3 ms·
I gather you are claiming that there is sexism but in the other direction? I disagree, strongly. "female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply fo
by learnstats2 12y ago
I gather you are claiming that there is sexism but in the other direction?
I disagree, strongly.
"female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired"
These two statements are strongly connected. Women with equivalent qualifications are not applying for the same jobs that men are.
I suggest this is because female candidates are self-selecting themselves out of positions they are less suitable for, but equivalent male candidates are applying anyway.
As such, male candidates must be selected out by the hiring committee instead (where they will contribute even more to these statistics by applying elsewhere).
It's not evident to me that women are being treated equally here, even leaving aside their disadvantage from historical sexist practices.
- okasaki 12y agoNo, the applicants in the study had the same qualifications.
- pervycreeper 12y agoFrom the paper: > In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). The effect you are proposing, even if true, does not apply to the result in the article.
- learnstats2 12y agoYes, it still applies. If I know that women are typically more realistic in assessing their own skills (including skills outside of qualifications), and given no access to other information or investigation, I should prefer to hire the woman who looks the same on paper. I believe this to be an objective argument based in probability theory.
- pervycreeper 12y agoWhich would be bias. You have merely given a justification for that bias.
- learnstats2 12y agoI understand why you think that but I don't agree. I made a clear argument that there was no bias here - this is a sensible, rational practice on the part of employers. Besides, this is "news" for a reason - nobody would be shocked if the result was in the other direction, because that would be normal and expected in a lot of society. There should be more examples like this, in this direction, because it represents a minimal counterbalance to all the thousands of advantages that men have in STEM/skilled jobs.
- pervycreeper 12y ago>There should be more examples like this, in this direction, because it represents a minimal counterbalance to all the thousands of advantages that men have in STEM/skilled jobs. "Yes, it's bias, but it's for a good cause!"