This study has generated considerable discussion already on science blogs. Anecdotally, the potential for pregnancy is part of the evaluation, as is the idea that women as not as good at the skills needed to be a successful scientist. Those, at least, are the stated reasons for a bias on the part of those willing to admit they hold one.

The bias goes much further, however, and is held by people who don't see themselves as biased, including women as well as men. I would guess that the unstated source of this is small number statistics. It's the old joke on women and math: when there are small numbers of a certain population, the actions of individuals are taken as those of the group. Women still don't "look" like scientists to some extent, even to scientists themselves.

"In fact, because of that, I would say that a female engineering professor probably has an advantage when seeking a professorship at a new university."

Well, it's interesting how it works out. In my field, a few women are identified as hotshots and then everyone tries to hire them. A university like mine says, "well we tried to hire a woman but she went elsewhere," which is risible when she also had offers from MIT and Caltech on the table. Being a women gives one a statistical advantage for getting on a shortlist but not at the hiring stage.

So does being a self proclaimed Indian, in at least two instances that have been in the news.

One of my friend's (a female) is in a physics dept at a California State university, they just hired another female professor, clearly for political reasons as the male candidate was more qualified in terms of teaching experience and publications. My friend is also now quite pissed at the rest of her dept (she had voted for the guy) as the woman is already pregnant 4 months into the new job. Guess who will have to take up the slack when she takes leave and for years after when she begs off responsibilities? The single female professor (my friend).

In fact, because of that, I would say that a female engineering professor probably has an advantage when seeking a professorship at a new university.

***

Aside that she's considered less qualified, per this study...

So if 80% of STEM students are men, that's lopsidedly biased. But if women are 80% of education students, that's equality. Got it.

This study has been used as a reason to impose Title IX on engineering schools.

...they just hired another female professor, clearly for political reasons...

This is not to be discounted. When you women (or minorities) selected for their gender rather than their qualifications, it generates resentment. Also: it makes you doubt the qualifications of other women (or minorities), because you know they may have been selected for political reasons.

Affirmative action, or whatever you care to call it, is hugely counterproductive.

This study is a peice of shit that tell us nothing. And I did read it

There were 127 subjects, across six universities, each subject was given one application.

No single subject picked between male and female.
No single subject was asked why they would or would not mentor (perhaps those that said no already had mentees?).
No single subject was questioned at to their departments budget, what amount of discrestionary spending they had, what non salary benefits would have been offered in tandem

No attempts were made to weigh for the salaries offered by private vs public universities.

No attempts were made to weigh for the differences in funding between the various departments at each university

No attempts were made to weigh for the difference in senority between the subjects and how that might have effected the amount of salary offered

No attempts were made to weigh for the difference in answers between the male and female subjects

No attempts were made to weigh for whether or not the postion being applied for was already filled and would have resulted in a lower salary as the student applying would have had less work and less responibility

No attempts were made to look into what previous students holding that position in those departments had made in the past and whether or not there was a difference in what was being offered

And finally what are the odds that all 127 professors even had hiring capabilites and their own labs, knew what their schools budgets was, what could be offered, etc? What if the majority of theses professors were just taking potshots in the dark?

This study was a piece of shit that accounted for nothing, gives insight into nothing, and had it been done by high schoolers would have resulted in a huge fucking F form any halfway decent teacher

And when they hire or promote someone on the basis or gender, race, skin-color, etc. that person tends to have a very inflated idea of what they are actually worth.

And, yes, I am refering to Obama - the affirmative action baby in the Oval office.

Hi Lujlp,

Which of the studies cited are you referring to? That SciAM post is confusing. The one I was thinking of circulated identical applications to scientists for review, with only the names changed:

Moss-Racusin et al.

It showed that the average ratings of the evaluators were higher for the application with the male name at the top.

The scientists also weren't filling real positions at their home institutions. They were asked to evaluate the applications for an outside position based on their own standards, ostensibly to help the study group to craft better mentoring standards. They then all saw an identical application with the name randomly assigned as "John" or "Jennifer."

Yes, but what no effort was made to discover by what chriteria the subjects selected salary levels or approved or denied the possibility of mentorship?

Its a statistical improbability, but what if the F applications went to public university subject? Whith no guidlines on salary provided by the study it is reasonable to assume a public university would offer less money, yet no attempt to account for this kind of bias was attmepted

What id the reason for some of the male professors refusing to mentor F applicants was not do to secism but fears of sexual harrasment lawsuits, or the F applicants went to subjects who dont like to mentor anyone

There are dozens of variables which if accounted for could invalidate these numbers in their entirety

They didnt even show the difference in numbers between M and F subjects - which leads me to believe that the F subjects were harder on the F applicants than the M subjects

My point is Astra, suppose you and I were part of this, you got a F and I got a M.

You working at a public university offered what you thought was fair, and I working at a private univeristy with better funding and private doners offered a little more

According to the way they ran this study you are now biased against women.

Now suppose you were given a M and I was given an F, and you offered the M the same money as you did the F, but I offered the F less than I would have an M - but still more than you offered your M.

According to this study I am not sexist - even if I am

Do you see the fundamental flaw in this kind of juvenille reasoning?

If you go to the link I gave earlier, they have a PDF doc with supplemental material that contains answers to most of the questions you've asked above, Lujlp. My quick read made me think that they have enough data points to generate statistically significant results but I'll admit I haven't looked at it closely enough to stake my reputation as a competent statistician on it.

It also looks like they offered pre-arranged salary numbers based on a 1 to 5 scale, which should take out most of the deviation between private and public schools and similar systematic effects.

The study may be right or wrong (anecdotally, I think men and women both have definite stereotypical views of men as superior scientists) but their methods seem pretty solid for a group of social scientists (oops, my bias is showing!).

If they did then they werent up when I ran across them last month or the month before when I first ran across this on face book.

The materials I ran across claimed they specifically didnt account for any possible variable on purpose to keep the data collected 'simple'.

Now I might have got suckered into a false link, with fake doc but I dont think so, most people who disagree dont bother going to such lenghts

And your link looks like the an article citiation, I'll have to go over it, but could have sworn I dug up the university conducting the studies direct dept link.

Unfortunatly that computer blew out on me, but I may have posted on that face book thread

Study: "In engineering, women earned just 18% of undergraduate, 22% of master's, and 23% of doctoral degrees"

The study authors concentrate on the low percentage of women who study undergaduate engineering. But, look closely at the figures. The percentage of higher degrees goes up (!) relative to that percentage. They are being accepted and educated in larger numbers than their male classmates, relatively. That is the opposite of discrimination.

It is unlikely that college departments of engineering are dissuading women from taking their courses. But, even if so, the graduate schools are encouraging the women who qualified in college.

Hymowitz

Porn for advice columnists.

Mo'

First link: I just love the notion that expecting women to work as many hours as men do to get the same reward is considered discriminatory towards women

Link two: I prefer real porn

If you are in the Navy and become pregnant, you will be sent to a shore facility and another sailor will be rescheduled (we called this, "hosed") on short notice to replace you. You don't take a pay cut, initially, even though you are not doing the job you were trained for. This truncates your Naval career, though, so over time you will be paid less than a male sailor who is not given an excuse to shirk his duty.

If you work in the Federally-regulated radioactive materials arena and become pregnant, your employer will move you away from your job if it is possible you may be exposed during the gestation period, and the regulations say, "...with no cut in pay."

So, take that, taxpayers. You cannot even compel women in those professions to do the job they signed up for.

This is called, "fairness" - apparently by the people running the Animal Farm.