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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:28AM (#173474)

    jmoris isn't wrong. He could cite articles eluding to his point, but he doesn't need to. Adults know how politicians work and virtually time anything shows a significant bias against anyone that is not a white male (or asian if you consider them non-white) it makes mainstream news while things in the opposite direction get buried.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 21 2015, @10:15PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @10:15PM (#173713) Journal

    He could cite articles eluding to his point

    Of course he could. But that would just be avoiding the argument, tantamount to conceding the point. Or did you possibly mean "alluding"? Still not very strong. How about articles proving his point?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @10:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @10:25PM (#173715)

      Eluding to: of a fact or logic that is missed by others. One person missed something, the other person provides it thus nullifying the need for further argumentation: the self-destructive point of all arguments. To allude would be less strong as that is merely in direction of instead of pointing out what was missed. The point was already proven as good as any social science point can be, additional evidence would be for clarification, not remediation.

      Nevermind that none of this matters and you are picking apart something poorly on incorrect technical grounds instead of actually contributing with any semblance of good will.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 22 2015, @01:26AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday April 22 2015, @01:26AM (#173764) Journal

        You know, your argument here would be stronger if it was not question begging:

        jmoris isn't wrong. He could cite articles eluding to his point, but he doesn't need to.

        If you opponent doesn't accept this, then of course he should cite.

        But on the other hand, words have meanings, and some of them seem to elude you.

        Eluding to: of a fact or logic that is missed by others.

        No, this is just plain wrong. There is no such phrase in English. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Allude_vs_Elude [diffen.com]

        Mistakes like this makes your opponents question your literacy, and age, and it casts your argument in a very bad light. I hope this is helpful to you, and I hope that some day you will realize that jmorris is almost always wrong.