101–110 of 162 posts
As long as there aren't as much women studying all kinds of engineering, you're going to see disparaties in the workforce. Lets stop trying to force equal distribution but rather equal opportunity. Funny thing to see is that as a country becomes MORE developed, women tend to be LESS inclined to attend STEM studies.
As long as there aren't as much women studying all kinds of engineering, you're going to see disparaties in the workforce. Lets stop trying to force equal distribution but rather equal opportunity. Funny thing to see is that as a country becomes MORE developed, women tend to be LESS inclined to attend STEM studies.
I never understand why classify people on their looks. Talking primarily about the US. There is such a wide spectrum of white people coming from different cultures. Also, you're considered Asian if you're a Chinese immigrant but also if you were born in the US to Chinese descent let's say. The main common thing between the two groups is looks. Same for Africans and African Americans who are both classified as blacks…
Arguably that's why the US has less severe racism/classism than much of the rest of the world (despite whatever pop narrative).
As a 'white' father of 3 who has been unemployed for the past few years I can tell you that this paper is sole crushing. Its a monument to how backwards common perception is to reality. Its a declaration from academia to never stop finding ways at punishing (me, my wife and 3 daughters) for my sin of being born white/male/pre1990. From what I have seen, people like me are under-represented in most office environments…
This is not surprising to me. For all I've seen "non-white non-male" is generally given priority in all kinds of areas, certainly in start-up interest. It's considered "hip" to associate with these "non-white non-male" groups, irregardless of their actual performance in whatever area they were prioritized. (To a certain extent at least, they can't be completely nonperforming) Being able to show that you have included…
FYI it's either "regardless" or "irrespective".
And I don't think there needs to be an inherent difference in ability. A difference in interest would also explain things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have data on this as it relates specifically to H1B applications?
That's a ludicrous question.
The story could plausibly be true if restricted to just India, although even then I think you've gotta confront the fact that the UK's gender balance is only marginally closer to 50/50.
Same thing with job applications: "In an attempt to increase workplace diversity, the Australian public service implemented a .. trial removing all mention of gender and ethnicity from applications. It was found that removing gender from thousands of applications made women less likely to advance through the recruitment process compared to cases where gender was visible. The trial found that a woman's name on an appl…
Yes, in France there was a large scale "anonymous CV" experiment, and going against what was expected, made people from minorities or poor neighbourhoods more disadvantaged. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/04/04/le-cv-anon...
Apparently, both female and male investors had a slight bias towards female entrepreneurs, pg. 31:
"Both VCs and angels are more likely to respond to female entrepreneurs, although the difference is statistically significant only for angels (70% of our sample). Some angels in our sample are less experienced, as gauged by the number of investments they are recorded to have made. These less experienced angels have a statistically significant 13% higher interested reply rate to our female entrepreneurs, while the more experienced angels have an 8% higher reply rate and VCs have a 7% higher rate."
It seems a positive outcome, however, I'd like to go one 'why' deeper. Why did the female investors prefer female entrepreneurs (see fig. 2, pg. 29)? Were their reasons different than the male investors' reasons?
Also, why would less experienced investors be more likely to prefer female entrepreneurs than more experienced investors?
Same thing with job applications: "In an attempt to increase workplace diversity, the Australian public service implemented a .. trial removing all mention of gender and ethnicity from applications. It was found that removing gender from thousands of applications made women less likely to advance through the recruitment process compared to cases where gender was visible. The trial found that a woman's name on an appl…
I think it’s worth noting that that finding is not universal, and other studies do find the opposite. My brief skim through Google scholar does seem to show a fairly divided field here. http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%... https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/19805/1/Cole%20et%20al.%2020... https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36436480/Gender_et_bia...
First study:
"Minorities may be particularly likely to experience disadvantage when they apply to ostensibly pro-diversity employers."
That doesn't quite fit the narrative. Also, the study examines the practice of "resume whitening" as something that some minority applicants (less than 50%, so a minority) do to combat their expectations of potential bias.
It does not say anything itself about whether such bias exists.
Second study:
"Male recruiters’ perceptions of applicants’ work experiences did not differ depending on applicant gender. However, female recruiters perceived male applicants’ resumes to re- port more work experiences than resumes of female applicants."
So female recruiters discriminate against females, male recruiters don't discriminate. Also doesn't fit the narrative.
Third link only got me an error message.
Anyway, I don't think any of these studies actually supports your assertion.
As a 'white' father of 3 who has been unemployed for the past few years I can tell you that this paper is sole crushing. Its a monument to how backwards common perception is to reality. Its a declaration from academia to never stop finding ways at punishing (me, my wife and 3 daughters) for my sin of being born white/male/pre1990. From what I have seen, people like me are under-represented in most office environments…