Is Harvard President's View on Gender and Science Justified?

[Moonbear]

But I do have an idea that could make this a moot point. What if names, race, gender and any and all personally identifiable information is removed before any of the applicant’s are reviewed for acceptance?

I don't really want to turn this into a discussion on affirmative action. There's an ongoing discussion in the politics subforum on that where your thoughts on the topic would be better placed.

The reason is that I'm not talking about trying to remedy the situation after the inequality in education has occurred, but in trying to prevent it from happening in the first place by not discouraging women from pursuing something they would do well. For example, if you have a girl who is leagues ahead of the boys in her math class who ends up choosing journalism instead of math, not because she necessarily would rather do journalism, but because she has been ridiculed for her ability in math, affirmative action will do no good to get her into a college math major because the inequity isn't happening at the level of the application review, but in where she is encouraged to apply in the first place.

In fact as soon as a woman makes a major scientific break through I bet the number of women in math and science will increase more than it ever has before.

Women have made major scientific breakthroughs. That you, as well as many others, don't realize this is part of the problem.
Here is one site that lists many of these women: http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php

And some of the names to look for on that site:
Dorothy H Anderson
Virginia Apgar
Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori*
Sylvia Earle
Gertrude Belle Elion*
Alice Evans
Beatrice A. Hicks
Grace Murray Hopper
Stephanie L. Kwolek
Maria Goeppert Mayer*
Barbara McClintock*
Mary Engle Pennington
Florence Seibert
Nettie Stevens
Chien-Shiung Wu
Rosalyn Yalow*

*Indicates Nobel Prize winner.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thanks for that link, Moonbear. Have you seen this one?

A UCLA project honoring contributions of women in physics:
http://cwp.library.ucla.edu

There's a quote there by Chien-Shiung Wu that I am particularly fond of:

"There is only one thing worse than coming home from the lab to a sink full of dirty dishes, and that is not going to the lab at all!"

 

[Moonbear]

I hadn't seen that one. Thanks. And I really like that quote! I think I'll have to add it to my signature!

 

[polyb]

Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics?

You should be ashamed, moonie!

 

[Kerrie]

w/o having read but the first page here, i shall digress to my broad analysis. those who are offended by generalizations (and scientific ones at that) are immature.

and the fact that you didn't read the first page here shows your ignorance of the discussion. it's not about generalizations, but discouragement of women in the math and science fields.

 

[Townsend]

Women have made major scientific breakthroughs. That you, as well as many others, don't realize this is part of the problem.
Here is one site that lists many of these women: http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php

And some of the names to look for on that site:
Dorothy H Anderson
Virginia Apgar
Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori*
Sylvia Earle
Gertrude Belle Elion*
Alice Evans
Beatrice A. Hicks
Grace Murray Hopper
Stephanie L. Kwolek
Maria Goeppert Mayer*
Barbara McClintock*
Mary Engle Pennington
Florence Seibert
Nettie Stevens
Chien-Shiung Wu
Rosalyn Yalow*

*Indicates Nobel Prize winner.

What I am talking about is names that will stand out against all the great Mathematicians and scientist like Newton, Gauss etc. I know that women can do well in mathematics and one of my favorite math teachers of all time is a woman. She has her PHD in algebraic structures or something like that. But there is not a single female version of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. There will be one eventually, of that I am sure, but so far there is none.

I didn't mean to turn this into an affirmative action debate or anything but the two are closely related.

Anyhow thanks for your replies.

Townsend

 

[Andromeda321]

But there is not a single female version of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein.

See, this is something that annoys me greatly because females have done great things but their roles tend to be underplayed or the fact that they're women is forgotten altogether (I'm thinking about Marie Curie here: no one seems to remember that she was in an odd way). A classic example of this in my mind is the work of Rosalind Franklin without whom the structure of DNA wouldn't have been discovered. But her data was pretty much stolen by Crick and Wilkins and in order to justify it they said she was basically a b:tch. There's also a telling quote in Watson's book on DNA, "The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."
I've heard people justify that Rosalind's work wasn't that important because she never won the Nobel Prize like Crick and Wilkins. The reason she never did is because she died of ovarian cancer a few years before the pair got the Nobel and you have to be alive to receive it.

 

[Moonbear]

Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics?

You should be ashamed, moonie!

She wasn't listed on that site I linked to. I was only listing ones to look for on that site. Obviously, it's not a comprehensive list!

 

[Moonbear]

See, this is something that annoys me greatly because females have done great things but their roles tend to be underplayed or the fact that they're women is forgotten altogether (I'm thinking about Marie Curie here: no one seems to remember that she was in an odd way). A classic example of this in my mind is the work of Rosalind Franklin without whom the structure of DNA wouldn't have been discovered.

I agree. In fact, among the women in that list I provided, many HAVE made contributions of enormous scale to the various sciences. When you consider what they were working against at the time, it puts their discoveries into even better context. They were working at a time when women just weren't given their own labs or funding, so they've made quite a lot of progress with very little funds to work with. One can only imagine what they might have been capable of if given a fully funded lab like their male counterparts of the time had. And, women's contributions were so readily dismissed or stolen without recognition in the past that we would never know if there was someone on the scale of Einstein if nobody listened to her or gave her a chance.

 

[Andromeda321]

Exactly.
By the way, somehow your comment reminds me of two little stories that happened to me in high school:
In one of the standard 8th grade Earth Science discussions we always had at my all-girls school about the women astronomers at Harvard at the turn of the last century (Henrietta Levitt (sp?) and company). After discussing them the science teacher made us read an article about women in sciences being discouraged and then asked us to discuss our opinions on why women weren't involved in science much. The opinion of the group was then voiced to the entire class for further discussion.
My science teacher caught me one year saying that apparently one of the groups in the class had stood up saying "women aren't in astronomy because they just don't want to." Apparently the teacher then asked them how I fit into that theory (everyone in that school knew I was an astro-nut even then) and the response was just something on the lines of "oh, she's just trying to get attention." My teacher apparently had to think for a few seconds on how to respond.
Second little story: last year (senior year of high school) we somehow convinced one of our teachers to show us Contact. Whenever Ellie Arroway confronted someone to defend her work there would always be a few girls who would comment "ohmigod, she is such a guy!" I decided that was not a good time to say that Ellie was one of my favorite charecters of all time and I spent much of high school wishing to be just like her.

 

[polyb]

Hey, didn't all of these 'Great Men of Science' also have mothers? What a bunch of egomaniacal numbnuts! They had the support of woman that made theor work possible, it grieves me greatly that woman don't get half of the props or recognition that men get. Most men would breakdown if they ever had to really raise children, yet they b***ch and moan about how women have it so easy.

It also makes me laugh like hell when they complain about women because I can't sympathize! I have been a hermit for a while and never had the 'luxury' of a woman to help me through this insane world. Those idiots really don't appreciate what they have, guess you girls will have to take it away from them!

A note on Einstein: the guy did not do that well in college and by all the the so called desigantions he was bound for failure. He got his degree in teaching physics and apparently only had a 'c' average(correct me if I'm wrong). So in that respect you have to really admire the guy for breaking the odds!

 

[Moonbear]

Exactly.
By the way, somehow your comment reminds me of two little stories that happened to me in high school:
In one of the standard 8th grade Earth Science discussions we always had at my all-girls school about the women astronomers at Harvard at the turn of the last century (Henrietta Levitt (sp?) and company). After discussing them the science teacher made us read an article about women in sciences being discouraged and then asked us to discuss our opinions on why women weren't involved in science much. The opinion of the group was then voiced to the entire class for further discussion.
My science teacher caught me one year saying that apparently one of the groups in the class had stood up saying "women aren't in astronomy because they just don't want to." Apparently the teacher then asked them how I fit into that theory (everyone in that school knew I was an astro-nut even then) and the response was just something on the lines of "oh, she's just trying to get attention." My teacher apparently had to think for a few seconds on how to respond.
Second little story: last year (senior year of high school) we somehow convinced one of our teachers to show us Contact. Whenever Ellie Arroway confronted someone to defend her work there would always be a few girls who would comment "ohmigod, she is such a guy!" I decided that was not a good time to say that Ellie was one of my favorite charecters of all time and I spent much of high school wishing to be just like her.

I would have hoped that this sort of experience would not be occurring at an all-girls' school.

Has anyone ever encountered men who assume only gay women become scientists? I ran into one of those in college. He told me he never considered dating the women in the science classes because they were all "butch." I figured it was just his small mind, but your comments leave me wondering if this is a more prevalent stereotype?

 

[etc]

and the fact that you didn't read the first page here shows your ignorance of the discussion. it's not about generalizations, but discouragement of women in the math and science fields.

"w/o having read but the first page"
i read the first page, Kerrie. if I'm ignorant of the discussion, and you're ignorant of English, are we both happy?
listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

 

[Moonbear]

"w/o having read but the first page"
i read the first page, Kerrie. if I'm ignorant of the discussion, and you're ignorant of English, are we both happy?
listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

First of all, being offended by something that is offensive is not a sign of immaturity. Maturity is determined by how one handles the offensive remarks. Running away crying might be an immature response, standing up to the offender, defending oneself and pointing out what was offensive is a mature response.

However, consider that when girls (not women, girls) first start hearing all these negatives, yes, they are immature, because they are still children and all children of that age are immature, by definition. It's only those of us who managed to tough it out to adulthood who can then face the issue as mature, adult women.

On the original article - I don't think the women who walked out on the talk took the best approach, but it wasn't immature of them to be offended. There is no maturity or immaturity to having feelings, it is all about how you react to those feelings. I'd have rather they stayed until the end and grilled him with questions, challenges and refutations of his comments! But they didn't, and we've moved well beyond that part of the discussion at this point.

 

[etc]

First of all, being offended by something that is offensive is not a sign of immaturity. Maturity is determined by how one handles the offensive remarks. Running away crying might be an immature response, standing up to the offender, defending oneself and pointing out what was offensive is a mature response.

However, consider that when girls (not women, girls) first start hearing all these negatives, yes, they are immature, because they are still children and all children of that age are immature, by definition. It's only those of us who managed to tough it out to adulthood who can then face the issue as mature, adult women.

On the original article - I don't think the women who walked out on the talk took the best approach, but it wasn't immature of them to be offended. There is no maturity or immaturity to having feelings, it is all about how you react to those feelings. I'd have rather they stayed until the end and grilled him with questions, challenges and refutations of his comments! But they didn't, and we've moved well beyond that part of the discussion at this point.

these are your "postulates":
(1) an immature response is defined by "running away" and "crying". one can assume that by those you meant a) not confronting the situation (see: running away) and b) being upset by the situation (see: crying).

(2) a mature response is defined by chiding, that is, constructively reproving your opponent.

(3) children are by definition immature.

--

first, i would argue that since most elementary school teachers are female, little girls aren't exactly discouraged from maths and sciences. further, most girls (believe me, i kno girls) don't "like" maths and sciences. some do, most don't. the some that do are v. good, the most that don't aren't so good. ****, this almost makes sense.

second, according to postulate (1) the girls were immature. they walked out upset and hurt and failed to constructively reprove the Harvard dean. These girls ran away crying.

EDIT: it's naive to believe we're all equal, and that some types of people aren't better at some things than other types of people (as a rule). of course this rule is volatile and not set. it's clear that many do not understand this.

 

[Kerrie]

listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

again, you are not paying attention to the other side of this debate-women are not encouraged as much as men to excel in the sciences. women are doing all they can to show their talents and enthusiasm only to be crushed by more generalizations (the whole point of this thread). if your mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, etc was a great scientist but never received the recognition she deserved, wouldn't you feel a little outraged for her?

and please don't preach to me about my english--"tho" is spelled THOUGH.

 

[polyb]

*hearing 'virtual' slaps being delivered across the net which prompts me to say*

"etc. , you got served!"

 

[Moonbear]

these are your "postulates":
(1) an immature response is defined by "running away" and "crying". one can assume that by those you meant a) not confronting the situation (see: running away) and b) being upset by the situation (see: crying).

Being upset is not the same thing as crying! And I said "running away crying" not "running away and crying." In other words, walking away out of disgust is not a synonym there. Your assumptions are wrong.

(2) a mature response is defined by chiding, that is, constructively reproving your opponent.

Chiding? No, I didn't use the word "chiding." That has an entirely different meaning than what I said. I said "challenging." Don't twist my words.

(3) children are by definition immature.

Yes, that's a known biological fact that I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone disagreeing with.

first, i would argue that since most elementary school teachers are female, little girls aren't exactly discouraged from maths and sciences.

If you're going to get into this debate, I suggest you read what we've already covered, because this has been addressed before. 1) The math and science teachers are still predominantly male, not female; 2) Being an elementary school teacher does not require strong math ability. Most will teach the same way they've been taught, even if it isn't the best way to encourage girls to like math and science.

further, most girls (believe me, i kno girls) don't "like" maths and sciences. some do, most don't. the some that do are v. good, the most that don't aren't so good. ****, this almost makes sense.

They don't like it because they've been discouraged from learning it. Read the entirety of posts here. We've covered this too.

second, according to postulate (1) the girls were immature. they walked out upset and hurt and failed to constructively reprove the Harvard dean. They ran away and cried.

1) The faculty who walked out of the talk were NOT girls, they were women. Women is the term used for female adults. Girls refers to pre-pubertal children.

2) Nobody said they walked out hurt, they did walk out, and were offended. That's not the same thing as hurt and since none of us can know what someone else is feeling, you have no basis for that assumption.

3) He wasn't a dean of Harvard, he's the President of Harvard.

4) They did reprove him, by reporting to the media and exposing his attitude on women to the entire country.

5) They did not run away and cry. This is the type of sexist twisting of words to make women appear weak when they react and respond to sexism that perpetuates the uphill battle of fighting it. How would you react if every time you got angry over something or went to your boss demanding to know why you were passed over for a promotion you were told, "Oh, you're just being too sensitive?" Because that is what women are told when they stand up for themselves, and that is what you're doing by twisting the words to say the women were running away and crying.

 

[Moonbear]

*hearing 'virtual' slaps being delivered across the net which prompts me to say*

"etc. , you got served!"

No, I don't slap. I'm very calm-tempered and will take a lot. But push me over the line, and I go straight for the throat.

 

[polyb]

No, I don't slap. I'm very calm-tempered and will take a lot. But push me over the line, and I go straight for the throat.

I can tell!

 

[reasonmclucus]

One aspect of this debate that has been ignored is the prejudice that math and science are more desirable than other fields. My favorite author in high school was George Gamow and my summer reading included books on math subjects, but I recognize that other intellectual activities are also desirable. I recognize that other people may consider other subjects more worthy of their interest.

I also recognize that the most important thing anyone can do is produce a new human being. We don't need as many new humans as we used to, but some are still needed. Women who are interested in this activity often decide that studing math and science isn't that important to them.

There are some interesting facts about computer history related to women. The first computer was actually designed, but never built, in the early 19th Century by a man. The first computer program was written by a woman. When the U.S. Navy decided to conduct a major overhaul of its computer programs in the 1970's, they recalled Captain Grace Hopper to handle the task. For those unfamiliar with computer history, Hopper was the first person to debug a computer, literally. According to the story, a moth picked a bad time to land on a computer relay back in the days when computers used vacuum tubes and other large components. The relay closed on the moth ending its life and stopping the computer. Hopper found the problem and removed the body with a pair of tweezers.

 

[etc]

lol, this is ridiculous. firstly, kerrie, there is a difference of being pedantic (tho "tho" is spelled "tho" for quaint's sake), and simple reading comprehension. w/e i mean.
you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired. i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way. they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

moonbear, it's my understanding that you haven't made much of a point. breaking your argument to postulations wasn't meant to refute, but to make things clear. i meant "chide" as to reprove with tact. i made as much clear, too.
anyway, the rest is a rant 'n rave fest, so i'll leave my piece to my comments to kerrie.

and that's all from me. feel free to continue the tired and true charade w/o SEXISM.

 

[Moonbear]

etc, yes, many of the girls and women who end up liking and staying with math and science have been encouraged along the way by someone. The point you're missing is that our concern is for those who haven't been encouraged, which are far more than those who have been.

You're breaking my argument into postulations made nothing "clear" because you created false arguments in doing so, and changed the meaning of my words.

I can't argue over what you think your understanding is here, but had you read the entire thread, which you started off explaining you hadn't, you'd have seen that much of the argument and discussion has already taken place. I'm not going to reiterate everything for you when it's already here. If you'd like to read everything in the thread, and then present your comments on that, please do so, but I will not repeat it all because you're disinclined to put the effort into following the discussion.

Of course, when you wish to turn a blind eye to what's going on, it's easy to choose to disagree and write-off the issue.

If you think women have been encouraged all along the way and still don't choose math and science or are still incapable, then show me the studies that demonstrate it.

reasonmclucus, you're point is very well-taken. Perhaps that's the true nature of the sexism, not so much that women aren't encouraged to go into math and science, but that the careers and life choices they have made are de-valued relative to the fields men choose.

 

[Kerrie]

you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired. i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way. they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

moonbear, it's my understanding that you haven't made much of a point. breaking your argument to postulations wasn't meant to refute, but to make things clear. i meant "chide" as to reprove with tact. i made as much clear, too.
anyway, the rest is a rant 'n rave fest, so i'll leave my piece to my comments to kerrie.

and that's all from me. feel free to continue the tired and true charade w/o SEXISM.

i am certainly not the oppressed girl...i am a 32 year old mother of 2 and am the main provider for my family. your attitude however, is one that does offend women and young girls who need encouragement to excel in the sciences as much as they can offer. plain and simple, i think your tone is quite sexist, and there is no reason why any (intelligent) female wouldn't be offended by your attitude.

in this forum we promote education regardless of gender, race, or belief system. your words and attitudes expressed in this thread are not consistent with our intention of promoting this.

 

[Astronuc]

I also recognize that the most important thing anyone can do is produce a new human being.

Yes that's true.

Women who are interested in this activity often decide that studing math and science isn't that important to them.

Not necessarily true.

Reproduction and the study of math and science are mutually exclusive. However, since a woman must take time away to give birth, this part can interrupt an otherwise smooth schedule. My wife worked until just before labor, and then took some time off work to recover as well as spend time with the new born. I also took some time off from work, because it was more important then to be with my wife and child than work.

Perhaps a big handicap to professional women are the husbands who do not provide sufficient support, and instead burden their wives with a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the nuturing of the children. (This is in addition to colleagues and managers who fail to accommodate pregnancy and childbirth.) Probably the same men who think women are not suited for science and engineering, but should stay home and raise children.

. . . not so much that women aren't encouraged to go into math and science, but that the careers and life choices they have made are de-valued relative to the fields men choose.

That's part of it.

I taught in the university, and I encouraged 'all' of my students. But I knew professors who were less likely to encourage women, and some who felt that women probably didn't belong in science or engineering. Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

 

[fourier jr]

haven't read much of this thread... here's what this guy from harvard wrote in 1991 when he was chief economist for the world bank:

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." -- The Economist (London), February 8, 1992, p.66 (US edition)

clinton made him treasury secretary in 1999. not long after that he was made president of harvard

 

[Moonbear]

Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

This is certainly a problem I've seen. For some, it's not even how they teach or what they teach or whether they offer encouragement, but their behavior outside the classroom, that the graduate students and young faculty witness. There are a number of men in my field who are great scientists and whose work is highly respected, but who are also well-known as womanizers. There are things in science that are very political (it is still true that sometimes it's more important who you know than what you know, for example to get an invitation to present at a prestigious symposium that will gain you more recognition of your work), so having these well-established investigators on your side really helps. However, early in my career (I was still a grad student), I went up to talk with one and meet him, and he agreed to meet over lunch as long as I promised not to talk about research! I was naive at the time and assumed that being such a "guru" in the field, he was just tired of everyone coming up to him trying to pick his brain at meetings, but when I later told my mentor about my lunch meeting, he laughed and told me he wasn't surprised, because this "guru" was well known for associating with the pretty women, and cautioned me to be careful.

There's another who rarely has women in his lab because they end up all leaving soon after arriving because he just ignores them. I've met him at meetings too, and as long as my male post-doc mentor was present, he ignored everything I had to say when it was my own research we were discussing (and I worked independently enough on that project that my mentor didn't have the answers I could have provided). Somewhat recently, a female post-doc did survive his lab, but only because a LOT of women in the field found out she was going there before she started, and knowing his reputation, provided a support network for her so she wouldn't give up like so many before her. Post-docs are stressful enough without needing to put up with an obnoxious mentor.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

Only the strongest survive. We all know grad school, post-docs and academic careers in general are very stressful for everyone. If anyone wonders about this, just take a look at Humanino's recent posts. He sounds like he's near to having a break-down. I'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't go through this experience at some point during grad school. When you're hitting that wall, almost any extra pressure can be the difference between toughing it out and saying "who needs this?" and packing it all up. Having to spend extra time defending yourself against sexism can be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[Evo]

you're taking the role of the oppressed girl, and it's a bit tired.

What's tiring is people that post without adding anything of value to a thread because they don't invest the time to read it thoroughly and understand what has already been discussed.

i have not witnessed any of this discouraging BS i hear about. all the girls i kno who like maths and sciences are encouraged every step of the way.

Then you are in a minority. I was never encouraged to excell in math, just the opposite, the general consensus was math wouldn't be of much importance later in life for a woman.

they're encouraged to make a statement of "girl power" and bring those boys to perspective. because i witness everything to the contrary, i have no choice but to disagree and write you off.

That may be your "personal" experience, this doesn't mean you can extrapolate this and claim this is how it is done everywhere.

You are also very young (based on your posts) and unlikely to have seen as much as some of the rest of us have.

 

[Kerrie]

Perhaps a big handicap to professional women are the husbands who do not provide sufficient support, and instead burden their wives with a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the nuturing of the children. (This is in addition to colleagues and managers who fail to accommodate pregnancy and childbirth.) Probably the same men who think women are not suited for science and engineering, but should stay home and raise children.

That's part of it.

I taught in the university, and I encouraged 'all' of my students. But I knew professors who were less likely to encourage women, and some who felt that women probably didn't belong in science or engineering. Then there are also the male peers whose behavior seems to discourage female students.

I found my female colleagues and students quite competent, and generally above average.

Can we get a clone of this guy? His wife is one lucky lady!

 

[gravenewworld]

has anyone on the this board even been in the class room recently? girls are much more encouraged to do well in science and math and in academics in general than their male counterparts. At my school the majority of math and chemistry majors are female, by almost 2:1. Look at ANY research experience for undergraduate (REUs) program and they ALL say that they highly encourage and prefer female applicants. I applied for the same REU programs as this girl who is in my class and is also a math major and got rejected by all, yet she was able to get accepted to more than one. Some way she was able to get into the programs even though I still had taken 5 more advanced math courses than her and have gotten all A's in every math class I have taken. Even Grad school programs all say the same thing-WOMEN AND MINORITY APPLICANTS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Why should I be held to a higher standard than a female or a minority just because I am a white male? This day in age white males have to perform 2x's better than a woman or a minority just to get that job or get that school acceptance because of reverse discrimination.