Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar
From: bradley@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: SAT scores - sexist?
Message-ID: <1334@ai.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 91 21:15:13 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.150919.29758@aero.org>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin
Lines: 21
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <1991Apr12.150919.29758@aero.org> al885@cleveland.freenet.edu writes:

>There wouldn't be two sets of physics classes...is there wasn't a demand for
>easier sci. classes. If I had been a straight LA major, I would have been at
>the top of my class. It seems we are two different sides of the same coin. 

I have to ask: did you ever take any upper-level liberal arts courses
that weren't intended for a general audience?  The basic LA courses
taken by hundreds to fulfill their college requirements are, generally
speaking, pretty easy.  So are the basic science courses aimed at a
general audience.

Let me say that I *did* take advanced LA courses, in modern fiction,
Shakespearean tragedy, and so forth.  I'm no slouch with verbal skills
(if you believe standardized tests, my English SAT was 720, and my GRE
was 750), but I was quite happy to get B's in those courses.  As much
as I enjoyed the courses, I became quite aware that my aptitudes were
better suited to engineering and science, and that I could not compete
with the really good liberal arts types on their own turf.

Bradley