And they are both completely wrong and useless. There is no rationale nor evidence that we need to aim at a 50:50 split in this or any ither profession.
^ we shouldn’t make things personal.
The concept of quota is wrong , period.Micro 101: with perfect information on supply and demand subsidies and quotas are equivalent instruments. The difference only occurs with uncertainty, in which case either one can dominate the other depending on the source of the uncertainty,
I think this was posted by Andrew Langan since he also has the reidiculous idea that there is no quality difference within PhD cohorts
I am genuinely surprised how economists can not deal and accept a second-best solution (gender quotas), because the first-best (no discrimination) is not attainable.
There is ample evidence of different treatment women face throughout their careers. It causes distortions. Those should be addressed, and addressing them in a zero sum setting (hiring) means that someone will pay the price. Here, some able male graduates.
But the fundamental issue here is that you can not fix it without harming anyone, because it is a zero sum. It is sad, and I am sorry for the men who got a worse outcome. And, I am certain that women were hired based on merit, because there is such excess supply of graduates that there is no cost to hiring departments - and no bad signal about women's quality (think about correcting for the abilities of those who survived to graduate who are on average better than their male peers, and think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none). Yes, the cost is borne by some competing men and that's unfortunate but also inevitable.
Do you oppose taxation? Some people are net payers, others net recipients, but society is better as a whole.
^ come on, any serious school would ignore publications in Eurosian Economic Review or whatever it is if 50c8 was honest, there can't be any other reason than gender. Anyone with a PhD and a serious advisor wouldn't let their students publish in those journals, so your argument about letters/research doesn't make sense.
Again, anyone with a serious approach to teaching/education wouldn't publish at those journals either. So your argument for teaching doesn't make sense.
I completely disagree. It is completely invalid to look at two people on the market and say that because female A did better than male B and male B had better publications, it was gender bias.
Noone with any experience with the job market would take that single data point seriously.
For one thing, there are tons of cases where a male does better than a male with a worse publication record or a female does better than a female with a better publication record. That's how things work. The market is not based purely on publication record and gender. And it is very noisy even considering all the things it is based on.
A systematic analysis showing that a female outperforming a male with a worse publication record was more common than a male outperforming a female with a worse publication record would be evidence.
But a single data point is meaningless. And is such a silly argument that I am forced to conclude that anyone taking it seriously either has very little understanding of the job market or is not arguing in good faith.
^ come on, any serious school would ignore publications in Eurosian Economic Review or whatever it is if 50c8 was honest, there can't be any other reason than gender. Anyone with a PhD and a serious advisor wouldn't let their students publish in those journals, so your argument about letters/research doesn't make sense.
Again, anyone with a serious approach to teaching/education wouldn't publish at those journals either. So your argument for teaching doesn't make sense.I completely disagree. It is completely invalid to look at two people on the market and say that because female A did better than male B and male B had better publications, it was gender bias.
Noone with any experience with the job market would take that single data point seriously.
For one thing, there are tons of cases where a male does better than a male with a worse publication record or a female does better than a female with a better publication record. That's how things work. The market is not based purely on publication record and gender. And it is very noisy even considering all the things it is based on.
A systematic analysis showing that a female outperforming a male with a worse publication record was more common than a male outperforming a female with a worse publication record would be evidence.
But a single data point is meaningless. And is such a silly argument that I am forced to conclude that anyone taking it seriously either has very little understanding of the job market or is not arguing in good faith.
Agreed.
I believe there is a mild to moderate bias in favor of women on the job market. I believe this because A) my school and my colleagues at many schools complain about the strong pressure they face to hire women and B) female professors publish less conditional on placement (see any of the several studies on this, albeit they propose a different channel).
With that said, you can't say person X was hired due to her gender. There are lots of reasons a school might go for candidate A over candidate B which are unobservable to outsiders. Attainability, research area, connection to adviser, letters, interactions at conferences, etc. It's also a dick move to single someone out like that.
I agree -
While there is clearly discrimination in favour of women , we should not look at individual cases as there’s simply not sufficient information and does more bad than good.
We should held ourselves to high standards because only with the honest truth we can win this battle vs the idiotic PC propaganda
^ come on, any serious school would ignore publications in Eurosian Economic Review or whatever it is if 50c8 was honest, there can't be any other reason than gender. Anyone with a PhD and a serious advisor wouldn't let their students publish in those journals, so your argument about letters/research doesn't make sense.
Again, anyone with a serious approach to teaching/education wouldn't publish at those journals either. So your argument for teaching doesn't make sense.I completely disagree. It is completely invalid to look at two people on the market and say that because female A did better than male B and male B had better publications, it was gender bias.
Noone with any experience with the job market would take that single data point seriously.
For one thing, there are tons of cases where a male does better than a male with a worse publication record or a female does better than a female with a better publication record. That's how things work. The market is not based purely on publication record and gender. And it is very noisy even considering all the things it is based on.
A systematic analysis showing that a female outperforming a male with a worse publication record was more common than a male outperforming a female with a worse publication record would be evidence.
But a single data point is meaningless. And is such a silly argument that I am forced to conclude that anyone taking it seriously either has very little understanding of the job market or is not arguing in good faith.Agreed.
I believe there is a mild to moderate bias in favor of women on the job market. I believe this because A) my school and my colleagues at many schools complain about the strong pressure they face to hire women and B) female professors publish less conditional on placement (see any of the several studies on this, albeit they propose a different channel).
With that said, you can't say person X was hired due to her gender. There are lots of reasons a school might go for candidate A over candidate B which are unobservable to outsiders. Attainability, research area, connection to adviser, letters, interactions at conferences, etc. It's also a dick move to single someone out like that.
100% this. Beat the narrative with quality evidence.
I completely disagree. It is completely invalid to look at two people on the market and say that because female A did better than male B and male B had better publications, it was gender bias.
Noone with any experience with the job market would take that single data point seriously.
"think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none"
Right. Those in a cohort who place at Princeton are really no better at research than their cohort-mates who get VAP positions at South Kazakhstan State University or post-docs at the Ilmenau University of Technology.
I am genuinely surprised how economists can not deal and accept a second-best solution (gender quotas), because the first-best (no discrimination) is not attainable.
There is ample evidence of different treatment women face throughout their careers. It causes distortions. Those should be addressed, and addressing them in a zero sum setting (hiring) means that someone will pay the price. Here, some able male graduates.
But the fundamental issue here is that you can not fix it without harming anyone, because it is a zero sum. It is sad, and I am sorry for the men who got a worse outcome. And, I am certain that women were hired based on merit, because there is such excess supply of graduates that there is no cost to hiring departments - and no bad signal about women's quality (think about correcting for the abilities of those who survived to graduate who are on average better than their male peers, and think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none). Yes, the cost is borne by some competing men and that's unfortunate but also inevitable.
Do you oppose taxation? Some people are net payers, others net recipients, but society is better as a whole.
... we should not look at individual casesI think specific cases are the best way to address this. In front of a court.
</blockquote
If you mean having proof that HR/deans have mishandled hiring and suing them yes I agree with you .
But just pointing at one case an make inference with no information does not help.
As I said we need to be truthful and fight the nonsense strongly but appropriately .
Remember guys: ATHENA SWAN = Gender bias in hiring
Exactly. Here is an example of a “successful project” from their website :
Department: Primary Care Health Sciences (Oxford)
Target: Academic staff
Details of activity:
The department wanted to present itself as more attractive to potential female candidates to increase the number of women at senior level (Clinical and Non-Clinical) applying for advertised positions.
The underlying goal was to provide role models to current staff and create a more encouraging environment for women to progress in their careers.
A sub-committee was set up to assist in the recruitment of all senior and clinical academic posts by identifying those with the qualifications and skills required, and then approaching these potential female candidates.
Outcomes:
The sub-committee identified potential female candidates applying for senior positions, resulting in the appointment of a female chair.
The department notes that it was successful in attracting applications from women for senior appointments, resulting in the promotion of seven researchers in 2013.
"think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none"
Right. Those in a cohort who place at Princeton are really no better at research than their cohort-mates who get VAP positions at South Kazakhstan State University or post-docs at the Ilmenau University of Technology.I am genuinely surprised how economists can not deal and accept a second-best solution (gender quotas), because the first-best (no discrimination) is not attainable.
There is ample evidence of different treatment women face throughout their careers. It causes distortions. Those should be addressed, and addressing them in a zero sum setting (hiring) means that someone will pay the price. Here, some able male graduates.
But the fundamental issue here is that you can not fix it without harming anyone, because it is a zero sum. It is sad, and I am sorry for the men who got a worse outcome. And, I am certain that women were hired based on merit, because there is such excess supply of graduates that there is no cost to hiring departments - and no bad signal about women's quality (think about correcting for the abilities of those who survived to graduate who are on average better than their male peers, and think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none). Yes, the cost is borne by some competing men and that's unfortunate but also inevitable.
Do you oppose taxation? Some people are net payers, others net recipients, but society is better as a whole.
I agree and disagree.
There are certainly differences in competence between PhD candidates. But I think it gets greatly exaggerated. I have been in the game for a couple decades, and here is my conclusion.
There are a very small number of quite brilliant economists. I would say a decent chunk (but by no means all) of faculty at VHRM institutions fall into this category, and then a smattering at other top 20-30 institutions. I am certainly not in the category, and when I speak to them it strikes me that they are operating at a higher level than me. They have a depth, breadth, and speed of understanding that is beyond me.
Some other PhDs aren't really up to it. They don't have the creativity, understanding, practical sense, or intelligence to do research that has any value. When I talk to them, they are operating at a lower level than me. I don't have a great sense what proportion they are, because they usually don't make into academia, wash out very quickly, or manage to toil in anonymity.
The rest of us, who form the lion's share of active researchers, are not all that different from each other. Certainly some are a little better than others, but a lot of the difference in output comes down to luck, opportunity, pressure/motivation, and work ethic. We are all fairly smart people and are capable of doing research of some interest, but probably not capable of doing a lot of world changing research.
"think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none"
Right. Those in a cohort who place at Princeton are really no better at research than their cohort-mates who get VAP positions at South Kazakhstan State University or post-docs at the Ilmenau University of Technology.I am genuinely surprised how economists can not deal and accept a second-best solution (gender quotas), because the first-best (no discrimination) is not attainable.
There is ample evidence of different treatment women face throughout their careers. It causes distortions. Those should be addressed, and addressing them in a zero sum setting (hiring) means that someone will pay the price. Here, some able male graduates.
But the fundamental issue here is that you can not fix it without harming anyone, because it is a zero sum. It is sad, and I am sorry for the men who got a worse outcome. And, I am certain that women were hired based on merit, because there is such excess supply of graduates that there is no cost to hiring departments - and no bad signal about women's quality (think about correcting for the abilities of those who survived to graduate who are on average better than their male peers, and think about how little difference there is between people in a phd cohort so that "competence" differences are small to none). Yes, the cost is borne by some competing men and that's unfortunate but also inevitable.
Do you oppose taxation? Some people are net payers, others net recipients, but society is better as a whole.I agree and disagree.
There are certainly differences in competence between PhD candidates. But I think it gets greatly exaggerated. I have been in the game for a couple decades, and here is my conclusion.
There are a very small number of quite brilliant economists. I would say a decent chunk (but by no means all) of faculty at VHRM institutions fall into this category, and then a smattering at other top 20-30 institutions. I am certainly not in the category, and when I speak to them it strikes me that they are operating at a higher level than me. They have a depth, breadth, and speed of understanding that is beyond me.
Some other PhDs aren't really up to it. They don't have the creativity, understanding, practical sense, or intelligence to do research that has any value. When I talk to them, they are operating at a lower level than me. I don't have a great sense what proportion they are, because they usually don't make into academia, wash out very quickly, or manage to toil in anonymity.
The rest of us, who form the lion's share of active researchers, are not all that different from each other. Certainly some are a little better than others, but a lot of the difference in output comes down to luck, opportunity, pressure/motivation, and work ethic. We are all fairly smart people and are capable of doing research of some interest, but probably not capable of doing a lot of world changing research.
Yes but the difference in output does not comes down to gender .
I agree.
but then the gender gap evidence is often shown by comparing male and female with some observable characteristics such as qualifications, publications, ... but not any thing to do with letters,
again, for that case, and many others that I know of, the quality of the female hires is definitely worse, come on guys, publishing in eurisian economic review and got a jon at UEA? ridiculous.
I agree -
While there is clearly discrimination in favour of women , we should not look at individual cases as there’s simply not sufficient information and does more bad than good.
We should held ourselves to high standards because only with the honest truth we can win this battle vs the idiotic PC propaganda^ come on, any serious school would ignore publications in Eurosian Economic Review or whatever it is if 50c8 was honest, there can't be any other reason than gender. Anyone with a PhD and a serious advisor wouldn't let their students publish in those journals, so your argument about letters/research doesn't make sense.
Again, anyone with a serious approach to teaching/education wouldn't publish at those journals either. So your argument for teaching doesn't make sense.I completely disagree. It is completely invalid to look at two people on the market and say that because female A did better than male B and male B had better publications, it was gender bias.
Noone with any experience with the job market would take that single data point seriously.
For one thing, there are tons of cases where a male does better than a male with a worse publication record or a female does better than a female with a better publication record. That's how things work. The market is not based purely on publication record and gender. And it is very noisy even considering all the things it is based on.
A systematic analysis showing that a female outperforming a male with a worse publication record was more common than a male outperforming a female with a worse publication record would be evidence.
But a single data point is meaningless. And is such a silly argument that I am forced to conclude that anyone taking it seriously either has very little understanding of the job market or is not arguing in good faith.Agreed.
I believe there is a mild to moderate bias in favor of women on the job market. I believe this because A) my school and my colleagues at many schools complain about the strong pressure they face to hire women and B) female professors publish less conditional on placement (see any of the several studies on this, albeit they propose a different channel).
With that said, you can't say person X was hired due to her gender. There are lots of reasons a school might go for candidate A over candidate B which are unobservable to outsiders. Attainability, research area, connection to adviser, letters, interactions at conferences, etc. It's also a dick move to single someone out like that.