 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Yale Alumni Magazine is owned and operated by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc., a nonprofit corporation independent of Yale University. The content of the magazine and its website is the responsibility of the editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Yale or its officers. |
|
Margaret A.M. Murray '83PhD Elga Wasserman '76JD
“Intelligence is not linked to the Y chromosome,” says microbiologist Rita Colwell, director of the National Science Foundation, in the preface to Elga Wasserman’s examination of successful women scientists. “To exclude half the population from scientific inquiry is to deny an extraordinary amount of ability and intelligence.” And yet, for most of U.S. history, women have indeed been denied access to scientific careers, either by preventing them from getting the required advanced training or, as has been the case until quite recently, by convincing women that they couldn’t succeed in science. But as Margaret Murray, a mathematician, and Wasserman, an attorney with a doctorate in chemistry (and a former Yale administrator who oversaw the advent of coeducation), point out, at least some women accepted neither a closed door nor allegations of inferior intellect. Both authors have sought out a cross-section of these pioneers, and in presenting their stories, Murray and Wasserman have unearthed some common threads that enabled these scientists to weave their careers. In talking to 36 female mathematicians who entered the profession after World War II, Murray found five key elements that helped explain their success in both work and life. “First of all, one must have adequate opportunity to explore one’s interests and talents and to determine which of these one most wants to pursue and develop,” she writes, underscoring the importance of supportive parents and teachers, particularly during a time that Rita Colwell terms the “valley of death” in education—the period between the fourth and eighth grade when girls are, “in subtle and not-so-subtle ways discouraged from pursuing science and engineering.” Also critical to these success stories, says Murray, is the ability to hone talents through creative and meaningful work, a network of significant connections with others, recognition and acclaim for accomplishments, and the opportunity to make lasting contributions to future generations. Many of the women Murray talked to attributed their successes to good luck, but as Wasserman shows in her interviews with 37 female scientists, each of whom was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences between 1957 and 1996, luck was hardly the whole story. “I always tell my students that success takes three things in equal proportions: hard work, native ability, and good luck—being in the right place at the right time,” said Patricia Goldman-Rakic, professor of neurobiology and one of several NAS members with Yale connections whom Wasserman profiles. (The others are biochemist and Carnegie Institution president Maxine F. Singer '57PhD, and Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry Joan Steitz.) But as both books point out, even these factors are not enough. “For women equal opportunities will not become a reality until the lingering myth that women must forgo marriage and children in order to succeed at the cutting edge of science is relegated to history and the glass ceiling vanishes,” says Wasserman. To be sure, there are more women than ever before in the science and math pipeline—about one quarter of the doctorates in these disciplines are now awarded annually to women—but unless the institutions that support research are changed to enable researchers, female and male, to support families and careers, science, particularly at its upper echelons, will remain a largely male enclave. “Scientific research has made much of the progress of the 20th century possible,” says Wasserman. “To maintain the pace of progress in the future we must find ways to attract and retain talented scientists irrespective of gender, race, or ethnic background.”
Jack Lechner '84
So begins media executive Jack Lechner’s account of his attempt last year to reprise Sopkin’s experiment. This time, however, Lechner had many more options than Sopkin’s “six-channel universe.” He also had twice as many TV sets—and a remote. The result is part cultural critique, part hilarious journey through the electronic landscape.Lechner finds too much junk on the shopping channels, and the “intense mean-spiritedness” of the non-stop mayhem of the World Wrestling Federation sickens him. “They’ve pulled off the astonishing feat of identifying the lowest common denominator and going even lower.” And then there’s the Playboy Channel on which, among other things, he watches a farmboy and “a women dressed like Kelly McGillis in Witness. It’s all pretty surreal when accompanied by the narration of Rep. Pete Sessions (R.-Texas) talking about the Agriculture Risk Protection Act [on another TV that was broadcasting C-Span]. ‘This bill provides greater protection at a lower cost for our nation’s farmers,’ says Sessions, and I’m sure the farm couple on Playboy will appreciate that. They’re going to need protection pretty soon.” Lechner wasn’t surprised by the existence of so many “unfunny comedies, undramatic dramas, unenlightening news shows, and unstimulating talk shows,” but he was saddened by what he termed a “pervasive cynicism … Again and again, I got the feeling that people working in TV had accepted inwardly the most scathing criticisms of the medium—and that their work was hasty and uninspired because they felt that was all anybody expected.” But there were good shows, too. “The best work I saw on TV was always a product of one thing: sweat,” says Lechner, citing the original Cosby Show, The Rosie O'Donnell Show, The West Wing, and The Sopranos as examples of “simple, honest craftsmanship.” The author, who most recently was vice president of production and development for Miramax Films, was particularly impressed by some of the program offerings for children. Says Lechner, suggesting a way out of the wasteland, “I think this is due to years of dogged activism by people like Peggy Charren of Action for Children’s Television, who pressured broadcasters and legislators for decades.”
Brief Reviews May R. Berenbaum '75 Burkhard Bilger '86 Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan '87MES Robin Jaffee Frank, Associate Curator of American Paintings and Sculpture Jonathan Lear '70 Arthur Rosenfeld '79
More Books by Yale Authors Christine Andreae '67MAT Brent C. Brolin '62, ‘68MArch Matthew J. Bruccoli '53 and Arlyn Bruccoli, Editors Matthew J. Bruccoli '53 and Park Bucker, Editors Daniel M. Byrd III '63, ’71PhD Phillip Cary '89MA Sarah Chinn '89 Patricia P. Chu '81 Katerina Clark '71PhD, Professor of Comparative Literature Barnaby Conrad III '75 C. Richard Cothern '60MS Wilbur L. Cross III '41 Michael DiGiacomo '68 Richard G. Druss, MD, ‘55 Michael Gerhardt '78, Thomas D. Rowe, Jr. '64, Rebecca Brown, and Girardeau Spann David S. Goldstein, MD, ’70 Sage Goodwin '25, Illustrator, and Rufus Goodwin '56 Stacy Hagan '89 William I. Hitchcock and Paul Kennedy, J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of History, Editors Claire Jean Kim '96PhD J .D. Landis '64 Berel Lang '54 David Manuel '58 James C. McKusick '84PhD John T. Osander '62DRA Deborah L. Rhode ’74, ’77JD, Editor Bruce Ross-Larson '66 Vernon W. Ruttan '48 Lillian Schlissel '57PhD and Catherine Lavender, Editors Dorothy G. Singer, Visiting Research Professor, and Jerome L. Singer, Professor of Psychology Dorothy G. Singer, Visiting Research Professor, and Jerome L. Singer, Professor of Psychology F. Miguel Valenti '80, ‘83JD Vladimir Wozniuk, Editor and translator '82 Keith Wrightson, Professor of History Carl Zimmer '87
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |
||