STEM fields show 2:1 bias for female applicants of assistant professorships

More Than Mortal · July 09, 2015, 11:28:27 AM

Quote

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

That's pretty interesting.

Also, based economists at it again:

Quote

with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.

Mr. Psychologist · July 09, 2015, 12:37:27 PM

Unsurprising really for psychology, although it's kind of swung the other way again when they realised that you need male shrinks to treat male patients for optimal effect (Not that it can't be done either way, but iirc (and from firsthand experience) they try to match the gender/race/culture of the patient/therapist as best as possible for a number of reasons.

So having a 8:1 pushing 9:1 ratio of female clinpsys to male clinpsys is kind of fucking the balance up big time, so now universities have a nice little 'preference given to male applicants to meet shortfall' tag.

I would say I was surprised to see this, but given how my psychology class for AS was 2 M 18 F and for A2 it dropped to 1 M 10 F it's not really that much of a shock.

The Lord Slide Rule · July 09, 2015, 12:41:16 PM

And yet there's still apparently some kind antifemale conspiracy in STEM. . .

More Than Mortal · July 09, 2015, 12:59:05 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on July 09, 2015, 12:37:27 PM

So having a 8:1 pushing 9:1 ratio of female clinpsys to male clinpsys is kind of fucking the balance up big time, so now universities have a nice little 'preference given to male applicants to meet shortfall' tag.

This is actually a rather interesting point. I'm usually opposed to all kinds of discriminatory rebalancing efforts, but to be honest I could see how it's justified in a profession like psychology.

Mr. Psychologist · July 09, 2015, 02:16:48 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on July 09, 2015, 12:59:05 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on July 09, 2015, 12:37:27 PM
So having a 8:1 pushing 9:1 ratio of female clinpsys to male clinpsys is kind of fucking the balance up big time, so now universities have a nice little 'preference given to male applicants to meet shortfall' tag.
This is actually a rather interesting point. I'm usually opposed to all kinds of discriminatory rebalancing efforts, but to be honest I could see how it's justified in a profession like psychology.

Yeah, it is a bit of an odd one. I'm of a similar mindset, quotas and preferred hiring in general is lousy because it just encourages tokenism. If they are cut out for the job, they deserve it. Not because they have balls/ovaries/melanin etc. (Pardon my microaggression, pbuh)

And yet for a field of work in which the gender, race, culture, ethnicity, class and all the rest of it is actually highly pertinent for establishing a good rapport which is generally viewed as crucial to successful treatment (No shit sherlock award 1847-2025), you need to have quota'd staff so that you have the ability to provide a patient with a shrink that best fits the category.

I mean obviously patient choice comes into it, every shrink and counsellor I've seen since I was 10 made it clear that if I wanted to see a different psych then all I had to do was request one and that would be that, but on the whole it's best to match up people for the best effect imo <.<

Mad Max · July 09, 2015, 02:32:38 PM

Quote from: memecube han on July 09, 2015, 12:41:16 PM

And yet there's still apparently some kind antifemale conspiracy in STEM. . .

In my experience, it's kinda going away on its own. I know a ton of women that work in STEM fields - I'd even wager it's most of my female friends.

Hell, my girlfriend works in a chem lab and literally all of the people working in the lab are women under 30, aside from the lab director who is an older dude.

The Lord Slide Rule · July 09, 2015, 02:44:44 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 02:32:38 PM

Quote from: memecube han on July 09, 2015, 12:41:16 PM
And yet there's still apparently some kind antifemale conspiracy in STEM. . .
In my experience, it's kinda going away on its own. I know a ton of women that work in STEM fields - I'd even wager it's most of my female friends.

Hell, my girlfriend works in a chem lab and literally all of the people working in the lab are women under 30, aside from the lab director who is an older dude.

yea, like 60% of the Chem students at my school are female. There's still a "deficit" for physics and engineering but I'd wager that's more to do with personal choice than active discouragement.

I was mostly talking from a media perspective.

cxfhvxgkcf-56:7 · July 09, 2015, 03:25:04 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.