Or she believed that she wasn’t due any credit because of the sexist society they lived in.. It’s probably impossible to tell exactly how much she contributed now.
Yeah the thought did enter my mind but the magnitude of the discoveries made me dismiss it. She would have understood the magnitude of his ideas, which is made clear by her believing Albert will become world famous.
So given the magnitude of his ideas, if she really had helped develop them she would have also become famous. I mean, she is famous now.
And these are personal letters but apparently no mention of "our" ideas or credit due to her even in their personal correspondence. He did definitely need her to make a reputation, but the ideas were his.
> Mileva and Albert had similar grades (4.7 and 4.6, respectively) except in applied physics where she got the top mark of 5 but he, only 1. She excelled at experimental work while he did not. But at the oral exam, Professor Minkowski gave 11 out of 12 to the four male students but only 5 to Mileva. Only Albert got his degree.
She was never allowed to actually work in physics.
She did work in physics, though - she worked with Einstein on his papers, as we learned for example from the article here.
You don't actually need permission to work in physics. Didn't Einstein also write his seminal papers while he was working at the patent office?
Also from that example, it seems that three times more male students than female students failed their exam. Doesn't really prove sexist discrimination, especially with the first example where she got the good grade and Einstein the bad one.
> three times more male students than female students failed their exam.
That is fascinatingly manipulative way to frame situation in which all female are kicked, at least one having great results and being failed only in the most subjective part of it.
She got better results then him in most objective parts and got kicked in most subjective part. Him failing to solve exercises does not prove she was not discriminated.
But we do know that Einstein was actually good in physics, so the argument that "she was better in objective parts" seems rather questionable.
People fail exams all the time, for a variety of reasons. Every now and then here on HN there is a big discussion on how job interviews shouldn't have whiteboard coding sessions.
Maybe she was such a person who can't do live whiteboard coding. Oral exams are something like that. Then the system is perhaps bad, but it doesn't sexism was the cause.
Also usually oral exams involve more than one interviewer.
And I think it is fascinatingly manipulative to frame it as "all female are kicked", if there was only one female to begin with.
(Note: it is of course possible that sexism was the cause, but it can't be inferred from the information given. BBC sure wants to suggest it, though)
Einstein was not actually performing at college and during studies. He was not interested in what they wanted him to learn and had "attitude". He went off doing what he wanted which led to poor college results. He had trouble to find academic job after for precisely that reason. He was perceived to be lazy. Later, he had good ideas, partly thanks to his extra studies (while at patent office where he was supposed to be doing something else by employer, it was boring job).
It is preposterous to claim that the way these tests went is not an instance of sexism. His college teachers did not seen prodigy in him at all.
> (Note: it is of course possible that sexism was the cause, but it can't be inferred from the information given. BBC sure wants to suggest it, though)
It absolutely can be inferred. Moreover, it can be safely guessed that if she was rebelling the way he did, she would get even less of benefit of doubt.
Einstein had good ideas later and success. But at the college, most of his peers had better results then him.
All of the Einsteins, male and female, lived in a sexist society, as did the majority of major scientists across human history, because the majority of societies have been varying degrees of patriarchal and have had limited roles for women. So, no, this doesn’t seem particularly strange to me.
And recently Maryam Mirzakhani. Usual explanation is that they can't ride equity agenda there and have to earn money with hard skills. So they become compulsory geniuses just like men.
