talked about family life pertaining to women’s choice of careers. While it also came to a somewhat inconclusive solution, they stated that “the conventional wisdom doesn’t tell the full story,” implying that the common misconception of women not being able to have families is not accurate. And similarly, Valian pulls in data that women’s family lives do not affect their work success at all.

Despite the fact that I agree with almost everything Spekle and Grace stated, there were a few aspects of the essay that were dissatisfying. The layout was so mechanical that there wasn’t any room left for Spelke and Grace’s personal assertions: the entire essay was basically a rebuttal. This was somewhat of a letdown, because I am genuinely interested to know what Spelke and Grace think about the other parts of this issue, such as the incremental and entity theories of learning and intelligence. Another place where I believe it fell flat was the conclusion. After finishing covering all the points, Spelke and Grace didn’t really conclude their final thoughts. It bothered me a bit, because they didn’t have a place to prescribe remedies to the issues they stated, besides the small call-to-action in the discrimination section.

Although Spelke and Grace didn’t necessarily present any new ideas to me, all of their evidence helped me maintain a belief that the lack of women in STEM careers is mostly because of societal discrimination and misconceptions, coupled with closed (entity) mindsets on these matters (discussed three blogs ago). As they stated, education will be a key factor in changing society’s attitude towards women in STEM careers, and highly successful women in general. I believe if we teach the consequences of negative gender schemas, society will take a turn for the better and women will be able to excel in any field they choose.

Article: https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women

PowerPoint: http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/

Image: http://www.projectation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rebuttal.png

8 Responses to "The Right Rebuttal"

Gabrielle Bennetti says:

September 12, 2015 at 3:51 pm

I think this is a great synopsis and critique of the article. I support your perspective and, as you said, although this article did not present new ideas, I found it to have the most compelling evidence that the discriminative and fixed mindset of society is what has lead to the lack of women in science. The cognitive differences that Larry Summers brought up and Kimura discussed in her essay were shown by studies of infants and toddlers to have little standing because abilities can be learned and males are not inherently favored (Spelke, 2005). This goes back to the idea of a growth mindset and seems to have a lot of effect on the success of women and changing the way they are viewed. Each gender has the potential to do well in any field if they put in the work and society can equally see them as deserving of their position.
Shivani Patel says:

September 13, 2015 at 2:59 am

I really like how you commented on how organized this essay was in comparison to the others because I think it had an important effect on the essay. The more organized format makes it easier to follow and more understandable. I agree with your sentiment about always being a little skeptical about the SAT-M scores that reported boys were better than girls because it never made sense to me. I think it also important that you highlighted the fact that the personal ideas of the others were left out because it made the essay seem a bit directionless. However, I do agree that their lack of personal opinion allowed me to create my own opinion as you did. Overall, I agree with your opinion and I think you made the important points known.
Malena says:

September 13, 2015 at 11:40 am

I agree with your essay. I think Spelke and Grace brought up valid points for discrimination in the workforce and how each gender has different ways of thinking, but there is no one test that is “gender-neutral”. Yet with all of this evidence against the SAT, what about the ACT? The ACT is also a national standardized test, yet there is no reference or studies that are mentioned about the ACT. So why are we ignoring it? That is what I am wondering.
Olivia Taylor says:

September 13, 2015 at 2:36 pm

Your blog was very well organized and easy to follow, and the way you brought in so much extra evidence really supported your case and made you credible. One part that stuck out to me was how the authors really did seem to be on the defense the whole essay, and never asserted any of their own well-founded beliefs, even in the conclusion. I wasn’t able to articulate this very well, but you said it very clearly. They had so much to say when it came to disproving Larry Summers’ claims, but when the time came to make their own they sort of blanked. This has me wonder whether they wrote this essay specifically as a rebuttal, therefore not including their own assertions, or if they don’t have many ideas on how to fix our problem at all. (I’m hoping its the former)
Uyen Nguyen says:

September 13, 2015 at 3:32 pm

Hi Shannon! I would like to learn more about your ideas as to how we can teach the consequences of gender schemas? Aren’t we, the society as a whole, are being brought to more awareness than ever? Also, your last statement in the blog appears to me that you are placing too much emphasis on the effect of society on one’s career. I believe there are many women who really excel in a wide range of profession. It is not the matter of inadequacy in terms of capability, but rather how the working environment retains the female talents that questions me.
Olivia Choe says:

September 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm

I like the introduction to your blog! Like you said although the information is not all new, it helps support /bring in more light to the recurring problem that exists, which is the underrepresentation of women in STEM. The root of this problem is gender schema and if we help to educate people about an existence of growing knowledge and ability I think we will be able to encourage both male and female to pursue any career in their lifetime.
Rachel Lantz says:

September 13, 2015 at 4:13 pm

I appreciate the fact that you commented on your dislike of the format of the essay, although I actually enjoyed the formulaic approach of their writing. At the end of each section, I had some questions in my mind and the next part immediately addressed them. I felt that the authors’ thesis came through much more effectively than the previous chapters because the evidence was much more organized. However, I do agree that the essay lacked a firm call to action in the conclusion which would have been useful in motivating the reader to act on the issues Spelke and Grace stated in their argument.
Lillie Mucha says:

September 13, 2015 at 4:21 pm

I was curious about your idea that education will change society’s attitude. An article I found about a gender stereotype intervention program focused on educating the teachers rather than the students. Their hypothesis that teacher intervention would change the students’ career goals to be more professional and less gender-biased was supported. I think it would be interesting to find data on the difference in effectiveness on educating students compared to educating their teachers. That would be pretty helpful in laying out an actual plan for education – is it more effective to educate the general public and women themselves or to educate people in positions of power, teachers and legislators and company managers?

Here’s the study if you want to read it: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9411072720&site=ehost-live

Comments are closed.