5 ms·

Deep-seated bias, not lack of confidence, knocks women off the path to success

10 points by sinak 12y ago

dang 12y ago
A dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649815.
minikites 12y ago
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who pays attention to the struggle of women and minorities.
nucleardog 12y ago
The research and article only state it knocks them off the path to professorship - not success or positions at fortune 500 companies. > It also questions whether it’s women’s general lack of self-confidence that explains why just 23 of the chief executive officers of the Fortune 500 companies are women or why only about one of every six of executives in these companies is a woman, as reported by the non-profit group Catalyst. The research and article as written do not support the assertion of the title, unless you define 'success' only as 'getting into a PhD program'.
ameister14 12y ago
This is pretty interesting, though I've always felt that the 'fortune 500 ceo' gap isn't nearly as illustrative of current rates of discrimination as other metrics, for the simple reason that most fortune 500 ceo's are 45-60 years old and so started their careers from 1975-1991. Academic discrimination makes sense to me as a source of major issues, though, and in the startup world there're definitely issues with VCs and Angels. You've got a situation where individuals have immense control with little oversight. We've put in place a lot of checks and balances in the corporate world (though that's not done), but I don't believe it's there for advanced academics as yet.
jmromer 12y ago
Sometimes discrimination is rational. That doesn't "excuse it", nor is it necessarily so in this case, but I rarely see anyone go through the trouble of ruling it out. Which is a pity, because greater cognizance of that fact might provide a stronger impetus for more robust interventions than a mere (nowadays de facto) quota. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/books/25book.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/books/25book.html

10 points by sinak 12y ago

dang 12y ago

A dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649815.

minikites 12y ago

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who pays attention to the struggle of women and minorities.

nucleardog 12y ago

The research and article only state it knocks them off the path to professorship - not success or positions at fortune 500 companies. > It also questions whether it’s women’s general lack of self-confidence that explains why just 23 of the chief executive officers of the Fortune 500 companies are women or why only about one of every six of executives in these companies is a woman, as reported by the non-profit group Catalyst. The research and article as written do not support the assertion of the title, unless you define 'success' only as 'getting into a PhD program'.

ameister14 12y ago

This is pretty interesting, though I've always felt that the 'fortune 500 ceo' gap isn't nearly as illustrative of current rates of discrimination as other metrics, for the simple reason that most fortune 500 ceo's are 45-60 years old and so started their careers from 1975-1991. Academic discrimination makes sense to me as a source of major issues, though, and in the startup world there're definitely issues with VCs and Angels. You've got a situation where individuals have immense control with little oversight. We've put in place a lot of checks and balances in the corporate world (though that's not done), but I don't believe it's there for advanced academics as yet.

jmromer 12y ago

Sometimes discrimination is rational. That doesn't "excuse it", nor is it necessarily so in this case, but I rarely see anyone go through the trouble of ruling it out. Which is a pity, because greater cognizance of that fact might provide a stronger impetus for more robust interventions than a mere (nowadays de facto) quota. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/books/25book.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/books/25book.html