If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Male scientists show bias toward hiring men over women. You know who else shows bias towards hiring men? Female scientists   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 94
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1598 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Sep 2012 at 5:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 05:21:33 AM  
If they're hiring me to do research... AWESOME!

If they're hiring me to do hands-on research... AWESOME!

If they're hiring me to do hands-on research on them... FARKING AWESOME!

/Nothing's sexier than a brain.
 
2012-09-25 05:22:56 AM  
Men won't get knocked up and need to take maternity leave during studies and such.

Also, since when can women be scientists?

/sandwich theory?
 
2012-09-25 05:32:15 AM  
It's only because men are better at science than women.
 
2012-09-25 05:43:16 AM  
As a female scientist, I'm getting a kick...
Well, not.

The problem is, if as a woman you're interviewing in a very specialized field and you're not getting hired after repeatedly rising to the in person interview stage, is it because you suck at being a scientist, or are the guys that they're hiring instead just better? You can't complain about the process or outcome even if the sexism is obvious because otherwise you get a reputation as a sour grapes biatch.

Also:

- No faculty position early, no play later. Self-defeating.
- Sexism in current academia drives women into hiring by pharm/industry when there's nothing else offered.
- Many intramural NIH groups are heavily male. As are University faculty by department. Still.
-aggressive attitudes and culture are rewarded.
 
2012-09-25 05:49:08 AM  
Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks, and only people who like boys' clubs full of insufferable pricks advance in the field. Once you're far enough in to be hiring people, male or female, you're used to the status quo and seek to maintain it. So they set up a NEW boys' club full of insufferable pricks.

If we could blow the lid off math and learn to make it appealing to the same people who currently avoid it but are smart enough to do it, we could get a change of the guard and get some stereotypically non-scientific types in the field. Even Feynman was kind of square. We need some creative people in the field to come up with new things to investigate and generally let the pompous hot air out.
 
2012-09-25 06:03:55 AM  

doglover: Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks, and only people who like boys' clubs full of insufferable pricks advance in the field. Once you're far enough in to be hiring people, male or female, you're used to the status quo and seek to maintain it. So they set up a NEW boys' club full of insufferable pricks.

If we could blow the lid off math and learn to make it appealing to the same people who currently avoid it but are smart enough to do it, we could get a change of the guard and get some stereotypically non-scientific types in the field. Even Feynman was kind of square. We need some creative people in the field to come up with new things to investigate and generally let the pompous hot air out.


so wait, despite all the news that women are completing science and math based courses in far greater numbers than men, somehow the status quo of men maintaining the hiring procedure is still possible? id imagine that at a certain point they would be forced to hire women since the pool of candidates is supposedly in their favor by a larger degree.
 
2012-09-25 06:11:56 AM  

untaken_name: It's only because men are better at science than women.


Came to say this. Of course there are women who are good at science but on average men are better at science than women, similar to the way that, on average women are smarter than men but men are the smartest.

robohobo: Men won't get knocked up and need to take maternity leave during studies and such.


Also this can be a factor in hiring without the hirer avoiding hiring based on sexism, if the candidate was a man who said "There is a 10% chance that in the next 5 years I will need at least 6 months off work and may not come back afterwards" then that would affect their chances of being hired without being sexist. You want equality in hiring? give the employer the same candidate as if you were a man. You can`t say that people picking the best business choice is sexist, it`s simply good business. Female hirers are more aware of this and act accordingly.

doglover: Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks


Those `insufferable pricks` are the ones who actually make the discoveries. They are so insufferable only to people much less smart than them...

doglover: If we could blow the lid off math and learn to make it appealing to the same people who currently avoid it but are smart enough to do it


This is what average people say who think they are smart. Maths is hard. There is a reason you avoid it. It`s obvious you think you are smart enough to do proper maths yet you couldn`t do it so you blame a culture instead of the contents of your own head.
 
2012-09-25 06:22:24 AM  

Subtle_Canary: status quo of men maintaining the hiring procedure is still possible?


For now.

College kids don't have departments to staff. People 20-30 years into their careers do. So 20-30 year old mores apply.

Kind of like how freed slaves wound up with segregation and all kinds of other nastiness that basically meant only their legal designation changed while their daily life and overall potential in Dixie was pretty much same as it ever was. A little more money and a little less legal bull whipping.



dready zim: Maths is hard.


Heheheh. That made my day.

lans-soapbox.com

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go tilt back a few cold ones with some cute Japanese girls. Tell how much I struggled in math to my As in physics. Just because I advocate change doesn't mean I need it.

I'm doglover, Z. I'm doin' alright.

i25.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 06:33:35 AM  

untaken_name: It's only because men are better at science than women.


and math

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-25 06:40:02 AM  
I find this study accurate and compelling, but, because I'm a man, I don't care.

/Serves you women right for ripping out my heart and stomping on it so many times.
 
2012-09-25 06:47:36 AM  

dready zim: untaken_name: It's only because men are better at science than women.

Came to say this. Of course there are women who are good at science but on average men are better at science than women, similar to the way that, on average women are smarter than men but men are the smartest.

robohobo: Men won't get knocked up and need to take maternity leave during studies and such.

Also this can be a factor in hiring without the hirer avoiding hiring based on sexism, if the candidate was a man who said "There is a 10% chance that in the next 5 years I will need at least 6 months off work and may not come back afterwards" then that would affect their chances of being hired without being sexist. You want equality in hiring? give the employer the same candidate as if you were a man. You can`t say that people picking the best business choice is sexist, it`s simply good business. Female hirers are more aware of this and act accordingly.




Oh for Fark's sake. First, that paragraph up there is sexist bullcrap. You assume a woman will get pregnant just because she's female. Second, men with kids get parental leave too. Are you going to screen guys who might procreate? Third, how any career scientists are going to, say, get a phd then bail because she had a baby? Pretty low percentage, there.

Justifying stupid sexist behavior is apparently easier than confronting it for some people.




doglover: Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks

Those `insufferable pricks` are the ones who actually make the discoveries. They are so insufferable only to people much less smart than them...


There are plenty of scientists who do not act like pricks and still make discoveries. So what's the excuse?
 
2012-09-25 06:50:18 AM  
It's amazing how many women tell me they absolutely hate working for other women. I hear the same thing a lot of the time from Asians about working for other Asians.
 
2012-09-25 06:51:55 AM  

dready zim: Maths is hard.


So is Englishes.
 
2012-09-25 06:54:08 AM  
While my experience is in engineering and not science I have to wonder why they chose a lab manager job for this study. Does the management component or the age of the applicants play a factor? Not that the bias is surprising, a huge amount of grants and fellowships in science and engineering are aimed specifically at women.

Also that second graph is obnoxious, showing a 1/6 difference as something that looks more like two and a half times just smacks as the authors having an agenda. Present the graph with a zero y scale.
 
2012-09-25 07:03:03 AM  

Ghastly: It's amazing how many women tell me they absolutely hate working for other women. I hear the same thing a lot of the time from Asians about working for other Asians.


My wife is an ophthalmologist, working on her neuro, and by and large hates working with other women. Apparently even at that level, the level of crying/gossip at work is ridiculous. She's way more one of the guys, and can actually take a joke without running to HR. She can even tell jokes, too, Plus they're cattier than high school, I guess.
 
2012-09-25 07:07:14 AM  

doglover: It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks, and only people who like boys' clubs full of insufferable pricks advance in the field.


Maybe that's just your excuse for being less capable than your colleagues.
 
2012-09-25 07:32:19 AM  
In all honesty, this has not been my experience working as a scientist. I repeatedly see people in positions of hiring tripping over themselves trying to throw opportunities at women. The gender asymmetry in both academic chemistry departments I've worked in had the faculty literally holding meetings with the topic of "How can we hire a couple more female faculty?" I always point out that the gender imbalance is a function of tenure, as 20 and 30 years ago there were very few females getting PhDs in science, so we'll have to wait for a lot of old guys to finally retire or die before there's room to even things out.

I'm surprised by this data, though it may not be inconsistent. Maybe it's that everyone has this bias, but scientists are more likely to be aware of their own biases and attempt to compensate for them.
 
2012-09-25 07:33:14 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: dready zim: Maths is hard.

So is Englishes.


That unpossible.
 
2012-09-25 07:36:07 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: dready zim: Maths is hard.

So is Englishes.


Unless you happen to live in the UK
 
2012-09-25 08:28:55 AM  
Math mostly isn't hard at all, there's rules to remember, adhere to them and things turn out right. It's the reason why computers can do it easily.

As far as the article is concerned, I'd guess the women are thinking the applicants couldn't possibly be like themselves, because damnit they're so unique in the field.

I'd be curious to see how it breaks down by subject. In my experience, biologists were mostly female. It'd be weird to see them behaving the same way.
 
2012-09-25 08:35:48 AM  

Sheseala: Math mostly isn't hard at all, there's rules to remember, adhere to them and things turn out right. It's the reason why computers can do it easily.

As far as the article is concerned, I'd guess the women are thinking the applicants couldn't possibly be like themselves, because damnit they're so unique in the field.

I'd be curious to see how it breaks down by subject. In my experience, biologists were mostly female. It'd be weird to see them behaving the same way.


In my department in grad school (biology) a majority of the younger and newly hired faculty were female, while the older ones were mostly male. Whatever is happening in other fields, I think the biology demographic is in the process of changing.
 
2012-09-25 08:44:21 AM  

dready zim: Of course there are women who are good at science but on average men are better at science than women, similar to the way that, on average women are smarter than men but men are the smartest.


Even if that were true, it doesn't explain the results of the study. Identical credentials were given higher priority when they were attached to a man's name rather than a woman's name.
 
2012-09-25 08:46:47 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: As a female scientist, I'm getting a kick...
Well, not.

The problem is, if as a woman you're interviewing in a very specialized field and you're not getting hired after repeatedly rising to the in person interview stage, is it because you suck at being a scientist, or are the guys that they're hiring instead just better? You can't complain about the process or outcome even if the sexism is obvious because otherwise you get a reputation as a sour grapes biatch.

Also:

- No faculty position early, no play later. Self-defeating.
- Sexism in current academia drives women into hiring by pharm/industry when there's nothing else offered.
- Many intramural NIH groups are heavily male. As are University faculty by department. Still.
-aggressive attitudes and culture are rewarded.


Yeah, there is a definite problem (speaking as a male scientist here). I think the female faculty ranking the female candidates lower is perhaps the most troubling. It means there are some deep, likely subconscious biases being ingrained in people in general.

doglover: Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks, and only people who like boys' clubs full of insufferable pricks advance in the field. Once you're far enough in to be hiring people, male or female, you're used to the status quo and seek to maintain it. So they set up a NEW boys' club full of insufferable pricks.

If we could blow the lid off math and learn to make it appealing to the same people who currently avoid it but are smart enough to do it, we could get a change of the guard and get some stereotypically non-scientific types in the field. Even Feynman was kind of square. We need some creative people in the field to come up with new things to investigate and generally let the pompous hot air out.


Its not all insufferable pricks. Most of the scientists I know and have worked with tend towards slightly crazy and odd, not pompous and insufferable. I've also had more female colleagues than male as a graduate student and now post-doctoral fellow, but far more faculty are male, but nearly all of my female colleagues have stayed in science.
 
2012-09-25 08:58:26 AM  
Girl Genius says:
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 08:58:51 AM  

Sheseala: Math mostly isn't hard at all, there's rules to remember, adhere to them and things turn out right. It's the reason why computers can do it easily.

As far as the article is concerned, I'd guess the women are thinking the applicants couldn't possibly be like themselves, because damnit they're so unique in the field.

I'd be curious to see how it breaks down by subject. In my experience, biologists were mostly female. It'd be weird to see them behaving the same way.


I studied anthropology and the women seemed to gravitate more towards cultural anthropology and primatology and the males went for physical anthropology. I know I gravitated towards physical anthropology simply because I didn't think I could handle cultural anthropology without becoming an alcoholic and there just wouldn't be that many local opportunities for a primatologist.

And yet somehow I ended up drawing tentacle porn for a living. Go figure.
 
2012-09-25 09:06:41 AM  
Just embrace your latent alcoholism and come over to the geology/paleontology dark side. Lord knows Ghastly, you'd make a better girl than some of the earthy ones we already have. I guess that's what all the booze is for.
 
2012-09-25 09:17:44 AM  
A number of women PhDs/post-docs/scientists I know personally took the mommy-track (either leave science or do medical writing). Given that it can take a few post-docs and totally thankless positions to get tenure track, many want to have kids while they still can. Makes it harder for those women who aren't interested in kids. See the same thing in law, where the typical window to be successful overlaps with optimum fertility.
 
2012-09-25 09:22:18 AM  

Subtle_Canary: doglover: Women are chased out of science and engineering by the culture. It's a boys' club of insufferable pricks, and only people who like boys' clubs full of insufferable pricks advance in the field. Once you're far enough in to be hiring people, male or female, you're used to the status quo and seek to maintain it. So they set up a NEW boys' club full of insufferable pricks.

If we could blow the lid off math and learn to make it appealing to the same people who currently avoid it but are smart enough to do it, we could get a change of the guard and get some stereotypically non-scientific types in the field. Even Feynman was kind of square. We need some creative people in the field to come up with new things to investigate and generally let the pompous hot air out.

so wait, despite all the news that women are completing science and math based courses in far greater numbers than men, somehow the status quo of men maintaining the hiring procedure is still possible? id imagine that at a certain point they would be forced to hire women since the pool of candidates is supposedly in their favor by a larger degree.


Unless women are completing math and science degrees at a 5:1 ratio compared to men, do not expect to see any type of fast change in the field. For just about any academic, positions are few and applicants are many. The most interesting thing about this test is the fact that the applications were designed with the exact same credentials and experience. Exactly the same. And, still, the "women" applicants were graded as being significantly less hirable.

This reminds me of something that happened in the field of classical music. Women used to be hired a lot less often for orchestras. The general feeling was that men were just better musician. During auditions, it was clear that men just sounded better. It didn't matter if women were also judging the auditions. Women also thought men sounded better. Then some orchestras instituted blind auditions. Musicians auditioned behind a screen. Lo and behold, women started to "sound" better.
 
2012-09-25 09:30:02 AM  
I just watched Madadayo, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2012-09-25 09:32:45 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The problem is, if as a woman you're interviewing in a very specialized field and you're not getting hired after repeatedly rising to the in person interview stage, is it because you suck at being a scientist, or are the guys that they're hiring instead just better?


It's not either or. Turn off the bipolar reality processing.

/Sucking at being a person may have something to do with not getting hired.
 
2012-09-25 09:39:59 AM  

dready zim: Those `insufferable pricks` are the ones who actually make the discoveries. They are so insufferable only to people much less smart than them...


Really talented people - not just in science - can afford to be nice. Sure, there are some talented picks out there, but there are some really talented nice people, too. It's the same in the arts. People who are really talented can be quite nice, but there are some real pricks among their ranks. But the middling directors, musicians, and other artists? Far more of them take on the mantle of prick-ness because they think that is the proper temperament for creative types. It advertises to the world that they are artistes. It doesn't make them great artists. It makes them great assholes.

Look at the recent "team" for CERN. The team working to isolate the Higgs boson particle consisted of about 3000 people. The egomaniacal, temperamental scientist (the prick) doesn't work well with others.
 
2012-09-25 09:41:33 AM  

BigDamn: A number of women PhDs/post-docs/scientists I know personally took the mommy-track (either leave science or do medical writing). Given that it can take a few post-docs and totally thankless positions to get tenure track, many want to have kids while they still can. Makes it harder for those women who aren't interested in kids. See the same thing in law, where the typical window to be successful overlaps with optimum fertility.


True, although I worked with a string of Post-Docs that all had kids while they were post-docs. Either both parent's were post-docs or the other had a half-decent job, and our boss paid well and was accommodating. We also have REALLY good maternity leave in Canada (highest number of weeks in the world) though.

DeaH: Unless women are completing math and science degrees at a 5:1 ratio compared to men, do not expect to see any type of fast change in the field. For just about any academic, positions are few and applicants are many. The most interesting thing about this test is the fact that the applications were designed with the exact same credentials and experience. Exactly the same. And, still, the "women" applicants were graded as being significantly less hirable.

This reminds me of something that happened in the field of classical music. Women used to be hired a lot less often for orchestras. The general feeling was that men were just better musician. During auditions, it was clear that men just sounded better. It didn't matter if women were also judging the auditions. Women also thought men sounded better. Then some orchestras instituted blind auditions. Musicians auditioned behind a screen. Lo and behold, women started to "sound" better.


Yup, there are a lot of ingrained cognitive biases we humans have, and they aren't all necessarily "socio-cultural sexist constructs", but we still need to overcome them. Unfortunately blindly assessing candidates is difficult in science, since you want to see people's publication record, etc.
 
2012-09-25 09:43:21 AM  

Chthonic Echoes:
In my department in grad school (biology) a majority of the younger and newly hired faculty were female, while the older ones were mostly male. Whatever is happening in other fields, I think the biology demographic is in the process of changing.


I was a bio major, and I transferred from one Massachusetts State school to another. In both schools, the Biology and Chemistry departments were overwhelmingly female, both in students and faculty makeup. Only physics was primarily male. In many of my classes, I was either the only male, or one of two.

I wonder if that is because I went to a state school. Maybe the male dominance in these fields is more pronounced in more prestigious private schools.
 
2012-09-25 09:43:21 AM  

DeaH: Really talented people - not just in science - can afford to be nice. Sure, there are some talented picks out there, but there are some really talented nice people, too. It's the same in the arts. People who are really talented can be quite nice, but there are some real pricks among their ranks. But the middling directors, musicians, and other artists? Far more of them take on the mantle of prick-ness because they think that is the proper temperament for creative types. It advertises to the world that they are artistes. It doesn't make them great artists. It makes them great assholes.

Look at the recent "team" for CERN. The team working to isolate the Higgs boson particle consisted of about 3000 people. The egomaniacal, temperamental scientist (the prick) doesn't work well with others.


This.
 
2012-09-25 09:46:50 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Oh for Fark's sake. First, that paragraph up there is sexist bullcrap. You assume a woman will get pregnant just because she's female. Second, men with kids get parental leave too. Are you going to screen guys who might procreate? Third, how any career scientists are going to, say, get a phd then bail because she had a baby? Pretty low percentage, there.


When my daughter was born I used two weeks of my own vacation time. In the U.S. only one parent gets 'maternity leave.' 99.99999% of the time this is the woman. The only real exception is if the woman dies during childbirth, is in jail, or is somehow otherwise unable to care for the child.

So I don't know where you come from, but here the system itself is sexist because it conveys benefits to women that are not given to men.
 
2012-09-25 09:54:33 AM  
DeaH
Really talented people - not just in science - can afford to be nice.

I think there's truth to that in terms of confidence, however there is a conflict there as well. A desire to not hurt peoples' feelings often comes into conflict with a desire to recognize and convey reality, because as the saying goes, rather often "the truth hurts". If someone spends a lot of brain power worrying about peoples' perceptions or even their own emotions, it can have the effect of blinding them to fundamental truths. So I think more often in the "really talented/smart" people domain than in others, you will meet people who aren't always conventionally "nice". Which isn't to say that they aren't nice - I wouldn't deny the sacrifice of a doctor that has to adopt a clinical attitude to become better at healing people. Of course, that itself can be a slippery slope from which emerge Mengeles and Unit 731s.
 
2012-09-25 10:00:25 AM  

the_geek: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Oh for Fark's sake. First, that paragraph up there is sexist bullcrap. You assume a woman will get pregnant just because she's female. Second, men with kids get parental leave too. Are you going to screen guys who might procreate? Third, how any career scientists are going to, say, get a phd then bail because she had a baby? Pretty low percentage, there.

When my daughter was born I used two weeks of my own vacation time. In the U.S. only one parent gets 'maternity leave.' 99.99999% of the time this is the woman. The only real exception is if the woman dies during childbirth, is in jail, or is somehow otherwise unable to care for the child.

So I don't know where you come from, but here the system itself is sexist because it conveys benefits to women that are not given to men.


In the U.S., both men and women qualify for Parental Leave under the Family Leave Act. It's just that the leave is unfunded - most companies do not offer paid maternity leave. Typically, women will use vacation to cover as much time as possible, but most of the leave is unpaid. If fathers took leave at the same time, the family income would be zero. That is why fathers seldom use their parental leave.
 
2012-09-25 10:06:25 AM  

Xythero: Chthonic Echoes:
In my department in grad school (biology) a majority of the younger and newly hired faculty were female, while the older ones were mostly male. Whatever is happening in other fields, I think the biology demographic is in the process of changing.

I was a bio major, and I transferred from one Massachusetts State school to another. In both schools, the Biology and Chemistry departments were overwhelmingly female, both in students and faculty makeup. Only physics was primarily male. In many of my classes, I was either the only male, or one of two.

I wonder if that is because I went to a state school. Maybe the male dominance in these fields is more pronounced in more prestigious private schools.


I went to a small private college for undergrad and a big private university for grad school--both places had very female-biased sex ratios in the student body, and were female-biased among younger faculty. I would guess there might be big differences from school to school depending on the administrative and faculty culture.
 
2012-09-25 10:12:21 AM  
Men are better scientists than women on average. Their should be a bias towards men in a fair system. Yes I know this will get a lot of hate but just because we want to, as a society, encourage women into the sciences doesn't mean they are just as good at them as men. 

Hate to follow I'm sure, but it is what it is.
 
2012-09-25 10:19:12 AM  
Pfft, everyone is missing the obvious point that is the real factor here, its not penis vs vagina (both which have limited application within the science realm) but height.

Men on average are taller than women. Educated people like scientists are aware of this, given two identical resumes they have simply taken into account that it is more probable the male candidate will be taller and have greater reach than the female. This greater range of reach allows for higher shelves, wider benches and thus larger labs. Larger labs justify more funding.

So now who are you going to hire? The little lady who can fit into a shoebox or the hulking ubermensch that requires a real lab with real investement.

Pretty obvious now...
 
2012-09-25 10:21:55 AM  
i6.photobucket.com

Discuss.
 
2012-09-25 10:26:27 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The problem is, if as a woman you're interviewing in a very specialized field and you're not getting hired after repeatedly rising to the in person interview stage, is it because you suck at being a scientist, or are the guys that they're hiring instead just better?

It's not either or. Turn off the bipolar reality processing.

/Sucking at being a person may have something to do with not getting hired.


Well, that bit was not about me, as I'm often sought out and I have a great job. However, I have many female acquaintences who go through the interview process and no, do not suck at being a person.

I've sat on several interview committees and all of the candidates --male and female--- were all individually quite good at being a person. However, it's always more males than females hired thus far, though I've fought against it. Something about research alignment or paper impact is used as the reason.
 
2012-09-25 10:30:09 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: As a female scientist, I'm getting a kick...
Well, not.

The problem is, if as a woman you're interviewing in a very specialized field and you're not getting hired after repeatedly rising to the in person interview stage, is it because you suck at being a scientist, or are the guys that they're hiring instead just better? You can't complain about the process or outcome even if the sexism is obvious because otherwise you get a reputation as a sour grapes biatch.

Also:

- No faculty position early, no play later. Self-defeating.
- Sexism in current academia drives women into hiring by pharm/industry when there's nothing else offered.
- Many intramural NIH groups are heavily male. As are University faculty by department. Still.
-aggressive attitudes and culture are rewarded.


Or you can publish.
Like my niece does.
 
2012-09-25 10:40:20 AM  
There's not much I love more than a sexy science nerd chick. However, I can't see a sexy science nerd chick being as cool as this guy:

lh4.ggpht.com
 
2012-09-25 10:42:12 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Identical credentials were given higher priority when they were attached to a man's name rather than a woman's name.


That's because everyone knows men are better workers.
 
2012-09-25 10:42:42 AM  

the_geek: When my daughter was born I used two weeks of my own vacation time. In the U.S. only one parent gets 'maternity leave.' 99.99999% of the time this is the woman. The only real exception is if the woman dies during childbirth, is in jail, or is somehow otherwise unable to care for the child.

So I don't know where you come from, but here the system itself is sexist because it conveys benefits to women that are not given to men.


The US basically has the worst maternity system in the world. Federally you have zero guaranteed weeks of mat leave.

thinkprogress.org 

Seriously, farking Pakistan gives you more guaranteed time off to have a child.
 
2012-09-25 10:43:44 AM  
What men like to think a female scientist looks like:

www.coneinc.com

What a female scientist actually looks like:

www.fisher.co.uk

That could've been worse.
 
2012-09-25 10:46:58 AM  

vudukungfu: Or you can publish.
Like my niece does.


It's clear from the data presented that there are biases that have nothing to do with someone's academic record, which includes publications. Although I would have loved to have the same study done ranking candidates to be interviews for faculty positions instead of a lab manager. Lab managers often have a Master's degree, not a PhD, and may not have many publications.
 
2012-09-25 10:52:22 AM  

Ghastly: Prank Call of Cthulhu: dready zim: Maths is hard.

So is Englishes.

That unpossible.


I disagree, it`s perfectly cromulent.
 
2012-09-25 10:58:50 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: However, it's always more males than females hired thus far, though I've fought against it. Something about research alignment or paper impact is used as the reason.


In the last three faculty hires I've witnessed in my department, I saw the department use the same tactic. A white male was chosen as the top candidate (not surprising, since the field is absolutely dominated by white males). Then they leverage a second hire by choosing a woman as the runner-up candidate, and the position is paid for through a university fund designed to increase the diversity of the faculty.

I sometimes wonder if this kind of tactic has the unintended consequence of pigeon-holing the female candidates in perpetual 2nd-place status, even if they are the top candidate by any objective measure, purely as a means to leverage the university into hiring two people instead of one.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report