8 ms·

Hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

19 points by xname 11y ago

tannk11001 11y ago
This is great! This is exactly what needs to be happening, and what needs to get more broadly publicized if we're to see a more representative ratio in STEM faculty. It's a long road from here to there, but this is encouraging.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > This is great! No, it's sexism.
- kurotetsuka 11y ago
  How is this good? Isn't it a clear case of unfair gender discrimination? I get that people want to correct a perceived injustice, but isn't overcompensating just as bad?
  - tannk11001 11y ago
    It is indeed gender discrimination by definition. But it's not clear how you distinguish between what's an appropriate correction to historical discrimination and what's overcompensation. If the bias were in favor of an over-represented group, it would be more clear -- but that's not what we're seeing. Women are grossly underrepresented in STEM faculty, and the only way to correct that is to hire a greater share of them and to use their gender as a positive discriminating factor in hiring. I don't believe either of us are in a position to judge whether that should best manifest as a 2:1 ratio during resume reviews, a 1.1:1 ratio in finalized hires, or a 5:1 ratio in outreach, or some other arbitrary number during some other arbitrary phase.
    - kurotetsuka 11y ago
      > the only way to correct that is to hire a greater share of them This is affirmative action, which has the following problem: How do it eventually end? This is especially true when the desired quota is impossible (It may or may not be in the case of gender rep in STEM). In the real world, affirmative action policies never end due to social/political pressure, and eventually just inflict the converse problem. Affirmative action is not the only way to correct imbalances (it may not even do that). The better way, at least in my view, is to correct the cause(s) of the imbalance, then wait. Of course if there's no discernible correctable cause, then the imbalance is clearly natural, and should not be disturbed. This may be slower, but its stable and infallible.
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      The only appropriate correction is to remove bias. That's it. That's the only morally defensible goal. Trying to get a numerical balance isn't feminism, it's metric-based thinking, optimizing the thing that's easy to measure. It's a fallacy in measuring productivity and it's a fallacy here. How about this: Should we mandate a numerical balance between men and women in grade school teachers? Should we not hire qualified women until there's a 1:1 ratio between men to women in K-6 education? Why or why not?
cbd1984 11y ago
So... this isn't sexist? A non-sexist world would have 1:1, or no preference based on gender, declared or perceived.
- 2510c39011c5 11y ago
  Well, perhaps it depends on the context; if you average that rate over the whole history of STEM tenure-tracked faculties, males might still be more than females...
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Still, preference should be 1:1. The whole point is weeding out sexism. A non-sexist world is 1:1 in terms of preference.
    - 2510c39011c5 11y ago
      what are the real benefits and downsides of this sexism (or of the ideal sex-fairness) for our society, besides the "social justice"? I mean, if this practice is not beneficial to anyone (except the girls, [EDIT:and also perhaps the utterly smart guys in the world as the valuation of this asset for them increases due to this hiring preference]), they probably would just drop it in the end...
      - cbd1984 11y ago
        > what are the real benefits and downsides of this sexism (or of the ideal sex-fairness) for our society, besides the "social justice"? Aside from the obvious, the bias, and people's knowledge of the bias, creates a perception that women are only there due to an unfair bias in their favor. This is toxic, and it damages the cause of reducing such biases, because it brings conversations back to gender equality when they should be about individual merit. And that's what this is about: Individuals. Individuals with their own merits and qualities, not "individuals" as proxies for whatever group they've been assigned to. Fighting bias is all about making everyone see everyone else as just an individual, just someone just like them in most respects, not as some instance of a class to be treated identically to all other instances of that class. Going for numerical equality is metric-based thinking, and it relegates individuals to being instances of a class. It's like saying "Oh, you'll have so much in common! You're both women, after all!" (Metric-based thinking: Optimize for what's easy to measure.) > I mean, if this practice is not beneficial to anyone (except the girls, [EDIT:and also perhaps the utterly smart guys in the world as the valuation of this asset for them increases due to this hiring preference]), they probably would just drop it in the end... Not if it becomes ingrained, or if it has benefits to the organization which the leadership thinks outweigh the detriments to the workforce.
cjsthompson 11y ago
Check your priviledge!
nickysielicki 11y ago
Obviously this is anecdotal, but I'm not ashamed to say that I was a bit ticked last semester when I came across a girl in one of my classes that had only taken one CS course, the intro class, and the past summer had interned at Microsoft. After her freshman year. As I sat next to her, watching her draw on her free Surface Pro and text on her free Lumia, I was thinking about the projects I was working on, the weekends upon weekends I had spent in highschool tinkering around in a shell, and yeah, it pissed me off. I'm not by any means claiming that women can't code, that's ridiculous. I've coded with with women that are incredible thinkers. I just think this is a problem, is all. Meritocracy over everything. A relevant blog post by weev (and i'll note, here's a trigger warning if you can't deal with his white victim complex and some name calling): http://weev.livejournal.com/409913.html http://weev.livejournal.com/409913.html
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Right. Feminism shouldn't be about "We had to go through this, so now you have to." It should be about "Nobody should have to go through this."
- 2510c39011c5 11y ago
  I am just wondering what are the real benefits and downsides (commercial and noncommercial) for the hiring preference of female over male, for microsoft and for the whole society?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Are you upset that you didn't get an internship, and if so have you considered the possibility that you aren't as good as you think you are.
  - nickysielicki 11y ago
    > Are you upset that you didn't get an internship, No. > have you considered the possibility that you aren't as good as you think you are. Every day, more than you can imagine.

19 points by xname 11y ago

This is great! This is exactly what needs to be happening, and what needs to get more broadly publicized if we're to see a more representative ratio in STEM faculty. It's a long road from here to there, but this is encouraging.

cbd1984 11y ago
> This is great! No, it's sexism.
kurotetsuka 11y ago
How is this good? Isn't it a clear case of unfair gender discrimination? I get that people want to correct a perceived injustice, but isn't overcompensating just as bad?
- tannk11001 11y ago
  It is indeed gender discrimination by definition. But it's not clear how you distinguish between what's an appropriate correction to historical discrimination and what's overcompensation. If the bias were in favor of an over-represented group, it would be more clear -- but that's not what we're seeing. Women are grossly underrepresented in STEM faculty, and the only way to correct that is to hire a greater share of them and to use their gender as a positive discriminating factor in hiring. I don't believe either of us are in a position to judge whether that should best manifest as a 2:1 ratio during resume reviews, a 1.1:1 ratio in finalized hires, or a 5:1 ratio in outreach, or some other arbitrary number during some other arbitrary phase.
  - kurotetsuka 11y ago
    > the only way to correct that is to hire a greater share of them This is affirmative action, which has the following problem: How do it eventually end? This is especially true when the desired quota is impossible (It may or may not be in the case of gender rep in STEM). In the real world, affirmative action policies never end due to social/political pressure, and eventually just inflict the converse problem. Affirmative action is not the only way to correct imbalances (it may not even do that). The better way, at least in my view, is to correct the cause(s) of the imbalance, then wait. Of course if there's no discernible correctable cause, then the imbalance is clearly natural, and should not be disturbed. This may be slower, but its stable and infallible.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    The only appropriate correction is to remove bias. That's it. That's the only morally defensible goal. Trying to get a numerical balance isn't feminism, it's metric-based thinking, optimizing the thing that's easy to measure. It's a fallacy in measuring productivity and it's a fallacy here. How about this: Should we mandate a numerical balance between men and women in grade school teachers? Should we not hire qualified women until there's a 1:1 ratio between men to women in K-6 education? Why or why not?

cbd1984 11y ago

So... this isn't sexist? A non-sexist world would have 1:1, or no preference based on gender, declared or perceived.

2510c39011c5 11y ago
Well, perhaps it depends on the context; if you average that rate over the whole history of STEM tenure-tracked faculties, males might still be more than females...
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Still, preference should be 1:1. The whole point is weeding out sexism. A non-sexist world is 1:1 in terms of preference.
  - 2510c39011c5 11y ago
    what are the real benefits and downsides of this sexism (or of the ideal sex-fairness) for our society, besides the "social justice"? I mean, if this practice is not beneficial to anyone (except the girls, [EDIT:and also perhaps the utterly smart guys in the world as the valuation of this asset for them increases due to this hiring preference]), they probably would just drop it in the end...
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      > what are the real benefits and downsides of this sexism (or of the ideal sex-fairness) for our society, besides the "social justice"? Aside from the obvious, the bias, and people's knowledge of the bias, creates a perception that women are only there due to an unfair bias in their favor. This is toxic, and it damages the cause of reducing such biases, because it brings conversations back to gender equality when they should be about individual merit. And that's what this is about: Individuals. Individuals with their own merits and qualities, not "individuals" as proxies for whatever group they've been assigned to. Fighting bias is all about making everyone see everyone else as just an individual, just someone just like them in most respects, not as some instance of a class to be treated identically to all other instances of that class. Going for numerical equality is metric-based thinking, and it relegates individuals to being instances of a class. It's like saying "Oh, you'll have so much in common! You're both women, after all!" (Metric-based thinking: Optimize for what's easy to measure.) > I mean, if this practice is not beneficial to anyone (except the girls, [EDIT:and also perhaps the utterly smart guys in the world as the valuation of this asset for them increases due to this hiring preference]), they probably would just drop it in the end... Not if it becomes ingrained, or if it has benefits to the organization which the leadership thinks outweigh the detriments to the workforce.

cjsthompson 11y ago

Check your priviledge!

nickysielicki 11y ago

Obviously this is anecdotal, but I'm not ashamed to say that I was a bit ticked last semester when I came across a girl in one of my classes that had only taken one CS course, the intro class, and the past summer had interned at Microsoft. After her freshman year. As I sat next to her, watching her draw on her free Surface Pro and text on her free Lumia, I was thinking about the projects I was working on, the weekends upon weekends I had spent in highschool tinkering around in a shell, and yeah, it pissed me off. I'm not by any means claiming that women can't code, that's ridiculous. I've coded with with women that are incredible thinkers. I just think this is a problem, is all. Meritocracy over everything. A relevant blog post by weev (and i'll note, here's a trigger warning if you can't deal with his white victim complex and some name calling): http://weev.livejournal.com/409913.html http://weev.livejournal.com/409913.html

cbd1984 11y ago
Right. Feminism shouldn't be about "We had to go through this, so now you have to." It should be about "Nobody should have to go through this."
2510c39011c5 11y ago
I am just wondering what are the real benefits and downsides (commercial and noncommercial) for the hiring preference of female over male, for microsoft and for the whole society?
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Are you upset that you didn't get an internship, and if so have you considered the possibility that you aren't as good as you think you are.
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  > Are you upset that you didn't get an internship, No. > have you considered the possibility that you aren't as good as you think you are. Every day, more than you can imagine.