Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
1–10 of 116 posts
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#2So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally?
[0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#3So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
The study shows that the gender bias at the point of tenure approval is the opposite of what is claimed by some interest groups. That doesn't prove that gender bias isn't a factor in the number of women in STEM fields.
Some fields are majority male, and some fields are majority female. There are two possible causes: that women and men have, on average, different preferences, or that there is a bias problem earlier in the process than the point at which tenure is considered.
There is evidence that men and women do have different preferences and so we'd expect to see a gender imbalance in some fields. But we should still try to ensure that anyone with the ability and the inclination is able to enter the career path of their choice — that means schools, families, and the media not discouraging girls and boys from entering "non-typical" fields, something these studies don't address.
They do, however, show that the way many ideologically motivated individuals go about achieving their aim of gender balance is based on misconceptions about the world and is therefore likely to be counter-productive.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#4I am not too sure I would agree with this statement from the abstract: "These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science.” It might be less worse to be a woman, but in the same way it is better to lose a leg below the knee than above the knee.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#5So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
I don't think so. I think the everyday experience for female academics still lags behind that of male academics. If you're an undergrad in an unfamiliar hard class it can be tricky to approach a male fellow student without risking misinterpretation of romantic interest; if you're applying to grad school, letter writers are conditioned to talk about women in different ways ("diligent", not "brilliant", maybe); if you're a grad student choosing an advisor, you never really know if the (probably guy) you're choosing has predatory instincts underneath (most don't but enough do); if you're presenting work at a conference, navigating after-conference social activities while being awkwardly hit on gets old fast.
This comes from me talking to friends who are women in CS. It made me realize that as a dude in CS I have an interesting advantage of not being noticed when I walk into a room.
The field has made progress but there are still real frictions that make the everyday experience worse for women, even if the balance has shifted during the big decisions. So it may shake out as an advantage when applying for faculty positions or grad schools, but it's probably not an advantage the rest of the time. I don't think the former compensates very well for the latter.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#6So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
The study shows that the gender bias at the point of tenure approval is the opposite of what is claimed by some interest groups. That doesn't prove that gender bias isn't a factor in the number of women in STEM fields. Some fields are majority male, and some fields are majority female. There are two possible causes: that women and men have, on average, different preferences, or that there is a bias problem earlier in…
STEM positions have a long pipeline with appreciable attrition along the way. Any losses upstream propagate down stream so it's somewhat obvious that we'd have less women in physics national lab positions if we have less women studying physics in general.
People need to address the issue at each stage of the pipeline. I would argue that early stage imbalances are even more important than late stage imbalances (post-graduate) because upstream imbalances necessarily propagate downstream but not vice versa.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#7So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
There are evidently few women in STEM and this data doesn't contradict that.
It's a consequence that hiring practices should favour women who are equally qualified on paper, because they have likely overcome more barriers in practice and, all other things being equal, are better hires.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#8So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
I don't think so. I think the everyday experience for female academics still lags behind that of male academics. If you're an undergrad in an unfamiliar hard class it can be tricky to approach a male fellow student without risking misinterpretation of romantic interest; if you're applying to grad school, letter writers are conditioned to talk about women in different ways ("diligent", not "brilliant", maybe); if you'…
None of that stuff is because of bias though. That is just the result of being in a field dominated by the other gender.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#9So basically men and women prefer women to gain tenure in STEM fields as shown in this graph[0]? Can we now close the "no women in stem" meme finally? [0] - http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360/F1.expansion.html
I don't think so. I think the everyday experience for female academics still lags behind that of male academics. If you're an undergrad in an unfamiliar hard class it can be tricky to approach a male fellow student without risking misinterpretation of romantic interest; if you're applying to grad school, letter writers are conditioned to talk about women in different ways ("diligent", not "brilliant", maybe); if you'…
Have you ever considered things that men have to deal with and are not being able to put them in terms of 'being male in the X industry/community/field"?
This is not to minimize anything a woman has to go through, but let's, at least, not compare as if it's on equal terms. If we're able to talk about women issues at all, isn't that because women and men are different? Why compare it so easily and uni-dimensionally?
BTW, what about cases where a woman approaches a man about a technical matter, but with a _romantinc_ interest? Where's the real danger in that? We, as grown ups, should have the tools to dismiss politely romantic interests. It's the same case between men and men/women, as it is between women and women/men. It's part of life. The expression 'unwanted advances' is by far the craziest accusation one could make to a person. Man or woman.
Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)
#10Very interesting. I presume this isn't a blind test though, so could there be a "ooo they're testing for sexism, better pick the women!" factor? Or did they account for that somehow?
Edit: Skimmed it and they did go to significant lengths to disguise their hypothesis. Details on page 2 of the PDF.