A female present at the top level of math achievement is not inconsistent with the 3 reasons Summers gave for the (average) lack of females there. It will still be overwhelmingly male at the top and the higher male variance in math ability is not going to magically go away.

So apparently it's impossible for the academy to have this problem that we all agree tech has? Please. Summers' comments were barely a sketch of a hypothesis. He blustered until some percentage of people just assumed he had a real point. (Basically his career in a nutshell.) A critical part of his hypothesis is "there is no Pareto-efficient change to current educational practice that would reduce sex differences in variability". That claim is ridiculous on its face. Nothing to see here! Move along people!

http://media.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/?p=145 (read past the first three paragraphs; why is the sex variability inverted for Asians? perhaps Nature doesn't so completely dominate Nurture after all...)