Department: In the past 5 years we have listed 6 positions and HIRED 4 MEN AND 2 WOMEN
That data can't reject H0: Equal probability of being hired between men and women.
In fact, that doesn't tell us anything beyond rejecting that P(hiring|gender) isn't in (0,1)
Just saying.
met with the associate dean at my top 10 finance dept. they other day and she intimated only offers will be made to women because of the current faculty ratio.is it possible, maybe, just maybe, that the current faculty ratio is low because women have been discriminated against for literally decades? and that current efforts are not trying to give women an advantage, but to simply *address* the *disadvantage* that women face? there is *so much* evidence that this is the case. if you're going to argue that it isn't, and if you're too scared to actually and ask and listen to your colleagues/classmates, at least read/watch the horror stories that yellen, athey, bertrand, and other top economists have shared of the *decades* of discrimination that they've put up with at their 2019 ASSA panel.
these policies are not designed to give women an advantage. they are designed to *address* existing *disadvantages*. this is not rocket science.
what are the existing disadvantages?
met with the associate dean at my top 10 finance dept. they other day and she intimated only offers will be made to women because of the current faculty ratio.is it possible, maybe, just maybe, that the current faculty ratio is low because women have been discriminated against for literally decades? and that current efforts are not trying to give women an advantage, but to simply *address* the *disadvantage* that women face? there is *so much* evidence that this is the case. if you're going to argue that it isn't, and if you're too scared to actually and ask and listen to your colleagues/classmates, at least read/watch the horror stories that yellen, athey, bertrand, and other top economists have shared of the *decades* of discrimination that they've put up with at their 2019 ASSA panel.
these policies are not designed to give women an advantage. they are designed to *address* existing *disadvantages*. this is not rocket science.
LOL, playing this card again? We have been waiting and waiting for you to produce a single piece of the "*so much*" evidence on your side, but you never do. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence on the "females are advantaged" side, such as:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2017.1396462
Here is what these hiring audits reveal about the female advantage in real-world hiring of tenure-track applicants in scientific fields in the United States and Canada: There is a female advantage in eight of the nine large-scale studies dating back to the 1980s. However, the magnitude of the female advantage is quite variable. Sometimes it is on the order of 2-to-1 female hiring advantage, but most of the time the female advantage is smaller. Consider: A National Research Council (NRC; 2009) national survey of six scientific disciplines examined faculty hiring experiences and policies related to teaching loads and start-up packages from 1995 to 2003. This audit included more than 1,800 faculty members' experiences in nearly 500 departments at 89 research-intensive universities in the United States. Although a smaller proportion of female PhDs applied for tenure-track positions at these 89 universities, those who did apply were both invited to interview more often and were offered positions more often than predicted by their fraction of the applicant pool. For example, in the field of mathematics, only 20% of applicants for tenure-track positions were female, but 28% of those invited to interview were female and 30% of those offered tenure-track positions were female. Table 1 shows that in all six scientific disciplines studied by the NRC, five of which are GEMP fields, female applicants were invited to interview and offered positions at rates higher than those of men. The largest female advantages were in the math-intensive discipline of engineering which were associated with a 2-to-1 or greater female advantage.
assuming women were discriminated in the past (an assumption I share), it does not follow why discriminating men today in the same way will fix anything.
met with the associate dean at my top 10 finance dept. they other day and she intimated only offers will be made to women because of the current faculty ratio.is it possible, maybe, just maybe, that the current faculty ratio is low because women have been discriminated against for literally decades? and that current efforts are not trying to give women an advantage, but to simply *address* the *disadvantage* that women face? there is *so much* evidence that this is the case. if you're going to argue that it isn't, and if you're too scared to actually and ask and listen to your colleagues/classmates, at least read/watch the horror stories that yellen, athey, bertrand, and other top economists have shared of the *decades* of discrimination that they've put up with at their 2019 ASSA panel.
these policies are not designed to give women an advantage. they are designed to *address* existing *disadvantages*. this is not rocket science.