Just see Glenn Lourys model of affirmative action and the self perpetuation of negative stereotypes.
Female AP here.
-
Rightly or wrongly, most male APs think that hiring is biased toward women. The best response to this is to publish papers. Almost everyone thinks the publication process isn't gender biased - if you publish papers, people will respect you. It has the added benefit of getting you tenure.
Additionally, just because you got a small edge in a competition doesn't mean you don't deserve the prize. White people are held to lower standards than Asians in hiring. Do white people not deserve their jobs? Likable people are held to lower standards in hiring. Do likable people not deserve their jobs? etc.Agreed. It is when things cross over into "women get all the advantages" that I get bothered.
I don't particularly want to litigate the hiring debate. It's been done in another thread. There are tons of reasonable grounds to criticize the hiring process from all kinds of perspectives.
I would just urge people who have a particular gripe to keep two things in mind. Firstly, keep it in proportion. Secondly, don't extend your objection beyond where it can reasonably go.
-
>Certain AER editors have admitted to going easier on female submissions. That was my basis for the publication bias comment.
yeah I don't know anything beyond this re: review process. but the real issue is jobs. the same level of talent will publish better at a better institution for so many reasons: resources, networks, prominence, leading to seminar invites, conference acceptances, editors taking notice of your paper, etc.
the last straw for me was when a top 20 school said that I would not be interviewed for the position but might have been if I were URM or female. I have it in writing. is it bad? yes. illegal? who knows. do I want to toss my career and become a fox news puppet to fight it? hell no. but I bristle at the notion that I'm overreacting.
you want to fight something really inequitable, let's get rid of so-called "childcare leave for men." this is almost universally exploited by guys who pinky-swear that they will take care of the kid but then work on their papers during the free sabbatical. I've seen so many guys do this, many of them chuckling about how they get away with it. clock extensions should be for BIRTHING a child, not fathering one.
-
People having a serious debate... and then this.
Just see Glenn Lourys model of affirmative action and the self perpetuation of negative stereotypes.
You realize that just because something is the rational response doesn't mean it is also the ethical one, right?
THis is like saying. "Incentives exist. But I don't like them. So lets pretend they don't."
-
This is exactly what I would write. Just way better written. I’ll send you my papers for editing now!
Rational agents undo any bias. You cannot buy your own trophies.
Yes I have serious evidence of people hiring, promoting, co authoring with women because of their gender...
Sorry, I know that there is absolutely NOTHING worse than being an actual winner but at the same time being part of some “identity” correctly favored by quotas. Ask any successful black person what they think about that.How do the various studies showing discrimination against females fit into this view?
The general tenor of the board seems to have become that any study that shows anti-female bias is flawed and should be discounted to 0. And that any piece of evidence of anti-male bias should be extrapolated as far as it can go.
>Certain AER editors have admitted to going easier on female submissions. That was my basis for the publication bias comment.
yeah I don't know anything beyond this re: review process. but the real issue is jobs. the same level of talent will publish better at a better institution for so many reasons: resources, networks, prominence, leading to seminar invites, conference acceptances, editors taking notice of your paper, etc.
the last straw for me was when a top 20 school said that I would not be interviewed for the position but might have been if I were URM or female. I have it in writing. is it bad? yes. illegal? who knows. do I want to toss my career and become a fox news puppet to fight it? hell no. but I bristle at the notion that I'm overreacting.
you want to fight something really inequitable, let's get rid of so-called "childcare leave for men." this is almost universally exploited by guys who pinky-swear that they will take care of the kid but then work on their papers during the free sabbatical. I've seen so many guys do this, many of them chuckling about how they get away with it. clock extensions should be for BIRTHING a child, not fathering one.I am extremely skeptical of your story that a school told you in writing that you would have been considered if you were female.
I apologize in the event you are telling the truth.
-
This is exactly what I would write. Just way better written. I’ll send you my papers for editing now!
Rational agents undo any bias. You cannot buy your own trophies.
Yes I have serious evidence of people hiring, promoting, co authoring with women because of their gender...
Sorry, I know that there is absolutely NOTHING worse than being an actual winner but at the same time being part of some “identity” correctly favored by quotas. Ask any successful black person what they think about that.How do the various studies showing discrimination against females fit into this view?
The general tenor of the board seems to have become that any study that shows anti-female bias is flawed and should be discounted to 0. And that any piece of evidence of anti-male bias should be extrapolated as far as it can go.>Certain AER editors have admitted to going easier on female submissions. That was my basis for the publication bias comment.
yeah I don't know anything beyond this re: review process. but the real issue is jobs. the same level of talent will publish better at a better institution for so many reasons: resources, networks, prominence, leading to seminar invites, conference acceptances, editors taking notice of your paper, etc.
the last straw for me was when a top 20 school said that I would not be interviewed for the position but might have been if I were URM or female. I have it in writing. is it bad? yes. illegal? who knows. do I want to toss my career and become a fox news puppet to fight it? hell no. but I bristle at the notion that I'm overreacting.
you want to fight something really inequitable, let's get rid of so-called "childcare leave for men." this is almost universally exploited by guys who pinky-swear that they will take care of the kid but then work on their papers during the free sabbatical. I've seen so many guys do this, many of them chuckling about how they get away with it. clock extensions should be for BIRTHING a child, not fathering one.I am extremely skeptical of your story that a school told you in writing that you would have been considered if you were female.
I apologize in the event you are telling the truth.i accept your apology. obviously, I am not going to post the evidence here.
-
In a discussion of child rearing at a conference last year a couple of female faculty told me I should get a vasectomy because my wife had done her turn of doing birth control and now it was my turn.
Imagine what would happen if male faculty told a female professor to get her tubes tied at a conference these days?
-
Can you share some examples of well-identified studies demonstrating anti-female bias in economics?
Below is text I copied from someone else's post on another thread. What happened in that thread is that people found quibbles with each of them.
Without getting into the merits of the quibbles, my point is about the way evidence in favor of an anti-female bias is treated relative to evidence in favor of a pro-female bias.
It seems like there are a lot of posters on the board who weighted the sum total of these papers as zero without reading them because they read a few negative comments about them. But then they take evidence about hiring preferences and run with it as far as they can take it, discrediting any accomplishment of any female economist.
There are gender issues in economics. In multiple directions. I am not calling people sexist if all they are saying is that they don't like gender equity hiring. But there are a lot of really sexist comments that people make following up on that assertion.
Here is the text from the other thread:
- Milkman et al (2013), pretended to be students asking faculty for mentorship or advise meetings, "faculty were significantly more responsive to "white males" than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions"
- Moss-Racusin, et al (2012), faculty rated applicants for RA jobs, "Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. "
- MacNell, Driscoll, Hunt (2015), on-line class evaluations with identical TA, "Students rated the male identity significantly higher than the female identity, regardless of the instructor’s actual gender"
Other quasi-experimental/descriptive work:
- West, Jacquet, King, Correll, and Bergstrom (2013) Economics has *half* the number of female-authored papers than 21 other disciplines that they studied.
- Hengel (2017) referees at Econometrica hold female authors to higher standards (based on grammar etc. of final publication) creating extra work for women and an average 6-month (!!) delay in publishing.
- Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams, (2014), in 2010 female full profs earned 25\% less than male full profs
- Mengel, Sauermann, Zolitz (2017), teaching evals lower for women despite same performance in final exams
- Read page 4 of the AEA report on sexual harassment (www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=6768). Literally, just read it. If you think these are exceptions, that these are not just a fraction of what people experience, you're not talking to the women in your program. This affects any young woman's relationship with an older man, and therefore her chance at a good relationship with e.g. a thesis advisor, letter of recommendation, RA job, advising relationship, mentorship, etc., all of which may *cause* the 1:4 applicant ratio in the first place. -
The debate about what biases exist and don't exist seems to be reopening on this thread.
That wasn't my intention, and I have engaged, so it is partially my fault. I am sorry about that.
So I just want to reiterate that my point is not that you shouldn't raise objections about hiring practices. Just that you shouldn't be a jerk about it when you do.
-
THe biggest concern I've heard from female faculty came after hiring meetings. Some of the female professors asked me if we skipped over male faculty in hiring them due to the strong pressure to hire female from the dean and others in the department. I told them we hired them because they were the best.
-
THe biggest concern I've heard from female faculty came after hiring meetings. Some of the female professors asked me if we skipped over male faculty in hiring them due to the strong pressure to hire female from the dean and others in the department. I told them we hired them because they were the best.
You did the right thing. Telling the truth gets you nothing
-
Can you share some examples of well-identified studies demonstrating anti-female bias in economics?
Below is text I copied from someone else's post on another thread. What happened in that thread is that people found quibbles with each of them.
Without getting into the merits of the quibbles, my point is about the way evidence in favor of an anti-female bias is treated relative to evidence in favor of a pro-female bias.
It seems like there are a lot of posters on the board who weighted the sum total of these papers as zero without reading them because they read a few negative comments about them. But then they take evidence about hiring preferences and run with it as far as they can take it, discrediting any accomplishment of any female economist.
There are gender issues in economics. In multiple directions. I am not calling people sexist if all they are saying is that they don't like gender equity hiring. But there are a lot of really sexist comments that people make following up on that assertion.
Here is the text from the other thread:
- Milkman et al (2013), pretended to be students asking faculty for mentorship or advise meetings, "faculty were significantly more responsive to "white males" than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions"I want to be clear that I believe there are a lot of sexists out there. With that said, the literature on this topic is terrible. You mention Milkman et al (2013):
"Milkman et al (2013), pretended to be students asking faculty for mentorship or advise meetings, "faculty were significantly more responsive to "white males" than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions"
"Based on that, you might think that white women got fewer responses than white men, and that women got fewer responses than men overall.
I'd encourage you to look at their actual data, especially Figure 3.
If you look closely, you can see that women got MORE responses than men and white women got MORE responses than white men. (That is clear when you see women did better than men in public schools in each racial condition, and that public schools are 69% of their sample.)
They buried one of the key facts and wrote the paper in such a way that the casual reader thinks they found discrimination against women.
More than half the papers I've looked into in this area torture the data until it gives the right answer. Because of that, I have no faith in papers that show discrimination against women. (Discrimination against Asians is well established)
I say this DESPITE believing there are lots of sexists in econ and finance.
-
clock extensions should be for BIRTHING a child, not fathering one.
Clock extensions should be for rearing a child, not birthing one.
However, as you point out, one cannot credibly commit to actually taking the year off. We are dubious of such claims by fathers since there is a strong historical tradition of maternal child-rearing, and especially of infants.
-
Female AP here. I know that my department keeps an eye on the gender balance in the department. Whether or not that means I was hired because I'm a women, I don't know. What I do know is that I constantly feel like I need to prove myself (of course this could be a feeling that any AP experiences). It has pushed me to work harder so maybe that's a good thing... I also believe that writing good papers and getting good publications is enough to prove myself. We can always argue whether or not there is a bias in the publication process, I think it is hard to prove either way and so I don't see much use in arguing over it.
Have I been sexual harassed: yes. Do I let it bother me: no. (thought I'd throw that in there to stir the pot a bit)
-
Goodmorning. Glad you woke up to why there are women's groups - it is exactly that. Your next door colleague, your department chair believe deep inside that you are not very good, deserving of a publication, or if you do get a top 5, somebody must have helped you. They may not behave in ways to make this clear at first, but it will come out over the years. Give it couple more years and you will wake up to the sexual harassment too once you realize that it is pretty common.
You got the causal relation wrong . I don’t use to think these things but the recent events are changing this fact
-- Fellow female AP