Post: #1

National hiring audits reveal that female scientists have had a significantly higher chance of being interviewed and hired than men. Although women were less likely to apply for jobs, if they did apply, their chances of getting the job were usually better.


The prevailing wisdom is that sexist hiring in academic science roadblocks women's careers before they even start. The American Association of University Professors and blue-ribbon commissions attest to this. An influential report by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006 concluded that "on the average, people are less likely to hire a woman than a man with identical qualifications," and noted that scientists and engineers "are not exempt."

Many female graduate students worry that hiring bias is inevitable. A walk through the science departments of any college or university could convince us that the scarcity of female faculty (20% or less) in fields like engineering, computer science, physics, economics and mathematics must reflect sexism in hiring.

But the facts tell a different story. National hiring audits, some dating back to the 1980s, reveal that female scientists have had a significantly higher chance of being interviewed and hired than men. Although women were less likely to apply for jobs, if they did apply, their chances of getting the job were usually better. The typical explanation for this seeming contradiction has been that the women who survived the intense sexism and winnowing process of graduate training were unusually talented, and thus deserved to be hired at a higher rate than men.

But is there evidence for this assertion?

When we searched the literature, we could not find one empirical study of sexism in faculty hiring using actual faculty members as evaluators and focusing on fields in which women are most underrepresented. So we did the study ourselves (published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), testing 873 faculty members at 371 institutions in 50 states. To tease out sex bias, we created fictional candidate profiles identical in every respect except for sex, and asked faculty to rank these candidates for a tenure-track job.

We ran five national experiments with these otherwise-identical female and male candidates, systematically varying their personal attributes and lifestyles in a counterbalanced design. Every time we sent a given slate of candidates to a male faculty member, we sent the same slate with sexes reversed to another male faculty member, as well as sending both slates to two female faculty members. Then we compared the faculty members' rankings to see how hirable each candidate was, overall.

What we found shocked us. Women had an overall 2-to-1 advantage in being ranked first for the job in all fields studied. This preference for women was expressed equally by male and female faculty members, with the single exception of male economists, who were gender neutral in their preferences.

More:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/w...n-science/

Post: #2

I can corroborate with this one, every physics and math department is looking for a boring token female to add to its ranks, even if she is not all that qualified.

Post: #3

I work for a global engineering firm. Just the other week, three graduates applied for mechanical engineering positions - one man and two women.

The man earned the highest score in the quantitative scoring system that HR uses. The most attractive woman ergo the most attractive candidate earned the lowest score.

Both women were offered to fill the two vacancies leaving the 'winner' probably wondering what the fuck he did wrong and having to endure moans of rich women complaining they earn less than rich men.

Most graduates in my department are women of better than average looks.

The most attractive woman in this instance is an easy 8.5 and during her first week, she had a stream of men visiting her desk to welcome her. It was sickening to watch especially when I was a graduate, I found it difficult to get my first job in a field where there was supposedly a shortage of engineers. All the women in my class got hired quickly despite them relying on beta-brains to help them get through assignments.

Post: #4

I really like that I can post links to CNN for something like this... An article like this from CNN has a lot more credibility on the left than any rightwing news site.

Post: #5

(04-14-2015 01:05 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  I really like that I can post links to CNN for something like this... An article like this from CNN has a lot more credibility on the left than any rightwing news site.

Only until it gets retracted and the author is fired for "being insensitive and suffering from internalised sexism"

Post: #6

(04-14-2015 12:44 AM)N°6 Wrote:  I work for a global engineering firm. Just the other week, three graduates applied for mechanical engineering positions - one man and two women.

The man earned the highest score in the quantitative scoring system that HR uses. The most attractive woman ergo the most attractive candidate earned the lowest score.

Both women were offered to fill the two vacancies leaving the 'winner' probably wondering what the fuck he did wrong and having to endure moans of rich women complaining they earn less than rich men.

Most graduates in my department are women of better than average looks.

The most attractive woman in this instance is an easy 8.5 and during her first week, she had a stream of men visiting her desk to welcome her. It was sickening to watch especially when I was a graduate, I found it difficult to get my first job in a field where there was supposedly a shortage of engineers. All the women in my class got hired quickly despite them relying on beta-brains to help them get through assignments.

Yeah I basically wouldn't start an engineering firm in any country where the laws prevented me from hiring only men. Even if you can somehow guarantee all employees are hired purely on merit, it is human nature that the men will be distracted by the women. The thought of pussy will always trump the thought of work. 5pm should be the dividing line, no mixing.

Post: #7

Out of curiosity, what is this bias like in the nursing field and other medical fields? Yeah I know it isn't STEM, but it is certainly based off Science.

Is there still a bias against men considering more women apply?

I'm studying to become a nurse.

Grad year applications are not far off.

Post: #8

This is awesome.

Post: #9

Also, dupe: /thread-46711.html

By precisely 1 minute, of all things.