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

51–60 of 132 posts

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#51

Post by hajile »

ramraj07 wrote: post #15
onos wrote: post #3

“It’s important to get a grip on what’s going on today and not what was going on in 1985,” Amen. Some don’t agree though. They say we should favor historically mistreated groups because it’s important context. Yet, in higher ed this often entails favoring the child of doctors who will help diversity numbers over the poor white male. I believe the culture wars would decrease dramatically if we’d drop the identity poli…

The report only concluded that women didn’t have worse outcomes in acadrmia _after_ getting their PhDs. How are you taking this as a vindication of all affirmative action? Given through my decade long academic journey I barely saw any African American PIs in biomedical sciences, I don’t think that it’s a solved problem yet for other cases. Even within gender biases, the moment you include PhD enrollment and graduatio…

That’s confusing causes and effects.

This paper is making the case that if a person makes it to college, they won’t be discriminated against while there. The question of whether they make it to college is a far different one.

Whether someone makes it to college and the different factors involved there are beyond the scope of this study.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#52

Post by eru »

hajile wrote: post #40
NalNezumi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite a source for the statement in second paragraph? I'm not from the states, but to my limited understanding, funding for school comes primarily from district and state level and in the form of property tax. Meaning rich areas have enormous advantage. Meanwhile the federal proportion of the funding for a school is less than 10% [1] [1] https://youtu.be/VZx-rLoV4do timestamp 3:00

This you get the argument for child tax credits. Let the money follow the child instead of the school. In my area, private schools routinely offer much better education at a fraction of the expenditure per child. Loads of money simply disappears into the corruption of the school system, but private schools know doing that means students will leave and they’ll go bankrupt. Set a national number and stick with it (allo…

> Set a national number and stick with it (allowing states to add to that number to account for their own higher cost of living).

Why do you even need to set a national number? Let states or even counties decide for themselves. (Make transfers to poor counties, if necessary. But don't tell them how to use the money.)

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#53

Post by Pigalowda »

toomim wrote: post #37
local_crmdgeon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't count as gender bias. Gender bias is when the system discriminates against women. When it does the same against men, it's equity.

Are you being sarcastic, or serious?

I think it’s both.

In my field for instance, if you are a woman, you get to skip the review line for publishing case reports.

Luckily for me I don’t give a shit about case reports, but if I was academically oriented? Maybe I would.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#54

Post by eru »

hajile wrote: post #44
letrowekwel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Old school leftists were smart enough to understand that being rich is the ultimate privilege, nothing else comes close. Help the poor, and you will also help minorities which are poor due to historical racism, slavery and so on. Help people based on their skin colour/ethnicity, and you'll unnecessarily make all the poor, unprivileged people not included very bitter, increasing political divisions, racism an…

I’ve come to the conclusion that progressive taxes do the opposite of their intent. Looks at tax revenue vs GDP. No matter the tax rates, the percentage stays the same (fluctuations within a couple points) regardless of official tax rates. When you increase taxes on the wealthy, they don’t pay more. They either pay for loopholes to be created or they reduce/stagnate salaries to compensate. Meanwhile, Congress cares m…

> Looks at tax revenue vs GDP. No matter the tax rates, the percentage stays the same (fluctuations within a couple points) regardless of official tax rates.

That might perhaps be true over time, but it's not true between countries.

Eg Singapore has a much lower ratio of tax take to GDP than Germany.

> Universal sales tax is better. If the rich buy more stuff they pay more. There’s no loopholes to be found. You can also provide tax breaks to the poor by reducing or eliminating sales tax on consumer goods which greatly affects the poor, but only marginally affects the rich.

No need for a dual system, that just adds more loopholes. Just give pool people money, if necessary.

If you want an even simpler system, tax land value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

You can't hide land, and it's in fixed supply.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#55

Post by eru »

hackernewds wrote: post #33
letrowekwel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Old school leftists were smart enough to understand that being rich is the ultimate privilege, nothing else comes close. Help the poor, and you will also help minorities which are poor due to historical racism, slavery and so on. Help people based on their skin colour/ethnicity, and you'll unnecessarily make all the poor, unprivileged people not included very bitter, increasing political divisions, racism an…

> European style model couldn't work well also in the US. If you lived here, you would find that European style models barely work in Europe

Europe is a diverse place. It's hard to call both Greece and Estonia a 'European style model'.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#56

Post by eru »

gambiting wrote: post #28
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?

Not unheard of - people inherit great houses in fantastic locations that they have no money to keep and which they can't sell otherwise for various legal reasons. You're poor despite living in prime estate and despite theoretically having a net worth into 6 digits.

What kinds of legal reasons?

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#57

Post by kortriephfhe »

kenjackson wrote: post #18
letrowekwel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So many would say that it’s really convenient NOW we want to help all poor people, whereas in the past we made it difficult to help poor black people. It’s like, why do “all lives matter” now?" Does historical injustice make it right to behave unjust in the present, almost as if it were a revenge? I don't think so. I agree about importance of defining poverty though. Both income and wealth should be taken into accou…

The issue is if the intent to act just now is just a way to institute selective justice to further injustice. 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. So when I hear let’s help ev…

> 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 (teaching to fish), whereas welfare schemes are like giving a fish.

My country also suffers greatly due to many welfare schemes, all of that money could have gone to infrastructure and public education.

Disclosure: I also come from a poor background and have benefitted from both merit-based education and welfare schemes. But I think welfare is overblown. If the same money was put on education, my parents would have been educated one generation ago.

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#58

Post by kenjackson »

2devnull wrote: post #29
kenjackson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t income have the same issue?

Income isn’t perfect but it’s used for a reason. Think about the problems inherent in defining “wealth”. It’s too squishy a concept to use for policy reasons, or else they would. Is somebody who makes seven figures but spends it all on food, entertainment and travel really poor? No.

Except wealth is used for lots of policy. For example, financial aid at schools attempts to use wealth. Which is why they take into account equity in your home.

And if you have ten million in a trust and no income — are you poor?

Re: Research finds no gender bias in academic science

#59

Post by kenjackson »

kortriephfhe wrote: post #57
kenjackson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is if the intent to act just now is just a way to institute selective justice to further injustice. 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. So when I hear let’s help ev…

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

Further, financial aid generally is race blind. It’s only admission at these top schools where affirmitive action plays a role. So if your parents were in the US they could’ve been educated long ago. The only question is if it is at Harvard or Tennessee State.

Post reply on HN