National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track
22 replies, posted
[quote]The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers. [/quote]
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112[/url]
Despite this, I'm sure the media will continue to demonize men in STEM for being sexist pigs, meanwhile those same men (and others who have yet to even get into the industry) are going to be discriminated against when applying for jobs. I guess feminism is helping them...somehow.
What a wonderful time to be a man.
don't worry, it's somehow the straight white male's fault.
[QUOTE=Quark:;47582921]don't worry, it's somehow the straight white male's fault.[/QUOTE]
I don't think being gay even gets you any privilege points nowadays. Hell, you could be FTM trans and it'd still be your fault.
Take advantage of your white privilege while you still have it, don't squander it on a job at best buy
[QUOTE=elfbarf;47582946]I don't think being gay even gets you any privilege points nowadays. Hell, you could be FTM trans and it'd still be your fault.[/QUOTE]
Actually yes. If you run into TERFS, going FTM is consider traitorous and going MTF is considered avoiding privilege. They're extremely transphobic, and TERFs make up a large majority of radical feminism which is usally where a lot Feminist ideas come from, historically anyway.
Gee what a surprise. :rolleye:
Most women simply aren't interested in working science, hence the lower number of women in these subjects.
God damn patriarchy at it again
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47583121]Gee what a surprise. :rolleye:
Most women simply aren't interested in working science, hence the lower number of women in these subjects.[/QUOTE]
But the argument of feminism is that society generally discourages girls (sometimes very subtly) from even exploring any interest they might have in STEM fields from a young age, instead pushing them to do things they might not necessarily actually enjoy and suppressing a potential passion for STEM. So yeah, your argument is absolutely valid; but it's an argument which ignores the fundamental issue of [I]why[/I] there are less women interested in working science. This is obviously somewhat simplifying the issue, because there are other problems with sex discrimination (in both ways) in a number of industries, plus the pay gap (which again, sometimes favors men, sometimes women depending on the industry). The actual goal of feminism, which may not be totally clear because of how many radical feminists actually misunderstand and misinterpret the objective (which obviously has totally skewed public perception of feminism, only making [I]more[/I] people misinterpret the movement and strawman the fuck out of it), is to achieve genuine equality in the working industries by addressing these fundamental issues; not by forcing companies to hire more women just for the sake of hiring more women.
Soon the white folks will be claiming they're the minority!!
Wait that has nothing to do with this.. Sorry.
Right, so reading through. I also saw on reddit, a post that had statistical findings of the very very small differences of pay through genders. They found that it wasn't even much of a difference.
People shouldn't expect the change to happen immediately, we'll likely see a larger amount of STEM women in the next generation.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;47583786]People shouldn't expect the change to happen immediately, we'll likely see a larger amount of STEM women in the next generation.[/QUOTE]
We most definitely will, and I would be surprised if most (if not all) STEM fields don't eventually become over 50% women. Unfortunately, companies (largely thanks to media pressure) are prioritizing finding women in order to artificially close the gap even faster. This of course is coming at the expense of men, but who cares about them, right?
This isn't too surprising. From what I'm told women in the engineering field, once they actually get through college and start getting hired, basically have it made and can even negotiate higher starting salaries than men can because companies right now are eager for women hires in particular.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;47583510]But the argument of feminism is that society generally discourages girls (sometimes very subtly) from even exploring any interest they might have in STEM fields from a young age, instead pushing them to do things they might not necessarily actually enjoy and suppressing a potential passion for STEM. So yeah, your argument is absolutely valid; but it's an argument which ignores the fundamental issue of [I]why[/I] there are less women interested in working science. This is obviously somewhat simplifying the issue, because there are other problems with sex discrimination (in both ways) in a number of industries, plus the pay gap (which again, sometimes favors men, sometimes women depending on the industry). The actual goal of feminism, which may not be totally clear because of how many radical feminists actually misunderstand and misinterpret the objective (which obviously has totally skewed public perception of feminism, only making [I]more[/I] people misinterpret the movement and strawman the fuck out of it), is to achieve genuine equality in the working industries by addressing these fundamental issues; not by forcing companies to hire more women just for the sake of hiring more women.[/QUOTE]
If you read the paper it talks about becoming a tenured professor, at which point it is irrelevant to mention whether or not they have been pushed out of STEM at an early age since they clearly are in STEM at that point in their lives. What they suggested as a reason for the difference in gender is that there is a very strong idea that the environment will be hostile (generally coming from people who have opted to not go into those fields themselves) and so they don't become professors due to being told it will be hostile towards them.
Forgive me for my potential ignorance on the topic, but I always hear about the pay gap but I have not seen a single source that actually accounts for the type of job the people have. It is always the median amount of pay of women compared to the median amount of pay of men which is extremely biased due to the the fact that men tend to have higher paying jobs in general. Is there any source that you have on this?
Also I disagree with the article's assertion that the 2:1 preference is a demonstration that the academies are gender fair. While we are in a deficit of women in these fields, showing them a favor over men is still showing a gender bias.
[QUOTE=elfbarf;47584059]We most definitely will, and I would be surprised if most (if not all) STEM fields don't eventually become over 50% women. Unfortunately, companies (largely thanks to media pressure) are prioritizing finding women in order to artificially close the gap even faster. This of course is coming at the expense of men, but who cares about them, right?[/QUOTE]
My biggest worry is that boys, especially minority boys, are statistically much higher in drop out rates of both college and highschool, leaving them at a severe disadvantage.
But no one talks about that in regard to education.
[QUOTE=doom1337;47584224]
Forgive me for my potential ignorance on the topic, but I always hear about the pay gap but I have not seen a single source that actually accounts for the type of job the people have. It is always the median amount of pay of women compared to the median amount of pay of men which is extremely biased due to the the fact that men tend to have higher paying jobs in general. Is there any source that you have on this?
[/QUOTE]
Iirc this is the case, those studies regarding pay gap are ignoring that MAJOR factor.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47585249]My biggest worry is that boys, especially minority boys, are statistically much higher in drop out rates of both college and highschool, leaving them at a severe disadvantage.
But no one talks about that in regard to education.[/QUOTE]
I think partially it's because of lacking mental health help offered. Based on suicide rates, boys suffer from depression a lot more and while it might not lead to suicide, it can lead to dropping out. Schools are really tough environments if you're suffering from mental disorders.
Since this was for professorship maybe the faculty members automatically assumed that women in the position to apply had worked harder to get there due to the perceived difficulty of being a woman in those fields.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47586760]Since this was for professorship maybe the faculty members automatically assumed that women in the position to apply had worked harder to get there due to the perceived difficulty of being a woman in those fields.[/QUOTE]So they had a gender bias. Good job.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47586695]I think partially it's because of lacking mental health help offered. Based on suicide rates, boys suffer from depression a lot more and while it might not lead to suicide, it can lead to dropping out. Schools are really tough environments if you're suffering from mental disorders.[/QUOTE]
Men are noticeably less likely to actually use mental health services if offered anyway, it may not be a case of nobody offering these services, and more a case of men not wanting to use them to avoid looking weak (oh hey gender roles that make life hard!).
Based on even a 1 minute Google search you can find this kind of stuff out. One study I came across is this;
[url]http://goo.gl/2rT8di[/url]
Go to somewhere around page 42 for the good stuff. Males of all groups, age, ethnicity, social class, etc. are much less likely to have mental health consultations. Shit, I have first hand experience with this thanks to a housemate with increasingly severe depression and anxiety. He hasn't had a consultation (he claims he has, we know he hasn't), and today it all got on top of him and he spent somewhere around 3 hours shouting at the poor fuck on the other end of the phone about how the NHS has failed him.
The services are there, but his complete lack of usage until he was at breaking point has nearly driven him to suicide multiple times.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47586766]So they had a gender bias. Good job.[/QUOTE]
Did I say that I was defending this? Turn off the snark.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47586792]
The services are there[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you say except this. This depends entirely on location and culture. Where I live, until recent, mental health wasn't considered unless it was in extreme condition.
[editline]24th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47586810]Did I say that I was defending this? Turn off the snark.[/QUOTE]
Not you, sarcastic good job on them.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47586844]I agree with everything you say except this. This depends entirely on location and culture. Where I live, until recent, mental health wasn't considered unless it was in extreme condition.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about my housemate, but whatever.
There are obviously some countries and cultures that really don't offer mental welfare services, but there will usually be at least some form of service that you can fight your way to in countries with some form of medical infrastructure.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47586844]
Not you, sarcastic good job on them.[/QUOTE]
Apologies for assuming, then.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.