Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 65 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 330 Goods vs 134 No Goods

1. Economist
   7efa
   

   I'd like to ask whether the following wouldn't make you at least partly change your mind: in nearly any and every department that is hiring in the junior market, there is an implicit, and often rather explicit, push towards hiring females.

   We don't only have the aggregate statistics below. We actually have a clear sense of what mechanism led to the change in the last year. If you don't believe this talk to anyone involved in hiring recently. They will all tell you the same behind closed doors.

   The only thing we do not have is systematic evidence - because schools hide it.

   Let me get this right,
   1) For 6 years ('13-'18), 20% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of all PhDs. EJMR: "there is definitely no discrimination against women"
   2) For 1 year ('19), 47% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of PhDs (FYI this is still closer to the window than 20%). EJMR: "reverse sexism! i'm being discriminated against as a man! things have gone way too far!"
   The stats still stacked *against* women for 6 out of the 7 years. If things were truly equal, there'd be more women stars relative to population in around half of all years. The 1% of white guys that still thinks you're being discriminated against, you really need to get over yourselves.
   [And this is not even factoring in the discrimination that causes only 30-35% of econ profession to be women in the first place (relative to 50% of population). If you you are tempted to as "what discrimination?" you're clearly not actually engaging in this conversation in a productive way (ie listening and responding thoughtfully), you're just being dumb and putting your head in the sand.]

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   24e9
   

   all european schools target women for hiring

   uk: athena swan (50/50 gender ratios at all stages of hiring)
   EU countries that matter: gender quotas (Germany/Austria/France)

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   a38d
   

   I am not aware of any American institution which does NOT have explicit administrative apparatus designed to ensure women and URM in the pool get considered closely. You can see this from the statements at the end of every job ad: Every employer describes themselves as equal opportunity, especially welcoming applications from...

   The minimum level of involvement that this leads to is making it a bureaucratic hassle if your initial interview pool doesn't have the right demographics. There is often much more serious interference, though. Both schools I've been at offered tenure lines explicitly connected to "diversity" hiring.

   I assume that what we're seeing in the data is a sharp increase in this more serious type of interference. It certainly mirrors the sudden uptick in requirements for diversity statements that I'm seeing in ads.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   280f
   

   Hot take: this is good for white males as it takes them out of the rat race for the highest-status positions, lowering long term stress

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

5. Economist
   b4de
   

   I am not aware of any American institution which does NOT have explicit administrative apparatus designed to ensure women and URM in the pool get considered closely. You can see this from the statements at the end of every job ad: Every employer describes themselves as equal opportunity, especially welcoming applications from...
   The minimum level of involvement that this leads to is making it a bureaucratic hassle if your initial interview pool doesn't have the right demographics. There is often much more serious interference, though. Both schools I've been at offered tenure lines explicitly connected to "diversity" hiring.
   I assume that what we're seeing in the data is a sharp increase in this more serious type of interference. It certainly mirrors the sudden uptick in requirements for diversity statements that I'm seeing in ads.

   I know of a university that had several openings last year where the administration explicitly said only URM's could be hired for those openings. Initially, the administration said women would not count. But when there were not enough passable URM, then the admin allowed passable women. This was at a public university in a state that bans AA.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   4d89
   

   Let me get this right,
   1) For 6 years ('13-'18), 20% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of all PhDs. EJMR: "there is definitely no discrimination against women"
   2) For 1 year ('19), 47% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of PhDs (FYI this is still closer to the window than 20%). EJMR: "reverse sexism! i'm being discriminated against as a man! things have gone way too far!"
   The stats still stacked *against* women for 6 out of the 7 years. If things were truly equal, there'd be more women stars relative to population in around half of all years. The 1% of white guys that still thinks you're being discriminated against, you really need to get over yourselves.
   [And this is not even factoring in the discrimination that causes only 30-35% of econ profession to be women in the first place (relative to 50% of population). If you you are tempted to as "what discrimination?" you're clearly not actually engaging in this conversation in a productive way (ie listening and responding thoughtfully), you're just being dumb and putting your head in the sand.]

   Your arithmetic is fascinating honey. Maybe work on your grade school math before charging generations of economists with misogyny.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 4 No Jab !

7. Economist
   bad9
   

   Don't want to say anything too identifiable but in current search at top 40 department, the search is very heavily targeting URM and women. The best URM candidate is essentially ensured a flyout unless they turn it down. The new AP will be a woman unless the candidate gets inundated with better offers, which incidentally happened the last time we hired a fresh AP.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

8. Economist
   0a49
   

   Don't want to say anything too identifiable but in current search at top 40 department, the search is very heavily targeting URM and women. The best URM candidate is essentially ensured a flyout unless they turn it down. The new AP will be a woman unless the candidate gets inundated with better offers, which incidentally happened the last time we hired a fresh AP.

   female URMs rule, basically.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   fd53
   

   I'd like to ask whether the following wouldn't make you at least partly change your mind: in nearly any and every department that is hiring in the junior market, there is an implicit, and often rather explicit, push towards hiring females.
   We don't only have the aggregate statistics below. We actually have a clear sense of what mechanism led to the change in the last year. If you don't believe this talk to anyone involved in hiring recently. They will all tell you the same behind closed doors.
   The only thing we do not have is systematic evidence - because schools hide it.

   Let me get this right,
   1) For 6 years ('13-'18), 20% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of all PhDs. EJMR: "there is definitely no discrimination against women"
   2) For 1 year ('19), 47% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of PhDs (FYI this is still closer to the window than 20%). EJMR: "reverse sexism! i'm being discriminated against as a man! things have gone way too far!"
   The stats still stacked *against* women for 6 out of the 7 years. If things were truly equal, there'd be more women stars relative to population in around half of all years. The 1% of white guys that still thinks you're being discriminated against, you really need to get over yourselves.
   [And this is not even factoring in the discrimination that causes only 30-35% of econ profession to be women in the first place (relative to 50% of population). If you you are tempted to as "what discrimination?" you're clearly not actually engaging in this conversation in a productive way (ie listening and responding thoughtfully), you're just being dumb and putting your head in the sand.]

   I 100% agree with you. And yes, I agree that that is exactly what changed the market last year. It does not make me change my mind, because the push is there precisely because of sexism - for 20 years, without that push, economics (read: the men on hiring committees) were doggedly sexist against women. Again, the goal of the changes is to achieve parity.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 7 No Jab !

10. Economist
    b4de
    

    I'd like to ask whether the following wouldn't make you at least partly change your mind: in nearly any and every department that is hiring in the junior market, there is an implicit, and often rather explicit, push towards hiring females.
    We don't only have the aggregate statistics below. We actually have a clear sense of what mechanism led to the change in the last year. If you don't believe this talk to anyone involved in hiring recently. They will all tell you the same behind closed doors.
    The only thing we do not have is systematic evidence - because schools hide it.

    Let me get this right,
    1) For 6 years ('13-'18), 20% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of all PhDs. EJMR: "there is definitely no discrimination against women"
    2) For 1 year ('19), 47% JM stars female relative to 30-35% of PhDs (FYI this is still closer to the window than 20%). EJMR: "reverse sexism! i'm being discriminated against as a man! things have gone way too far!"
    The stats still stacked *against* women for 6 out of the 7 years. If things were truly equal, there'd be more women stars relative to population in around half of all years. The 1% of white guys that still thinks you're being discriminated against, you really need to get over yourselves.
    [And this is not even factoring in the discrimination that causes only 30-35% of econ profession to be women in the first place (relative to 50% of population). If you you are tempted to as "what discrimination?" you're clearly not actually engaging in this conversation in a productive way (ie listening and responding thoughtfully), you're just being dumb and putting your head in the sand.]

    I 100% agree with you. And yes, I agree that that is exactly what changed the market last year. It does not make me change my mind, because the push is there precisely because of sexism - for 20 years, without that push, economics (read: the men on hiring committees) were doggedly sexist against women. Again, the goal of the changes is to achieve parity.

    Maybe they weren't sexist and the female candidates in the past were weak? And your favored policy going forward is to discriminate against those who would have had no role in the claimed discrimination of the past.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 2 No Jab !

11. Economist
    0d97
    

    I don't think the number of flyouts necessary means the candidate is better. For instance, a star female might get fewer flyouts due to the fact that some departments already know they won't be able to get her. On the other hand, the white males will get more rejections due to a preference for females or blacks.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    baa0
    

    Hot take: this is good for white males as it takes them out of the rat race for the highest-status positions, lowering long term stress

    How is that possible when female JMCs are such a small fraction of all JMCs? Even if the female pool takes a higher proportion of higher status jobs than the male pool, it's still a much smaller pool.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

13. Economist
    1eb2
    

    Think in first differences.... maybe women and men have different preferences for academic vs industry placements which explains the historical gender differences in placements. In my 15 years of experience I really do not think women on the market have been “lower quality” than men per se, but maybe you do...... what ever the reason, those factors should not change year to year, so these factors wash out in differences. The sudden jump in female JMCs with top flyouts / offers is hard to explain as a jump in candidate quality and very easy to explain as a jump in preference for female candidates.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

14. Economist
    a112
    

    It would be interesting to see which universities hired the supposed stars but actual lemons who eventually will not get tenure. It would also be interesting to see whether these universities keep on pursuing this costly policy of hiring lemons for the only purpose of changing faculty demographics.

    Cmon bro or broette, as if getting tenured in Economics is a gauge for contribution to society. Let's be honest, even the majority of the papers of those tenured at top places have near zero impact on society. We are talking about Economics, not chemistry or physics. The profession has been filled with rent seekers. Tenure decisions are no longer solely based on academic production but also on the optics of the hiring (be it gender, POC ratios, etc.)

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

15. Economist
    e5b7
    

    You are deluding yourself. As clear from the Petra Lacour scandal, these lemons will also get a free pass at top 5, in order to achieve said parity

    **
    It would be interesting to see which universities hired the supposed stars but actual lemons who eventually will not get tenure. It would also be interesting to see whether these universities keep on pursuing this costly policy of hiring lemons for the only purpose of changing faculty demographics.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    a112
    

    My wife is a senior admin in a top 100 school (range wide on purpose) and the push for URM and women is real. The amount of analysis and reports that she does on the gender matter is verging on the ridiculous to be frank. The funny thing is that most of her work shows no discrimination but that was swiftly swept under the rug and a commission was formed for this specific goal (gender and URM parity). First thing they did was to produce another report on this matter, but with the specific goal to achieve a different result.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 0 No Jab !

17. Economist
    f848
    

    Unintended side effect: I am a MRM junior AP and several close female colleagues of mine exhibit severe impostors syndrome because they are convinced that they have been AA hires.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 9 Jab 0 No Jab !

18. Economist
    e3a3
    

    BUMP

    11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    50d8
    

    Bump

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

20. Economist
    39fb
    

    Clarence Thomas wrote about this ages ago. What happens when a substantial set of fellow faculty and even students start to think that some faculty were hired for AA, not ability? Anyway, it obviously makes sense to push this policy if you’re Female/URM/Tr*ns/some combo thereof and/or want to move into admin some day (regardless of whether you actually think it’s good for the academy)

    Unintended side effect: I am a MRM junior AP and several close female colleagues of mine exhibit severe impostors syndrome because they are convinced that they have been AA hires.

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »