Demand side here. Last time we were on the job market, the women we interviewed had on average about two times as many interviews than men (we asked). The quality of the best interviews was also far better for the women. We did not notice any significant average quality differences between the men and women we interviewed. The market hasn't always been like this. Just a few years ago, we did not notice any significant difference between the number of interviews by male and female candidates.
Gender biases in finance labor market
-
averages are useless here.
Demand side here. Last time we were on the job market, the women we interviewed had on average about two times as many interviews than men (we asked). The quality of the best interviews was also far better for the women. We did not notice any significant average quality differences between the men and women we interviewed. The market hasn't always been like this. Just a few years ago, we did not notice any significant difference between the number of interviews by male and female candidates.
-
Yes it is true. But mostly at the margin. If candidate A has a top 3, and candidate B has none, then candidate A obviously gets the interview regardless of gender. However, if neither candidate has a clear signal of quality, then the female candidate gets the interview (Based on years of doing searches).
This really depends on the school... In some cases (for example, at Columbia GSB) just being female is worth a lot. Other schools it's a marginal push. The politics of your school and how hard the dean is pushing matter a lot.
-
I'm a four year PhD student.
Is it true that a female candidate is more likely to be interviewed because some schools limit their search (implicitly) to female candidates only?Yes, at least in Australia. Once overheard an AP at a leading uni here telling that her PhD advisor told her to explicitly declare her gender on CV because "it will help her". Adecnotal evidence, though.
-
Is that your Brainfaert? Worth a lot? Like a million bucks?
Yes it is true. But mostly at the margin. If candidate A has a top 3, and candidate B has none, then candidate A obviously gets the interview regardless of gender. However, if neither candidate has a clear signal of quality, then the female candidate gets the interview (Based on years of doing searches).
This really depends on the school... In some cases (for example, at Columbia GSB) just being female is worth a lot. Other schools it's a marginal push. The politics of your school and how hard the dean is pushing matter a lot.
-
Oh no!!!! Finance departments might go from 10% female to 11%. Oh god. What do I do? It’s not my fault I was born male. Why does the world want to take me from 90% to 89%. Noooooo. It’s so unfair. The departments with no female faculty have a dean (probably an AA female) who thinks it’s crazy that more female students are going into financial careers but there are few female faculty. Why do the take so much from me?!?!? If our records are the same they should interview me becaue I deserve it and they don’t becaue I’m better than women. Whyyyyyyy?????? Why me? When will the world respect men and have us at the top of corporations, government and academia? It’s only females at the top. That’s what I see. The world is run by women. We can’t give them anything else.
-
You sound just as unhinged as the people you're parodying. Relax a bit folks, the only thing you can control in this life is yourself.
Oh no!!!! Finance departments might go from 10% female to 11%. Oh god. What do I do? It’s not my fault I was born male. Why does the world want to take me from 90% to 89%. Noooooo. It’s so unfair. The departments with no female faculty have a dean (probably an AA female) who thinks it’s crazy that more female students are going into financial careers but there are few female faculty. Why do the take so much from me?!?!? If our records are the same they should interview me becaue I deserve it and they don’t becaue I’m better than women. Whyyyyyyy?????? Why me? When will the world respect men and have us at the top of corporations, government and academia? It’s only females at the top. That’s what I see. The world is run by women. We can’t give them anything else.
-
par·o·dy
ˈperədē
noun
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.Ding. Ding. You just defined parody. You’re smart!
You sound just as unhinged as the people you're parodying. Relax a bit folks, the only thing you can control in this life is yourself.
Oh no!!!! Finance departments might go from 10% female to 11%. Oh god. What do I do? It’s not my fault I was born male. Why does the world want to take me from 90% to 89%. Noooooo. It’s so unfair. The departments with no female faculty have a dean (probably an AA female) who thinks it’s crazy that more female students are going into financial careers but there are few female faculty. Why do the take so much from me?!?!? If our records are the same they should interview me becaue I deserve it and they don’t becaue I’m better than women. Whyyyyyyy?????? Why me? When will the world respect men and have us at the top of corporations, government and academia? It’s only females at the top. That’s what I see. The world is run by women. We can’t give them anything else.
-
Yes it is true. But mostly at the margin. If candidate A has a top 3, and candidate B has none, then candidate A obviously gets the interview regardless of gender. However, if neither candidate has a clear signal of quality, then the female candidate gets the interview (Based on years of doing searches).
A top 3 vs. none is not marginal.
-
par·o·dy
ˈperədē
noun
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
Ding. Ding. You just defined parody. You’re smart!You sound just as unhinged as the people you're parodying. Relax a bit folks, the only thing you can control in this life is yourself.
Oh no!!!! Finance departments might go from 10% female to 11%. Oh god. What do I do? ... It’s only females at the top. That’s what I see. The world is run by women. We can’t give them anything else.
Your "parody" was just stupid.
If you want to support preferential treatment based on race or sex, just say so and justify it.
-
Yes it is true. But mostly at the margin. If candidate A has a top 3, and candidate B has none, then candidate A obviously gets the interview regardless of gender. However, if neither candidate has a clear signal of quality, then the female candidate gets the interview (Based on years of doing searches).
A top 3 vs. none is not marginal.
"Neither candidate has a clear signal of quality" is marginal.
-
Gender doesn't influence our first round interviews. It influences our fly-outs at the margin.
Gender has the biggest influence on first round interviews at many schools. It's low cost to add women and makes discussions with deans or diversity bureaucrats easier.
EG: You come up with a list of interviews based on merit, using gender as a tie breaker. After doing that, you remove 3 men and replace them with women. You do a similar thing with flyouts.
I'm not against this policy. I'm against people lying about what happens and how much of an impact it has.