Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday October 23 2015, @10:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the wot,-no-bias? dept.

This headline "Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men" over at Frontiers caught my eye this morning. After an admittedly quick read (look, I'm busy, do you want a non-paypal cc processor or not?), I decided it was at least worth a sub. Here's the paper's summary:

Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.

You may now commence flaming without having RTFA.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday October 24 2015, @01:00AM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday October 24 2015, @01:00AM (#253860) Journal

    (Posted the OP before I had coffee, apologies.) Trump/Bernie would be one helluva ticket. I'm reminded of blue/red and white/black decks I used to build when I was in to Magic: The Gathering.

    I don't support Trump, but I will say this: like Sanders, he seems to be a man of conviction, something sorely lacking in US politics. I don't agree with his convictions, but damn it, at least he has them! I might even vote for Trump with Sanders as the running mate, make that a definitely so if it were vice-versa. I don't care if that means I need to hand in my Libertarian Party card.

    We don't need “hope and change.” We need conviction. I think both of these men's convictions are resonating strongly with Americans. I'm not the only libertarian I've heard who's decided to support Sanders. Perhaps the USA is starting to wake up.

    We can have a female president when women are ready to hold such level of conviction. Sorry, Fiorina and Clinton, but you don't pass muster. You'd be run out of an Amazon tribe in a matter of minutes. I'm thinking of women like Abigail Adams and Harriet Tubman. It'll happen. Give it time, provided that conviction is enough to defeat the Masters of the Universe. I like to cite Gurren Lagann which would tell me that conviction is good enough, yet I'm reminded that one may wish in one hand and piss in the other… watch to see which one fills up first.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2