Women and STEM - Hiring at Universities vs Museum Honours

[Eriol]

Two stories out today, two very different results with regards to women.

First, a study out of Cornell University (authors' article on CNN) : The myth about women in science - Their core assertion, is that with identical resumes, women applicants are preferred 2-to-1 among both genders, to get an interview, and ultimately hired. Study's abstract.

Controversial to be sure. The CNN article even mentions an earlier study from 2006 that across all industries, the opposite. Read the full article, but keep in mind it is written by the authors of the released study. And in case you're wondering, one woman, one man, woman first in the credit for this.

Another article about it, with more charts and graphs, and not written by them.

Second, a story out of Canada: Two UBC scientists resign over lack of women nominations - At the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame, the slate has been all men for two years in a row, and two researchers have resigned in protest.


So... ya. The second seems pretty blatent, though that the nominations come from the public, then a different committee whittle it down to men-only leaves way more questions than answers.

The first... well that'll provoke a reaction I'm sure. What it will be? I dunno. But go read the articles for yourself first. And hopefully the abstract too.

 

[Necronic]

From what I understand the sexism is more rampant in the academic side of things, meaning that the women who actually make it through that are self-selected to be some serious badasses compared to the men.

 

[Bubble181]

The problematic bit about the first study is that it only checked how many people were let through based on resumes. How many women would pass/get accepted after an actual interview?

 

[Eriol]

From what I understand the sexism is more rampant in the academic side of things, meaning that the women who actually make it through that are self-selected to be some serious badasses compared to the men.

You obviously didn't read the first article, as that EXACT point is addressed and refuted by the authors of the article and study itself.

Try again, this time reading first please.

 

[fade]

I definitely prefer female candidates 2-1. Because they're so rare, and I feel socially obligated to promote women in the sciences. The catch is with identical resumes. I see no issue with this, and all told a 2-1 preference still translates to the workforce here is 85-90% male.

That being said, I'm skeptical of both the soft "science" behind the methods used in that first article's study (and no, I don't have a better alternative) and the speculation ("perhaps", "maybe", etc.) that follows.

 

[Necronic]

You obviously didn't read the first article, as that EXACT point is addressed and refuted by the authors of the article and study itself.

Try again, this time reading first please.

I actually did read the article. They are talking about hiring of professors. There is a difference between the hiring of a professor and the academic experience. This article does not talk about the academic experience at all, except in the conclusion. There are many studies that imply that the academic experience for women in STEM is pretty brutal. This may be changing now, but the professors currently being hired came up during the more classical, and highly sexist STEM faculties. Which means they are badasses, which would imply they would be stronger candidates.

Now, if they are comparing "identically qualified" men and women, then part of my thesis goes out the window. Except that many professors who would be rating these women also came up during this same period, which means that they know a woman coming up during that is going to be stronger than a man with equal qualifications.

Also, check the conclusion of the article.

The low numbers of women in math-based fields of science do not result from sexist hiring, but rather from women's lower rates of choosing to enter math-based fields in the first place, due to sex differences in preferred careers and perhaps to lack of female role models and mentors.

What I have read is that the reason there are less women in STEM is because of constant exposure to male faculty and patriarchal societal norms that constantly, if subtly, push women away from the fields. This means that a woman who still ends up in STEM is someone who swam upstream, which means they are an inherently stronger candidate. Which means I would hire them.[DOUBLEPOST=1429207631,1429207488][/DOUBLEPOST]From your second paper (which I didn't read, but now did)

We hope that the discovery of an overall 2 to 1 preference for hiring women over otherwise identical men will help counter self-handicapping and opting out by talented women at the point of entry to the STEM professoriate, and suggest that female underrepresentation can be addressed in part by increasing the number of women applying for tenure-track positions

Note that they are making the exact same point here.

 

[Celt Z]

What I have read is that the reason there are less women in STEM is because of constant exposure to male faculty and patriarchal societal norms that constantly, if subtly, push women away from the fields.

I read both links, but this is really the problem, moreso than hiring. You can't hire (hypothetically or genuinely) women that aren't there. I've heard things are changing, albeit slowly, but in my formative years, there wasn't a lot of encouragement or support for girls to take an interest in these fields. Hell, I took some classes out of curiosity/interest, and in some cases I was given the cold shoulder by the teacher.