Female AP here. « Economics Job Market Rumors

1 year - 295 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 1604 Goods vs 625 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Economics » Econ Lounge

Female AP here.

Economist
4ab6

I'm going to assume from your response that you are well below the median, and thus not underplaced. If you've wasted your privilege, and are not successful, that's 100% your fault. Sorry, breh.

BE GRATEFUL FOR ANY DRIPPINGS GIVEN YOU BY "THOSE WHO RUN THE PROFESSION"
I’m confused. Who runs the profession?
Do you think it’s women?
Your state of delusion is exceptional and complete. How a white man in america can feel like a victim is still amazing to me.

It is run by a bunch of white knights so far above the median that AA will never hurt them.
By your unassailable logic, man should be overjoyed to be underplaced due to structural discrimination. Congratulations

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
e7b0

Seriously? Please enlighten me what role your private parts play in physics experiments.

Sex hormones affect brain development. Brain plays an important part in the conduct of physics and science in general.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
27c9

So you believe women are dumber than men? Then why haven’t you succeeded yet? It must be all the anti male discrimination holding you back. Or, possibly, you’re just stupid.

Seriously? Please enlighten me what role your private parts play in physics experiments.

Sex hormones affect brain development. Brain plays an important part in the conduct of physics and science in general.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 5 No Jab !
Economist
f4de

I want to add that if we as a profession (a) claim to admit and hire on merit alone but actually (b) conduct active discrimination, it is not just a bunch of white men who lose. Our whole reputation suffers. The public will start to suspect us of being ideological liers. The reputation of academia as a whole is declining rapidly exactly because of things like these, and a few fields have become complete jokes. We can decide to follow them, but we should realize that our whole existence and funding depends ultimately on the good-will of the public.

1 year ago # QUOTE 9 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
e7b0

So you believe women are dumber than men? Then why haven’t you succeeded yet? It must be all the anti male discrimination holding you back. Or, possibly, you’re just stupid.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing (or trying to discuss) facts, I don't see what my personal considerations (assuming you can guess them on some anonymous board) can possibly have to do with this.

I don't believe that women are dumber than men, on average (some studies show a difference of a few IQ points, but it's negligible). However men's IQ distributions, and generally many physical and cognitive traits, have more variance. So at the right of the curve, where top physicists lie, you absolutely have way more men than women.

That also explains why men have largely, if not almost entirely exclusively, been responsible for virtually every invention, discovery, art masterpiece, etc.

1 year ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 2 No Jab !
Economist
f2fe

I'm going to assume from your response that you are well below the median, and thus not underplaced. If you've wasted your privilege, and are not successful, that's 100% your fault. Sorry, breh.

BE GRATEFUL FOR ANY DRIPPINGS GIVEN YOU BY "THOSE WHO RUN THE PROFESSION"
I’m confused. Who runs the profession?
Do you think it’s women?
Your state of delusion is exceptional and complete. How a white man in america can feel like a victim is still amazing to me.

It is run by a bunch of white knights so far above the median that AA will never hurt them.
By your unassailable logic, man should be overjoyed to be underplaced due to structural discrimination. Congratulations

Way to change the subject, clear sign you know you're wrong

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
b206

please check your snivelege, OP.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4fa9

Which is why I resent white men. It stems from the observation that hiring is not based exclusively on competence.

You are wrong . There would be exactly the same resentment. The resentment stems from the observation that hiring is not based exclusively on competence.

A big part of the resentment against the female hiring preference in academia is who it mostly benefits: privileged, wealthy white women. If there was more socioeconomic diversity in who benefitted from these policies, there would be less resentment. But as is, it is mostly people from the same social classes that already dominate and control the profession who get the advantages. From the standpoint of the lower social classes, these policies look like another way to exclude them from positions of wealth or power despite their abilities or potential.

That is your opinion and there are no quotas favouring men at the moment . You can resent as much as you want , it will not change reality

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4fa9

Yes

I want to add that if we as a profession (a) claim to admit and hire on merit alone but actually (b) conduct active discrimination, it is not just a bunch of white men who lose. Our whole reputation suffers. The public will start to suspect us of being ideological liers. The reputation of academia as a whole is declining rapidly exactly because of things like these, and a few fields have become complete jokes. We can decide to follow them, but we should realize that our whole existence and funding depends ultimately on the good-will of the public.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
22fa

So you believe women are dumber than men? Then why haven’t you succeeded yet? It must be all the anti male discrimination holding you back. Or, possibly, you’re just stupid.

Seriously? Please enlighten me what role your private parts play in physics experiments.

Sex hormones affect brain development. Brain plays an important part in the conduct of physics and science in general.

A woman discovered what the universe was made of. Pretty major, I'd say.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4f2d

OP here.

I'm curious whether you consider either of these anecdotes "quotas":
1) The university administration offers the department funding to fly out an additional candidate, who must be female.
2) The interview candidates are split between males and females. The flyout candidates are 100% female.

There is a semantic can of worms. A poster earlier defined "quota" as any policy that considers gender. That seems like a broader definition of quota than most people use. That was my point.

He also used it to rebut my point that not all universities that consider gender when hiring are using quotas. I am not sure how to engage with the argument if terms are defined that way. My point was clear to anyone not playing semantic games.

^OP, what are you talking about. Columbia explicitly considered only women five years ago and this year too. I know for a fact that NYU did the same this year. Harvard three years ago in IO. Booth this year, one of their department was explicitly told to hire only women. I think you are well intentioned overall and I am sorry to read that you are struggling, but calling this "a wide range of ways to approach gender in hiring" instead of an explicit quota is just to make you feel better.

How does that prove your point? I said different schools have different policies and you name a couple schools that have policies you don't like. That seems entirely orthogonal.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing (or trying to discuss) facts, I don't see what my personal considerations (assuming you can guess them on some anonymous board) can possibly have to do with this.
I don't believe that women are dumber than men, on average (some studies show a difference of a few IQ points, but it's negligible). However men's IQ distributions, and generally many physical and cognitive traits, have more variance. So at the right of the curve, where top physicists lie, you absolutely have way more men than women.
That also explains why men have largely, if not almost entirely exclusively, been responsible for virtually every invention, discovery, art masterpiece, etc.

For this argument to have any bearing on the discussion, there must be an assertion that being a faculty member in the field of economics requires intelligence so far above average that a potential difference in the extreme tails makes a difference.

This seems pretty absurd, especially outside of a very few top institutions.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 5 No Jab !
Economist
48b8

Nice try OP
I never defined quota as you say I did .
I said “discriminatory hiring practice that have the same effect as quotas “
I guess it is case closed on your good faith

OP here.

I'm curious whether you consider either of these anecdotes "quotas":
1) The university administration offers the department funding to fly out an additional candidate, who must be female.
2) The interview candidates are split between males and females. The flyout candidates are 100% female.

There is a semantic can of worms. A poster earlier defined "quota" as any policy that considers gender. That seems like a broader definition of quota than most people use. That was my point.
He also used it to rebut my point that not all universities that consider gender when hiring are using quotas. I am not sure how to engage with the argument if terms are defined that way. My point was clear to anyone not playing semantic games.

^OP, what are you talking about. Columbia explicitly considered only women five years ago and this year too. I know for a fact that NYU did the same this year. Harvard three years ago in IO. Booth this year, one of their department was explicitly told to hire only women. I think you are well intentioned overall and I am sorry to read that you are struggling, but calling this "a wide range of ways to approach gender in hiring" instead of an explicit quota is just to make you feel better.

How does that prove your point? I said different schools have different policies and you name a couple schools that have policies you don't like. That seems entirely orthogonal.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing (or trying to discuss) facts, I don't see what my personal considerations (assuming you can guess them on some anonymous board) can possibly have to do with this.
I don't believe that women are dumber than men, on average (some studies show a difference of a few IQ points, but it's negligible). However men's IQ distributions, and generally many physical and cognitive traits, have more variance. So at the right of the curve, where top physicists lie, you absolutely have way more men than women.
That also explains why men have largely, if not almost entirely exclusively, been responsible for virtually every invention, discovery, art masterpiece, etc.

For this argument to have any bearing on the discussion, there must be an assertion that being a faculty member in the field of economics requires intelligence so far above average that a potential difference in the extreme tails makes a difference.
This seems pretty absurd, especially outside of a very few top institutions.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
9da3

Hold onto your head, hold on to your heart

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
48b8

From all of the text below , all OP inferred was “I was using an alternative definition of quota “ and “ playing semantic games “

Clearly OP you are in bad faith. Not sure what your goal isn’t with this thread since obviously you’re not trying to have a constructive dialogue .

OP here. I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, although I wouldn't take it as far as you would.
As you say, there is certainly room for discussion about what role gender should play in hiring. It is definitely possible to make points in a way that is not widely perceived as sexist. Although I do see you point that as a man, you may feel like you are walking on eggshells a little bit.
But you are implying a monolith in two ways that are not true. Firstly, you and others use the word "quota" a lot. That is a misleading way of describing most hiring policies. There are a wide range of ways to approach gender in hiring. Most of them would require a stretch to be called quotas.
Also you portray "women" as a monolith. There is a range of views expressed publicly and privately by women about what the best way of approaching gender in the profession should be.

OP –
I do not agree that “it is definitely possible to make points in a way that is not widely perceived as sexist”. I would say instead that the burden of proof has been inverted. By this I mean that a mean speaking is considered sexist until he proven otherwise.
I also do not agree on the statement that “there is room for discussion about what role gender should play in hiring”. I do not think there should be any role for gender in hiring. There should be only room for competence, in any form it comes. Hiring should only be based on competence, and not on the group identity of the candidate. All candidates should be treated equally as individuals. More on this below.
I would like to discuss the two “monoliths”, starting from the last one. I have read back some (maybe not all) the contributions I gave to this thread and the only instances in which I used the word women is either in a sentence such as “the good competent women” or such as “more women than men” and so forth. Both these instances are factual. I did not attribute any specific characteristic or thoughts to women in general (If I did please point it to me and I will elaborate). This seemed to me a bit of a rhetorical device to try and diminish the contents of what I am saying.
Going to the second monolith, the issue about using the word “quotas”. Well, I agree (or should I say: “I do not disagree? “…) from a legal/formal point of view that the set of all the hiring practices we are considering are not technically all quotas. However, besides this merely formal caveat, the substance and the effect that these policy have on the final outcome is the same as quotas.
What are quotas? Let f/m be the ratio of female to male AP resulting from the hypothetical hiring process without the discrimination based on gender. Then a quota is a policy that alters this f/m ratio.
All the policies that have the above effect are equivalent to quotas. More broadly, we can define the hiring practices we are seeing these latest years as “Hiring practices that discriminate based on gender”. Note that here the use of the word “to discriminate” is voluntary and the word is used in its original, neutral meaning of “to differentiate”. But again, this is just a matter of labelling, as the substance is that if a hiring policy looks at gender and based on this observation implements something eventually resulting in a different f/m ratio.
This point is important because you seem to conflate (either voluntarily or involuntarily) two very distinct type of policies under the same general umbrella of “ways to approach gender in hiring”.
To be clear: there is on...See full post

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
1488

^^ wrong. The point of distributional differences is that toward the top there are more men than women. It’s true that this difference would be more pronounced at top institutions, but even MRM or LRM economics professors would be pretty far above average IQ and so the distributions differences would likely be material.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
797c

For this argument to have any bearing on the discussion, there must be an assertion that being a faculty member in the field of economics requires intelligence so far above average that a potential difference in the extreme tails makes a difference.
This seems pretty absurd, especially outside of a very few top institutions.

Op at which pcntile of distribution you expect to see a difference from a higher variance? <2% of population has PhD in us.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4f2d

Nice try OP
I never defined quota as you say I did

OP here. I am really sorry if I misunderstood your point. I am trying my best to act in good faith. Please let me know if there is anything I can reasonably do to restore that for you.

Here is what you said:

All the policies that have the above effect are equivalent to quotas.

I was trying to say that I was concerned about the use of the word "quota" as misleading. It is being applied to lots of policies that most people wouldn't describe as quotas. And "quotas" is a particularly inflammatory word.

And my impression was that there was a dodge being made around that point, by people saying "any policy that addresses gender is basically a quota".

So that is what I meant by that comment. Again, I am sorry if you took it in a way it wasn't intended.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4f2d

For this argument to have any bearing on the discussion, there must be an assertion that being a faculty member in the field of economics requires intelligence so far above average that a potential difference in the extreme tails makes a difference.
This seems pretty absurd, especially outside of a very few top institutions.
Op at which pcntile of distribution you expect to see a difference from a higher variance? <2% of population has PhD in us.

OP here. I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

Mathematically/hypothetically speaking, the difference could occur anywhere.

Statistically speaking, according to most studies it is somewhere between the 99.99th and 99.999th percentiles where there is some evidence that there are statistically significantly more men than women.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4f2d

From all of the text below , all OP inferred was “I was using an alternative definition of quota “ and “ playing semantic games “
Clearly OP you are in bad faith. Not sure what your goal isn’t with this thread since obviously you’re not trying to have a constructive dialogue .

OP here. Again, I am so sorry for offending you. I am in the middle of typing a response to your post. I promise you I am trying to act in good faith.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
4f2d

I also do not agree on the statement that “there is room for discussion about what role gender should play in hiring”. I do not think there should be any role for gender in hiring. There should be only room for competence, in any form it comes. Hiring should only be based on competence, and not on the group identity of the candidate. All candidates should be treated equally as individuals. More on this below.

I am not sure what you mean by saying that there is no room for discussion. You have a view that gender should play no role. Others have the view that there should be some attempt to bring women into the profession. So we know there is a disagreement. So in what sense is that disagreement not allowed?

I would like to discuss the two “monoliths”, starting from the last one. I have read back some (maybe not all) the contributions I gave to this thread and the only instances in which I used the word women is either in a sentence such as “the good competent women” or such as “more women than men” and so forth. Both these instances are factual. I did not attribute any specific characteristic or thoughts to women in general (If I did please point it to me and I will elaborate). This seemed to me a bit of a rhetorical device to try and diminish the contents of what I am saying.

Ok. I didn't say you said anything. This is an anonymous board, so I can't see who is posting.

To be clear: there is only one right way to approach gender in hiring, and that is to ignore gender.
I think you conflate the following two groups of hiring policies:
1) Policies that make an effort to increase representation of women (and/or of minorities)
2) Policies that aim at ensuring every candidate is treated equally and fairly.
I am all for (2), number (2) must happen and I strongly support it. However, number (1) is distortive and also it is not based on any rationale besides political ideas. When you conflate (1) and (2) in the general wording “ways to approach gender in hiring” you are basically lending some of the reasonableness of (2) onto (1). You are obfuscating the differences. And the fact you pointed out at the use of quotas means exactly this. If you believe that some of the policies are not distortive but rather are an expression of aim (2), please state which ones you are thinking about.

Again, you say "to be clear, there is only one right way to approach gender". I am honestly struggling with how best to respond to that. Many people disagree with how you want to approach gender. I disagree with how you want to approach gender. So you seem to be using as a starting point that I am wrong.

So what am I supposed to do with that? I am not trying to be dismissive, I honestly don't know how to productively engage.

Now you understand that – clearly – any hiring practice that discriminates based on gender (by which I mean any policy that needs to use the gender information at any stage) will lead to a change in the f/m ratio. As a consequence, the average quality of the female researcher (or the minority researcher) will be lower. This information will be internalized by the observers, which then will change their a-prior beliefs in terms of quality of a given researcher. Eventually, good competent women (and minorities) will signal as such and will be respected. However, this will be harder than it would be in the absence of quotas. If you think this is unfair, then please ask yourself if it is fair instead to conflate aims (1) and (2) above.
I am pretty sure you understand the mechanics above. And yet you did not make any step towards improving the situation, nor taken a clear stand against policies that discriminate on the basis of gender. Once again I note that this is a responsibility of all of us.

Again, I am confused about w...See full post

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

« Previous 1…121314 15 Next »

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

Female AP here.

Reply »