"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>The problem with presuming that Marie's contribution was anything other than
>"artistic", as Pierre wrote, is that we haven't a shred of evidence that
>there has been a woman "physicist" in the century since Marie got the Nobel
>Prize who feminazis can quote with such regularity.
There have been other women, Nobelists. Marie Curie has been cited
repeatedly because YOU would say about anyone more recent that they
were benefitting from affirmative action, but also because she is one
of the most well known of physicists.
>The other problem is that, unless Polish girls are a durn sight smarter than
>American girls, then there is no hope of ever discovering another woman
>"physicist".
A quick scan gave Maria Goeppart-Mayer of Germany who shared the Nobel
physics prize with two others in 1963. Whether there are others, I
couldn't say without looking more.
[repetitive nonsense that only continues to show the nincompoop to be
a nincompoop]
>Had Marie taken GRE or TIMSS, it's doubtful if she would have been on the
>upper edge of the female Gaussian Distribution, and even if she was, she
>would have scored lower than the median for boys. How can physicists come
>from this intellectual sphere?
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html
>After two years, when she took her degree in physics in 1893, she
> headed the list of candidates and, in the following year, she came
> second in a degree in mathematics. After three years she had
> brilliantly passed examinations in physics and mathematics.
She finished first in physics and second in mathematics, competing
against mostly male students, and then was admitted to the Sorbonne as
a foreign student of the sciences, which itself was no mean feat.
lojbab
