Our EEO office will review our interview list and flyout choices. If these are not diverse enough, they will require us to add more women and minorities. If we cannot, they will veto the hire.
Gender biases in finance labor market
-
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
Also the bias perpetuates more bias. If a school needs to make an offer to a worse candidate in order to get a woman, and schools have strong incentives to hire females, the quality difference between hired men and women just gets larger and larger.
-
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.You should be against the lying. Good job.
You should also be against the policy. Work on that.
How about we judge job candidates based on their qualifications instead of plumbing or skin color?
That is outside the box thinking.
-
This is dumb. I know many people who have strong preferences for specific schools due to location, family, etc. There aren't that many positions.
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.
-
unrelated: I really want to be a professional basketball player. Tall, athletic, talented people have been taking these jobs since FOREVER ago.
Why can't I just play backup point guard for the Lakers? Or even the Clippers? I want it just as bad as they do, and I will try the best I can. I'm actually a pretty good shooter.
Come to think of it, why can't I just have whatever I want by virtue of simply wanting it?
-
This statement is indeed profoundly dumb. Even to marginally change the gender ratio at one department, it is often necessary to heavily discriminate against (young) male candidates. When virtually all universities do it at the same time, a market that was hard to start with becomes brutal for male candidates. That is, new cohorts of men who had nothing to do with past sexism pay a heavy price for the alleged sins of older men, who remain comfortable in their positions and pay no price whatsoever. But sure, keep on making fun of struggling young men who end up discriminated against and sometimes unemployed because of this perverse and immoral policy...
This is dumb. I know many people who have strong preferences for specific schools due to location, family, etc. There aren't that many positions.
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.
-
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
I don´t really think this will be an issue. In almost any Master´s program in finance the top students are 50/50 male/female. The problem is that out of those top students, most men then go for the finance PhD, while only 1 in 10 women do. So it is not an issue of accepting weaker females into PhDs, but getting the other 9/10 top class females to go for the finance PhD. And the main reason those 9/10 females give for not applying for finance PhD program is.....finance academia is too male dominated! Funny that.
-
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
I don´t really think this will be an issue. In almost any Master´s program in finance the top students are 50/50 male/female.
This is just flat out not true
-
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
I don´t really think this will be an issue. In almost any Master´s program in finance the top students are 50/50 male/female.
This is just flat out not true
Men make up 90% of finance departments. Are they 9x better at finance than women?
-
Do you even study economics? Don’t you know analysis should be on margin and level doesn’t mean anything? LRMs are just stupid.
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
I don´t really think this will be an issue. In almost any Master´s program in finance the top students are 50/50 male/female.
This is just flat out not true
Men make up 90% of finance departments. Are they 9x better at finance than women?
-
You are missing the point. In fact, I believe the profession should promote female candidates. At the end of the day, there are more important things in the society than academia. What I don’t like is using false arguments to support a correct movement.
^ so you can provide an explanation of why the majority of finance department do not have a single female faculty on tenure track, that does not include bias in the explanation? I would love to see this model.
-
^ so you can provide an explanation of why the majority of finance department do not have a single female faculty on tenure track, that does not include bias in the explanation? I would love to see this model.
When I was a PhD student, we basically had one female student every 6 years. As in when I entered, one had graduated, there was one a year ahead, and when I graduated, one entered.
-
When I was a PhD student, we basically had one female student every 6 years. As in when I entered, one had graduated, there was one a year ahead, and when I graduated, one entered.
and how many women are in the Master courses you teach? In the ones I teach, the ratio is really close to 50-50, and there among the top students an almost even split as well.
-
^ so you can provide an explanation of why the majority of finance department do not have a single female faculty on tenure track, that does not include bias in the explanation? I would love to see this model.
The gender bias also has other implications. One is that it will be optimal for PhD programs to admit weaker female students as women's expected job market success is better.
I don´t really think this will be an issue. In almost any Master´s program in finance the top students are 50/50 male/female. The problem is that out of those top students, most men then go for the finance PhD, while only 1 in 10 women do. So it is not an issue of accepting weaker females into PhDs, but getting the other 9/10 top class females to go for the finance PhD. And the main reason those 9/10 females give for not applying for finance PhD program is.....finance academia is too male dominated! Funny that.
Finance being male dominated is potentially a reason, but it certainly isn't the main reason....
1) Spending 6 years in a PhD and then another 6 going up for tenure makes it very hard to have kids or get married for a women, less so for a man.
2) Having limited geographic flexibility (including moving to a PhD program, moving for first job to a random city, then moving when you fail tenure) is much harder for women than men due to social norms.
3) Men are more interested in "things" and less interested in "people" (e.g. women score higher on measures of empathy). Smart women are more likely to pursue careers that involve helping people (e.g. become doctors).
4) Men care about money more than women. Thus, cetrius paribus, we would expect a highly paid profession researching boring stuff to be more male dominated.
5) Most finance PhDs are international students and international students are mostly male.
6) Women are more risk averse. Pursuing a finance PhD with the aim of getting tenure is a very risky bet, compared to, say, medical school.
-
6) Women are more risk averse. Pursuing a finance PhD with the aim of getting tenure is a very risky bet, compared to, say, medical school.
Please provide scientific evidence for this statement.
Agree with all the other points. But why would moving around be against social norms for a woman but not for a man? Just don't get it.
-
I think that it is worse in finance than in economics. I am in economics but I know students who went on finance market the previous cycle. Three Asians, two men and one woman. Woman is a much weaker candidate, not even close to her classmates. She ends up at a top 50, one guy is at a top 150, another guy is in the industry. am a woman and just hate this. you can not possibly support this policy and meritocracy at the same time, or say that this policy only serves as a tie-breaker for cases on the margin.