What percent of JMCs are DEI? 20%?
Don't attribute your JM failure to DEI
-
Demand side here.
It can both be true that (a) URM candidates often receive a bump in hiring and that (b) because the size of this bump is limited in a lot of places and there are a limited number of URM candidates non-URM candidates are still in contention to have a good market.
I can assure you from experience that both of these statements are very true. Threads where people go back and forth saying "(a) is true", "no (b) is true", "no (a) is true" are really pointless.
The post I agree with most is this:
Amazing how many mouth-breathers in this “Econ” forum assume a single-dimensional quality index and then claim any outcome not obeying their assumptions must be inefficient.
No wonder you don’t have jobs.So much goes on under the hood of job searches. If you have ever been on the demand side you will know it is very common to have two faculty members look at the talk, paper, and CV of candidates of the same race and gender and rank them completely differently.
It is also common for departments, particularly lower ranked departments, to intentionally choose a candidate who they believe has less pure research ability (which seems to be what people mean when they talk about "quality"). Reasons for this include teaching, field fit, ability to do research with more limited time/budget, likelihood of taking an offer and then staying at the school, etc. DEI could go in here as well, but it is just one of many possible reasons.
My main point with this is that there seems to be a perception that "DEI" is what prevents the job market from being a near perfect meritocracy based on some universally agreed upon definition of research ability. That perception is quite wrong. If we somehow imposed true colorblind and genderblind hiring, the market would still be very fickle.
-
Demand side here.
It can both be true that (a) URM candidates often receive a bump in hiring and that (b) because the size of this bump is limited in a lot of places and there are a limited number of URM candidates non-URM candidates are still in contention to have a good market.
I can assure you from experience that both of these statements are very true. Threads where people go back and forth saying "(a) is true", "no (b) is true", "no (a) is true" are really pointless.
The post I agree with most is this:Amazing how many mouth-breathers in this “Econ” forum assume a single-dimensional quality index and then claim any outcome not obeying their assumptions must be inefficient.
No wonder you don’t have jobs.So much goes on under the hood of job searches. If you have ever been on the demand side you will know it is very common to have two faculty members look at the talk, paper, and CV of candidates of the same race and gender and rank them completely differently.
It is also common for departments, particularly lower ranked departments, to intentionally choose a candidate who they believe has less pure research ability (which seems to be what people mean when they talk about "quality"). Reasons for this include teaching, field fit, ability to do research with more limited time/budget, likelihood of taking an offer and then staying at the school, etc. DEI could go in here as well, but it is just one of many possible reasons.
My main point with this is that there seems to be a perception that "DEI" is what prevents the job market from being a near perfect meritocracy based on some universally agreed upon definition of research ability. That perception is quite wrong. If we somehow imposed true colorblind and genderblind hiring, the market would still be very fickle.Yes, it wasn't a perfect market before DEI became so prevalent. That does not, however, mean that we have to tolerate it, or that it does not have a significant impact on the allocation of talent.
-
I have been on our search committees he last three years at our VLRM. For the previous 2-3 cycles, it was understood that we could not hire unless it fulfilled DEI. There was much internal debate whether our top job candidates could achieve our tenure standards. Still, all of the half dozen or so candidates we offered jobs to took jobs at better schools, some MRMs. They are likely better judges of ability than we are but they also could have their own DEI requirement.
The next cycle, HR explicitly said we need not make a DEI hire. We interviewed URM candidates but our final flyout candidates were not. We believe any one of them would have accepted and that our tenure standard is attainable for any one of them.
-
I have been on our search committees he last three years at our VLRM. For the previous 2-3 cycles, it was understood that we could not hire unless it fulfilled DEI. There was much internal debate whether our top job candidates could achieve our tenure standards. Still, all of the half dozen or so candidates we offered jobs to took jobs at better schools, some MRMs. They are likely better judges of ability than we are but they also could have their own DEI requirement.
The next cycle, HR explicitly said we need not make a DEI hire. We interviewed URM candidates but our final flyout candidates were not. We believe any one of them would have accepted and that our tenure standard is attainable for any one of them.VLRM demand here as well. We have a somewhat similar story, except that our "DEI" requirement imposed from above seemed a little gentler. More like "all else being equal, hire a URM".
The past few years, we have narrowed down our final two choices to a URM and a white or Asian candidate. In pretty much every case, the two candidates were similar on paper and in person. Solid for a school in our ranking, but not budding superstars. In each case, the admin said "both of those seem great. Why don't we make an offer to the URM candidate first, and if they say no, move on to the other." In each case, the URM candidate turned us down for a much higher ranked place. In each case the non-URM candidate either said yes or turned us down in what seemed like a close call with a similar school.
-
Don’t be bitter Zhang
This
DEI will need to exist as long as places like EJMR have trash comments about women and minorities showing the prevalence of rac/ism and se/x/ism. So maybe once you guys get rid of your prejudice, we can make some progress.
You seem dvmb
-
Indeed. Whenever I have my doubts about DEI because they sound like ideological lunatic rent seekers, I need only come here to remind myself that the people they are reacting against are even worse.
This
DEI will need to exist as long as places like EJMR have trash comments about women and minorities showing the prevalence of rac/ism and se/x/ism. So maybe once you guys get rid of your prejudice, we can make some progress.
-
My department hired two years ago. First offer went to a whyte mLe. He turned us down. Second offer went to a female. Two candidates were below the bar.
One of the below the bar candidates told his cohort he lost the job because of DEI. Now apparently he’s posting on here. So a message to you: it wasn’t DEI. Your talk was terr//ible.Interesting that you wasted two flyouts on folks below the bar. Your hiring strategy is terr//ible.
-
Indeed. Whenever I have my doubts about DEI because they sound like ideological lunatic rent seekers, I need only come here to remind myself that the people they are reacting against are even worse.
This
DEI will need to exist as long as places like EJMR have trash comments about women and minorities showing the prevalence of rac/ism and se/x/ism. So maybe once you guys get rid of your prejudice, we can make some progress.
I'd 100% support reparations or UBI to increase equality of opportunity, but I think the culture war stuff at every last possible social interface aggravates people, is objectively inefficient from a social welfare perspective, and is probably a losing political strategy too.