The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.Via @clairlemon
Tuesday 14 April 2015
Gender-blind economists
In a new audit study, male economists are the only ones who came out as gender-blind in hiring preferences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I never really thought of it as a redistributive measure. I'm mainly in favour of it as social engineering.
ReplyDeleteThen note Eric's comment on excise taxes being a far better mechanism for social engineering than GST zero-rating.
ReplyDelete