Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday April 20 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the gender-equality dept.

A Chemistry World article summarizes a study by Cornell University psychologists Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci finding that faculty members asked to evaluate hypothetical male and female applicants for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology gave preference to female applicants. Quoting the study:

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

The article concludes:

To be hired, women must first apply and the authors question whether ‘omniprescent and discouraging’ messages about sexism in academic appointments makes them reluctant to do so.

 
This discussion has been archived.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, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:37AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:37AM (#173405) Journal

    At this point your social and political leaning is what qualifies you for an academic position more than anything else.

    This is egregiously and maliciously incorrect! Conservatives (or Sad Puppies of Academia) are not hired due to professional incompetence. In other words, because they are stupid. This follows the observation of John Stuart Mill, who said: While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that all stupid people are conservative." Smart dude, that. But again we deal with the Wall of Ignorance. This must be a thing on Game of Thrones, is it not? Because the incompetence is incompetent, it cannot see itself as incompetent, and so attributes failure to a vast left wing conspiracy. Hmmm, I know a lot of academics who don't get hired. Many of them are of the social and political leanings you seem to think guarantee a position. Evidently there is a vast right wing conspiracy (know by many names, but "Administration" will do nicely here) conspiring to keep the truth from getting out. University of Oregon comes to mind. Have the Mighty Ducks finally Screwed the Pooch with their latest "interim" um, why do universities need "presidents"? But again, conservatives do not succeed in academia because they are mindless ideological hacks. Cf. D'nesh D'souza. What a maroon!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @12:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @12:58PM (#173498)

    > "This follows the observation of John Stuart Mill, who said: While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that all stupid people are conservative." Smart dude, that.

    Really? Because I've known some incredibly stupid liberals, about as many as I've known incredibly stupid conservatives. And a line like that makes me think I'm seeing another one. Wow, it's almost like the two-party system has corroded political discourse to the point where we characterize our opponent as subhuman. How's it going now? Liberals are where all the filthy Jews go, while the conservatives are where all the filthy Christians go?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @01:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @01:44PM (#173521)

      What's a poor fiscally responsible, atheist, non-judgemental vegetarian to do? While I really like the libertarian message of respecting civil liberties, it seems they only care about the second amendment. While I'm all for freedom of speech, it seems like people only want to protect their own speech. I'm for selectively raising taxes on the wealthy through closing of loopholes, but I also favor streamlining the tax code to make it simpler and easier. I also think that the path to prosperity for America is through using economists to find out the programs that are delivering the most bang for the buck for most Americans and cutting those that just aren't working. Hell it's like no country can survive when it's run by a sound byte culture. Also veterans...almost forgot. Free healthcare anywhere, forever. You walk in with you vet ID and you're taken care of. Period. Enough treating our vets like second class citizens when they've given so much.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:57PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:57PM (#173539)

    I feel like Tumblr could provide a strong counterargument to your quote from Mill.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!