You’re part of the problem, “fostering diversity” or merit, choose one
I do believe that we need to foster diversity in the field, but not at the cost of discriminating against young scholars who are not responsible for how the field….Why am I being excluded from working for or even presenting at the ECB based on my gender?
Unfortunately OP, I think you are screw ed. The pendulum will eventually swing back but only after the incompetence of the DEI hires is gradually exposed. That will take years, if not decades, more slowly in huge bureaucracies like the ECB. Private sector is your best bet. Things are bad there too but at least you have the market providing some discipline.
If you are saying that you're quality of work is the same as your female counterpart, i.e both hit top field journals, then your research potential look the same to these organizations, except if they choose a W, they win diversity points.
Get it?
-azn bro who understands that getting the same SAT score actually means getting a worse SAT score
I do believe that we need to foster diversity in the field, but not at the cost of discriminating
So how do you suggest we "foster diversity"? If we want a higher share of women, there will be fewer men. So we can discriminate against them at the end of the PhD, or at the beginning of the PhD, or at the tenure decisions. Or a combination of all three, which is the current situation.
I guess this process might create a dilemma (joint with me_too). Males will be more likely to work with males. This will probably lower female output. Unless journals also favour articles written by females. Just a possible scenario.
JOURNALS ARE FAVOURING WOMEN ALREADY.
Diversity should be fostered at the very beginning of the education cycle. The optimal scenario is having a 50% of the pool of applicants to PhDs for each gender. Until then, any decision should be made such that to keep the same share of applicants (i.e., if 40% of PhD/job applications are female ones, then around 40% of female should get into the PhD7be hired)
Diversity should be fostered at the very beginning of the education cycle. The optimal scenario is having a 50% of the pool of applicants to PhDs for each gender. Until then, any decision should be made such that to keep the same share of applicants (i.e., if 40% of PhD/job applications are female ones, then around 40% of female should get into the PhD7be hired)
Total BULLSH/*IT
Diversity should be fostered at the very beginning of the education cycle. The optimal scenario is having a 50% of the pool of applicants to PhDs for each gender. Until then, any decision should be made such that to keep the same share of applicants (i.e., if 40% of PhD/job applications are female ones, then around 40% of female should get into the PhD7be hired)
Would you force women to go into certain fields if there weren't enough female applicants?
yeah I also know that at the ECB the situation is terrible. I do agree with OP though, in theory there should be female participation, but the bottleneck is much earlier in the career than at PhD stage. It is just hypocritical to impose quotas at later stage, it is a cosmetic solution and it is beneficial to whom had already all the opportunities
yeah I also know that at the ECB the situation is terrible. I do agree with OP though, in theory there should be female participation, but the bottleneck is much earlier in the career than at PhD stage. It is just hypocritical to impose quotas at later stage, it is a cosmetic solution and it is beneficial to whom had already all the opportunities
If you think this through, it's a regress until the day the person is born. There is always some prior selection effect due to poor opportunities imposed by bad parents, poor household, being born in the wrong neighbourhood etc. Ghetto kids and other trash are influenced by everything around them. If you want to create equality, you need to take all kids away and grow them under equal conditions. But even then genetic differences rob people of chances and it's unfair. Fixing things later just creates additional inequality.
This problem has been going on for a little over a decade now (maybe more in the US, not sure). If you speak out about it, you put your career in jeopardy. I'm 15 years out and still find that it's too dangerous for me to speak out about what I see everyday at my top 10 European department.
At my institution I have been explicitly told that if the female candidate "isn't that much worse" then we should hire her.
I've also sat through serious conversations about the weight we should put on the fact that the bad candidate "needs" the poSItion, whereas the good candidate "will be fine" if we don't give them the offer.Lil do they not even think hard enough about what would happen if everyone else is making the same calculation?
We are talking about virtually every prestigious institution chasing ~15% of the US population who get college degrees at half the rate of whites. Of course they do not understand general equilibrium.
Look at
- top journal new associate editor appointments
- appointments to NBER and CEPR
- PhD admissions
- new assistant professor hires, especially at top schools
Compare female and male professors. Draw conclusions.
MIT sorts PhD applications by race and gender. Half of the slots go to men and half go to women, although men outnumber women by 3x in the application pool. I am sure they're not alone either.
With that information alone, there's nothing to be outraged about. What we need to know if what are the average GRE scores, GPAs, and undergraduate college ranks of male applicants vs women. After all, it's not inconceivable that male applicants are more optimistic about their chances.
(Anecdotally, while I don't know about men vs women, I find that the average American applicant reaches during application way more than internationals. You'll have a pile of international resumes with IMOs side by side with a pile of University of Alabama 2.5 GPAs)
MIT sorts PhD applications by race and gender. Half of the slots go to men and half go to women, although men outnumber women by 3x in the application pool. I am sure they're not alone either.