And therefore we should start placing this current stock of 'less brilliant women' in academia because, even though they may suck as researchers they will be important as role models?
Again, role model arguments by itself don't cut it. They are illogical. 'We are losing good researchers. So why don't we hire some mediocre ones ?'
Clearly you need a Korean role model. There should be one for everyone!
I am a male LRM AP originally from Korea. I had flyouts to places in Utah and Indiana as a rookie. Departments looked like the one OP posted. Predominantly white male. It was hard to connect to the faculty. I didn't want to join them. I ended up in a coastal city.
Clearly you need a Korean role model. There should be one for everyone!
I am a male LRM AP originally from Korea. I had flyouts to places in Utah and Indiana as a rookie. Departments looked like the one OP posted. Predominantly white male. It was hard to connect to the faculty. I didn't want to join them. I ended up in a coastal city.
What if you went to rural Korea and faculty would consist of Koreans only?
You would feel alienated too.
No Asians too. Their hiring should be investigated.
Look, you seem like a really nice department, but don't you think your female students should have some female role models?
https://business.vanderbilt.edu/our-school/faculty/finance/
(this is intended for all departments that look like this)
The profession is mediocre enough. So why don't we just have two decades of a mediocrity binge.
- first 6 years: campaign for tenuring all the mediocre cohort 'to break the glass ceiling'
-ensuing four years: campaign for AER gender parity in articles so that aforementioned cohort gets the visibility they need and 'we break the glass ceiling'
-next 5 years: nobel prize parity campaign so that the mediocre cohort gets their role models in place and 'breaks the glass ceiling'
- final 5 year plan: reject all papers rebelling against the complete state of mediocrity in the profession after 15 years of this , because these are just mysoginist counterrevolutionaries.
That's what we should in my opinion.
Force it for a decade or two in order to brake the glass ceiling
After that it will regulate itself
Suppose that students view female faculty members as less competent ceteris paribus and give lower evaluations to female instructors. Therefore you get more majors and higher teaching evaluations if you have male faculty. Is that a reason to hire fewer women? Or would it make more sense to take a principled stand against discrimination?
But if you hire more women trough AA them the end result is women WILL be actually less competent and so students will have their bias confirmed and possibly increased.
There’s no rationale to aim at a 50:50 split or any other split. All that counts is COMPETENCE
Yes, rural Korea should hire Jamaican trans professors so that I see my role models represented there .
Clearly you need a Korean role model. There should be one for everyone!I am a male LRM AP originally from Korea. I had flyouts to places in Utah and Indiana as a rookie. Departments looked like the one OP posted. Predominantly white male. It was hard to connect to the faculty. I didn't want to join them. I ended up in a coastal city.
What if you went to rural Korea and faculty would consist of Koreans only?
You would feel alienated too.
Female here. Here is my perspective, be nice with your no-gooding. When I was in the market, I had a couple interviews with all male econ departments (of non-trivial size). I am in econ, which may be a little less male heavy than finance, so it's not a direct comparison.
It wasn't a massive deal to me, but after I noticed it, it definitely struck me. I would be a little wary about being the only female in a department with 10+ males. It could be totally fine, or it could make me a bit of a token/outsider. Having a 50-50 gender split doesn't matter to me, I would be approximately equally comfortable if females were anywhere between 25% and 75% of my colleagues.
I am not trying to act outraged, but I think my view is fairly common. My guess is that a lot of females would have a mild aversion to being the only female in the department (assuming it is not a tiny faculty, of course. If it were 1 female and 2 or 3 males, it would be much less of a big deal).
I feel less strongly about it from students' perspectives. The vast majority of interactions is with one faculty member at a time, so the overall composition of the department is less salient. I couldn't tell you the gender composition of the faculty at any school I attended (albeit it was never 0% female), but I can give you a pretty good estimate of the gender composition of any school I worked at.
You are very reasonable please try and talk some sense in other women
Solid research means corrupted officials do wonders for the bottom line of corrupting firms . And?
Look, arguments that good researcher are being discriminated against on some basis and therefore lost to science are important. That females need to be represented because they are females, because we need female role models or because females feel uncomfortable in male majorities are not.
Should I start a campaign because all my colleagues are hetero and. Gay and gay students need gay role models? Should I start a campaign because I'm the only extreme left wing person in my department and I feel 'uncomfortable'? Should we also have black role models? Disability role models? Asian role models? Down syndrome role models? Divorcees role models? Bestiality role models? Nazi role models? Communist role models? Should every department reflect exactly the diversity in a society? Who defines what that diversity is? Why is it only among gender lines which, for better or for worse, face much less issues than minorities?
Let's talk about good researchers being lost and at what stage.^Solid research shows that gendered role models indeed matter a lot.
You claim "arguments that good researcher are being discriminated against on some basis and therefore lost to science are important." That is exactly what happens when you have no female role models. Due to a lack of role models, there are less brilliant female people entering the profession, who are then lost to science.
No man it’s not the lack or role models . It’s personal preferences
Suppose that students view female faculty members as less competent ceteris paribus and give lower evaluations to female instructors. Therefore you get more majors and higher teaching evaluations if you have male faculty. Is that a reason to hire fewer women? Or would it make more sense to take a principled stand against discrimination?But if you hire more women trough AA them the end result is women WILL be actually less competent and so students will have their bias confirmed and possibly increased.
There’s no rationale to aim at a 50:50 split or any other split. All that counts is COMPETENCE
Female here. I agree.
Furthermore, if we get to the point where diversity in a Department, firm, etc, is more important that quality, then we have a serious problem as a society. We shall end being very diverse but very mediocre as well.
Who says that a role model needs to be the same gender as the person who looks at them as a role model ? This is plain crap
Because genders are not the same. I am more likely to be like other women if I'm a woman than like other men. Seeing other women as economics professors is more informative about my possibilities as a professor than seeing men.
Seriously, it is impossible that these people are actual economic professors. We are invaded by reddit.
gawd youre dumb
Who says that a role model needs to be the same gender as the person who looks at them as a role model ? This is plain crapBecause genders are not the same. I am more likely to be like other women if I'm a woman than like other men. Seeing other women as economics professors is more informative about my possibilities as a professor than seeing men.
Seriously, it is impossible that these people are actual economic professors. We are invaded by reddit.