The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Larry Summers 101
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We read constantly in the press about about efforts by the Establishment to hunt down and bayonet the last redoubts of male dominance. For example, the New York Times is currently worked up over astronomy departments being too male. As we all know, he who controls the astronomy department controls the world!

But in reality, the Big Three of powerful professional schools — law schools, medical schools, and business schools — opened up to women students a long time ago, with near sex equality occurring in enrollments with relatively little resistance over the course of the 1970s.

From the New York Times:

More Law Degrees for Women, but Fewer Good Jobs
By ELIZABETH OLSON NOV. 30, 2016

Women currently occupy nearly half of all the seats in American law schools, gaining credentials for a professional career once all but reserved for men. But their large presence on campus does not mean women have the same job prospects as men.

New research indicates that female law students are clustered in lower-ranked schools, and fewer women are enrolled in the country’s most prestigious institutions. …

This means women “start at a disadvantage” that may well continue throughout their professional lives, Ms. Merritt said. Despite the high numbers with law degrees, women hold fewer than 20 percent of partnerships at law firms and are underrepresented in the higher echelons of law, including the ranks of judges, corporate counsel, law school deans and professors.

Ms. Merritt and Kyle McEntee, executive director of the nonprofit group Law School Transparency, decided to examine American Bar Association data and other official statistics to see why fewer qualified women made it into the legal profession’s highest rungs even though there has been general numerical equality in law school enrollment for more than two decades.

They found that the disadvantage for women was created by more than overall numbers; it began even before law school, when a smaller percentage of female college graduates applied to law school compared with similarly credentialed men.

Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants. And when they do apply, they are less likely to be accepted. For 2015, for example, 75.8 percent of applications from women were accepted compared with 79.5 percent of applications by men, according to figures from the Law School Admission Council, which collects data on the gender and ethnicity of applicants.

There is also a gap depending on a law school’s national ranking or its job placement success, according to the study.

Over all, 49.4 percent of the country’s nearly 114,000 law school students are women, but that percentage drops at the top 50 nationally ranked schools. Top-tier schools, in the 2015-16 academic year, enrolled just over 47 percent of women as students compared with lower-ranked or unranked law schools, which enrolled 53.5 percent women as students, according to study data. …

In contrast, the lowest-performing schools — the ones that listed fewer than 40 percent of their graduates in jobs that require bar passage — had noticeably higher female enrollment, at 55.9 percent of students. …

One reason for the gender gap, Ms. Merritt and Mr. McEntee said in the report, was that the national rankings have become so important that the 50 highest-ranked schools “increasingly stress LSAT (Law School Admission Test) scores over other admissions factors as they fight for better rankings. This disadvantages women, who have lower LSAT scores (on average) than men.”

Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT, which is still the key admissions number.

Women who take the LSAT average about a quarter standard deviation lower than men who take the LSAT. When you get out to the Top 14 law schools, that’s starting to make a noticeable difference.

Here’s a graph from the Law School Admissions Council on LSAT score distributions in 2011-12:

Screenshot 2016-11-29 22.43.46

As part of the 21st Century effort to make graphs harder to read, girls are blue, boys are red. When you get out to, say, 170, the fraction of males is notably larger than the fraction of females.

It’s Larry Summers 101: men have broader, flatter IQ distributions than women. The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

 
Hide 146 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. As part of the 21st Century effort to make graphs harder to read

    LOL.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @International Jew

    Check out this website for detailed salary information from recent law school graduates. Very interesting stuff.

    Minority women make the same as non-minority men. Minority men make the most. Non-minority women make the least. There are substantially more non-minority women graduating than anyone else.

    http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummaryClassof2015.pdf

    Replies: @Anonymous

  2. The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Dang, if only Hillary had won the Electoral College, we could now put you in prison where you clearly belong.

    • Replies: @TheBoom
    @Kyle McKenna

    Don't be depressed. If the Democrats win the presidency in 2020, Steve can still end up in the gulag.

  3. OT: Too Many Haven Monahans at Liberal Arts Colleges?

    Inspired by an old iSteve post (https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/defining-deviancy-up/) and a recent Washington Post summary of reported sexual assaults in schools, I put together a plot by year of the average Clery Act per capita sexual assault reports for the top overall universities and top liberal arts colleges from the 2017 U.S. News and World Report list. There is a small caveat, which is that Swarthmore had a huge spike in reports in 2013, so the tied-for-9th school (I forget what it was off the top of my head) was substituted instead.

    Mean Sexual Assault Reports per 1000 Students

    What do you think accounts for the rise in the liberal arts college rate versus the elite university rate, which has been pretty much stable for the past 10 years?

    I would think the campus cultures at, say, Harvard and Amherst are pretty comparable despite them being in separate categories. From a leftist perspective, you might even imagine that the trends were reversed (just thinking about counting Haven Monahans). I also find it interesting and frustrating that the data is rarely presented in this manner.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reginald Maplethorp

    This graph has nothing to do with the actual rate of sexual assaults and everything to do with the REPORTED rate of assaults. At small liberal arts u's rape hysteria and the structures that encourage reporting of same just keeps going up and up so every year more kinds of consensual acts that are followed by morning after (or sometimes months after) regrets, microaggressions, etc. get reported as "sexual assault". Women are encouraged and "empowered" to see all sexual contact that they are not overjoyed with ex post facto (which again could be months later, after they have "broken up", sobered up, etc.) as reportable sexual assaults. In all seriousness, some of this is an effort by lesbians to make men so fearful that the competition for women is reduced. On a large campus, it's more difficult to maintain the necessary ideological bubble needed to deprive students of reality checks and maintain them in a state of Red Guard hysteria.

    What would be interesting would be to compare the # of "rape" reports with actual criminal convictions for student on student rape (which still have old fashioned requirements like "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"). I'm pretty sure that only a tiny % of "campus rape" reports result in arrests let alone convictions and that the rate of conviction (near zero) hasn't budged at all .

    , @NickG
    @Reginald Maplethorp

    Good work.

  4. I’m getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. “You’re only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys’ networking!”

    It’s gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can’t seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it’s always on top by cheating.

    That’s a like a short white guy complaining that basketball isn’t a real sport because it’s tall black guys dominating it and therefore just “institutionally biased” against him, and then demanding that he be spotted 20 points per game—then 50—then 100–all because of “unfair bias.”

    We’d tell the guy to shove it and just give Lebron James and Shaquille O’Neal credit for their accomplishments.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve reached the point where if someone complains to me that white/male/straight/gentile success anywhere is a result of “bias” or some other such nonsense, I’m going to be quite blunt in telling them:

    “No. It’s because we do it better than everyone else/you. Shut up and thank us for being so good at it. They/you couldn’t hack it, we kicked butt.”

    And then get in their face if they persist.

    Degrading all our accomplishments has reached a boiling-over point for me, and I think many others like me. I’m through with being a kicktoy. The pushback starts now.

    • Agree: E. Rekshun
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @whorefinder

    Say something like:

    "It's because our culture places a strong emphasis on education" [Jews/Asians triggered]

    Or

    "Strong family values" or "We value family" [Asians/Spanish speakers triggered]

    Or you could go with a more aggressive approach:

    "So-called White privilege is just an excuse people use to avoid personal responsibility"

    Or, pull in the fact that so many people want to immigrate to the United States because of insifficient White privilege in their home countries. See Porter's comment on Cenk Uygur:

    https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/nullified/

    Replies: @whorefinder

    , @BenKenobi
    @whorefinder

    Quite right. If an organization is all black (ie: the NBA) that's because of dominance. But if an organization is all White (ie: NASA) that's because of racism.

    I see.

    I'm sure you guys have encountered people using the phrase "first world problems" or "white people problems" -- I now use the same response every time:

    "We earned it."

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @E. Rekshun, @bored identity

    , @anon
    @whorefinder

    White males seem to be getting the shit kicked out of them.

    However, a few columns back, there was the discussion about skin color, bleaching, etc.

    White is preferred by the ruling elites in Latin America. It's timeless.

    You have the Kardashian thing. Yea, the ethnic look is stylish, and the gay male fashion version of white women was always a little pervy for my tastes. The Kardashians women seem to do to men what the Kennedy's do to women. They are hell on men. And they pluck up uber alpha black males. Then the men implode. Kayne West ...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3986422/Kim-Kardashian-unbearable-Kanye-West-fighting-weeks-leading-rapper-s-breakdown.html

    I'm predicting the interracial offspring will go white if they ever mate.

    , @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    "I’m getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. “You’re only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys’ networking!”

    "It’s gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can’t seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it’s always on top by cheating."

    Do Ivy League schools even consider white, gentile, straight men for high level positions, e.g. President, anymore? Cornell just named a new president: Martha Polkack. Previous presidents include:

    - Elizabeth Garrett (2015-2016, she became ill and sadly died): woman
    - David Skorton (2006-2015): Jewish
    - Jeffrey Lehman (2003-2005, resigned unexpectedly): Jewish
    - Hunter Rawlings, III (1995-2003): the most recent white, gentile, (apparently) straight male named as President of Cornell

  5. ” . . . but their large presence [in professional schools] does not mean women have the same job prospects as men.”

    It would not matter if women were 100% of professional school enrollment. It would not matter if there were no good-paying jobs for men at all. Bad boys, womanizers, layabouts and just plain Machiavellian men would still soak up all the disposal income their women earned, and some libtard researchers somewhere would identify the resultant spending gap to wring their hands over.

    Spoiling us wrong kind of men: in the absence of patriarchy, it’s what women do.

  6. The rise in women undergraduates to majority status may also make the female cohort disproportionately minority as compared to males. We know more black women than men attend and graduate from college and if this is also true for heavily Chicano states like California and Texas as I suspect then what you will get is a large number of less academically qualified women emerging from colleges and universities. IOW more Michelles and Hillarys than Baracks and Bills at law schools.

  7. YOU’RE A FUCKIN WHITE MALE.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Jefferson

    The best-of AIDS Skrillex show. It's funny how a white guy like him seems to think that "white male" is an obvious insult.

  8. That’s because the LSAT was created by men. Of course it’s culturally biased against women.

    They created law schools and the law itself, but I won’t go there.

    The business school class I matriculated into 1980 was already 38% women. I was a teaching assistant for the introductory economics and production/logistics management courses. I helped my professors collate the numbers and produce the final grade curves.

    Achievement was noticeably different between men and women, but then we were patriarchs grading their papers.

  9. @whorefinder
    I'm getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. "You're only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys' networking!"

    It's gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can't seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it's always on top by cheating.

    That's a like a short white guy complaining that basketball isn't a real sport because it's tall black guys dominating it and therefore just "institutionally biased" against him, and then demanding that he be spotted 20 points per game---then 50---then 100--all because of "unfair bias."

    We'd tell the guy to shove it and just give Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neal credit for their accomplishments.

    I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where if someone complains to me that white/male/straight/gentile success anywhere is a result of "bias" or some other such nonsense, I'm going to be quite blunt in telling them:

    "No. It's because we do it better than everyone else/you. Shut up and thank us for being so good at it. They/you couldn't hack it, we kicked butt."

    And then get in their face if they persist.

    Degrading all our accomplishments has reached a boiling-over point for me, and I think many others like me. I'm through with being a kicktoy. The pushback starts now.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @BenKenobi, @anon, @Anonymous

    Say something like:

    “It’s because our culture places a strong emphasis on education” [Jews/Asians triggered]

    Or

    “Strong family values” or “We value family” [Asians/Spanish speakers triggered]

    Or you could go with a more aggressive approach:

    “So-called White privilege is just an excuse people use to avoid personal responsibility”

    Or, pull in the fact that so many people want to immigrate to the United States because of insifficient White privilege in their home countries. See Porter’s comment on Cenk Uygur:

    https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/nullified/

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Opinionator

    I think I'll just stick with, "You suck, we do it better."

    I'm really not in the mood anymore to be playing around with their amygdala.

  10. “More Law Degrees for Women, but Fewer Good Jobs”

    The Last Psychiatrist was on this years ago. Once a field becomes dominated by women, that’s a sure sign of its decline into irrelevance:

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

    I guess we should find it comforting that the Presidency is still a male bastion, and therefore counts for something.

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    @MC

    I liked quite a bit of his stuff. Too bad he dropped off the face of the earth.

    Replies: @27 year old, @This Is Our Home

  11. The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    @Opinionator

    Men are more likely than women to be either "smart" or "dumb", so by selecting the smart group (by choosing those who take the LSAT as your sample) you'll have a sample skewed towards having more IQs in the right end of the bell curve. A sample of women that takes the LSAT will have more IQs close to the center.

    , @Realist
    @Opinionator

    Yes men dominate the far right of the bell curve and also dominate the far left end of the bell curve.
    More men are idiots and more men are geniuses

    Replies: @Ed

    , @Olorin
    @Opinionator

    James Thompson can:

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html

    , @CraigAustin
    @Opinionator

    People to the left of the mean (lower than average) on a IQ graph seldom dream of law school, therefore seldom write the LSAT.
    That is why the "Left" is called the "Left", and why they get a slight majority of female voters.

    Replies: @SFG, @Frau Katze

    , @anonn
    @Opinionator

    In order to apply to law school, with a few trivial exceptions, you must first get an undergraduate degree. The left of the bell curve, i.e. the very dumb and very unmotivated, either don't go to college or don't graduate. So any statistic that just focuses on law school admissions as if they were an independent thing is deeply misleading - there's an external barrier built into the system.

    , @Anon
    @Opinionator


    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?
     
    A better question is why SO MANY people seem to be incapable of visualizing a Bell Curve.

    Everyone intuitively uses the Bell Curve to deal with reality every minute of their waking day, but getting them a successfully visualize it in the abstract seems impossible for way too many people! Without that collective ability, we shall forever be shooting outselves in the ass!

    Why is this?!!

    What is a solution?!
  12. @MC
    "More Law Degrees for Women, but Fewer Good Jobs"

    The Last Psychiatrist was on this years ago. Once a field becomes dominated by women, that's a sure sign of its decline into irrelevance:

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

    I guess we should find it comforting that the Presidency is still a male bastion, and therefore counts for something.

    Replies: @ATX Hipster

    I liked quite a bit of his stuff. Too bad he dropped off the face of the earth.

    • Agree: 27 year old, slumber_j
    • Replies: @27 year old
    @ATX Hipster

    The site is going to drop off the web soon, too, if he doesn't renew it. Sad.

    , @This Is Our Home
    @ATX Hipster

    His site actually meant a lot to me. I found it essential for understanding certain less than positive people in my life. Indeed, I believe that the site gave me a contextual understanding far in excess of what I would have gathered were I to attend actual psychiatry.

    So thank you to him.

  13. Do the SJWs understand that by affirmatively furthering female lawyers they’re just creating a supply glut? Making it harder for deserving women to get into those top law schools?

    And isn’t the market for lawyers pretty saturated already? I’ve heard it’s as bad as O&G right now for freshly minted lawyers. My understanding has always been that law school is like business school – not worthwhile if you’re not going to a top program. Idk where the cutoff is for law schools between “worthwhile” and “third tier toilet”.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @ATX Hipster

    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand. Hence also why they don't get why "everybody goes to college" hasn't completely eliminated garbage collectors and made everyone into playwrights.

    Oddly, I think lawyering really is a career path that women are well-suited to (as opposed to medicine and other STEM fields, which they are not).

    Lawyering is about about convincing someone to do something, and the law is just there as justification/rationalization to do it. If a judge wants to let in hearsay, there's an exception. If a jury wants to let a guy off, they'll find any old reason to do it. Etc.

    In these fuzzy areas, women can excel. They can cajole, play hurt, boss around, etc. as the mood requires. They are natural SJWs when it comes to finding a justification for any argument.

    Ironically, though, their worst problem in the law is female judges and female jurors. Female are immune to a lot of the natural tricks that women can use on men--flirtation and pouting are actually really good techniques in a courtroom if you're a woman and the judge/juror/witness/opponent is a man.

    And older women (outside of the small percentage of brittle old feminazi-manhaters) are particularly bad for women lawyers, since they see younger women as more of a threat/bad thing than they see men (younger women are seen sexual threats and more rebellious, while men aren't going to usurp the older woman's sexual role and take orders more easily).

    Since female judges are almost always older than courtroom lawyers (as is true of all judges, who need experience before getting on the bench) , this is where female lawyers run into the most trouble, second only to older female jurors. (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Johanus de Morgateroyde

    , @SFG
    @ATX Hipster

    Top 14 is what I've heard.

    The way they think is that men and women are the same, so if there's some outcome between them that differs, it must be sexism. The rest is commentary.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Marty
    @ATX Hipster

    "isn’t the market for lawyers pretty saturated already?"

    There used to be a syndicated radio guy named Bruce Williams - he seemed to know everything about money and entrepreneurship. In 1991 I was listening when someone called in to ask what he thought about going to law school. He replied, "right now lawyers are like fleas on dogs' backs." 1991.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

  14. @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

    Men are more likely than women to be either “smart” or “dumb”, so by selecting the smart group (by choosing those who take the LSAT as your sample) you’ll have a sample skewed towards having more IQs in the right end of the bell curve. A sample of women that takes the LSAT will have more IQs close to the center.

  15. @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

    Yes men dominate the far right of the bell curve and also dominate the far left end of the bell curve.
    More men are idiots and more men are geniuses

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Realist

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res, @Buddwing, @AnotherDad

  16. @ATX Hipster
    Do the SJWs understand that by affirmatively furthering female lawyers they're just creating a supply glut? Making it harder for deserving women to get into those top law schools?

    And isn't the market for lawyers pretty saturated already? I've heard it's as bad as O&G right now for freshly minted lawyers. My understanding has always been that law school is like business school - not worthwhile if you're not going to a top program. Idk where the cutoff is for law schools between "worthwhile" and "third tier toilet".

    Replies: @whorefinder, @SFG, @Marty

    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand. Hence also why they don’t get why “everybody goes to college” hasn’t completely eliminated garbage collectors and made everyone into playwrights.

    Oddly, I think lawyering really is a career path that women are well-suited to (as opposed to medicine and other STEM fields, which they are not).

    Lawyering is about about convincing someone to do something, and the law is just there as justification/rationalization to do it. If a judge wants to let in hearsay, there’s an exception. If a jury wants to let a guy off, they’ll find any old reason to do it. Etc.

    In these fuzzy areas, women can excel. They can cajole, play hurt, boss around, etc. as the mood requires. They are natural SJWs when it comes to finding a justification for any argument.

    Ironically, though, their worst problem in the law is female judges and female jurors. Female are immune to a lot of the natural tricks that women can use on men–flirtation and pouting are actually really good techniques in a courtroom if you’re a woman and the judge/juror/witness/opponent is a man.

    And older women (outside of the small percentage of brittle old feminazi-manhaters) are particularly bad for women lawyers, since they see younger women as more of a threat/bad thing than they see men (younger women are seen sexual threats and more rebellious, while men aren’t going to usurp the older woman’s sexual role and take orders more easily).

    Since female judges are almost always older than courtroom lawyers (as is true of all judges, who need experience before getting on the bench) , this is where female lawyers run into the most trouble, second only to older female jurors. (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    @whorefinder


    (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )
     
    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general. Anybody who's attended high school should know that intuitively, yet we have this societal fiction that women are more cooperative than men. "If women ran the world there would be no war" and such nonsense.

    This article about an all-female TV production company is hilarious:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    The author even says in the article she should have known better because of her experiences in school. Feminist dogma is nothing more than denial of basic realities observable to anybody paying attention. Of course, that goes for leftist dogma in general.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @whorefinder

    , @Johanus de Morgateroyde
    @whorefinder


    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand.
     
    Simpler answer: the r-selected brains of Leftists have difficulty processing even the idea of resource constraints let alone the consequences.
  17. @Opinionator
    @whorefinder

    Say something like:

    "It's because our culture places a strong emphasis on education" [Jews/Asians triggered]

    Or

    "Strong family values" or "We value family" [Asians/Spanish speakers triggered]

    Or you could go with a more aggressive approach:

    "So-called White privilege is just an excuse people use to avoid personal responsibility"

    Or, pull in the fact that so many people want to immigrate to the United States because of insifficient White privilege in their home countries. See Porter's comment on Cenk Uygur:

    https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/nullified/

    Replies: @whorefinder

    I think I’ll just stick with, “You suck, we do it better.”

    I’m really not in the mood anymore to be playing around with their amygdala.

  18. @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

  19. As part of the 21st Century effort to make graphs harder to read, girls are blue, boys are red.

    Or to echo the gender-affiliation color code of the two main US political parties.

  20. If youre anti-anti-male then stop using “woman” as an adjective. This horrific trend was started by histrionic feminists who dislike the word “female.”

  21. @Realist
    @Opinionator

    Yes men dominate the far right of the bell curve and also dominate the far left end of the bell curve.
    More men are idiots and more men are geniuses

    Replies: @Ed

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @woodNfish, @Olorin, @Ed

    , @res
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Do you have data to support this for IQ? I find it easier to believe for achievement given how much better black women seem to do in education, but I think that is more likely to be behavioral than IQ related..

    P.S. People here might enjoy this example of triumphalism: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/16/why-women-finally-have-higher-iqs-than-men/
    Contrast with the reaction to Summer's statement. Especially given that I would argue a difference in means is more "offensive" than a difference in variances.
    , @Buddwing
    @Ed

    The LSAT report has N, mean and SD for African-American males and females over four administrations. Black females dominate test takers and outnumber black men among top-half scorers, but men have a slightly higher mean and SD, so that by plugging the numbers in we would expect that black men outnumber black women among those scoring above 159 (assuming normality of distributions).

    Replies: @Ed

    , @AnotherDad
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    I know there's a joke in there somewhere.
  22. It seems that many women choose to work in different types of jobs in these fields, which pay less. There are more female pediatricians and OBGYNs than surgeons. Many women attorneys choose public interest jobs. Also, the time frame for becoming a partner at a law firm collides with the biological imperative for women. Top notch graduates who go to high power firms straight from law school or after a prestigious clerkship are 26 or 27 when they start. It takes about eight years of nonstop work to be considered for partnership. If you take time off to become a mother during those years, or God forbid to actually care for your children, you are less likely to make partner, and less likely to want to be a partner. The saying goes that partnership is like winning a pie eating contest where the reward is more pie. A female attorney friend told me she was in her first year at a large firm and they arranged a lunch for all of the new female attorneys with a female senior partner. They were uniformly horrified when the partner described how they could balance their family and work life like she did, by having dinner with her husband and child at least once a week. But, for the women who really want to make partner, it is not as difficult because the large firms are fighting over them. They have internal committees that monitor diversity, etc., and legal newspapers report on the number of women and minorities that make partner each year at the big firms. My friend made partner even though she took time off to have a child and then worked part-time for a year. A male would be out of the running if he showed so little regard for the firm.

  23. I was involved in some litigation a while back (frankly the experience is not one I’d rather repeat). But my observation from seeing a bunch of lawyers up close and personal is that the successful male lawyers tended to be very aggressive bastards, and female lawyers tended to do a lot of the behind-the-scenes paperwork and basically clerical stuff.

    Overall, it seems that female lawyers tend to favor government, regulatory, and advocacy jobs, while aggressive, bold males head up the law firms and go for big money and a high profile.

  24. Veterinary schools have become heavily woman-dominated and it’s a real problem in the field of large animal veterinarians, because women a) are much less interested in becoming large animal vets and b) are not as good at being large animal vets because aspects of the job can be highly dirty and physical, requiring significant strength, and even be occasionally dangerous.

    Female vets are great with household pets and even the less-physical part of livestock handling, but they simply come up against physical limitations when shoulder-deep in a pregnant cow.

    Nearly all the established large animal vets I know are men, but they’re all well into middle age. The new veterinarian at the large animal practice I use is a woman and she’s working hard, but I worry for the long-term viability of the practice. The other vet is about my age. I don’t know what will happen when he’s too old to practice.

    I’ve been up at OSU’s veterinary college a couple of times over the past few years — it’s one of the largest vet schools in the country and they have a huge farm animal and equine practice up there — and every single student vet and younger resident vet I dealt with — and I’ve dealt with a couple dozen — was a woman. The only male vets I’ve worked with up there have been instructors.

    When I grew up I worked at a veterinary hospital back in the early 80s and all the doctors were men.

    Given the age of the vets I work with, it seems like the feminization of veterinary medicine is something that’s occurred over the past 20 years or so. I’m not encountering any young men in their late 20s and 30s as veterinarians.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Cloudbuster

    This means a few things:

    Vets were over-priced. Getting women into the field will bring down prices.

    If there's a market for strong, non-squeamish vets for the big animals, the prices will go up and men will get back into it.

    Black-market vetting (is that a word?) will increase as male animal owners get more hesitant to let a woman handle their beast.

    Don't worry, we can always have immigrant males take over the jobs American males won't.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Cloudbuster

    I've had more or less the same experience in the Northeast. I would add that the turnover of the female veterinarians is pretty high. The former generation of male vets tended to be the same ones in the same place for many years. The younger female ones usually disappear after a few years and are replaced by even younger ones who don't last either. As a result they don't build up much familiarity with various farms and herds. And farmers are decreasingly reliant on them, preferring to treat their herds themselves, for better or worse.

    The irony is that many of these sweet young vets were likely inspired to become vets by the James Herriot stories of the old timey vet work in Yorkshire. But their mass influx into the field has caused the extinction of the James Herriot type of vet who committed his career to a community, however unglamorous, and caused its replacement by mass-produced, less experienced, corporate organized McVets.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @Peripatetic commenter
    @Cloudbuster

    As Eleanor MacCoby reported in:

    https://www.amazon.com/Two-Sexes-Growing-Coming-Together/dp/0674914821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480533378&sr=8-1&keywords=eleanor+Maccoby

    Once women move into a field, men move out.

    It's just that some fields they simply cannot move into in large numbers or don't want to move into in large numbers.

  25. @ATX Hipster
    Do the SJWs understand that by affirmatively furthering female lawyers they're just creating a supply glut? Making it harder for deserving women to get into those top law schools?

    And isn't the market for lawyers pretty saturated already? I've heard it's as bad as O&G right now for freshly minted lawyers. My understanding has always been that law school is like business school - not worthwhile if you're not going to a top program. Idk where the cutoff is for law schools between "worthwhile" and "third tier toilet".

    Replies: @whorefinder, @SFG, @Marty

    Top 14 is what I’ve heard.

    The way they think is that men and women are the same, so if there’s some outcome between them that differs, it must be sexism. The rest is commentary.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SFG


    The way they think is that men and women are the same, so if there’s some outcome between them that differs, it must be sexism.
     
    There is little thought involved.
  26. ” . . . the New York Times is currently worked up over astronomy departments being too male.”

    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.

    • LOL: ATX Hipster, EdwardM
    • Replies: @Miss Laura
    @black sea

    I hope you've sent that comment to the Times.

    , @E. Rekshun
    @black sea

    I bet most women do not know the difference between astronomy and astrology.

    But, but, but... I seem to remember "LA Law" and "Ally McBeal" (and the dozens of TV legal dramas since I stopped watching TV in 1992) all show attractive, single, well-dressed 25 y/o Big Law female lawyers strutting around glass-walled conference rooms and having lunch in trendy sidewalk cafes, and lots of sex.

    And, by the way, where are all these top female law students going to come from - I thought they're all being recruited into computer programming..."girlz that code!"

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    , @frayedthread
    @black sea


    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.
     
    ROFLMAO
  27. @black sea
    " . . . the New York Times is currently worked up over astronomy departments being too male."

    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.

    Replies: @Miss Laura, @E. Rekshun, @frayedthread

    I hope you’ve sent that comment to the Times.

  28. @Kyle McKenna

    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.
     
    Dang, if only Hillary had won the Electoral College, we could now put you in prison where you clearly belong.

    Replies: @TheBoom

    Don’t be depressed. If the Democrats win the presidency in 2020, Steve can still end up in the gulag.

  29. ” fewer women are enrolled in the country’s most prestigious institutions. …”

    I know this is a trivial part of the article, but jeez, this Ivy League/elite school media drumbeat is relentless. Am I just imagining things, or does it seems that there is way, way more obsession with, coverage, with, and deference to Ivies in the media than there used to be- kind of like how the Supreme Court is packed with Ivies? Every single day, there’s articles about the minority who got 6 Ivy bids, admissions scandals, funding hand wringing, naval gazing about privilege, and on and on. It’s like the whole land grant system of public schools never happened and this country has a version of France’s ENA.

    I cannot recall one single article that tries to knock a bit of air out the Ivies in at least 15 years.

    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @yaqub the mad scientist


    I know this is a trivial part of the article, but jeez, this Ivy League/elite school media drumbeat is relentless.
     
    It's due to the women who are status obsessed. How many women are super competent and just interested in doing their jobs? Some, sure, but far and away that describes many more men. My son's friend has a perfect SAT and lots of AP 5's, very high class rank in a top high school and isn't even bothering applying to any Ivy schools.

    Ivy league is for people obsessed with power. They want in so they can control others.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    "Knocking" the Ivy League is a popular and widespread pursuit. Long ago I lost count of the number of times I've read that top colleges (in particular Ivies) are worthwhile "just for the connections you make" as opposed to any actual learning or expanding of the mind that just might happen, surrounded by unmatched resources and the greatest minds in the world. Sour grapes, usually.

    Anyway, here are some articles to your point:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere
    http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/international-student-counsel/2015/10/01/4-factors-to-consider-before-applying-to-ivy-league-schools
    http://www.liberalartscolleges.com/ivy-league-or-liberal-arts-college/
    http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/ivy-league-schools-are-they-worth-getting-in/

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

  30. @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

    People to the left of the mean (lower than average) on a IQ graph seldom dream of law school, therefore seldom write the LSAT.
    That is why the “Left” is called the “Left”, and why they get a slight majority of female voters.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @CraigAustin

    I always thought it was the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly during the revolution, but your explanation is funnier.

    , @Frau Katze
    @CraigAustin

    But the X axis says "LSAT score". How was the data for the graph gathered? There is data for the low scores ergo someone must have written the LSAT and got the low scores (unless it's extrapolated).

    I think we should say, the left side isn't ACCEPTED into Law School, thus creating the imbalance.

  31. @Ed
    @Realist

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res, @Buddwing, @AnotherDad

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Desiderius

    Rather than perform the services of a lawyer, black men are more likely to require them.

    , @woodNfish
    @Desiderius

    Empirical evidence shows large numbers of black men pursue the wrong side of the law.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Olorin
    @Desiderius

    At the right tail of black IQ distribution, black women outnumber black men by a hefty ratio (brain says 4:1, but I may be misremembering). So Ed's point may hold here.

    , @Ed
    @Desiderius

    What other fields would right tail black men pursue then if not law in proportionate numbers?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  32. @ATX Hipster
    @MC

    I liked quite a bit of his stuff. Too bad he dropped off the face of the earth.

    Replies: @27 year old, @This Is Our Home

    The site is going to drop off the web soon, too, if he doesn’t renew it. Sad.

  33. @SFG
    @ATX Hipster

    Top 14 is what I've heard.

    The way they think is that men and women are the same, so if there's some outcome between them that differs, it must be sexism. The rest is commentary.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    The way they think is that men and women are the same, so if there’s some outcome between them that differs, it must be sexism.

    There is little thought involved.

  34. I think the bell-curve differences show up at the micro-scale as well: my own thinking is prone both more to insight and blunder than is my wife’s.

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  35. I loved this line
    “Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants.”

    Women are a disadvantage because, although they are a majority, it’s not as big a majority as elsewhere.

    Where does the Times find these morons?

  36. @Desiderius
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @woodNfish, @Olorin, @Ed

    Rather than perform the services of a lawyer, black men are more likely to require them.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, the file to which you link and from which you took the graph makes it pretty clear that it is not “Larry Summers 101”. The difference is very stable in the means (figure 10, p.17) but SDs do not seem to be regularly different (table 3, p.16):

    SDs for men: 9.87, 9.93, 9.81, 9.81, 10.16, 10.00, 10.12 (mean: 9.96)
    SDs for women: 9.80, 10.02, 9.83, 9.98, 10.33, 10.21, 10.25 (mean 10.06)

    So Larry’s explanation contradicts facts in this case – the SDs are actually quite similar and no hint for male SD to be larger. It’s just that men applying to law schools tend to be smarter.

    Although the difference in means appears to be small, ~ 0.2SD

  38. Playing with this applet: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects

    Male mean=151, female mean=149, SD=10 for both. Above the score of 170, there are 1.6 times more males than females. And it’s 2X above 180.

  39. Women seem to be relatively prominent in Astronomy. Astronomy nowadays relies heavily on user-facilities. You apply for time on big telescopes, take data, analyze the data, and then write it up. I have observed that women often aren’t bad at analysis – they can even be pretty good at it. But how many women design and build telescopes and instrumentation? And now I have to wonder how much of their time is devoted to “gender-equity” issues, writing think-pieces, attending conferences and seminars on women-in-science, etc.

    Of the women engineers I have observed (a fair number), not many of them seem very keen to do actual engineering. They often do pretty well at analysis. But when it comes to design and fabrication, there aren’t a lot of them to be found. And a lot of them go into the people-side of things: management, organizational stuff, etc. Most male engineers I know do technical stuff at home: plumbing, electrical work, Ham Radio, automotive repair, etc. How many female engineers do that? My guess is………..not many.

  40. @Jefferson
    YOU'RE A FUCKIN WHITE MALE.
    https://youtu.be/Pa-7a2gLDjI

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The best-of AIDS Skrillex show. It’s funny how a white guy like him seems to think that “white male” is an obvious insult.

  41. @black sea
    " . . . the New York Times is currently worked up over astronomy departments being too male."

    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.

    Replies: @Miss Laura, @E. Rekshun, @frayedthread

    I bet most women do not know the difference between astronomy and astrology.

    But, but, but… I seem to remember “LA Law” and “Ally McBeal” (and the dozens of TV legal dramas since I stopped watching TV in 1992) all show attractive, single, well-dressed 25 y/o Big Law female lawyers strutting around glass-walled conference rooms and having lunch in trendy sidewalk cafes, and lots of sex.

    And, by the way, where are all these top female law students going to come from – I thought they’re all being recruited into computer programming…”girlz that code!”

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    @E. Rekshun


    I thought they’re all being recruited into computer programming…”girlz that code!”
     
    OMG, totally brilliant idea for new Lena Dunham series. And much fun can be had with moving around the punctuation: "Girlz, that code!" "Girlz that, code!" etc
  42. Anonymous [AKA "Law_Skewl"] says:
    @International Jew

    As part of the 21st Century effort to make graphs harder to read
     
    LOL.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Check out this website for detailed salary information from recent law school graduates. Very interesting stuff.

    Minority women make the same as non-minority men. Minority men make the most. Non-minority women make the least. There are substantially more non-minority women graduating than anyone else.

    http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummaryClassof2015.pdf

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    I have this sense that for quite a few white women, going to law school - any law school - is kind of like joining a sorority. It's something they can talk and brag about to make themselves seem like a person of relatively high status, as well as a serious person, whether or not they actually ever work as a lawyer or even like working as a lawyer.

  43. The differences in performance between the (very top) of the sexes is more pronounced in areas that require the creation of technical, complex patterns, such as mathematics and music composition.

    Consider music composition. All great classical composers were and are men. Not “most,” but all. If you ask a music critic to name the best female composer, the best she’ll do is Clara Schumann, who wrote some piddling piano compositions.

    I’m excluding modern rock or folk songs because they are mostly a simple 3-chord progression with a nice tune. But original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music, are also composed by men. For example, each of the scores on AFI’s list of the greatest 25 scores was composed by a man. http://www.afi.com/100Years/scores.aspx.

    Women have held their own as performers, of course. Clara Schumann was a virtuoso pianist who supported her husband while he composed music. She was far more famous than Robert in their day. There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years. Martha Argerich, for example, is recognized as one of the best (if not best) interpreters of Rachmaninoff in the last 40 years. Yuja Wang may be the best up-and-coming pianist.

    So plenty of women are “very good” at music. The average woman may have more musical talent than the average male. I have no idea. But at the far right extreme of the bell curve, where complex creativity is required, there are no women, only men.

    I do think that putting this as “men are better than women at composing music” is unnecessarily provocative and mostly untrue. There is a very small set of men at the extreme edge of the curve who are better than all women and almost all men. It would be less provocative (and more accurate) to explain it as a rare physical condition. E.g.:

    “There’s an organic brain condition (similar to synesthesia) that allows some people to “see” complex music patterns. It’s very, very rare, with a population incidence of less than 0.01%. All known cases have been men. It is unclear whether the brain condition is purely genetic, but the evidence points to it having only a minor genetic component. The current hypothesis is that it is caused by fetal exposure to high amounts of testosterone in the womb combined with an unknown, sporadic genetic abnormality.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Chuck

    The greatest teacher of symphony conductors in the 20th Century was a woman, Nadia Boulanger. She chose a helping role for herself and wasn't all that motivated to be in the limelight, like her students.

    , @Kyle McKenna
    @Chuck


    original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music
     
    We need to have a 'throw-down' on this score, somewhere, unless you mean mediocre classical music. Movie music may offer grand, sweeping melodies and may well appeal to the emotions, but even the best lacks complexity and as such fails to stand up to repeated listening.
    , @Anonymous
    @Chuck

    "Women have held their own as performers, of course. ... There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years.

    Here's a link to Chopin's Nocturnes played by Brigitte Engerer (French woman). I think the first nocturne at the start of the video is almost achingly beautiful. I really don't know anything about Brigitte, nor am I a musician or classical music aficionado, but according to Wikipedia it sounds as though she was considered to be a very good pianist.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=liTSRH4fix4 (video)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Engerer#

    , @SPMoore8
    @Chuck

    I don't think you need a unique mental condition to be serious composer. What you do need is to have absolute proficiency on some instrument or another (so that you can test what you are composing) and the ability to hear music in your head (not that rare). Of course you also have to have mastered harmony and counterpoint (so you can handle multiple voices). Outside of that you just have to have a specific "plot" that you want to follow and the persistence to come up with some decent tunes. I'm sure it takes a lot of training and concentration but I don't think it takes special gifts. (Unless coming up with great tunes and knowing how to use them is a gift).

    I think the lack of women in a lot of these areas is that women generally have a lot of distractions while the great composers almost without exception were raised to be musicians and were past masters of compositional techniques even before they achieved adulthood. Then it was just a matter of following that lead to make larger and larger creations.

    I'm not sure who is composing anything that can compare -- at the latest -- to Shostakovich and everyone before him. I don't think you can really count film scores because while they tend to incorporate the descriptive realism of R. Strauss and the motif led styles of Berlioz, Wagner, and R. Strauss the compositions themselves are usually quite brief.

    The AFI list of great film scores was not a particularly good list. Nothing against John Williams personally, but among others Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rozsa were far more talented composers. Ditto most of the other names on that list, and not forgetting Hugo Friedhofer, either.

    Replies: @Chuck

  44. LSAT is a verbal biased test where you’d expect women to do better. Again, there is a chance to go on the offense by pointing out that boys don’t read and are way behind on reading scores, so the male advantage on LSAT is despite that handicap.

  45. Wait! Where have I seen that graph before?

    It must be eliminated.

    Anyone who believes there are differences between men and women is a racist, sexist holocaust denier!

  46. @black sea
    " . . . the New York Times is currently worked up over astronomy departments being too male."

    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.

    Replies: @Miss Laura, @E. Rekshun, @frayedthread

    Women, on the other hand, continue to dominate the field of Astrology.

    ROFLMAO

  47. The University of Buffalo has a law school and they just cut the number of admissions because graduates are not finding jobs. I suppose to make the NYT happy they should just cut the number of male applicants that they will accept. And of course the NYT and the WaPo would not reveal this proposal, because that would really be news.

  48. A female student at UPenn Law wrote an article about the LSAT gender gap at the very upper end:

    Since my father is a law professor at the University of San Francisco, I asked him for some LSAT test data that he received from the school’s admissions office.

    Upon analyzing the data from the Law School Admissions Council for 2001-2006, I found the percentage of women who score in the top percentile of test takers – the select students scoring 175 or above – is roughly a third of a percent.

    Around three-fourths of a percent of males scored in the same category. Using this measure, women finally outpace men in scores below 150 – a score lower than at least 75 percent of those admitted to each Tier 1 and 2 school.

    http://www.thedp.com/article/2008/01/colleen_honigsberg_closing_the_lsat_gender_gap

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @candid_observer

    Disgusting, is it not, how the LSAT's questions exhibit such vicious misogyny. Even if every person who works for the testing agency is female, it's just another illustration of how even women hate women.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

  49. @ATX Hipster
    Do the SJWs understand that by affirmatively furthering female lawyers they're just creating a supply glut? Making it harder for deserving women to get into those top law schools?

    And isn't the market for lawyers pretty saturated already? I've heard it's as bad as O&G right now for freshly minted lawyers. My understanding has always been that law school is like business school - not worthwhile if you're not going to a top program. Idk where the cutoff is for law schools between "worthwhile" and "third tier toilet".

    Replies: @whorefinder, @SFG, @Marty

    “isn’t the market for lawyers pretty saturated already?”

    There used to be a syndicated radio guy named Bruce Williams – he seemed to know everything about money and entrepreneurship. In 1991 I was listening when someone called in to ask what he thought about going to law school. He replied, “right now lawyers are like fleas on dogs’ backs.” 1991.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    @Marty

    Worth noting, though, is that unlike most professionals, lawyers can create their own work. Just sue people; eventually you'll win something. I'd like to be a lawyer so I could sue the government.

    Replies: @Marty

  50. @whorefinder
    @ATX Hipster

    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand. Hence also why they don't get why "everybody goes to college" hasn't completely eliminated garbage collectors and made everyone into playwrights.

    Oddly, I think lawyering really is a career path that women are well-suited to (as opposed to medicine and other STEM fields, which they are not).

    Lawyering is about about convincing someone to do something, and the law is just there as justification/rationalization to do it. If a judge wants to let in hearsay, there's an exception. If a jury wants to let a guy off, they'll find any old reason to do it. Etc.

    In these fuzzy areas, women can excel. They can cajole, play hurt, boss around, etc. as the mood requires. They are natural SJWs when it comes to finding a justification for any argument.

    Ironically, though, their worst problem in the law is female judges and female jurors. Female are immune to a lot of the natural tricks that women can use on men--flirtation and pouting are actually really good techniques in a courtroom if you're a woman and the judge/juror/witness/opponent is a man.

    And older women (outside of the small percentage of brittle old feminazi-manhaters) are particularly bad for women lawyers, since they see younger women as more of a threat/bad thing than they see men (younger women are seen sexual threats and more rebellious, while men aren't going to usurp the older woman's sexual role and take orders more easily).

    Since female judges are almost always older than courtroom lawyers (as is true of all judges, who need experience before getting on the bench) , this is where female lawyers run into the most trouble, second only to older female jurors. (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Johanus de Morgateroyde

    (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )

    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general. Anybody who’s attended high school should know that intuitively, yet we have this societal fiction that women are more cooperative than men. “If women ran the world there would be no war” and such nonsense.

    This article about an all-female TV production company is hilarious:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    The author even says in the article she should have known better because of her experiences in school. Feminist dogma is nothing more than denial of basic realities observable to anybody paying attention. Of course, that goes for leftist dogma in general.

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    @ATX Hipster

    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general.

    Women hate working, in general.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    , @whorefinder
    @ATX Hipster

    "Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another."
    ---H.L. Mencken

    "On one issue at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women.
    ----H L Mencken"

    "Don't try to understand women. Women understand women and they hate each other."
    ---Al Bundy

  51. @Ed
    @Realist

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res, @Buddwing, @AnotherDad

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Do you have data to support this for IQ? I find it easier to believe for achievement given how much better black women seem to do in education, but I think that is more likely to be behavioral than IQ related..

    P.S. People here might enjoy this example of triumphalism: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/16/why-women-finally-have-higher-iqs-than-men/
    Contrast with the reaction to Summer’s statement. Especially given that I would argue a difference in means is more “offensive” than a difference in variances.

  52. There are other reasons why there are fewer women lawyers with “good” jobs.

    What does it take to make partner at a big law firm? At least 80 hours a week of agonizing tedium, for five to seven years. Unless you are a rainmaker, with family connections. Daddy’s a senator, or major CEO.

    Now if you’re a lady lawyer and you don’t want anything but partnership, fine. But if you like the courtroom, or like having people for your clients instead of corporations, or you want to have children and actually raise them, you aren’t partner material. You might still have a shot at marrying someone who is.

    It’s a very reassuring thing that only 20% of partners are women.

  53. @Cloudbuster
    Veterinary schools have become heavily woman-dominated and it's a real problem in the field of large animal veterinarians, because women a) are much less interested in becoming large animal vets and b) are not as good at being large animal vets because aspects of the job can be highly dirty and physical, requiring significant strength, and even be occasionally dangerous.

    Female vets are great with household pets and even the less-physical part of livestock handling, but they simply come up against physical limitations when shoulder-deep in a pregnant cow.

    Nearly all the established large animal vets I know are men, but they're all well into middle age. The new veterinarian at the large animal practice I use is a woman and she's working hard, but I worry for the long-term viability of the practice. The other vet is about my age. I don't know what will happen when he's too old to practice.

    I've been up at OSU's veterinary college a couple of times over the past few years -- it's one of the largest vet schools in the country and they have a huge farm animal and equine practice up there -- and every single student vet and younger resident vet I dealt with -- and I've dealt with a couple dozen -- was a woman. The only male vets I've worked with up there have been instructors.

    When I grew up I worked at a veterinary hospital back in the early 80s and all the doctors were men.

    Given the age of the vets I work with, it seems like the feminization of veterinary medicine is something that's occurred over the past 20 years or so. I'm not encountering any young men in their late 20s and 30s as veterinarians.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri, @Peripatetic commenter

    This means a few things:

    Vets were over-priced. Getting women into the field will bring down prices.

    If there’s a market for strong, non-squeamish vets for the big animals, the prices will go up and men will get back into it.

    Black-market vetting (is that a word?) will increase as male animal owners get more hesitant to let a woman handle their beast.

    Don’t worry, we can always have immigrant males take over the jobs American males won’t.

  54. @ATX Hipster
    @MC

    I liked quite a bit of his stuff. Too bad he dropped off the face of the earth.

    Replies: @27 year old, @This Is Our Home

    His site actually meant a lot to me. I found it essential for understanding certain less than positive people in my life. Indeed, I believe that the site gave me a contextual understanding far in excess of what I would have gathered were I to attend actual psychiatry.

    So thank you to him.

  55. Worth noting that the NYT astronomy article was in the Science section. I guess *ism is the most important aspect of all fields.

    A higher variance in IQ explains the more male right tail for the LSAT, but what explains the female dominance in the left tail? Do many men who would score that low realize they don’t have a chance either for admission or finding a job? It would be interesting to see that graph of LSAT scores also show admissions outcomes.

    Does anyone have data for law school admission/graduation or bar passing by LSAT and race/gender? I did not see anything in a quick search, including at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics.html
    which was the best data source I saw.

    There were some other interesting breakdowns of LSAT scores in the PDF. One that struck me was the underperformance of the Southeast relative to other US regions.

    The racial LSAT results were unsurprising except :
    1. “No Response” scored the best (I wonder which groups dominated this category?).
    2. Asian/Pacific Islanders scored below Caucasian.
    Figure 14 has a plot for the 8 race responses similar to the one Steve posted for men/women. This plot makes clear that 2. was caused by higher variance for Asians which I would guess was caused by lumping the two categories together. Looking at tables 6A and 6B my guess might be wrong. They changed the racial categories in 2009 so Asians and PIs are separated.

    Also worth noting that men and women took the LSAT in roughly equal numbers so less likely for there to be a selection effect. Looking at tables 5/6 A/B makes comparison of men/women by race possible.

    P.S. Some interesting LSAT observations at http://www.deloggio.com/diversty/race.html

  56. This means women “start at a disadvantage” that may well continue throughout their professional lives, Ms. Merritt said. Despite the high numbers with law degrees, women hold fewer than 20 percent of partnerships at law firms and are underrepresented in the higher echelons of law, including the ranks of judges, corporate counsel, law school deans and professors.

    Short explanation: Women make shitty lawyers.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @ben tillman

    Ben, we have a number of female judges in Western NY. The article's lament about female judges is bogus because we elect judges around here. So if a woman cares to mount a campaign, she can attempt to become a judge. If there aren't enough female federal judges, all of whom are appointed, may I point out that the POTUS for the last eight years was a black democrat.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  57. Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees . . . .

    Doesn’t this reflect a flagrant, system-wide violation of Title IX?

  58. The sex disparity between trademark and patent attorneys must be huge.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @C. Van Carter

    As I'm sure is the sex disparity between Immigration attorneys who specialize in getting illegals' deportations delayed.

  59. It doesn’t look to me as if this curve is broader for men, it’s mostly just shifted slightly to the right. I think the shift explains the gap. The pool of men taking the LSAT, for whatever reason, are slightly smarter (or at least better at taking the LSAT) than women.

    They headline attempts to make a big deal of the gap but if you read the article top tier law schools are 47% female and bottom tier ones are 53% female – that doesn’t seem like a major crisis to me. Most undergrad programs are now slightly majority female – the NYT doesn’t seem to regard that as a crisis.

    Compare that with, for example, the differential between the number of Jews you would find in top tier law schools vs. their % in the overall population – now THERE’s a gap. Notice that even though it’s a zero sum game, the gap is always expressed in terms of “not enough” of the desirable group and not “too many” of the undesirables. And it’s a heads I win, tails you lose game – the story only gets written if the “wrong” situation exists – the other case is just ignored. If the NYT wrote a story that there were “too many” Jews in top law schools, the heavens would fall, but “too many men” is Okey doky.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Jack D

    Male IQ distribution is broader and flatter, but as Steve notes, the left side of the population curve doesn't go to college, much less apply to law school.

    The right shift is simply a recognition that above the mean, the higher SD for men's IQ distribution pushes the mean for this subset higher than the mean for women in this subset.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    They headline attempts to make a big deal of the gap but if you read the article top tier law schools are 47% female and bottom tier ones are 53% female – that doesn’t seem like a major crisis to me. Most undergrad programs are now slightly majority female – the NYT doesn’t seem to regard that as a crisis.
     
    What Jack said.

    You read this and if you're numerate you think "all these numbers are pretty much the same"--50\50. You write an oppression article for a couple percentage points? You'd have to just have a hard quota to do any better.

    In fact, it's super clear from that LSAT data, that the elite law schools are doing affirmative action for women to toss up a student sex ratio that's close enough to 50\5o that the law students, faculty, nosy reporters, etc. should think sexual equality has been achieved.

    Women--at least "liberal" women--just love to whine. We guys will whine if you give 'em something meaty ... but whining about 47% ... lame.
  60. One other thought. The NYT overlooks the fact that undocumented females are occupying places in elite law schools such as Harvard. Remember the recent op-ed whiny piece by Ms. Candida-Diaz, the Chilean soon to be SJW lawyer. If you eliminated all the AA admits and back door admits, maybe there would be room for a deserving female, as long as she wasn’t white or conservative or Christian or straight. There, I think that fixes it.

  61. @Cloudbuster
    Veterinary schools have become heavily woman-dominated and it's a real problem in the field of large animal veterinarians, because women a) are much less interested in becoming large animal vets and b) are not as good at being large animal vets because aspects of the job can be highly dirty and physical, requiring significant strength, and even be occasionally dangerous.

    Female vets are great with household pets and even the less-physical part of livestock handling, but they simply come up against physical limitations when shoulder-deep in a pregnant cow.

    Nearly all the established large animal vets I know are men, but they're all well into middle age. The new veterinarian at the large animal practice I use is a woman and she's working hard, but I worry for the long-term viability of the practice. The other vet is about my age. I don't know what will happen when he's too old to practice.

    I've been up at OSU's veterinary college a couple of times over the past few years -- it's one of the largest vet schools in the country and they have a huge farm animal and equine practice up there -- and every single student vet and younger resident vet I dealt with -- and I've dealt with a couple dozen -- was a woman. The only male vets I've worked with up there have been instructors.

    When I grew up I worked at a veterinary hospital back in the early 80s and all the doctors were men.

    Given the age of the vets I work with, it seems like the feminization of veterinary medicine is something that's occurred over the past 20 years or so. I'm not encountering any young men in their late 20s and 30s as veterinarians.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri, @Peripatetic commenter

    I’ve had more or less the same experience in the Northeast. I would add that the turnover of the female veterinarians is pretty high. The former generation of male vets tended to be the same ones in the same place for many years. The younger female ones usually disappear after a few years and are replaced by even younger ones who don’t last either. As a result they don’t build up much familiarity with various farms and herds. And farmers are decreasingly reliant on them, preferring to treat their herds themselves, for better or worse.

    The irony is that many of these sweet young vets were likely inspired to become vets by the James Herriot stories of the old timey vet work in Yorkshire. But their mass influx into the field has caused the extinction of the James Herriot type of vet who committed his career to a community, however unglamorous, and caused its replacement by mass-produced, less experienced, corporate organized McVets.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Almost Missouri

    Our young lady at the local large animal practice recently married a local farm boy and he's not the type who's going to be going anywhere, so I have high hopes that she'll stay in the area, physically ... but will she still be committed to practice once she has a kid or two?

  62. @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

    In order to apply to law school, with a few trivial exceptions, you must first get an undergraduate degree. The left of the bell curve, i.e. the very dumb and very unmotivated, either don’t go to college or don’t graduate. So any statistic that just focuses on law school admissions as if they were an independent thing is deeply misleading – there’s an external barrier built into the system.

  63. @Ed
    @Realist

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res, @Buddwing, @AnotherDad

    The LSAT report has N, mean and SD for African-American males and females over four administrations. Black females dominate test takers and outnumber black men among top-half scorers, but men have a slightly higher mean and SD, so that by plugging the numbers in we would expect that black men outnumber black women among those scoring above 159 (assuming normality of distributions).

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Buddwing

    Maybe it's due to a smaller sample size and self-selection. Only the real smart black men, think Obama, even bother. The fact that there are more black women test takers and they are more numerous in wider right tail scale would indicate they dominate in the right tail population overall.

    People will point to incarceration as reason for dearth of black male LSAT test takers. However we know that even among blacks the inmate population is very low IQ. Very few high IQ black males are incarcerated.

  64. @Cloudbuster
    Veterinary schools have become heavily woman-dominated and it's a real problem in the field of large animal veterinarians, because women a) are much less interested in becoming large animal vets and b) are not as good at being large animal vets because aspects of the job can be highly dirty and physical, requiring significant strength, and even be occasionally dangerous.

    Female vets are great with household pets and even the less-physical part of livestock handling, but they simply come up against physical limitations when shoulder-deep in a pregnant cow.

    Nearly all the established large animal vets I know are men, but they're all well into middle age. The new veterinarian at the large animal practice I use is a woman and she's working hard, but I worry for the long-term viability of the practice. The other vet is about my age. I don't know what will happen when he's too old to practice.

    I've been up at OSU's veterinary college a couple of times over the past few years -- it's one of the largest vet schools in the country and they have a huge farm animal and equine practice up there -- and every single student vet and younger resident vet I dealt with -- and I've dealt with a couple dozen -- was a woman. The only male vets I've worked with up there have been instructors.

    When I grew up I worked at a veterinary hospital back in the early 80s and all the doctors were men.

    Given the age of the vets I work with, it seems like the feminization of veterinary medicine is something that's occurred over the past 20 years or so. I'm not encountering any young men in their late 20s and 30s as veterinarians.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri, @Peripatetic commenter

    As Eleanor MacCoby reported in:

    Once women move into a field, men move out.

    It’s just that some fields they simply cannot move into in large numbers or don’t want to move into in large numbers.

  65. Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants. And when they do apply, they are less likely to be accepted.

    That displays an enormous lack of self awareness.

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Peripatetic commenter


    That displays an enormous lack of self awareness.

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.
     
    And in the New York Times.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

  66. @Reginald Maplethorp
    OT: Too Many Haven Monahans at Liberal Arts Colleges?

    Inspired by an old iSteve post (https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/defining-deviancy-up/) and a recent Washington Post summary of reported sexual assaults in schools, I put together a plot by year of the average Clery Act per capita sexual assault reports for the top overall universities and top liberal arts colleges from the 2017 U.S. News and World Report list. There is a small caveat, which is that Swarthmore had a huge spike in reports in 2013, so the tied-for-9th school (I forget what it was off the top of my head) was substituted instead.

    Mean Sexual Assault Reports per 1000 Students

    What do you think accounts for the rise in the liberal arts college rate versus the elite university rate, which has been pretty much stable for the past 10 years?

    I would think the campus cultures at, say, Harvard and Amherst are pretty comparable despite them being in separate categories. From a leftist perspective, you might even imagine that the trends were reversed (just thinking about counting Haven Monahans). I also find it interesting and frustrating that the data is rarely presented in this manner.

    Replies: @Jack D, @NickG

    This graph has nothing to do with the actual rate of sexual assaults and everything to do with the REPORTED rate of assaults. At small liberal arts u’s rape hysteria and the structures that encourage reporting of same just keeps going up and up so every year more kinds of consensual acts that are followed by morning after (or sometimes months after) regrets, microaggressions, etc. get reported as “sexual assault”. Women are encouraged and “empowered” to see all sexual contact that they are not overjoyed with ex post facto (which again could be months later, after they have “broken up”, sobered up, etc.) as reportable sexual assaults. In all seriousness, some of this is an effort by lesbians to make men so fearful that the competition for women is reduced. On a large campus, it’s more difficult to maintain the necessary ideological bubble needed to deprive students of reality checks and maintain them in a state of Red Guard hysteria.

    What would be interesting would be to compare the # of “rape” reports with actual criminal convictions for student on student rape (which still have old fashioned requirements like “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”). I’m pretty sure that only a tiny % of “campus rape” reports result in arrests let alone convictions and that the rate of conviction (near zero) hasn’t budged at all .

  67. @whorefinder
    I'm getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. "You're only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys' networking!"

    It's gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can't seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it's always on top by cheating.

    That's a like a short white guy complaining that basketball isn't a real sport because it's tall black guys dominating it and therefore just "institutionally biased" against him, and then demanding that he be spotted 20 points per game---then 50---then 100--all because of "unfair bias."

    We'd tell the guy to shove it and just give Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neal credit for their accomplishments.

    I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where if someone complains to me that white/male/straight/gentile success anywhere is a result of "bias" or some other such nonsense, I'm going to be quite blunt in telling them:

    "No. It's because we do it better than everyone else/you. Shut up and thank us for being so good at it. They/you couldn't hack it, we kicked butt."

    And then get in their face if they persist.

    Degrading all our accomplishments has reached a boiling-over point for me, and I think many others like me. I'm through with being a kicktoy. The pushback starts now.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @BenKenobi, @anon, @Anonymous

    Quite right. If an organization is all black (ie: the NBA) that’s because of dominance. But if an organization is all White (ie: NASA) that’s because of racism.

    I see.

    I’m sure you guys have encountered people using the phrase “first world problems” or “white people problems” — I now use the same response every time:

    “We earned it.”

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    @BenKenobi

    “We earned it.”

    Excellent! I've used this same response myself a few times to thwart an underhanded jab by a female coworker or some other acquaintance jealous of my position or salary.

    , @E. Rekshun
    @BenKenobi

    “We earned it.”

    "I earned it!"

    Excellent! I've used this response a few times to thwart an underhanded jab by a female coworker or some other acquaintance jealous of my position or salary.

    , @bored identity
    @BenKenobi

    Oh, really?

    I would like to remind you that:




    " Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system of problems that we have that allowed you to thrive.

    Somebody invested in first world problems and white people problems. "

    If you’ve got a problem — you didn’t build that.


     

  68. @Jack D
    It doesn't look to me as if this curve is broader for men, it's mostly just shifted slightly to the right. I think the shift explains the gap. The pool of men taking the LSAT, for whatever reason, are slightly smarter (or at least better at taking the LSAT) than women.

    They headline attempts to make a big deal of the gap but if you read the article top tier law schools are 47% female and bottom tier ones are 53% female - that doesn't seem like a major crisis to me. Most undergrad programs are now slightly majority female - the NYT doesn't seem to regard that as a crisis.

    Compare that with, for example, the differential between the number of Jews you would find in top tier law schools vs. their % in the overall population - now THERE's a gap. Notice that even though it's a zero sum game, the gap is always expressed in terms of "not enough" of the desirable group and not "too many" of the undesirables. And it's a heads I win, tails you lose game - the story only gets written if the "wrong" situation exists - the other case is just ignored. If the NYT wrote a story that there were "too many" Jews in top law schools, the heavens would fall, but "too many men" is Okey doky.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @AnotherDad

    Male IQ distribution is broader and flatter, but as Steve notes, the left side of the population curve doesn’t go to college, much less apply to law school.

    The right shift is simply a recognition that above the mean, the higher SD for men’s IQ distribution pushes the mean for this subset higher than the mean for women in this subset.

  69. @C. Van Carter
    The sex disparity between trademark and patent attorneys must be huge.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    As I’m sure is the sex disparity between Immigration attorneys who specialize in getting illegals’ deportations delayed.

  70. @candid_observer
    A female student at UPenn Law wrote an article about the LSAT gender gap at the very upper end:

    Since my father is a law professor at the University of San Francisco, I asked him for some LSAT test data that he received from the school's admissions office.

    Upon analyzing the data from the Law School Admissions Council for 2001-2006, I found the percentage of women who score in the top percentile of test takers - the select students scoring 175 or above - is roughly a third of a percent.

    Around three-fourths of a percent of males scored in the same category. Using this measure, women finally outpace men in scores below 150 - a score lower than at least 75 percent of those admitted to each Tier 1 and 2 school.
     
    http://www.thedp.com/article/2008/01/colleen_honigsberg_closing_the_lsat_gender_gap

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Disgusting, is it not, how the LSAT’s questions exhibit such vicious misogyny. Even if every person who works for the testing agency is female, it’s just another illustration of how even women hate women.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    @dc.sunsets

    Right? Hasn't this Penn girl heard of the Sisterhood?

  71. @Desiderius
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @woodNfish, @Olorin, @Ed

    Empirical evidence shows large numbers of black men pursue the wrong side of the law.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @woodNfish


    Empirical evidence shows large numbers of black men pursue the wrong side of the law.
     
    There is that, but also the fact that however low the regard in which the law (as practiced) is currently held by whites - and has been from the time of Shakespeare on, and likely before - it is even lower among black men, and not always without cause.

    It is comparable to the readers of this blog pursuing a career in social justice.
  72. @whorefinder
    @ATX Hipster

    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand. Hence also why they don't get why "everybody goes to college" hasn't completely eliminated garbage collectors and made everyone into playwrights.

    Oddly, I think lawyering really is a career path that women are well-suited to (as opposed to medicine and other STEM fields, which they are not).

    Lawyering is about about convincing someone to do something, and the law is just there as justification/rationalization to do it. If a judge wants to let in hearsay, there's an exception. If a jury wants to let a guy off, they'll find any old reason to do it. Etc.

    In these fuzzy areas, women can excel. They can cajole, play hurt, boss around, etc. as the mood requires. They are natural SJWs when it comes to finding a justification for any argument.

    Ironically, though, their worst problem in the law is female judges and female jurors. Female are immune to a lot of the natural tricks that women can use on men--flirtation and pouting are actually really good techniques in a courtroom if you're a woman and the judge/juror/witness/opponent is a man.

    And older women (outside of the small percentage of brittle old feminazi-manhaters) are particularly bad for women lawyers, since they see younger women as more of a threat/bad thing than they see men (younger women are seen sexual threats and more rebellious, while men aren't going to usurp the older woman's sexual role and take orders more easily).

    Since female judges are almost always older than courtroom lawyers (as is true of all judges, who need experience before getting on the bench) , this is where female lawyers run into the most trouble, second only to older female jurors. (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Johanus de Morgateroyde

    Simple answer: Leftists do not understand supply and demand.

    Simpler answer: the r-selected brains of Leftists have difficulty processing even the idea of resource constraints let alone the consequences.

  73. Ask any college-educated black woman what dating was like in college and she’s guaranteed to roll her eyes and groan.

    Outside of the black athletes there are very few black men in college and the female:male ratio is so skewed that I can recall a friend lamenting, “Even guys like Steve Urkel had five women chasing them.”

  74. You guys don’t get it. For instruction, watch the recent Sixty Minutes segment about the women’s soccer contract problem. The problem: men make more money.

    When women soccer players are confronted with the facts of their contract, that they have chosen less risk than the men, and that is the primary reason for being paid less, the response of the women is incredible. “Pay us more. Pay us like the men.” There is no acceptance of greater risk for greater reward. They don’t care how contracts are written. They simply demand that society (the government? The illuminati?) make it so.

    The demands of women are not based in anything that men understand: not in the law, not in ethics, not in politics. Women’s demands are based on biology. Their lives are ruled by their biology and the feelings that spring from that biology. “We demand it!” That’s all they know. Fools that we are, we accede to their demands all too often.

    “We envy men their professorships in physics. We demand that you give half of them to women. Make them do it! We demand it!”

    “You say that women don’t get enough math degrees. Give them degrees. We demand it!”

    “You say that not enough girls get into the most highly rated schools in math and science. Make it happen. We demand it!”

    “You say not enough girls get high enough grades in high school to get into those schools. Give them the grades. We demand it!”

    Since women don’t understand male concepts, they see it all as social. If a university gives a man the right pieces of paper, he gets selected for a professorship at a very high level. He gets to wear the most prestigious robes in academic ceremonies and everyone takes his statements extremely seriously. Women want that! Women say “Give those pieces of paper to women. We demand it!”

    Women don’t want to hear any of your “reasoning” or your “evidence” about supposed differences between men and women. They haven’t needed any of that crap for thousands of years. They simply need to demand what they want!

    Now are you getting it?

    • Agree: E. Rekshun
  75. @Desiderius
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @woodNfish, @Olorin, @Ed

    At the right tail of black IQ distribution, black women outnumber black men by a hefty ratio (brain says 4:1, but I may be misremembering). So Ed’s point may hold here.

  76. @Almost Missouri
    @Cloudbuster

    I've had more or less the same experience in the Northeast. I would add that the turnover of the female veterinarians is pretty high. The former generation of male vets tended to be the same ones in the same place for many years. The younger female ones usually disappear after a few years and are replaced by even younger ones who don't last either. As a result they don't build up much familiarity with various farms and herds. And farmers are decreasingly reliant on them, preferring to treat their herds themselves, for better or worse.

    The irony is that many of these sweet young vets were likely inspired to become vets by the James Herriot stories of the old timey vet work in Yorkshire. But their mass influx into the field has caused the extinction of the James Herriot type of vet who committed his career to a community, however unglamorous, and caused its replacement by mass-produced, less experienced, corporate organized McVets.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Our young lady at the local large animal practice recently married a local farm boy and he’s not the type who’s going to be going anywhere, so I have high hopes that she’ll stay in the area, physically … but will she still be committed to practice once she has a kid or two?

  77. @ATX Hipster
    @whorefinder


    (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )
     
    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general. Anybody who's attended high school should know that intuitively, yet we have this societal fiction that women are more cooperative than men. "If women ran the world there would be no war" and such nonsense.

    This article about an all-female TV production company is hilarious:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    The author even says in the article she should have known better because of her experiences in school. Feminist dogma is nothing more than denial of basic realities observable to anybody paying attention. Of course, that goes for leftist dogma in general.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @whorefinder

    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general.

    Women hate working, in general.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    @E. Rekshun

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from 'Bizarro World Observer' over at takimag



    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That's because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They're more concerned with how things make them--and others--feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they've been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

  78. @Chuck
    The differences in performance between the (very top) of the sexes is more pronounced in areas that require the creation of technical, complex patterns, such as mathematics and music composition.

    Consider music composition. All great classical composers were and are men. Not "most," but all. If you ask a music critic to name the best female composer, the best she'll do is Clara Schumann, who wrote some piddling piano compositions.

    I'm excluding modern rock or folk songs because they are mostly a simple 3-chord progression with a nice tune. But original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music, are also composed by men. For example, each of the scores on AFI's list of the greatest 25 scores was composed by a man. http://www.afi.com/100Years/scores.aspx.

    Women have held their own as performers, of course. Clara Schumann was a virtuoso pianist who supported her husband while he composed music. She was far more famous than Robert in their day. There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years. Martha Argerich, for example, is recognized as one of the best (if not best) interpreters of Rachmaninoff in the last 40 years. Yuja Wang may be the best up-and-coming pianist.

    So plenty of women are "very good" at music. The average woman may have more musical talent than the average male. I have no idea. But at the far right extreme of the bell curve, where complex creativity is required, there are no women, only men.

    I do think that putting this as "men are better than women at composing music" is unnecessarily provocative and mostly untrue. There is a very small set of men at the extreme edge of the curve who are better than all women and almost all men. It would be less provocative (and more accurate) to explain it as a rare physical condition. E.g.:

    "There's an organic brain condition (similar to synesthesia) that allows some people to "see" complex music patterns. It's very, very rare, with a population incidence of less than 0.01%. All known cases have been men. It is unclear whether the brain condition is purely genetic, but the evidence points to it having only a minor genetic component. The current hypothesis is that it is caused by fetal exposure to high amounts of testosterone in the womb combined with an unknown, sporadic genetic abnormality."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Kyle McKenna, @Anonymous, @SPMoore8

    The greatest teacher of symphony conductors in the 20th Century was a woman, Nadia Boulanger. She chose a helping role for herself and wasn’t all that motivated to be in the limelight, like her students.

  79. @BenKenobi
    @whorefinder

    Quite right. If an organization is all black (ie: the NBA) that's because of dominance. But if an organization is all White (ie: NASA) that's because of racism.

    I see.

    I'm sure you guys have encountered people using the phrase "first world problems" or "white people problems" -- I now use the same response every time:

    "We earned it."

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @E. Rekshun, @bored identity

    “We earned it.”

    Excellent! I’ve used this same response myself a few times to thwart an underhanded jab by a female coworker or some other acquaintance jealous of my position or salary.

  80. @BenKenobi
    @whorefinder

    Quite right. If an organization is all black (ie: the NBA) that's because of dominance. But if an organization is all White (ie: NASA) that's because of racism.

    I see.

    I'm sure you guys have encountered people using the phrase "first world problems" or "white people problems" -- I now use the same response every time:

    "We earned it."

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @E. Rekshun, @bored identity

    “We earned it.”

    “I earned it!”

    Excellent! I’ve used this response a few times to thwart an underhanded jab by a female coworker or some other acquaintance jealous of my position or salary.

  81. Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law and practiced three years at Big Law. Three years!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @E. Rekshun

    E, And yet it was Ann Romney who was denigrated for not working.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

  82. @Desiderius
    @Ed


    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.
     
    Unlikely over the full population.

    More likely that right-tail black men are less likely to pursue fields such as law.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @woodNfish, @Olorin, @Ed

    What other fields would right tail black men pursue then if not law in proportionate numbers?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Ed


    What other fields would right tail black men pursue then if not law in proportionate numbers?
     
    Bootlegging and loan-sharking, perhaps?
  83. I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering. A good friend of mine became a Director of Compliance at a brokerage firm. The law degree is useful, but the work is much more of a standard corporate work environment, no billable hours pressure, she can work from home and still be a Mom etc.

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    @George Taylor

    many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.

    Same thing with computer programming. My undergraduate CS graduating class in 1986 was 50% female, and competent. Every grad got a job at one of the tech and government defense firms outside of Boston on Route 128. Within five years or so, nearly every female had moved on to project management or business school.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    , @ben tillman
    @George Taylor


    I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.
     
    Good luck finding a lawyer of either sex who *does* like lawyering.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  84. @Buddwing
    @Ed

    The LSAT report has N, mean and SD for African-American males and females over four administrations. Black females dominate test takers and outnumber black men among top-half scorers, but men have a slightly higher mean and SD, so that by plugging the numbers in we would expect that black men outnumber black women among those scoring above 159 (assuming normality of distributions).

    Replies: @Ed

    Maybe it’s due to a smaller sample size and self-selection. Only the real smart black men, think Obama, even bother. The fact that there are more black women test takers and they are more numerous in wider right tail scale would indicate they dominate in the right tail population overall.

    People will point to incarceration as reason for dearth of black male LSAT test takers. However we know that even among blacks the inmate population is very low IQ. Very few high IQ black males are incarcerated.

  85. @woodNfish
    @Desiderius

    Empirical evidence shows large numbers of black men pursue the wrong side of the law.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Empirical evidence shows large numbers of black men pursue the wrong side of the law.

    There is that, but also the fact that however low the regard in which the law (as practiced) is currently held by whites – and has been from the time of Shakespeare on, and likely before – it is even lower among black men, and not always without cause.

    It is comparable to the readers of this blog pursuing a career in social justice.

  86. @Ed
    @Desiderius

    What other fields would right tail black men pursue then if not law in proportionate numbers?

    Replies: @Desiderius

    What other fields would right tail black men pursue then if not law in proportionate numbers?

    Bootlegging and loan-sharking, perhaps?

  87. @George Taylor
    I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn't like lawyering. A good friend of mine became a Director of Compliance at a brokerage firm. The law degree is useful, but the work is much more of a standard corporate work environment, no billable hours pressure, she can work from home and still be a Mom etc.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @ben tillman

    many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.

    Same thing with computer programming. My undergraduate CS graduating class in 1986 was 50% female, and competent. Every grad got a job at one of the tech and government defense firms outside of Boston on Route 128. Within five years or so, nearly every female had moved on to project management or business school.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    @E. Rekshun

    How could you tell they were competent? Were they doing your home work for you?

  88. Women: the Other Cheap Labor.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, I don't have the balls to put that on my car, but that would be a great bumper sticker.

  89. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    I'm getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. "You're only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys' networking!"

    It's gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can't seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it's always on top by cheating.

    That's a like a short white guy complaining that basketball isn't a real sport because it's tall black guys dominating it and therefore just "institutionally biased" against him, and then demanding that he be spotted 20 points per game---then 50---then 100--all because of "unfair bias."

    We'd tell the guy to shove it and just give Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neal credit for their accomplishments.

    I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where if someone complains to me that white/male/straight/gentile success anywhere is a result of "bias" or some other such nonsense, I'm going to be quite blunt in telling them:

    "No. It's because we do it better than everyone else/you. Shut up and thank us for being so good at it. They/you couldn't hack it, we kicked butt."

    And then get in their face if they persist.

    Degrading all our accomplishments has reached a boiling-over point for me, and I think many others like me. I'm through with being a kicktoy. The pushback starts now.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @BenKenobi, @anon, @Anonymous

    White males seem to be getting the shit kicked out of them.

    However, a few columns back, there was the discussion about skin color, bleaching, etc.

    White is preferred by the ruling elites in Latin America. It’s timeless.

    You have the Kardashian thing. Yea, the ethnic look is stylish, and the gay male fashion version of white women was always a little pervy for my tastes. The Kardashians women seem to do to men what the Kennedy’s do to women. They are hell on men. And they pluck up uber alpha black males. Then the men implode. Kayne West …
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3986422/Kim-Kardashian-unbearable-Kanye-West-fighting-weeks-leading-rapper-s-breakdown.html

    I’m predicting the interracial offspring will go white if they ever mate.

  90. FYI Currently about 70% of all American optometry students are women.

    http://www.aoa.org/news/aoa-focus/march-2014/the-women-of-optometry?sso=y

    I have served on admissions committees in this field, we’d like a better balance, but if there are more well qualified female than male candidates, well, that’s how it goes. I think they are to a great extent attracted by the lifestyle: it’s a lot easier to raise a family working as an optometrist than an M.D. And that’s not a bad thing, surely.

    But you’ll never hear a feminist complain about the gross gender imbalance in optometry…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @TG

    "I have served on admissions committees in this field, we’d like a better balance, but if there are more well qualified female than male candidates, well, that’s how it goes."

    Why is it okay to say, "that's how it goes"? Would anyone say this if admissions were skewed in favor of white men, with a resulting underrepresentation of women or people of color?

  91. @yaqub the mad scientist
    " fewer women are enrolled in the country’s most prestigious institutions. …"

    I know this is a trivial part of the article, but jeez, this Ivy League/elite school media drumbeat is relentless. Am I just imagining things, or does it seems that there is way, way more obsession with, coverage, with, and deference to Ivies in the media than there used to be- kind of like how the Supreme Court is packed with Ivies? Every single day, there's articles about the minority who got 6 Ivy bids, admissions scandals, funding hand wringing, naval gazing about privilege, and on and on. It's like the whole land grant system of public schools never happened and this country has a version of France's ENA.

    I cannot recall one single article that tries to knock a bit of air out the Ivies in at least 15 years.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe, @Kyle McKenna

    I know this is a trivial part of the article, but jeez, this Ivy League/elite school media drumbeat is relentless.

    It’s due to the women who are status obsessed. How many women are super competent and just interested in doing their jobs? Some, sure, but far and away that describes many more men. My son’s friend has a perfect SAT and lots of AP 5’s, very high class rank in a top high school and isn’t even bothering applying to any Ivy schools.

    Ivy league is for people obsessed with power. They want in so they can control others.

  92. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Getting into law, medical, or business school … and finishing …. isn’t always a prize.

    As far as B School …. its an iffy credential in terms of ROI. First, they now demand a couple of years of work experience at decent pay. Exiting pay is correlated to pay prior to entering an MBA school, so they have the cost of 2 years salary. $150 k in tuition, plus more if they want to live better than sharing a freshman dorm.

    And they lose 2 years of work experience and toss in your time value of money and you better make some damn, damn good contacts to make it worthwhile.

    Law and medicine are cool if you really, really want to be a lawyer or doctor. Otherwise? Get a job in sales.

  93. @E. Rekshun
    @George Taylor

    many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.

    Same thing with computer programming. My undergraduate CS graduating class in 1986 was 50% female, and competent. Every grad got a job at one of the tech and government defense firms outside of Boston on Route 128. Within five years or so, nearly every female had moved on to project management or business school.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    How could you tell they were competent? Were they doing your home work for you?

  94. @Peripatetic commenter

    Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants. And when they do apply, they are less likely to be accepted.
     
    That displays an enormous lack of self awareness.

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    That displays an enormous lack of self awareness.

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.

    And in the New York Times.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @ben tillman


    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.
     
    Because marginally qualified women will imagine that the degree is going to help them. A lot.

    Marginally qualified guys are much more likely to smell the coffee and figure out that not only are the lesser college degrees bullshot, they are also not very remunerative. They figure they can make more money welding, becoming an electrician, plumber, working on a rig, truck driving, etc., and not have to deal with wusses all day. Chicks will hang in there and get a psychology degree with a 2.85 GPA and work for $10/hr. while trying to pay back college loans. Most guys have better math skills than to play that game.
  95. @ben tillman

    This means women “start at a disadvantage” that may well continue throughout their professional lives, Ms. Merritt said. Despite the high numbers with law degrees, women hold fewer than 20 percent of partnerships at law firms and are underrepresented in the higher echelons of law, including the ranks of judges, corporate counsel, law school deans and professors.
     
    Short explanation: Women make shitty lawyers.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Ben, we have a number of female judges in Western NY. The article’s lament about female judges is bogus because we elect judges around here. So if a woman cares to mount a campaign, she can attempt to become a judge. If there aren’t enough female federal judges, all of whom are appointed, may I point out that the POTUS for the last eight years was a black democrat.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Buffalo Joe

    We have tons of female judges out here, too, and most are terrible, a few are okay, and one is excellent, although even she went soft on a lawyer who cried in court after I shredded her fee application.

  96. @George Taylor
    I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn't like lawyering. A good friend of mine became a Director of Compliance at a brokerage firm. The law degree is useful, but the work is much more of a standard corporate work environment, no billable hours pressure, she can work from home and still be a Mom etc.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @ben tillman

    I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.

    Good luck finding a lawyer of either sex who *does* like lawyering.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @ben tillman

    ben tilman:

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually). His death was a great loss. Let it be hoped that his SCOTUS replacement is worthy.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @anon, @ben tillman

  97. @yaqub the mad scientist
    " fewer women are enrolled in the country’s most prestigious institutions. …"

    I know this is a trivial part of the article, but jeez, this Ivy League/elite school media drumbeat is relentless. Am I just imagining things, or does it seems that there is way, way more obsession with, coverage, with, and deference to Ivies in the media than there used to be- kind of like how the Supreme Court is packed with Ivies? Every single day, there's articles about the minority who got 6 Ivy bids, admissions scandals, funding hand wringing, naval gazing about privilege, and on and on. It's like the whole land grant system of public schools never happened and this country has a version of France's ENA.

    I cannot recall one single article that tries to knock a bit of air out the Ivies in at least 15 years.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe, @Kyle McKenna

    “Knocking” the Ivy League is a popular and widespread pursuit. Long ago I lost count of the number of times I’ve read that top colleges (in particular Ivies) are worthwhile “just for the connections you make” as opposed to any actual learning or expanding of the mind that just might happen, surrounded by unmatched resources and the greatest minds in the world. Sour grapes, usually.

    Anyway, here are some articles to your point:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere
    http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/international-student-counsel/2015/10/01/4-factors-to-consider-before-applying-to-ivy-league-schools
    http://www.liberalartscolleges.com/ivy-league-or-liberal-arts-college/
    http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/ivy-league-schools-are-they-worth-getting-in/

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Kyle McKenna

    Well, granted, I don't read any of those pubs- as they say, Google is your friend.

  98. @E. Rekshun
    Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law and practiced three years at Big Law. Three years!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    E, And yet it was Ann Romney who was denigrated for not working.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @Buffalo Joe

    But didn't Ann Romney have a bunch of kids?

  99. @Buffalo Joe
    @ben tillman

    Ben, we have a number of female judges in Western NY. The article's lament about female judges is bogus because we elect judges around here. So if a woman cares to mount a campaign, she can attempt to become a judge. If there aren't enough female federal judges, all of whom are appointed, may I point out that the POTUS for the last eight years was a black democrat.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    We have tons of female judges out here, too, and most are terrible, a few are okay, and one is excellent, although even she went soft on a lawyer who cried in court after I shredded her fee application.

  100. @Reg Cæsar
    Women: the Other Cheap Labor.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Reg, I don’t have the balls to put that on my car, but that would be a great bumper sticker.

  101. @CraigAustin
    @Opinionator

    People to the left of the mean (lower than average) on a IQ graph seldom dream of law school, therefore seldom write the LSAT.
    That is why the "Left" is called the "Left", and why they get a slight majority of female voters.

    Replies: @SFG, @Frau Katze

    I always thought it was the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly during the revolution, but your explanation is funnier.

  102. @E. Rekshun
    @black sea

    I bet most women do not know the difference between astronomy and astrology.

    But, but, but... I seem to remember "LA Law" and "Ally McBeal" (and the dozens of TV legal dramas since I stopped watching TV in 1992) all show attractive, single, well-dressed 25 y/o Big Law female lawyers strutting around glass-walled conference rooms and having lunch in trendy sidewalk cafes, and lots of sex.

    And, by the way, where are all these top female law students going to come from - I thought they're all being recruited into computer programming..."girlz that code!"

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    I thought they’re all being recruited into computer programming…”girlz that code!”

    OMG, totally brilliant idea for new Lena Dunham series. And much fun can be had with moving around the punctuation: “Girlz, that code!” “Girlz that, code!” etc

  103. @BenKenobi
    @whorefinder

    Quite right. If an organization is all black (ie: the NBA) that's because of dominance. But if an organization is all White (ie: NASA) that's because of racism.

    I see.

    I'm sure you guys have encountered people using the phrase "first world problems" or "white people problems" -- I now use the same response every time:

    "We earned it."

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @E. Rekshun, @bored identity

    Oh, really?

    I would like to remind you that:

    ” Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system of problems that we have that allowed you to thrive.

    Somebody invested in first world problems and white people problems. ”

    If you’ve got a problem — you didn’t build that.

  104. @Chuck
    The differences in performance between the (very top) of the sexes is more pronounced in areas that require the creation of technical, complex patterns, such as mathematics and music composition.

    Consider music composition. All great classical composers were and are men. Not "most," but all. If you ask a music critic to name the best female composer, the best she'll do is Clara Schumann, who wrote some piddling piano compositions.

    I'm excluding modern rock or folk songs because they are mostly a simple 3-chord progression with a nice tune. But original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music, are also composed by men. For example, each of the scores on AFI's list of the greatest 25 scores was composed by a man. http://www.afi.com/100Years/scores.aspx.

    Women have held their own as performers, of course. Clara Schumann was a virtuoso pianist who supported her husband while he composed music. She was far more famous than Robert in their day. There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years. Martha Argerich, for example, is recognized as one of the best (if not best) interpreters of Rachmaninoff in the last 40 years. Yuja Wang may be the best up-and-coming pianist.

    So plenty of women are "very good" at music. The average woman may have more musical talent than the average male. I have no idea. But at the far right extreme of the bell curve, where complex creativity is required, there are no women, only men.

    I do think that putting this as "men are better than women at composing music" is unnecessarily provocative and mostly untrue. There is a very small set of men at the extreme edge of the curve who are better than all women and almost all men. It would be less provocative (and more accurate) to explain it as a rare physical condition. E.g.:

    "There's an organic brain condition (similar to synesthesia) that allows some people to "see" complex music patterns. It's very, very rare, with a population incidence of less than 0.01%. All known cases have been men. It is unclear whether the brain condition is purely genetic, but the evidence points to it having only a minor genetic component. The current hypothesis is that it is caused by fetal exposure to high amounts of testosterone in the womb combined with an unknown, sporadic genetic abnormality."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Kyle McKenna, @Anonymous, @SPMoore8

    original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music

    We need to have a ‘throw-down’ on this score, somewhere, unless you mean mediocre classical music. Movie music may offer grand, sweeping melodies and may well appeal to the emotions, but even the best lacks complexity and as such fails to stand up to repeated listening.

  105. @dc.sunsets
    @candid_observer

    Disgusting, is it not, how the LSAT's questions exhibit such vicious misogyny. Even if every person who works for the testing agency is female, it's just another illustration of how even women hate women.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    Right? Hasn’t this Penn girl heard of the Sisterhood?

  106. @Marty
    @ATX Hipster

    "isn’t the market for lawyers pretty saturated already?"

    There used to be a syndicated radio guy named Bruce Williams - he seemed to know everything about money and entrepreneurship. In 1991 I was listening when someone called in to ask what he thought about going to law school. He replied, "right now lawyers are like fleas on dogs' backs." 1991.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    Worth noting, though, is that unlike most professionals, lawyers can create their own work. Just sue people; eventually you’ll win something. I’d like to be a lawyer so I could sue the government.

    • Replies: @Marty
    @Kyle McKenna

    "Just sue people; eventually you’ll win something."

    The '70s are over. Suing now just pays tuition for the kids of civil defense lawyers.

  107. @E. Rekshun
    @ATX Hipster

    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general.

    Women hate working, in general.

    Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from ‘Bizarro World Observer’ over at takimag

    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That’s because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They’re more concerned with how things make them–and others–feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they’ve been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Kyle McKenna


    Kyle McKenna says:
    December 1, 2016 at 1:33 am GMT • 200 Words

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from ‘Bizarro World Observer’ over at takimag

    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That’s because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They’re more concerned with how things make them–and others–feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they’ve been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.

     

    Every bit of that is true, based on my experience in the corporate world.

    I remember one instance where I was made the centerpiece of a remarkable comedy, thanks to an incompetent female Yale-bred executive above me calling for my head, just to cover her own dumb ass, and one of her female peers taking a special interest in me, telling said woman to go fuck herself. She declared at a meeting she'd resign if I were fired. Her bosses ruled that I stay on. I was just a hired hand for one big project. Jettisoning me would have been easy. I didn't even care that much if I were fired. My job expertise made hooking another gig simple. I even told the woman defending me it was no big deal, but she wouldn't hear of it, and even kept me a month longer than my job had required, giving me chicken-shit busy work, just to piss off her adversary. For what I was bing paid, I was fine with the extra month.
    The woman who wanted me fired still had to work with me, and my defender luxuriated in any gossip I had to share related to her nemisis' suffering in any way.
    Fucking hilarious, but I never had anything remotely happen like that in a male dominated corporate environment–except for gay men. They can give women a run for their money when it comes to self-generated dramatics.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Anonymous
    @Kyle McKenna

    "Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Hillary couldn't even pull herself together to address her supporters on election night when it became increasingly clear that she was probably going to lose.

  108. @ben tillman
    @Peripatetic commenter


    That displays an enormous lack of self awareness.

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.
     
    And in the New York Times.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    If equality is the issue, why are men only earning 43% of college degrees?

    There is clearly an enormous amount of institutional discrimination against men in colleges.

    Because marginally qualified women will imagine that the degree is going to help them. A lot.

    Marginally qualified guys are much more likely to smell the coffee and figure out that not only are the lesser college degrees bullshot, they are also not very remunerative. They figure they can make more money welding, becoming an electrician, plumber, working on a rig, truck driving, etc., and not have to deal with wusses all day. Chicks will hang in there and get a psychology degree with a 2.85 GPA and work for $10/hr. while trying to pay back college loans. Most guys have better math skills than to play that game.

  109. @Buffalo Joe
    @E. Rekshun

    E, And yet it was Ann Romney who was denigrated for not working.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    But didn’t Ann Romney have a bunch of kids?

  110. Princess found a pea under her mattress too, I hear tell.

    2% difference here, 4% difference there, bla bla bla.

    They’re 56% of the students in some sectors, and they’re complaining. They’re receiving 57% of the degrees, and they’re complaining. All while getting lower test scores.

  111. @Kyle McKenna
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    "Knocking" the Ivy League is a popular and widespread pursuit. Long ago I lost count of the number of times I've read that top colleges (in particular Ivies) are worthwhile "just for the connections you make" as opposed to any actual learning or expanding of the mind that just might happen, surrounded by unmatched resources and the greatest minds in the world. Sour grapes, usually.

    Anyway, here are some articles to your point:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere
    http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/international-student-counsel/2015/10/01/4-factors-to-consider-before-applying-to-ivy-league-schools
    http://www.liberalartscolleges.com/ivy-league-or-liberal-arts-college/
    http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/ivy-league-schools-are-they-worth-getting-in/

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

    Well, granted, I don’t read any of those pubs- as they say, Google is your friend.

  112. @ben tillman
    @George Taylor


    I have quite a few female friends/acquaintances over the years who went to law school passed the bar but never joined a traditional law firm or moved on after a few years. Of course some choose to become traditional mothers, but many simply changed careers and told me they didn’t like lawyering.
     
    Good luck finding a lawyer of either sex who *does* like lawyering.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    ben tilman:

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually). His death was a great loss. Let it be hoped that his SCOTUS replacement is worthy.

    • Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    While Antonin Scalia's death was, in fact, a great loss to the United States, he was far from being a truly great lawyer. While, in comparison to the glorified schoolmarmish jury-members who usually work on the Supreme Court, he was very valuable, there is another, profoundly conservative and civilized way to look at the legacy of Antonin Scalia, and I humbly present it here: Scalia was very very privileged in his law career. Basically from his second year of law school his blustery and weakly imitative "puzzle solving" shtick won him advancements that made his professional life ludicrously easy. Did he pay back sufficiently? I don't think so. His views on Ireton's natural law assertions were childish, and - although he was one in a hundred with respect to understanding constitutional law, he was, technically, probably somewhere far outside the top 400 lawyers of his day (had he been a baseball player, he would not have made the majors, or, if he did, he would never have made an All Star Team. Might have been a benchwarmer on a World Series team, though). Of course he was right on the Roe v Wade outcome and a few other issues, but he was just not all that bright, and did not gain much additional wisdom over his years on the court. Great man, though - being brilliant is no requirement to being great. Just wish he had been a little more talented, or a little more aware that many wiser men than himself had explained what the law should be in our fallen world. I am glad he liked being a lawyer but he owed the world more than he gave it.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    , @anon
    @Dan Hayes

    Judging at the apex of the system isn't lawyering, dope.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @ben tillman
    @Dan Hayes


    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually).
     
    Judging isn't lawyering.
  113. @Jack D
    It doesn't look to me as if this curve is broader for men, it's mostly just shifted slightly to the right. I think the shift explains the gap. The pool of men taking the LSAT, for whatever reason, are slightly smarter (or at least better at taking the LSAT) than women.

    They headline attempts to make a big deal of the gap but if you read the article top tier law schools are 47% female and bottom tier ones are 53% female - that doesn't seem like a major crisis to me. Most undergrad programs are now slightly majority female - the NYT doesn't seem to regard that as a crisis.

    Compare that with, for example, the differential between the number of Jews you would find in top tier law schools vs. their % in the overall population - now THERE's a gap. Notice that even though it's a zero sum game, the gap is always expressed in terms of "not enough" of the desirable group and not "too many" of the undesirables. And it's a heads I win, tails you lose game - the story only gets written if the "wrong" situation exists - the other case is just ignored. If the NYT wrote a story that there were "too many" Jews in top law schools, the heavens would fall, but "too many men" is Okey doky.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @AnotherDad

    They headline attempts to make a big deal of the gap but if you read the article top tier law schools are 47% female and bottom tier ones are 53% female – that doesn’t seem like a major crisis to me. Most undergrad programs are now slightly majority female – the NYT doesn’t seem to regard that as a crisis.

    What Jack said.

    You read this and if you’re numerate you think “all these numbers are pretty much the same”–50\50. You write an oppression article for a couple percentage points? You’d have to just have a hard quota to do any better.

    In fact, it’s super clear from that LSAT data, that the elite law schools are doing affirmative action for women to toss up a student sex ratio that’s close enough to 50\5o that the law students, faculty, nosy reporters, etc. should think sexual equality has been achieved.

    Women–at least “liberal” women–just love to whine. We guys will whine if you give ’em something meaty … but whining about 47% … lame.

  114. @Dan Hayes
    @ben tillman

    ben tilman:

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually). His death was a great loss. Let it be hoped that his SCOTUS replacement is worthy.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @anon, @ben tillman

    While Antonin Scalia’s death was, in fact, a great loss to the United States, he was far from being a truly great lawyer. While, in comparison to the glorified schoolmarmish jury-members who usually work on the Supreme Court, he was very valuable, there is another, profoundly conservative and civilized way to look at the legacy of Antonin Scalia, and I humbly present it here: Scalia was very very privileged in his law career. Basically from his second year of law school his blustery and weakly imitative “puzzle solving” shtick won him advancements that made his professional life ludicrously easy. Did he pay back sufficiently? I don’t think so. His views on Ireton’s natural law assertions were childish, and – although he was one in a hundred with respect to understanding constitutional law, he was, technically, probably somewhere far outside the top 400 lawyers of his day (had he been a baseball player, he would not have made the majors, or, if he did, he would never have made an All Star Team. Might have been a benchwarmer on a World Series team, though). Of course he was right on the Roe v Wade outcome and a few other issues, but he was just not all that bright, and did not gain much additional wisdom over his years on the court. Great man, though – being brilliant is no requirement to being great. Just wish he had been a little more talented, or a little more aware that many wiser men than himself had explained what the law should be in our fallen world. I am glad he liked being a lawyer but he owed the world more than he gave it.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    I very much appreciate your very thoughtful and thorough response. I would appreciate it if you would kindly provide the name(s) of some of those you consider to be great lawyers (those currently in practice, particularly any SCOTUS members). Thanks again.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes

  115. @Ed
    @Realist

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res, @Buddwing, @AnotherDad

    Except for blacks, black women dominate on the right side of the tail.

    I know there’s a joke in there somewhere.

  116. @Kyle McKenna
    @Marty

    Worth noting, though, is that unlike most professionals, lawyers can create their own work. Just sue people; eventually you'll win something. I'd like to be a lawyer so I could sue the government.

    Replies: @Marty

    “Just sue people; eventually you’ll win something.”

    The ’70s are over. Suing now just pays tuition for the kids of civil defense lawyers.

  117. @Dan Hayes
    @ben tillman

    ben tilman:

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually). His death was a great loss. Let it be hoped that his SCOTUS replacement is worthy.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @anon, @ben tillman

    Judging at the apex of the system isn’t lawyering, dope.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon


    Judging at the apex of the system isn’t lawyering, dope.
     
    It has unfortunately often lowered itself to that level of late.
  118. @CraigAustin
    @Opinionator

    People to the left of the mean (lower than average) on a IQ graph seldom dream of law school, therefore seldom write the LSAT.
    That is why the "Left" is called the "Left", and why they get a slight majority of female voters.

    Replies: @SFG, @Frau Katze

    But the X axis says “LSAT score”. How was the data for the graph gathered? There is data for the low scores ergo someone must have written the LSAT and got the low scores (unless it’s extrapolated).

    I think we should say, the left side isn’t ACCEPTED into Law School, thus creating the imbalance.

  119. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    To make partner with a firm worth a shit, most often you have to put in some insane hours. The kind of hours that makes keeping a steady boyfriend, let alone a spouse, almost impossible. And kids? Forget that shit. A toxic scenario for all but the most type-A women, and then they have to be talented. You can’t cognitive-dissonance your way out of fucking up a case. Feminist Jedi mind tricks don’t work with Jabba the Senior Partner.

  120. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Kyle McKenna
    @E. Rekshun

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from 'Bizarro World Observer' over at takimag



    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That's because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They're more concerned with how things make them--and others--feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they've been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Kyle McKenna says:
    December 1, 2016 at 1:33 am GMT • 200 Words

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from ‘Bizarro World Observer’ over at takimag

    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That’s because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They’re more concerned with how things make them–and others–feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they’ve been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.

    Every bit of that is true, based on my experience in the corporate world.

    I remember one instance where I was made the centerpiece of a remarkable comedy, thanks to an incompetent female Yale-bred executive above me calling for my head, just to cover her own dumb ass, and one of her female peers taking a special interest in me, telling said woman to go fuck herself. She declared at a meeting she’d resign if I were fired. Her bosses ruled that I stay on. I was just a hired hand for one big project. Jettisoning me would have been easy. I didn’t even care that much if I were fired. My job expertise made hooking another gig simple. I even told the woman defending me it was no big deal, but she wouldn’t hear of it, and even kept me a month longer than my job had required, giving me chicken-shit busy work, just to piss off her adversary. For what I was bing paid, I was fine with the extra month.
    The woman who wanted me fired still had to work with me, and my defender luxuriated in any gossip I had to share related to her nemisis’ suffering in any way.
    Fucking hilarious, but I never had anything remotely happen like that in a male dominated corporate environment–except for gay men. They can give women a run for their money when it comes to self-generated dramatics.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Anon


    Fucking hilarious, but I never had anything remotely happen like that in a male dominated corporate environment–except for gay men. They can give women a run for their money when it comes to self-generated dramatics.
     
    In choosing our elites, we currently overselect for those who mature early (naturally skewing female, including gay) and thus incompletely.

    Tortoise and the hare wrought large.
  121. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Opinionator
    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Realist, @Olorin, @CraigAustin, @anonn, @Anon

    The left end of the bell curve doesn’t take the LSAT, so there are more men who do very well on it.

    Can someone explain this?

    A better question is why SO MANY people seem to be incapable of visualizing a Bell Curve.

    Everyone intuitively uses the Bell Curve to deal with reality every minute of their waking day, but getting them a successfully visualize it in the abstract seems impossible for way too many people! Without that collective ability, we shall forever be shooting outselves in the ass!

    Why is this?!!

    What is a solution?!

  122. @ATX Hipster
    @whorefinder


    (This is also why women hate working for female bosses. )
     
    Women hate working with each other because they hate each other in general. Anybody who's attended high school should know that intuitively, yet we have this societal fiction that women are more cooperative than men. "If women ran the world there would be no war" and such nonsense.

    This article about an all-female TV production company is hilarious:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    The author even says in the article she should have known better because of her experiences in school. Feminist dogma is nothing more than denial of basic realities observable to anybody paying attention. Of course, that goes for leftist dogma in general.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun, @whorefinder

    “Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.”
    —H.L. Mencken

    “On one issue at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women.
    —-H L Mencken”

    “Don’t try to understand women. Women understand women and they hate each other.”
    —Al Bundy

  123. @Reginald Maplethorp
    OT: Too Many Haven Monahans at Liberal Arts Colleges?

    Inspired by an old iSteve post (https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/defining-deviancy-up/) and a recent Washington Post summary of reported sexual assaults in schools, I put together a plot by year of the average Clery Act per capita sexual assault reports for the top overall universities and top liberal arts colleges from the 2017 U.S. News and World Report list. There is a small caveat, which is that Swarthmore had a huge spike in reports in 2013, so the tied-for-9th school (I forget what it was off the top of my head) was substituted instead.

    Mean Sexual Assault Reports per 1000 Students

    What do you think accounts for the rise in the liberal arts college rate versus the elite university rate, which has been pretty much stable for the past 10 years?

    I would think the campus cultures at, say, Harvard and Amherst are pretty comparable despite them being in separate categories. From a leftist perspective, you might even imagine that the trends were reversed (just thinking about counting Haven Monahans). I also find it interesting and frustrating that the data is rarely presented in this manner.

    Replies: @Jack D, @NickG

    Good work.

  124. @anon
    @Dan Hayes

    Judging at the apex of the system isn't lawyering, dope.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Judging at the apex of the system isn’t lawyering, dope.

    It has unfortunately often lowered itself to that level of late.

  125. @Anon
    @Kyle McKenna


    Kyle McKenna says:
    December 1, 2016 at 1:33 am GMT • 200 Words

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from ‘Bizarro World Observer’ over at takimag

    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That’s because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They’re more concerned with how things make them–and others–feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they’ve been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.

     

    Every bit of that is true, based on my experience in the corporate world.

    I remember one instance where I was made the centerpiece of a remarkable comedy, thanks to an incompetent female Yale-bred executive above me calling for my head, just to cover her own dumb ass, and one of her female peers taking a special interest in me, telling said woman to go fuck herself. She declared at a meeting she'd resign if I were fired. Her bosses ruled that I stay on. I was just a hired hand for one big project. Jettisoning me would have been easy. I didn't even care that much if I were fired. My job expertise made hooking another gig simple. I even told the woman defending me it was no big deal, but she wouldn't hear of it, and even kept me a month longer than my job had required, giving me chicken-shit busy work, just to piss off her adversary. For what I was bing paid, I was fine with the extra month.
    The woman who wanted me fired still had to work with me, and my defender luxuriated in any gossip I had to share related to her nemisis' suffering in any way.
    Fucking hilarious, but I never had anything remotely happen like that in a male dominated corporate environment–except for gay men. They can give women a run for their money when it comes to self-generated dramatics.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Fucking hilarious, but I never had anything remotely happen like that in a male dominated corporate environment–except for gay men. They can give women a run for their money when it comes to self-generated dramatics.

    In choosing our elites, we currently overselect for those who mature early (naturally skewing female, including gay) and thus incompletely.

    Tortoise and the hare wrought large.

  126. Women also pad their class ranking with lots of family law, employment discrimination, “reproductive rights” and muh civil rights classes.
    A lot more male law students take tax, bankruptcy, commercial law, etc.
    I used to sit in the library next to the tax law professors office. One day a female student came to his office in tears and I could hear him in his Mr Rodgers voice “im sorry you just dont get it.” He mercifully allowed her to drop the course the day of the exam.

    I bet if you do look at the big law female partners, they are mostly Asian.

    It takes a lot more than a good lsat score to make it in law at any level.
    I worked for a down market chain of storefront law offices. I would look at the resume applications and several were from female lawyers who had worked at big corporate firms. The work load burns out normal women.

    Take a look at your random auto accident scrounging lawyer on tv or the internet. They are almost all men. You dont need a 170 IQ to do personal injury or worker comp, but you do have to do the work.

  127. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @International Jew

    Check out this website for detailed salary information from recent law school graduates. Very interesting stuff.

    Minority women make the same as non-minority men. Minority men make the most. Non-minority women make the least. There are substantially more non-minority women graduating than anyone else.

    http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummaryClassof2015.pdf

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I have this sense that for quite a few white women, going to law school – any law school – is kind of like joining a sorority. It’s something they can talk and brag about to make themselves seem like a person of relatively high status, as well as a serious person, whether or not they actually ever work as a lawyer or even like working as a lawyer.

  128. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Chuck
    The differences in performance between the (very top) of the sexes is more pronounced in areas that require the creation of technical, complex patterns, such as mathematics and music composition.

    Consider music composition. All great classical composers were and are men. Not "most," but all. If you ask a music critic to name the best female composer, the best she'll do is Clara Schumann, who wrote some piddling piano compositions.

    I'm excluding modern rock or folk songs because they are mostly a simple 3-chord progression with a nice tune. But original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music, are also composed by men. For example, each of the scores on AFI's list of the greatest 25 scores was composed by a man. http://www.afi.com/100Years/scores.aspx.

    Women have held their own as performers, of course. Clara Schumann was a virtuoso pianist who supported her husband while he composed music. She was far more famous than Robert in their day. There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years. Martha Argerich, for example, is recognized as one of the best (if not best) interpreters of Rachmaninoff in the last 40 years. Yuja Wang may be the best up-and-coming pianist.

    So plenty of women are "very good" at music. The average woman may have more musical talent than the average male. I have no idea. But at the far right extreme of the bell curve, where complex creativity is required, there are no women, only men.

    I do think that putting this as "men are better than women at composing music" is unnecessarily provocative and mostly untrue. There is a very small set of men at the extreme edge of the curve who are better than all women and almost all men. It would be less provocative (and more accurate) to explain it as a rare physical condition. E.g.:

    "There's an organic brain condition (similar to synesthesia) that allows some people to "see" complex music patterns. It's very, very rare, with a population incidence of less than 0.01%. All known cases have been men. It is unclear whether the brain condition is purely genetic, but the evidence points to it having only a minor genetic component. The current hypothesis is that it is caused by fetal exposure to high amounts of testosterone in the womb combined with an unknown, sporadic genetic abnormality."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Kyle McKenna, @Anonymous, @SPMoore8

    “Women have held their own as performers, of course. … There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years.

    Here’s a link to Chopin’s Nocturnes played by Brigitte Engerer (French woman). I think the first nocturne at the start of the video is almost achingly beautiful. I really don’t know anything about Brigitte, nor am I a musician or classical music aficionado, but according to Wikipedia it sounds as though she was considered to be a very good pianist.

    (video)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Engerer#

  129. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kyle McKenna
    @E. Rekshun

    Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Meanwhile, your remark reminds me of this one, from 'Bizarro World Observer' over at takimag



    Our society has indeed moved on. And some women make good leaders. However, I think those are outliers: most women are completely unsuited to leadership of any kind.

    That's because:

    1) They take everything personally

    2) They play favorites based on their emotions

    3) Similarly, they take irrational dislikes to people, especially other women, based on their emotions, and refuse to deal with them rationally

    4) They're more concerned with how things make them--and others--feel than with actually achieving the goals with which they've been entrusted

    5) They tend to be control freaks when given power

    6) They tend to feel threatened by competent people

    Add to that the fact that women today have been trained to feel threatened by men who display any masculinity at all, and you have a real problem.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    “Lots of men hate working, too, but they were raised to do what they have to do, when they have to do it, whether they want to or not.

    Hillary couldn’t even pull herself together to address her supporters on election night when it became increasingly clear that she was probably going to lose.

  130. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    While Antonin Scalia's death was, in fact, a great loss to the United States, he was far from being a truly great lawyer. While, in comparison to the glorified schoolmarmish jury-members who usually work on the Supreme Court, he was very valuable, there is another, profoundly conservative and civilized way to look at the legacy of Antonin Scalia, and I humbly present it here: Scalia was very very privileged in his law career. Basically from his second year of law school his blustery and weakly imitative "puzzle solving" shtick won him advancements that made his professional life ludicrously easy. Did he pay back sufficiently? I don't think so. His views on Ireton's natural law assertions were childish, and - although he was one in a hundred with respect to understanding constitutional law, he was, technically, probably somewhere far outside the top 400 lawyers of his day (had he been a baseball player, he would not have made the majors, or, if he did, he would never have made an All Star Team. Might have been a benchwarmer on a World Series team, though). Of course he was right on the Roe v Wade outcome and a few other issues, but he was just not all that bright, and did not gain much additional wisdom over his years on the court. Great man, though - being brilliant is no requirement to being great. Just wish he had been a little more talented, or a little more aware that many wiser men than himself had explained what the law should be in our fallen world. I am glad he liked being a lawyer but he owed the world more than he gave it.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    I very much appreciate your very thoughtful and thorough response. I would appreciate it if you would kindly provide the name(s)

    [MORE]
    of some of those you consider to be great lawyers (those currently in practice, particularly any SCOTUS members). Thanks again.

    • Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

  131. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    I'm getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. "You're only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys' networking!"

    It's gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can't seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it's always on top by cheating.

    That's a like a short white guy complaining that basketball isn't a real sport because it's tall black guys dominating it and therefore just "institutionally biased" against him, and then demanding that he be spotted 20 points per game---then 50---then 100--all because of "unfair bias."

    We'd tell the guy to shove it and just give Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neal credit for their accomplishments.

    I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where if someone complains to me that white/male/straight/gentile success anywhere is a result of "bias" or some other such nonsense, I'm going to be quite blunt in telling them:

    "No. It's because we do it better than everyone else/you. Shut up and thank us for being so good at it. They/you couldn't hack it, we kicked butt."

    And then get in their face if they persist.

    Degrading all our accomplishments has reached a boiling-over point for me, and I think many others like me. I'm through with being a kicktoy. The pushback starts now.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @BenKenobi, @anon, @Anonymous

    “I’m getting pretty upset the more and more Leftists disparage white gentile straight male accomplishment. “You’re only on top because of racism! Sexism! homophobia! Institutionalized bias! Old Boys’ networking!”

    “It’s gone beyond tolerable and is now downright insulting. People just can’t seem to credit White Western patriarchy with being good at anything, it’s always on top by cheating.”

    Do Ivy League schools even consider white, gentile, straight men for high level positions, e.g. President, anymore? Cornell just named a new president: Martha Polkack. Previous presidents include:

    – Elizabeth Garrett (2015-2016, she became ill and sadly died): woman
    – David Skorton (2006-2015): Jewish
    – Jeffrey Lehman (2003-2005, resigned unexpectedly): Jewish
    – Hunter Rawlings, III (1995-2003): the most recent white, gentile, (apparently) straight male named as President of Cornell

  132. @Chuck
    The differences in performance between the (very top) of the sexes is more pronounced in areas that require the creation of technical, complex patterns, such as mathematics and music composition.

    Consider music composition. All great classical composers were and are men. Not "most," but all. If you ask a music critic to name the best female composer, the best she'll do is Clara Schumann, who wrote some piddling piano compositions.

    I'm excluding modern rock or folk songs because they are mostly a simple 3-chord progression with a nice tune. But original movie scores, which can be as sophisticated as classical music, are also composed by men. For example, each of the scores on AFI's list of the greatest 25 scores was composed by a man. http://www.afi.com/100Years/scores.aspx.

    Women have held their own as performers, of course. Clara Schumann was a virtuoso pianist who supported her husband while he composed music. She was far more famous than Robert in their day. There are many gifted female pianists today, and there have been many over the last 25, 50, and 100 years. Martha Argerich, for example, is recognized as one of the best (if not best) interpreters of Rachmaninoff in the last 40 years. Yuja Wang may be the best up-and-coming pianist.

    So plenty of women are "very good" at music. The average woman may have more musical talent than the average male. I have no idea. But at the far right extreme of the bell curve, where complex creativity is required, there are no women, only men.

    I do think that putting this as "men are better than women at composing music" is unnecessarily provocative and mostly untrue. There is a very small set of men at the extreme edge of the curve who are better than all women and almost all men. It would be less provocative (and more accurate) to explain it as a rare physical condition. E.g.:

    "There's an organic brain condition (similar to synesthesia) that allows some people to "see" complex music patterns. It's very, very rare, with a population incidence of less than 0.01%. All known cases have been men. It is unclear whether the brain condition is purely genetic, but the evidence points to it having only a minor genetic component. The current hypothesis is that it is caused by fetal exposure to high amounts of testosterone in the womb combined with an unknown, sporadic genetic abnormality."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Kyle McKenna, @Anonymous, @SPMoore8

    I don’t think you need a unique mental condition to be serious composer. What you do need is to have absolute proficiency on some instrument or another (so that you can test what you are composing) and the ability to hear music in your head (not that rare). Of course you also have to have mastered harmony and counterpoint (so you can handle multiple voices). Outside of that you just have to have a specific “plot” that you want to follow and the persistence to come up with some decent tunes. I’m sure it takes a lot of training and concentration but I don’t think it takes special gifts. (Unless coming up with great tunes and knowing how to use them is a gift).

    I think the lack of women in a lot of these areas is that women generally have a lot of distractions while the great composers almost without exception were raised to be musicians and were past masters of compositional techniques even before they achieved adulthood. Then it was just a matter of following that lead to make larger and larger creations.

    I’m not sure who is composing anything that can compare — at the latest — to Shostakovich and everyone before him. I don’t think you can really count film scores because while they tend to incorporate the descriptive realism of R. Strauss and the motif led styles of Berlioz, Wagner, and R. Strauss the compositions themselves are usually quite brief.

    The AFI list of great film scores was not a particularly good list. Nothing against John Williams personally, but among others Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rozsa were far more talented composers. Ditto most of the other names on that list, and not forgetting Hugo Friedhofer, either.

    • Replies: @Chuck
    @SPMoore8


    I don’t think you need a unique mental condition to be serious composer. What you do need is to have absolute proficiency on some instrument or another (so that you can test what you are composing) and the ability to hear music in your head (not that rare). Of course you also have to have mastered harmony and counterpoint (so you can handle multiple voices). Outside of that you just have to have a specific “plot” that you want to follow and the persistence to come up with some decent tunes.
     
    Millions of Europeans/Americans have met these criteria over the last 400 years. I doubt there have been 1,000 classical composers who composed music that anyone would listen to more than once.
  133. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @TG
    FYI Currently about 70% of all American optometry students are women.

    http://www.aoa.org/news/aoa-focus/march-2014/the-women-of-optometry?sso=y

    I have served on admissions committees in this field, we'd like a better balance, but if there are more well qualified female than male candidates, well, that's how it goes. I think they are to a great extent attracted by the lifestyle: it's a lot easier to raise a family working as an optometrist than an M.D. And that's not a bad thing, surely.

    But you'll never hear a feminist complain about the gross gender imbalance in optometry...

    Replies: @Anonymous

    “I have served on admissions committees in this field, we’d like a better balance, but if there are more well qualified female than male candidates, well, that’s how it goes.”

    Why is it okay to say, “that’s how it goes”? Would anyone say this if admissions were skewed in favor of white men, with a resulting underrepresentation of women or people of color?

  134. @SPMoore8
    @Chuck

    I don't think you need a unique mental condition to be serious composer. What you do need is to have absolute proficiency on some instrument or another (so that you can test what you are composing) and the ability to hear music in your head (not that rare). Of course you also have to have mastered harmony and counterpoint (so you can handle multiple voices). Outside of that you just have to have a specific "plot" that you want to follow and the persistence to come up with some decent tunes. I'm sure it takes a lot of training and concentration but I don't think it takes special gifts. (Unless coming up with great tunes and knowing how to use them is a gift).

    I think the lack of women in a lot of these areas is that women generally have a lot of distractions while the great composers almost without exception were raised to be musicians and were past masters of compositional techniques even before they achieved adulthood. Then it was just a matter of following that lead to make larger and larger creations.

    I'm not sure who is composing anything that can compare -- at the latest -- to Shostakovich and everyone before him. I don't think you can really count film scores because while they tend to incorporate the descriptive realism of R. Strauss and the motif led styles of Berlioz, Wagner, and R. Strauss the compositions themselves are usually quite brief.

    The AFI list of great film scores was not a particularly good list. Nothing against John Williams personally, but among others Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rozsa were far more talented composers. Ditto most of the other names on that list, and not forgetting Hugo Friedhofer, either.

    Replies: @Chuck

    I don’t think you need a unique mental condition to be serious composer. What you do need is to have absolute proficiency on some instrument or another (so that you can test what you are composing) and the ability to hear music in your head (not that rare). Of course you also have to have mastered harmony and counterpoint (so you can handle multiple voices). Outside of that you just have to have a specific “plot” that you want to follow and the persistence to come up with some decent tunes.

    Millions of Europeans/Americans have met these criteria over the last 400 years. I doubt there have been 1,000 classical composers who composed music that anyone would listen to more than once.

  135. I think the lack of women in a lot of these areas is that women generally have a lot of distractions while the great composers almost without exception were raised to be musicians and were past masters of compositional techniques even before they achieved adulthood. Then it was just a matter of following that lead to make larger and larger creations.

    That’s more or less the (sane) conventional wisdom.

    There is something though inherent in the masculine that drives one toward genius (and madness) that just isn’t there in the feminine. Though that thought is still somewhat beyond the pale, it is not therefore less true.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @Desiderius

    I totally agree. I think it comes down to security and dominance. When a boy is threatened or has no social standing, he works hard to acquire it. When a girl is in the same circumstance, she looks for a boy to do it for her. I mean I think it's fairly obvious and also human nature.

    There's other things involved (hormones, etc.) but I think that's basically it.

  136. @Desiderius

    I think the lack of women in a lot of these areas is that women generally have a lot of distractions while the great composers almost without exception were raised to be musicians and were past masters of compositional techniques even before they achieved adulthood. Then it was just a matter of following that lead to make larger and larger creations.
     
    That's more or less the (sane) conventional wisdom.

    There is something though inherent in the masculine that drives one toward genius (and madness) that just isn't there in the feminine. Though that thought is still somewhat beyond the pale, it is not therefore less true.

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    I totally agree. I think it comes down to security and dominance. When a boy is threatened or has no social standing, he works hard to acquire it. When a girl is in the same circumstance, she looks for a boy to do it for her. I mean I think it’s fairly obvious and also human nature.

    There’s other things involved (hormones, etc.) but I think that’s basically it.

  137. @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    I very much appreciate your very thoughtful and thorough response. I would appreciate it if you would kindly provide the name(s) of some of those you consider to be great lawyers (those currently in practice, particularly any SCOTUS members). Thanks again.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    Dan Hayes – Sure… Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership – but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases – Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia’s range and has more common sense – but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here – I don’t think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won’t know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia – and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there’s that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion – Cruz for example – although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son’s excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think – in my opinion.

    • Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    One correction - I quoted Martin Ginsburg (a great guy, one of my five or so favorite teachers ever - I took three tax classes with him back in the day - although I never became a tax lawyer) as saying Andrews was smarter than him (Ginsburg taught individual and corporate tax using the casebook Andrews wrote) - he did not actually say that, what he said was that Andrews was "off the chart" smart, in a very respectful tone of voice. Which is not exactly the same thing as saying "Andrews is a better lawyer than me." (He said it in the context of explaining how unusual it was that the casebook Andrews wrote incorrectly - and astoundingly, in Ginsburg's opinion - in three lines in the context of a thousand pages of legally impressive correct prose - described the interplay between an IRS document and a hypothetical problem or published case, I don't remember which - that was three decades ago....)

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    Thank you for your much appreciated response to my request. I am grateful for the time and effort you devoted to your response - very impressive.

    When Trump picks his SCOTUS nominee I would hope that you enter into the inevitable discussion.

    Regarding Cruz, I was surprised that Jeffrey Toobin in a New Yorker hit piece on Cruz seemed to give him unexpected respect for his legal talents.

    And thanks again for your response.

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    After checking I now know why you categorized Easterbrook as "culturally a barbarian."

    I got the "impression" from your remarks that you regard tax lawyers as being at the top of the heap in terms of competence. I personally know of only one tax lawyer but he fits this categorization as he is ultra smart, with an Ivy League baccalaureate in mathematics, and publishes a lot on political science (if there can be any such thing).

    That's it. Thanks again.

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don't Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don't Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don't Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous reply to dan hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don't Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

  138. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    One correction – I quoted Martin Ginsburg (a great guy, one of my five or so favorite teachers ever – I took three tax classes with him back in the day – although I never became a tax lawyer) as saying Andrews was smarter than him (Ginsburg taught individual and corporate tax using the casebook Andrews wrote) – he did not actually say that, what he said was that Andrews was “off the chart” smart, in a very respectful tone of voice. Which is not exactly the same thing as saying “Andrews is a better lawyer than me.” (He said it in the context of explaining how unusual it was that the casebook Andrews wrote incorrectly – and astoundingly, in Ginsburg’s opinion – in three lines in the context of a thousand pages of legally impressive correct prose – described the interplay between an IRS document and a hypothetical problem or published case, I don’t remember which – that was three decades ago….)

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  139. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    Thank you for your much appreciated response to my request. I am grateful for the time and effort you devoted to your response – very impressive.

    When Trump picks his SCOTUS nominee I would hope that you enter into the inevitable discussion.

    Regarding Cruz, I was surprised that Jeffrey Toobin in a New Yorker hit piece on Cruz seemed to give him unexpected respect for his legal talents.

    And thanks again for your response.

  140. Anonymous [AKA "pbarkis"] says:

    I worked this out some years ago. It is agreed that the higher standard deviation of men’s IQ’s produces more men at the high end of the distribution. The graphs shown all show these curves with the male curve on top of the female. But they are not very precise and the curves seem very close. However, you can work out the number of people in each group knowing the standard deviation. (Number of males vs females at 130 IQ) When I did this at high levels of IQ, 130+ or 2% of the population, the males outnumber the females 6:1, at the extreme of 160 IQ the males outnumbered the females 17:1, which is about the male female relationship in Physics programs. At the far greater extreme of the tiny number of human beings of 200+ IQ, males outnumber females 200:5. I think it was five maybe a few more.

    In any field of human endeavor as measured by achievement, Nobel prizes, Tony Awards, Academy Awards, males seem to out number females in about the same proportion as in the IQ differences. As with difference in IQ’s between racial groups, differences in IQ between the sexes is not a matter for public discussion.

  141. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    After checking I now know why you categorized Easterbrook as “culturally a barbarian.”

    I got the “impression” from your remarks that you regard tax lawyers as being at the top of the heap in terms of competence. I personally know of only one tax lawyer but he fits this categorization as he is ultra smart, with an Ivy League baccalaureate in mathematics, and publishes a lot on political science (if there can be any such thing).

    That’s it. Thanks again.

  142. @Dan Hayes
    @ben tillman

    ben tilman:

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually). His death was a great loss. Let it be hoped that his SCOTUS replacement is worthy.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @anon, @ben tillman

    For one, the late Justice Scalia liked lawyering. I heard him publicly state that it was like solving puzzles and very rewarding (intellectually).

    Judging isn’t lawyering.

  143. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don’t Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

  144. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don’t Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

  145. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don’t Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

  146. @anonymous reply to dan hayes
    @Dan Hayes

    Dan Hayes - Sure... Alito is almost exponentially smarter (by one standard deviation) than Scalia on every parameter I consider important (except for charisma and leadership - but he is still young!) (I base this primarily on having studied their views in about 50 controversial cases - Alito is right, in my opinion, 47 or 48 times out of 50, Scalia is right 40 out of 50 times or so). (Clarence Thomas is within Scalia's range and has more common sense - but he gets things wrong much more often than Alito, I think). Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit and Easterbrook in the Seventh are noticeably more intelligent than Scalia was at their age, although Easterbrook is culturally a barbarian. (Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks has a couple of other appellate judges that could be confidently named here - I don't think Gorsuch was on that list so I put his name here). The top tax lawyers are mostly writing legislation as lobbyists so you won't know their names, but the late Martin Ginsburg was technically smarter than Scalia - and he thought that Andrews at Harvard (tax) was even better than himself, so there's that. One or two Senators are much better legal thinkers than Scalia, in my humble opinion - Cruz for example - although he was not raised in a confident culture and his lack of confidence shows. And he lacks common sense, although he is still young and may gain a lot more of that some day.
    I am going to stop naming names here, but if you are interested, there are very good lawyers in academia at, among top 14 schools, Georgetown, and among other top tier schools, at Notre Dame and BYU and Texas in particular. Of the Congressmen on Judiciary, at least two or three would have been at least as good as Scalia or better. Technically speaking, my guess is that of the thousand best paid tax lawyers in the country, one hundred or so are doing a better job than Scalia could have, working as hard as he possibly could have, in their place. And in my experience, about one in five really talented lawyers go into tax law, which is where I came up with the figure of Scalia not breaking into the top 400. I respect him a lot (and I have listened to several of his son's excellent sermons), but he was more of a lottery winner than most people think - in my opinion.

    Replies: @anonymous reply to dan hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes, @Dan Hayes

    anonymous reply to dan hayes:

    For the longest time (almost three years!) I have wanted to thank you for alerting me to Neil Gorsuch. You are now thanked. And as of now your evaluation has happily proved correct!

    Any thoughts on Kavanaugh? That is, will he be RobertsII? Or will these character assassinations steel him into ThomasII (Don’t Get Mad, Get Even!).

    Again many thanks!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS