5 ms·

As a side note: I have recently come over a university which promised a gender equality in "all our science degrees", which it explained as an "admission of 50%

by krn 8y ago

As a side note: I have recently come over a university which promised a gender equality in "all our science degrees", which it explained as an "admission of 50% males, 50% females". But how can it be a "gender equality", if 80% of the applicants are males?

NotAnEconomist 8y ago
They don't mean "equality" as in "treating people the same regardless of their gender, sex, race, etc" -- they mean "equality" as in "we're going to use increasing levels of force to coerce society to ignore any variation between people, and make every facet of society a paint-by-numbers picture regardless of individual preferences".
esarbe 8y ago
Well, this is about "equality in outcome", which is deeply flawed if you aim for a meritocratic approach. In the situation you describe, there can only be equality in outcome if you heavily discriminate against men.
int_19h 8y ago
Was it in advertising or other official materials? If so, could you reference them?
- krn 8y ago
  It was one of the universities in Germany, but I cannot find the source now. I was primarily reading material on the postgraduate studies. As a semi-reference, this Spegiel article[1] explains how important the perception of gender equality has become in German academia in recent years. [1] http://spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/potsdam-university-removes-masculine-generic-from-official-documents-a-909696.html http://spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/potsdam-university...
OJFord 8y ago
Equality vs equity: http://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png http://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/I... (Equity being what some here are referring to as 'equality in outcome'.) In this image, it's hard to argue that equity isn't clearly better. In other cases like admissions, it's much more debatable, and personally I think equality ('in opportunity') makes more sense there.

by krn 8y ago

NotAnEconomist 8y ago

They don't mean "equality" as in "treating people the same regardless of their gender, sex, race, etc" -- they mean "equality" as in "we're going to use increasing levels of force to coerce society to ignore any variation between people, and make every facet of society a paint-by-numbers picture regardless of individual preferences".

esarbe 8y ago

Well, this is about "equality in outcome", which is deeply flawed if you aim for a meritocratic approach. In the situation you describe, there can only be equality in outcome if you heavily discriminate against men.

int_19h 8y ago

Was it in advertising or other official materials? If so, could you reference them?

krn 8y ago
It was one of the universities in Germany, but I cannot find the source now. I was primarily reading material on the postgraduate studies. As a semi-reference, this Spegiel article[1] explains how important the perception of gender equality has become in German academia in recent years. [1] http://spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/potsdam-university-removes-masculine-generic-from-official-documents-a-909696.html http://spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/potsdam-university...

OJFord 8y ago

Equality vs equity: http://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png http://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/I... (Equity being what some here are referring to as 'equality in outcome'.) In this image, it's hard to argue that equity isn't clearly better. In other cases like admissions, it's much more debatable, and personally I think equality ('in opportunity') makes more sense there.