5 ms·

> We spend billions of dollars training women in STEM. By not making full use of their skills, if we look at only the american economy, we are wasting about $1.

by oefrha 7y ago

> We spend billions of dollars training women in STEM. By not making full use of their skills, if we look at only the american economy, we are wasting about $1.5 billion USD per year in economic benefits they would have produced if they stayed in STEM. So here’s a business proposal: ... With all due respect, I don’t understand this call to action. Faculty position is basically a zero sum game. If more women end up as faculty, fewer men will. So, unless it costs more to train women than men, I doubt any “investment” would be saved (and that’s not the point of gender equality anyway). Btw, this maternal wall idea is nothing new. I talked to my mother about gender inequality in hiring many years ago and she was quick to point this out (didn’t call it “maternal wall” though).

pgeorgi 7y ago
> With all due respect, I don’t understand this call to action. Faculty position is basically a zero sum game. If more women end up as faculty, fewer men will. So, unless it costs more to train women than men, I doubt any “investment” would be saved The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. The later calculation is along the lines of "society is pouring so much money both into these positions and into getting-women-into-STEM programs without reaching this supposed goal, so here's a counter-proposal to use this money more wisely" > Btw, this maternal wall idea is nothing new. She's quite upfront that she borrowed the term as well, so the idea can't be new. But it might be time to reiterate that point (as opposed to the popular reduction of the problem to sexism only), and since she did a good job (IMHO) to collect sources...
- allovernow 7y ago
  >The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. An assumption which I have to point out is absolutely not verified. In fact, there are mountains of circumstantial, statistical, and biological evidence to the contrary - which policy makers in the west are increasingly ignoring as they ram gender parity down industry's and academia's collective throats, possibly to the detriment of the institutions and society at large.
  - AlexCoventry 7y ago
    There's no biological evidence to the contrary, and the statistical, circumstantial evidence can all be convincingly explained by the kinds of structural issues raised in the OP.
    - allovernow 7y ago
      Are you sure about that? Consider the following non-inclusive list: 1. Differences in hormonal expression and response affecting behavior and interests, e.g. testosterone and competitiveness (biological) 2. Measured differences in performance in different types of intelligence, e.g. spatial reasoning (statistical) 3. Consistent differences in achievement and specialization between men and women across almost all societies and all of human history (circumstantial) The truth may be inconvenient but the idea that men and women are on average equally suited to all tasks doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
      - AlexCoventry 7y ago
        The studies I've looked at for 1. aren't convincing. If you have any in mind and want to share, I might take a look, because I find the topic mildly interesting. 2. and 3. can be explained by structural issues, as I said. It's not really a question of the distribution of capabilities in men and women today which interests me the most, but the potential malleability of those capabilities given the right social structures, because if there's a way to bring a larger fraction of the population into STEM work, we'll have a much more creative and prosperous society.
      - deyouz 7y ago
        If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were suggesting is that men are better than women at STEM. Simplg saying men have more testosterone doesn't cut it as evidence. (Besides, competitiveness doesn't make you a better researcher or employee, and can even be harmful in a team). I also need data for the number 2 in that list. At what are men better at than women by a significant ammount? And how does that thing relates to STEM? And number 3 doesn't prove absolutely anything. Women were subjugated throught history and basically no opportunity to do anything. Even with their limited possibilities, you still have women like Hatshepsut, Ada Lovelace, Marie Currie, Sappho, Ann Lister, Hypathia of Alexandria, etc. And now that they are finally allowed in higher education they outperfom men in terms of degree gained. So there is clearly not something that holds them back from studying. If they have the ability to get a PhD, then they can also be good researchers. Simple as that. If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM), I want clear examples. Thanks.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. Aptitude can be exactly equal and aiming at equality can still be a poor choice if men and women are different. Among medical school graduates women are more likely never to practice, to work part time, to retire early and less likely to work past retirement age. If working more hours leads to more productivity and we value productivity rewarding productivity makes sense.
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    The article argues about roles in academia and how women drop out during/after PhD programs. If your goal is to maximize the number of hours worked in the medical profession, you should optimize for that _much_ earlier in the pipeline because all those post-PhD women who then move into part time work already took away precious college resources from those hard working men who are more likely to work past retirement age (if they don't die of a heart attack long before reaching that still-working-at-80 panacea). (may contain traces of sarcasm)
AlexCoventry 7y ago
I think the idea is to keep the rules of the competition basically the same, but make it feasible for more people to compete. The same number of winners might result, but hopefully they'll be more talented, because they're selected from a larger pool of competitors.
asdff 7y ago
faculty positions are not the only path in stem

by oefrha 7y ago

pgeorgi 7y ago

> With all due respect, I don’t understand this call to action. Faculty position is basically a zero sum game. If more women end up as faculty, fewer men will. So, unless it costs more to train women than men, I doubt any “investment” would be saved The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. The later calculation is along the lines of "society is pouring so much money both into these positions and into getting-women-into-STEM programs without reaching this supposed goal, so here's a counter-proposal to use this money more wisely" > Btw, this maternal wall idea is nothing new. She's quite upfront that she borrowed the term as well, so the idea can't be new. But it might be time to reiterate that point (as opposed to the popular reduction of the problem to sexism only), and since she did a good job (IMHO) to collect sources...

allovernow 7y ago
>The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. An assumption which I have to point out is absolutely not verified. In fact, there are mountains of circumstantial, statistical, and biological evidence to the contrary - which policy makers in the west are increasingly ignoring as they ram gender parity down industry's and academia's collective throats, possibly to the detriment of the institutions and society at large.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  There's no biological evidence to the contrary, and the statistical, circumstantial evidence can all be convincingly explained by the kinds of structural issues raised in the OP.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    Are you sure about that? Consider the following non-inclusive list: 1. Differences in hormonal expression and response affecting behavior and interests, e.g. testosterone and competitiveness (biological) 2. Measured differences in performance in different types of intelligence, e.g. spatial reasoning (statistical) 3. Consistent differences in achievement and specialization between men and women across almost all societies and all of human history (circumstantial) The truth may be inconvenient but the idea that men and women are on average equally suited to all tasks doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
    - AlexCoventry 7y ago
      The studies I've looked at for 1. aren't convincing. If you have any in mind and want to share, I might take a look, because I find the topic mildly interesting. 2. and 3. can be explained by structural issues, as I said. It's not really a question of the distribution of capabilities in men and women today which interests me the most, but the potential malleability of those capabilities given the right social structures, because if there's a way to bring a larger fraction of the population into STEM work, we'll have a much more creative and prosperous society.
    - deyouz 7y ago
      If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were suggesting is that men are better than women at STEM. Simplg saying men have more testosterone doesn't cut it as evidence. (Besides, competitiveness doesn't make you a better researcher or employee, and can even be harmful in a team). I also need data for the number 2 in that list. At what are men better at than women by a significant ammount? And how does that thing relates to STEM? And number 3 doesn't prove absolutely anything. Women were subjugated throught history and basically no opportunity to do anything. Even with their limited possibilities, you still have women like Hatshepsut, Ada Lovelace, Marie Currie, Sappho, Ann Lister, Hypathia of Alexandria, etc. And now that they are finally allowed in higher education they outperfom men in terms of degree gained. So there is clearly not something that holds them back from studying. If they have the ability to get a PhD, then they can also be good researchers. Simple as that. If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM), I want clear examples. Thanks.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. Aptitude can be exactly equal and aiming at equality can still be a poor choice if men and women are different. Among medical school graduates women are more likely never to practice, to work part time, to retire early and less likely to work past retirement age. If working more hours leads to more productivity and we value productivity rewarding productivity makes sense.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  The article argues about roles in academia and how women drop out during/after PhD programs. If your goal is to maximize the number of hours worked in the medical profession, you should optimize for that _much_ earlier in the pipeline because all those post-PhD women who then move into part time work already took away precious college resources from those hard working men who are more likely to work past retirement age (if they don't die of a heart attack long before reaching that still-working-at-80 panacea). (may contain traces of sarcasm)

AlexCoventry 7y ago

I think the idea is to keep the rules of the competition basically the same, but make it feasible for more people to compete. The same number of winners might result, but hopefully they'll be more talented, because they're selected from a larger pool of competitors.

asdff 7y ago

faculty positions are not the only path in stem