Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Study: For STEM Tenure Track, Women Twice As Likely To Be Hired As Men
_Sharp'r_ writes In the first "empirical study of sexism in faculty hiring using actual faculty members", Cornell University researchers found that when using identical qualifications, but changing the sex of the applicant, "women candidates are favored 2 to 1 over men for tenure-track positions in the science, technology, engineering and math fields."
An anonymous reader links to the study itself.
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM and she's about to transition from HS to college.
If this keeps up, I can look forward to her not having to move home after college graduation!
You now have a basis to sue. Have at it.
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
blog
STEM departments (engineering, mainly) have so many male faculty that it will take several years of female-skewed recruitment to shift the balance to something closer to 50/50. In that regard, a policy of purposefully hiring female faculty makes sense .... so long as those faculty are indeed excellent researchers and teachers with a similar track record as their male competitors. Of course, that doesn't always happen. However, as soon as faculty gender reaches parity, it'll be much easier to deny female faculty tenure based on their lack of funding/publications without worrying about politics. That will be the true test of the policy .. to see if gender parity stabilizes after gender politics are no longer relevant.
Nope.. because penis. Welcome to affirmative action, the newspeak term for discrimination against those who are not in a protected caste.
It swung the other way some time back. I have heard (first hand) stories from managers at my company about preferences being given to promoting women who did not work effectively or well with others. They also offer 2X the refferal bonus if you refer a URM (under represented minority). There are top-level edicts regarding hiring and interviewing of "minorities" (of which women aren't, but there we are).
It's all good, though. Unlike many professions including people management _in tech_, you can't bullshit your technical skills for long. They'll either be effective or an albatross. On the negative side, they will probably just promote the shitty ones out of tech and into management. So maybe it's not all good. Meh, I'll be retired in 15 years anyway.
Twice as likely to get tenure when the odds are between 16 and 19% for a PhD to get a tenure track is still twice as likely of a poor situation. 2 in 20 instead of 1 in 20 still means that your doctorate has a 10% chance of getting you a job instead of a 5% chance; it's still pretty bad.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2013/04/11/may-the-odds-be-ever-in-your-favor-academic-tenure/
as long as I have equal opportunity to get laid.
Hey, where's my paternal leave!
Ok timothy can you explain this shit to us? First you're editorial line is completely SJW, now you're publishing this study? What the fuck is this about?
I could understand if you're just posting these stories to troll readers into clicks, but then you hushed up bigtime on Gamergate, a story which could have exploded your clickcount exponentially. So that doesn't make sense either?
Anyone care to give the logic behind this move? Is timothy just asleep at the wheel and being yelled at by DICE SJW execs as we speak?
So for someone who takes off time for maternity - that time would count against a woman because it's not relevant STEM job experience. A 33 year old male who didn't take extended maternity leave would have (for example) 8 years of post-doc experience, but a 33 year old female who took off 6 years to raise 2 kids to school age would only have 2 years of post-doc experience. She would have to be 39 to get those 8 years of experience. How is that fair? Huh? HUH?
These ladies are for real.
Just like pro wrestling and roller derby.
I would flip the problem around and ask why proportionally more males seem to be sticklers for punishment and waste their talents going to work in a difficult field with little job security and low pay (relatively) when they could go do almost anything else and be much more successful?
I have a lot of friends who did engineering and are women, and they all left engineering because their skills were more valuable working elsewhere. Many now regret having done the degree in the first place since they never used any of the technical stuff they worked so hard to learn. Thing is they are not alone and more than half the guys in my class did the same. I hate to say this (as someone who does enjoy engineering) but those who are still doing it a decade later are a pretty odd bunch, mostly with very poor social skills. Since engineering is one of the few places you can succeed without having social skills, I wonder if it is more correlated with this than any kind of male discriminatory thing.
So the sad reality as far as I can tell, is that if you want more 'women in STEMS' you should encourage them to have rubbish social skills. Alternately you could improve the social skills of the few engineers that remain and then there would be no more engineers and the problem would be solved as well. Our economy doesn't care about making useful stuff anymore. It is just about getting some shiny crap from China, slapping some marketing and celebrity endorsements on it and laughing all the way to the bank.
What this study showed is that given equal qualifications a female is more likely to get an interview. That doesn't mean she will be hired. So, basically doesn't prove/show anything. But, hey jump to conclusions that confirm your own bias...
Before the comments explode into an orgy of heated and tedious argument (well ok, they already have), it's worth noting that the study didn't use statistics for actual hiring decisions. By the phrase "using actual faculty members," they just mean that they got a bunch of professors to participate in an experiment where they evaluate the suitability of various made-up candidates on paper. Meh. If they had real-world stats for this, I might actually be interested. How many men and how many women applied to different STEM faculty jobs in a given year, and who got hired? Simple - yet we don't have that information.
we've gone full circle.
From what I've seen, getting a tenured STEM position is like winning the lottery these days, regardless of who you are or how good you are. Maybe this is just the system balancing itself out? There just aren't enough positions to go around anyway. Also, STEM departments in most places are overwhelmingly male, but correlation != causation.
This was one of several things that kept me from going on to graduate studies in chemistry. Other than just being burnt out on school by the point I had to decide, the odds of landing a permanent job were low even when I graduated (90s.) It's funny too, because I would be one of those strange individuals who would work harder because of tenure...to me, it would represent freedom to concentrate on work and not worry about having a job. I know that most people aren't like that, so that's why they have to be incredibly picky and careful.
The study did not look at real hiring decisions made by colleges but rather had STEM faculty members rank made up resumes. So to say that "Women Twice As Likely To Be Hired As Men" is not supported by the study.
More than you know: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
Yes. If gender is a consideration that influences the decision then it is by definition sexism. We can argue about whether it is justified or not (I think not) but it unquestionably IS sexism.
until then the choices are (A) preferentially hire women, or (B) hire an equal mix and wait until all the existing faculty retires (probably at least a generation or two) for the gender mix to equalize.
Incomplete set of choices. There are other options. The best option is to hire the most qualified individuals without regard to gender. Generally speaking unless there is a supply imbalance (which does happen sometimes) hiring the best people tends to take care of the diversity problems. Talent in STEM generally has little to do with gender or ethnicity or country of origin or age or even sexual orientation. Hire the best people and you'll get a diverse workforce in most cases rather naturally.
The problem is that people tend to hire who they are comfortable with rather than hire the best available candidates. This is how you end up with executive teams with nothing but old white men. Look at how much of a monoculture an organization is if you want to know whether they truly value identifying and promoting the best available people.
I should say that I'd be more strongly opposed to the practice if it were occurring in industry, but we're talking about a college
Makes no difference. College is just another type of industry. Hire the best people. Period.
Having spent many years in these decision making roles; women are often not hired for STEM positions. Everyone queried in this study knows they SHOULD hire women, so on a hypothetical basis, academics will give you the politically correct answer. We are not stupid. But when considered for actual real-world positions women are often kept out for the fear they have an unfair advantage (WHICH THEY DO NOT).
Sexism, Racism, Homophobia in all colors and shapes, all are bad.
What's worse are bureauracies trying to manage/control these things. In the most Hooterville/GreenAcres kind of way.
Try saying this: Get the best people you can, and if it doesn't work, we'll look at the underlying population distributions...
Like:
3 % of elementary education majors are men, so supply is not there, ignore it...
4 % of Physics majors are black, so the supply is not there, ignore it...
6 % of Math majors are minorities, so the supply is not there, ignore it...
8% of the Literature majors are straight white males, supply may or may not be there... for certain states/cultural areas ( South? Did I say that?)
0% of the African-American majors are white males - no supply, and they are actively pushed away from the programs... (?)
Nursing is a STEM dominated by women- overlook that area.... they have their own personal culture.....
10 % of computer science majors are something politically correct, 6 % graduate, 2% go on to graduate school, and they also have their own culture, ignore it...
Let us not mention short people, fat people, old people, handicapped people, or any combination of these...
The ones in charge will have their own way, with the laws or skirting (?) around the laws...
And the ones in charge are EXACTLY the 'good-old-boy' network, whether it's the head nurses, the CEOs, CIOs, CTOs, or the local bosses at the IBEW or plumbers unions...
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM ....
So have many other parents. Eventually, we will be seeing a glut. Although, being a woman will put her ahead of her male competition.
I would say have her take the pre-med requirements just in case the STEM job market crashes when she graduates, then she can take her MCATs and get into a profession with an actual future and not one promoted by government (no clue ) and industry (wants to suppress wages).
LMOL yeah nice source...
It depends on where the hiring is done.
At some places they hire STEM graduates and interns but assign them "womens tasks" like reception and party planning, instead of let them get into the guts of wiring and cabling and rebuilding laptops and help desk. And pay them less.
At other places, they respect women and let them do the job they were hired for, the STEM work. And pay them the same.
So, Cornell might be in the latter group.
(this is feedback from women in STEM that I know, who talk about this stuff)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
It is also a form of institutionalized racism/sexism/ageism/etc. The intentions are good but it discriminates on a basis other than merit which ultimately is counterproductive. What is the point of saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of race and then discriminating on the basis of race? Makes no sense.
It also does not require that a group necessarily actually be a minority. Women technically outnumber men in the overall population so they cannot be considered a minority outside of specifically defined groups.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
If you consider gender in the decision then it IS sexism. Period. You can argue whether it is justified but you are simply substituting one form of sexism for another. It devalues merit in favor of
Discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged, so long as it's in favour of women and minorities.
Pathetic.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Suck it up princess.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
Well, presuming that women and men are equally qualified (which was one of the explicitly stated premises of the study), then that would make for a 50-50 mix, would it not?
No it would not because there are more men in the workplace than women overall, largely due to traditional gender roles. Furthermore there is an imbalance in some professions regarding the number of people that enter the profession. More men in engineering and construction. More women in nursing and clerical. Those issues occur FAR earlier than any hiring decision so it is not a 50-50 mix and probably never will be.
It will be rare that a workforce exactly matches the overall population ratio and doing so should never be the explicit goal. The goal is to create an environment where the only meaningful consideration is merit. If you do that well then you'll almost certainly have as diverse a workforce as is currently possible.
Yes, in a magical world populated by unicorns, rational humans, and the ability to accurately evaluate people's qualifications before hiring them, there are potentially better options. But we're stuck in this one.
Nice strawman. We don't even measure the qualifications we know about accurately or uniformly. Give the same resume with gender being the only thing changed and you get a different result? That means we aren't hiring based on merit. We're hiring based on societal pressure or comfort or some other principle.
Universities are bastions of liberalism and socialism. Women and minorities are generally liberal and socialist in their political beliefs. Those who can, do, those who can't, teach. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that universities would discriminate to hire more women.
Sort of funny that we're getting studies that directly contradict each other.
I can't tell you how many morons were quoting that study at me saying "see see women are discriminated against!"... twits.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The problem with your argument is that a 'balanced' workplace is assumed to be 50:50 as far as gender is concerned. This is based on the fact that society is essentially 50:50 in regards to males to females. Can you see the flaw in your argument? To clarify, the real problem (if there is a problem) is why there are not more females majoring in science undergraduate and graduate programs, thereby an equal number of males and females are always competing for the tenure-track positions in STEM fields. If that was the case I would agree that an approximately 50:50 split would be a reasonable expectation. However, the available data indicates this is not the case. By selecting for female applicants because it "feels right", or makes you or the selection committee "warm and fuzzy" inside, is biased and unfair. Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT arguing against female hires, but the decision should be based primarily on qualifications, not gender.
So telling someone to suck it up is a valid response now.
If I told women to suck it up that they didn't get a job they were qualified for people would jump down my thought to call me a misogynist. Grow up you aren't special and you should be judged based upon your ability to perform, not what sex or skin color you are.
Having worked with IT HR and having been through part of the manager training, you have to realize IT industry, and basically any other , has what just about amounts to 'quota's to fill when it comes to diversity or they can be sued. There is an expectation that they documented the number of minority candidates in their job pool and take special action to increase that number if they fall too low. So even if a 'minority' candidate is slightly less qualified they still have an advantage in getting hired, because hiring them helps protect the company from liability and their hires when reviewed by the government can be shown to be pro-active in not being 'biased' against the protected group. That is how the law is designed and how the law is intended to work, weather it is right or wrong is a different discussion.
Properly done, affirmative action simply means getting more of the unrepresented group to apply.
The problem with this approach is that you are making a potentially unwarranted assumption and, even if that assumption is valid this is the wrong way to fix the problem. You assumption is that fewer of one group apply because they are actively discriminated against. This survey challenges the perceived notion that the reason that there are fewer women in science is due to discrimination and suggests that it might actually be reversed. If the reason that one group is under represented is because that group is not interested then there is not a problem. We do not see ballet schools targeting boys because they are underrepresented because its clear that fewer boys are interested in ballet.
The second problem is that affirmative action reinforces the very prejudice that it is designed to address. By lowering standards for one group over another those that get the positions will, on average, be weaker than most. These people will then be used by some to justify their prejudice. In addition the very fact that affirmative action means being prejudiced can be pointed to as an example of why such a prejudice is "ok".
Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at a quick fix to the symptoms of a problem which can only be properly cured through education. It's like taking an aspirin and hoping it will cure something like TB: it might bring temporary quick relief from the symptoms but the underlying disease is just masked and still needs to be cured by antibiotics...and in the meantime the person with TB feels fine and spreads the disease to others.
I am a recently retired white male Professor of Computer Science at a mid-class American university. ..." was always interpreted to mean "we will not hire a white male if there is any other possibility."
In the last 30 years, the three departments I have been part of, in two countries, have _never once_ hired a white male Assistant Professor. The required "we welcome applications from
I used to point out this anecdotal but accurate factoid to bright white male undergraduates who were considering an academic career.
C'est la vie.
Disclaimer: None of the below is official policy. I'm describing things that I believe go on in the heads of interviewers where I work.
I'm in academia, and I've been involved search committees. Before we bring someone on site, we do skype interviews and thoroughly scrutinize their CV. We select the best CVs regardless of gender or ethnicity or anything, and the skype interview is to assess their communication skills. A slightly smarter person who can't be understood is going to be less effective than someone who is perhaps a little less creative but communicates well. Teaching is very important, and being understood is very important in teaching. Gender does not factor into this, and people from other countries vary massively in how intelligible their accent is, so ethnicity doesn't directly enter into it either. (I'm pretty good at pronouncing other languages, because I have studied phonetics extensively. To some degree, a thick accent occurs due to a lack of talent -- they just have a really hard time understanding how to produce the sounds, and grammars are a chalelnge too. Most people don't have a talent for learning languages as an adult. However, I also think there's a laziness factor. Some people work harder than others and develop explicit compensating strategies. For instance, several of my colleagues from China have learned to *just slow down*, which helps like you wouldn't believe.)
With regard to female faculty candidates in in-person interviews, we tend to make two major assumptions:
1. They are a priori no more or less competent than the men.
2. Various cultures (including our own) make them less up-your-nose about their accomplishments.
3. Since women are generally perceived as less competent, a woman making it through a PhD program at a good school is often an indicator of superior "grit" (courage and resolve).
So when we interview, I think we tend to work a little harder at making sure we aren't missing any sparks of creativity, good ideas, or important accomplishments that the women may be unnecessarily humble about.
There are also some other factors:
4. Although we'd like to have stellar candidates, the main thing we evaluate is just whether or not they will be succcessful in research and bring positive attention to the university. While we certainly like the rock stars, there are many people who fit into the "very good" category, whom we would be very happy to make an offer to. Very few of the people we interview *aren't* in the very good category, independent of gender and background.
5. We're not Cal Tech or Harvard. The rock stars will go to the higher-ranked schools. With limited hiring slots and limited time to make decisions, we often choose "very good" and "likely to an accept an offer" over "rock star" but "likely to go somewhere else."
6. With programmed lower esteem, a more competent female candidate is slightly more likely to accept an offer than an equivalent male. We're not exactly taking advantage, because they decide whether or not they want to accept the offer. It's just a female applicant is likely to be more competent than they appear, and we're happy to factor that into deciding on the limited number of offers we give out.
So if we have a female candidate who has done good research and but was so-so in the interview, although we don't give slack on the quality of their publications, not bowling us over with how awesome they are in the interview is not going to hurt their case perhaps as much as it might for the men.
In my time here, two male faculty in engineering have washed out. No female faculty have. The thing is, the men who washed out were clearly not meeting standards, while all the female faculty have objectively strong publication records. It's not like we have much in the way of borderline cases where we let a woman get tenure with the same level of accomplishment as a man who didn't. The recoil effect of #2 the direct effect of #3 up there is that women in academia often work har
Judging by the comments from many of the men commenting on this article, the preference for women in STEM faculty jobs might well have something to do with the fact that nobody wants to be around you.
So far, we've had assertions that women in the workplace just want to gossip about The Bachelor all day, that women don't find STEM fields interesting because there's not enough coffee-klatching for them, and that women are just not biologically suited for the challenging and dangerous work of the technology sector.
Honestly, do you even hear yourselves?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's a similar story in almost any government agency these days. I work in a state agency where it's almost impossible to get promoted if you're a white male. At this point there are only four white males on an Executive Management Team of 16 people. And three of those four are only there because they're old-timers who've been here for 30+ years. When they retire soon, you can bet that white males won't be replacing them. It's a similar situation at other agencies. Last year we didn't send a single male employee to management training. All six (coveted) spots were awarded to females.
And this is in a Republican red state, mind you.
Now, tell *ME* about all my white male privilege. Tell me all about it when I go up for a promotion knowing that I have zero chance. Tell me about it when I sit on a interview panel and the white guy applying doesn't stand a chance unless he's demonstrably at least twice as qualified as any minority or female candidates. Yeah, I'm just BASKING in all that privilege.
Actually if he had a mangina he would have been hired...
By all means, I want to see the giant mangina who brings the lawsuit because "White men are being discriminated against".
I bet he looks something like this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oe9uK9Q...
Mangina ? Such hate speech
From the summary: "An anonymous reader links to the study itself."
SLASHDOT - where the summary links are so bad that we only provide good links under cloak of anonymity.
Oh btw you'll have to pardon me if I don't look at your link. God only knows what an angry lefty would think is an appropriate response to being in the wrong.
Tenure is rapidly going away, partially as more universities are replacing regular faculty with adjunct faculty and using the availability of the latter as justification for worse treatment of the former. Go look at the closest 4-year school to where you live and see how many tenure-track STEM openings they have. Then look this summer to see how many openings they have for adjuncts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Seriously, I'd love to hear suggestions. I've got a niece in the first grade, brilliant little girl...
I hear you. Best current evidence is that the most influential thing to help girls find their way is to have a good role model. I heard about a study where the places that have the largest proportion of girls going into STEM is in areas like North Carolina's Research Triangle where there are a lot of good female role models working in the fields. Make sure she knows it is a real option. A good friend of my wife's is a doctor with young girls and she's made sure they know that such things are available to them and the kids are actually quite enthusiastic about science. (smart kids too so that helps)
I do a lot of coaching of high school age kids. One generalism I've noticed is that in sports boys need to play well to feel good about themselves. Girls are often the reverse. They seem to need to feel good about themselves to play well. No idea why that is but it seems to be frequently true. Maybe that might help you in some way. Good luck!
Do you remember #shirtgate and how the poor women weren't following science degrees because of the constant workplace sexism?
Just a thought. You could get an honest job?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There is a way to quash sexism and discrimination in most, if not all, walks of life. But people have to cooperate and throw away their own assumptions. Gender/Sex, Skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, creed, religious/irreligious, etc none of it matters. Those are all things that must be IGNORED. If you can do the job, then let's move on to hiring for another position. If you can't, then someone else has to be hired. The more you pay attention to such immaterial details, the more power and value they will hold simply because people believe they matter.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
The sooner you let go of your resentment and start your own business, the sooner you will be happy.
What's next? Integrated schools?
Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
The individual is not in the lexicon of the liberal. Only groups can know harm or oppression
Unsurprising. Bigots have few ideas, especially the meritorious kind.
Tell that to the feminists.
On subjects like this, the NYT is no better..
He should have said Christian too.
"Faculty participants believed that their feedback would be shared with the student they had rated."
Oof. Useless. Especially when you consider that 20 years of passed.
Oof. Useless. Especially when you consider that 20 years have passed.
Fixed.
Also - god, just read the sources/cites. It should be equally horrifying to every man/woman/psychologist/statistician out there. Ugh.
Really? Despite the title of this article?
Even if it was the easiest thing in the world, causing systemic discrimination under the guise of fighting it is never justified. After all, why would you want to drag someone else down instead of helping yourself up (or others to help themselves)? The latter is what a meritocracy encourages, and affirmative action destroys the value of merit in every organization it infects, making the supposedly irrelevant traits the most important selection criteria as a matter of policy.
That said, it's getting harder to be anyone in this modern world. State enforced castes don't do anything but let it have the power to pick winners and losers, causing resentment on all sides. The interesting thing will be whether cornell decides to do anything about the problem it found...or if its faculty even considers it to be a problem at all.
What would you say to someone who said this to a woman?
No, more like being hired by someone who needs to fill a diversity quota when there aren't any minorities that have a degree in the field.
This.
There were two non-foreign (think security clearance) female CS grads in my class. On career day the big corporations were fighting over them and both had job offers before lunch. The companies that fought the hardest and the winner were in aerospace/defense.
Both were good solid coders but not standouts. Both comfortable with math and science but having gone CS more for career reasons than any personal interest in coding. More of a "I can do that" than a "I want to do that". Plenty of males like that too in CS.
This is consistent with my experience as a faculty member in a STEM department at $PROMINENT_RESEARCH_UNIVERSITY. The steady state is an administration that (a) doesn't want to authorize new faculty positions, but (b) is always willing to grant an exception for women candidates and non-asian/non-white males. So unless your department is exceptionally good at negotiating with the administration for new positions, the lazy way to stay afloat is to find acceptable candidates that are not white or asian males.
I don't think I dare look at your link right now, but your question has been answered. To quote from that Wikipedia article: "The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, who had been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. ... Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks onto audiotapes." (Emphasis mine.)
Make whatever noises you like: just because a person is part of the privileged class in the two most visible categories of discrimination (race & gender) doesn't exclude them from being a member of any other legally protected class.
Do you like Japanese imports?
more accurate than media matters or MSNBC
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
We've learned from progressives that anytime the results are skewed relative to the the population someone is getting screwed.
I fully expect this divergence to be 100% acceptable to the left because "traditional victims" are coming out ahead and "unprosecuted rapists" are rightfully being denied their privilege.
I am Hispanic guy living in Latin America. Having read Slashdot for ten years, it does not cease to amuse me the fact that most members of the community are very left-wing and their support for left-wing ideas is strong. In spite of being mostly males, mostly straight, mostly bright and mostly whites.
It's like watching Jews cheering Nazism. I don't get it, maybe because you have to be American to understand this self-sabotage.
If "affirmative action" is implemented, who do you think it's going to be the candidate with better qualifications that does not get the job, because there is a woman, a minority or a gay? It's going to be you. (The same with college admissions).
If more civil servants are hired or there is a new program to help "minorities", who is going to pay for them? The woman who is living off welfare and have three kids from different fathers. No, you are going to pay.
If there is a divorce, who is going to lose half his salary and lose his kids forever? The wife? No, you.
Maybe stories like this will awake you. But maybe not. You were brainwashed very well by your teachers and professors since the kindergarten. Now, go back to work and to slave yourselves, that there is a lot of unproductive people to feed.
As I said, it's amusing. American people are strange.
My experience is as follows: the PhD student who did a very similar thesis to my own went and gave 1 talk on her work at a conference and at that conference she was all but immediately hired for a tenure track position. She did not win best talk, but she was hired straight out of grad school.
I won best talk. I had no offers and went into postdoc treadmill.
In the post-doc treadmill a competent but by no means exception woman post-doc from Stanford, did nothing but hardware work, no analysis, after a 2 year stint in her first postdoc became a PI.
A woman post-doc at my current home institution was directly hired as a medical physics PI at the same institution. Again, competent but by no means exceptional.
When I applied for a position at my home insitution I was discreetly reminded about how "home insitutions don't generally hire their own".
I have yet to make the shortlist, anywhere, despite working on world-class experiments and having large practical and analysis background.
It is in fact, injustice. If there is enough injustice, there will be a push back.
you are delusional and/or mentally handicapped.
likely both
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So telling someone to suck it up is a valid response now.
If I told women to suck it up that they didn't get a job they were qualified for people would jump down my thought to call me a misogynist. Grow up you aren't special and you should be judged based upon your ability to perform, not what sex or skin color you are.
The "system" has been discriminating against women for a long, long time. So now people are doing something about it and assholes like you get in the way and play the victim.
Well fuck you, and fuck your attitude.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
This sexism is founded in gender quotas. If you have, statistically, half as many female applicants as male but require an even mix, you get double the chance of being hired. Girls are 3x as likely as boys to get accepted to MIT because 1/3 as many apply and there's a gender quota. Why does everyone assume that women and men must work and act the same way to have equality? Men and women are different. Women, on average, are better at multitasking and empathizing. Men, on average, are better at spatial visualization and heavy lifting. That means women make better nurses, *on average*, and men make better sculptors, *on average. * Heaven forbid people whose brains and bodies work differently prefer to work in different industries!
Let's focus on acceptance and equal pay instead of obsessing over erasing biological differences between genders.
lol personal attacks vs. evidence... theres a winner drywolf....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
this is good news. is it unfair, probably, but life is unfair so suck it up. Its good for STEM women, which there is not a lot of.
Maybe this will increase the amount of women in STEM companies, schools, etc.
It will level out eventually.
And come on, a lof ot people get jobs through networks and different angles.
This is a good thing, wrapped in a unfair coating
If you see two equal candidates in terms of technical credentials but you know one can bring a perspective you perceive to be weakly represented in the field I don't find it unexpected that people might reach for that rare candidate. We are not told what the female census was of these institutions nor what the typical application profile looks like. Sorry I can't get all torn up over this - if we see the same thing once there is some balance in the ranks and all capable girls have role models to encourage them to pursue these fields if they have the talent and inclination to try I will change my view.
give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
Any social group for which that is true is, de-facto, not in need of affirmative action.
Frank Herbert had an interesting turn of phrase for your analogy: "Justice belongs to those who claim it, but let the claimant beware lest he create new injustice by his claim and thus set the bloody pendulum of revenge into its inexorable motion"
Or, if you still need everything oversimplified so you can understand it - the cops in Ferguson.
This is part of the advantage of market economies. Google et al. will pay lip service to diversity and might tip the scales just a little, but, when push comes to shove, they will hire people who perform, no matter what gender/skin color they are. If they don't, MS and Apple will eat them alive, because they ARE hiring the most qualified people, and they know this, so they won't discriminate.
I'm not a libertarian, by the way. Far from it. But markets do have a way of shutting bullshit like this down.
Anonymous because I don't want this post to come back to haunt me some day, even though it damn well shouldn't.
The reason is quite clear, yet your whitewashed mind doesn't see it: Jews will take money from anyone regardless of sex, color, or creed.
The radical feminist agenda continues apace in academia - it's natural spawning ground. The west is coasting - such glorious things we once achieved, but now we are given over to decadence.
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cre...
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cur...
Yes and this "system" was created by fear mongering feminists telling women that they would be discriminated against because of their gender. This all seems to coincide with the Sex Wars that began in the 80s, which statistics shows a steady decline in females enrolled in CS. Please tell me how a gender studies degree also makes a person qualified to talk about the struggles in the IT industry? If these people wanted more representation in a field they should have gone through a CS degree program instead of gender studies.
Reword the statement and it would be obvious discrimination if it were any other way.
"male candidates are passed over 2 to 1 over women for tenure-track positions in the science, technology, engineering and math fields."
Tell me, for any any other field and any other groups would this every fly without an uproar?
-50 years ago if a minority Doctor came to treat me in an Emergency Room, I'd not have minded - after all that person must have had what it takes to get where he was, so OK.
-It's a long way from there to today's world where we're picking even University Professors for their minority status.
I'm not proud of many the aspects of this country that my generation created while we were in the driver's seat. The lower standards we forced on folks to achieve a racially/sexually balanced professional class are certainly one the mistakes made on my watch.
Sorry kids. Hope you can do better.
Tenure track is the best way to squeeze the bejeezus out of a faculty member, and constitutes a promise that is much easier to break with a woman than with a man. Plus even if the woman gets tenured at long last, you still can pay her 78 cents in the dollar. And if you don't keep your promise and discard her after 4-7 years of back-breaking work, it's not like you lied to a human being, so everything is chill.
Now let's look at the actual TENURE statistics shall we?
Expressing any opinion in support of "affirmative action" is trolling, apparently. Now I don't mind if you disagree with me, it's a thorny subject and is definitely wide open for debate, but modding me as a troll is just not cricket. I'm all discussed-out on the actual issue elsewhere, I'm just talking about abuse of moderation here. Hopefuly it gets fixed in meta, but I've not seen the option to metamod for years, is it still even a thing?
Research (e.g. among companies in Norway, after Norway introduced its women in the boardroom-policies) indicates that boardroom diversity increases company revenue. It could be that the faculties want to address existing gender imbalance to improve their functioning as a group. In that case, an equally qualified candidate is more valuable to the faculty if they belong to a statistically underrepresented group.
Maybe you should learn what factoid means.
You are a professor of dumb-assery.