Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Research finds no gender bias in academic science

insidehighered.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#121

Post by kortriephfhe »

kenjackson wrote: post #59
kortriephfhe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the same people who tend to support helping all poor people for certain things (like college admissions) tend to oppose it for other things (like welfare or basic income). The defining line across all of these things tends to be race and which group benefits the most. Not a westerner. Why is this a bad thing at all? Giving college admission is like giving opportunity to improve someone's condition (tea…

College in the US is generally not competitive. That is, learning is available to almost anyone who cares to learn. The community college system is very cheap. Only four years are expensive. The debate about admissions into the top highly selective colleges is purely about who gets into the gates for networking opportunities and signaling (of the 1000+ colleges, affirmitive action impacts probably less than 100). So…

> So don’t confuse this with actual opportunity to learn.

I have learned so much from what MIT, Stanford etc.. post online, and the material is top notch.

Speaking of IT/engineering, In my country most colleges are crap and the value of a good college mostly lies in provide mostly lies in a) the college hiring pipeline and b) the opportunity to sit in same classroom as many other intelligent people, and learn from them. Teaching is total crap.

So I wonder why you think college doesn't matter. From what I heard, ivy league colleges matter for getting hired in big company too.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#122

Post by vlovich123 »

smegger001 wrote: post #116
vlovich123 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that’s my understanding of the situation. Additionally, politically governmental funding of schools stagnates while richer areas use funding drives to make up for it (in addition to the difference in property taxes already making a huge difference). Additionally, when the wealthy live in an area without the aggregate property taxes covering the school costs (eg because local governments slash funding anyway) the…

while yes the wealthy just move their kids to privet schools they have to pay for that out of pocket while still contributing taxes to the public school system which also now doesn't have to pay toward the privetly schooled child.

Yup. 100% agreed. Private schools are problematic for other reasons but not because they take away funding from public schools.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#123

Post by eru »

giaour wrote: post #83
eru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kinds of legal reasons?

The property's transfer or sale may be prohibited by the terms of inheritance. IANAL and am mostly familiar with this type of situation from rom-coms about down-on-their-luck dukes who live in crumbling, unsellable castles, so I'm not sure if that scenario truly exists in law or if it's just a handy conceit.

Yes, this seems much more common in fiction than in reality.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#124

Post by eru »

gambiting wrote: post #104
eru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kinds of legal reasons?

You live in the place already but there are inheritance matters still waiting to be settled. Or you inherit 20% along with 4 other siblings, they don't want to sell but they won't contribute or live in the place. Or you might simply not have the money for the legal process to sell. The place might need work before you could even put it on the market but you don't have the money for it.

You can put things on the market, even if there's work to be done.

> Or you might simply not have the money for the legal process to sell.

If your property is valuable, someone will be willing do that work for you in return for a cut of the proceeds. (And if your property ain't valuable, then the original comment doesn't apply.)

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#125

Post by eru »

hajile wrote: post #70
eru wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that federal subsidies for poor states should not be earmarked for specific projects like education. There's no reason to involve the federal level more than necessary. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

There’s merit to this view, but it lacks wisdom. Why send money just because? People are then going to ask why they are sending the money instead of lowering federal taxes and increasing state taxes. The truthful answer “we’re taking money from your state and giving it to another state to subsidize them” is going to tick off the rich states and lead to resentment. Further, they will still be left asking “why do they…

You can make up stories about voters objecting to almost any good idea, if you need an argument for why a second best idea is preferable.

> The truthful answer “we’re taking money from your state and giving it to another state to subsidize them” is going to tick off the rich states and lead to resentment.

So you are suggestion it's better to mislead people in a democracy?

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#126

Post by v0idzer0 »

m-watson wrote: post #88
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reads largely like a standard academic paper disclaimer. It’s standard to include a statement about things the authors didn’t explore as a way to set the context and also head off trivial objections. It’s unreasonable to expect them to have surveyed everything everywhere, so highlighting the boundaries of where they stopped is reasonable. The part at the end hints that they did find bias, but in the opposite dir…

I get your point but I wouldn't call it an academic paper disclaimer, it is giving you the scope/breadth of their research. That is why I took the whole paragraph, they are saying they found a bias in hiring. That is a specific slice of "Academic Science," that the HigherEd article is calling out but only a slice. That is why the "We did not examine systemic claims of bias, such as the tenure schedule that imposes in…

Headlines ignoring nuance is the standard these days. If it makes you feel better, there’s way more articles that draw the opposite conclusion based on far shakier evidence

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#127

Post by giaour »

2devnull wrote: post #115
giaour wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if someone has a low or nonexistent income and vast inherited wealth, you would consider them to be poor?

If wealth were useable as a metric for poverty it would be used. It’s not. We define poverty based on income. Not because nobody has ever thought about it in the same lucid terms as yourself, nor is it because the prevailing ethnic group or class has selected their preferred definition and nobody can change it. Wealth that is not realized is sort of meaningless. Are the people of Venezuela wealthy? But they possesses…

That's not true in most states in the US. Programs with means testing (TANF, Medicaid, and the like) don't consider you poor if you have assets.

You hear about this a lot when people require certain kinds of care that Medicaid covers but Medicare does not. People will sign over all their assets (real estate, cars, financial instruments) to their spouse, then get divorced. All because the government doesn't consider you poor if you have wealth.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#128

Post by eru »

kenjackson wrote: post #93
giaour wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The property's transfer or sale may be prohibited by the terms of inheritance. IANAL and am mostly familiar with this type of situation from rom-coms about down-on-their-luck dukes who live in crumbling, unsellable castles, so I'm not sure if that scenario truly exists in law or if it's just a handy conceit.

I prefer the rule where you must spend $30 million dollars in 30 days, but have no trace of the money left — yet still have received fair value for your spending — in order to get the inheritance.

That's pretty easy:

You go to a bank to manufacture you a derivative on eg the stock market. The deal is that you pay them 30 million dollars now, and in 30 days they either pay you x dollars with probability p or you lose everything.

Eg they pay you 100 million dollars, if the S&P 500 index goes above, say, 5000 which they think will happen with probability of just under 30%.

If you do the math: the deal is fair.

If you lose the bet, you get your inheritance.

If you win the bet, you get your 100 million dollars from the bank, and presumably pay the 30 million dollars back (if that's a stipulation in the will).

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#129

Post by tomrod »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #87
tomrod wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is not to agree or disagree with your comment, but to informally provide an interesting finding. Economies are more or less urban regions surrounded by rural areas with low population density. So, Nashville, DFW, Denver, etc. are regional economies. I have found it interesting in recent research to find that the level of disparity in health inequity (called Social Determinants of Health, one of which is…

So are you then arguing that, since the average is no difference in discrimination except small wage discrimination in favor of men and hiring in favor of women , the reality is larger discrimination against men and women that averages out mostly?

Out of curiosity, what part of my prior comment of findings lead to your conclusion that I made the argument you stated?

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#130

Post by tomrod »

Loquebantur wrote: post #94
tomrod wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is not to agree or disagree with your comment, but to informally provide an interesting finding. Economies are more or less urban regions surrounded by rural areas with low population density. So, Nashville, DFW, Denver, etc. are regional economies. I have found it interesting in recent research to find that the level of disparity in health inequity (called Social Determinants of Health, one of which is…

A correlation between ethnic groups and economic disparity is not indicative of causation, much less of what the cause might be? People having problems with even simple statistics definitely is a cause for racism on the other hand. I find economists often to be surprisingly bad at math.

> A correlation between ethnic groups and economic disparity is not indicative of causation, much less of what the cause might be?

Correct. We typically understand the actual cause in the US -- historical policies promoting detrimental economic outcomes to targeted ethnic groups. I'm not sure why you interpreted my positive finding of relationship into a normative declaration of causation.

> I find economists often to be surprisingly bad at math.

Which ones?

Post reply on HN