Not everyone who took SAT goes into econ. How is the statistics of any relevance
Female AP here.
-
OP never answer to this.
She never even said once what her opinion was about what is acceptable as a hiring policy discrimonating on the basis of gender
She never agreed with anybody . At the maximum she “did not disagree”On the other hand she showed us that :
1. She thinks gender must play a role in hiring
2. She is been in hiring panels for a long time gelding this view
3. She does inderstand that even if some policies are not strictly speaking formally quotas , they are the same thing as quota in terms of effects.Once OP was without arguments ,what did she do ?
She opened another thread saying how bad the men where in this one .Nice try OP
I never defined quota as you say I didOP 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.OP do you think I used the work quotas in a misleading sense in what reported above ? Do you agree or not that some other policies have the same effect of quotas ? Please straight and motivated answers would be appreciated
-
To the extent that “positive” discrimination exists in terms of placement, publication, or tenure decisions, your (Bayesian) colleagues will rightly be skeptical of your accomplishments.
Your best weapon against this is to make sure you (or anyone else) do not give unfair advantages to female economists solely based upon their gender.
Hold everyone to the same high standards and only then can we know accomplishments are equally well earned.Are there any serious accusations that there is a pro-female bias in publications?
If you don't have any reason to believe it, then you are a good illustration of what bothers me. You are taking a huge leap from "sometimes women get a hiring advantage", a reasonably defensible point, to "women don't deserve anything they get".
Put another way, you argue that in what you want is for each economist to be treated on their individual merits instead of a class of people they are in. Fair enough, a laudable goal. But how can you turn around and say it is "rational" for you to judge me based on my gender instead of my individual merits? How is that consistent at all?There aren’t. But do there isn’t evidence to the contrary ie. that women are discriminated against in the publishing game. And yet, I know of at least three teams with top people trying to show that there is as hard as they can.
The problem is not women - it is the broader climate we are in that will be detrimental to the field as a whole