Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."

If I’ve learned anything from dcum, posting urls and links lands horribly. If you’re interested in the topic, it is very accessible to research.

I appreciate your graceful concession.

Of?

That you can't support your point.

Fine, since you're begging to not do your own research:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001002772400026X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147149062400108X
Particular to mathematics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103198913737
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X19890577
Particular to higher ed mathematics
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8553227/
https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/1/4/1468/96130/Authorship-in-top-ranked-mathematical-and-physical
Women aren't even evenly distributed across subtopic in mathematics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07824
An easily digestible synthesis of this topic: https://people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~malhw/underrepresentation.pdf
Maybe you don't like academic articles, so here's some journalism:
https://maa.org/news/maa-amc-young-women-in-mathematics-share-their-stories/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/10/20/everyday-struggle-women-math/
https://medium.com/q-e-d/age-gender-and-the-highest-award-in-mathematics-af614bb16649
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02497-4

And I'm expecting soon there'll be a complaint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Did you throw a math book to your son when he was 3? Yes you did!
How many parents throw a math book to their girls when they were 3, versus a Barbie doll?

If what you are saying is true, and it does sound reasonable, doesn't it support my point that girls overtaking boys in the upper echelons in math 50 years out is probably overly optimistic?

A much larger percentage of MC UMC mothers of this generation have advanced degrees, including some in math. The way they raise their girls if they have one will be different from the older generations. 50 years are 2-3 generations, a lot could happen.

+100

And, a lot more of the younger generation is also deciding to not or to postpone marriage and children - which for women can be a career killer.

Imagine never having to step back or “mommy track” because you’re relocating for a spouses position or are the default parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Did you throw a math book to your son when he was 3? Yes you did!
How many parents throw a math book to their girls when they were 3, versus a Barbie doll?

If what you are saying is true, and it does sound reasonable, doesn't it support my point that girls overtaking boys in the upper echelons in math 50 years out is probably overly optimistic?

A much larger percentage of MC UMC mothers of this generation have advanced degrees, including some in math. The way they raise their girls if they have one will be different from the older generations. 50 years are 2-3 generations, a lot could happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."

If I’ve learned anything from dcum, posting urls and links lands horribly. If you’re interested in the topic, it is very accessible to research.

I appreciate your graceful concession.

Of?

That you can't support your point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Did you throw a math book to your son when he was 3? Yes you did!
How many parents throw a math book to their girls when they were 3, versus a Barbie doll?

If what you are saying is true, and it does sound reasonable, doesn't it support my point that girls overtaking boys in the upper echelons in math 50 years out is probably overly optimistic?

A much larger percentage of MC UMC mothers of this generation have advanced degrees, including some in math. The way they raise their girls if they have one will be different from the older generations. 50 years are 2-3 generations, a lot could happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Did you throw a math book to your son when he was 3? Yes you did!
How many parents throw a math book to their girls when they were 3, versus a Barbie doll?

If what you are saying is true, and it does sound reasonable, doesn't it support my point that girls overtaking boys in the upper echelons in math 50 years out is probably overly optimistic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."

If I’ve learned anything from dcum, posting urls and links lands horribly. If you’re interested in the topic, it is very accessible to research.

I appreciate your graceful concession.

Of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Google Hannah Cairo. True talent seldom manifests at Olympiads, just another way to coddle boys into doing some work.

No one said girls can't be AMAZING at math, like Hannah. PP said "girls outperform boys" as a blanket statement. I pointed out a significant area where they do not (in aggregate) and everyone went into a frothing rage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Did you throw a math book to your son when he was 3? Yes you did!
How many parents throw a math book to their girls when they were 3, versus a Barbie doll?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."

If I’ve learned anything from dcum, posting urls and links lands horribly. If you’re interested in the topic, it is very accessible to research.

I appreciate your graceful concession.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."

If I’ve learned anything from dcum, posting urls and links lands horribly. If you’re interested in the topic, it is very accessible to research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

Girls were allowed to study at Columbia only after the 80s, less than 50 years ago. Give it another 50 years.

This is optimistic. I don't think the pipeline of girls into high level quantitative science work is as strong as you seem to. For example, last year's winning US IMO team had one young woman on it. She was the first one since 2007.

https://maa.org/news/usa-first-at-imo/

What your saying might happen, but there are a lot of intermediate steps that will be necessary for it.

Google Hannah Cairo. True talent seldom manifests at Olympiads, just another way to coddle boys into doing some work.

No one said girls can't be AMAZING at math, like Hannah. PP said "girls outperform boys" as a blanket statement. I pointed out a significant area where they do not (in aggregate) and everyone went into a frothing rage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a faculty member/chair at a STEM-focused university. From the perspective of the Trump Administration, DEI does include women. We have received guidance from the DOE and DOJ that includes gender within the context of federally-funded grants, admissions programs that consider gender (e.g., recruiting, scholarships, etc.), hiring initiatives, and leadership programs.

Not in the context of college admissions. Girls outperform boys by a mile in colleges.

Higher up in academic settings, yes, women are being discriminated still. Fewer female professors in colleges, even fewer in leadership positions. But I think these positions are currently occupied by a lot of aged male professors, they will be gone in a few years by force of nature. I wouldn't worried too much about DEI for women.

That is not entirely true. Admissions is broader than AO's making decisions about denial/acceptance. I was referring to admissions practices around recruitment/marketing and merit scholarships. For example, we have received guidance that recruitment efforts to increase the number of female applicants in STEM falls under DEI or scholarship earmarked for women-only.

You missed the main point: Girls outperform boys.

Maybe at being average-exceptional in terms of college admissions. Only two women have won a Fields Medal. Men still outperform at the far upper bound.

You're really just highlighting an issue of bias. There's a ton of research on why women are heavily represented in some STEM fields and not in others, and it has nothing to do with intellect but social marginalization and harassment. We have similar issues over here in Physics, and it's a damn shame.

Physics is probably worse than math. But in this era of the replication crisis, pardon me if I don't immediately concede your contention of a singular cause (bias) because you handwaved at "a ton of research."