[sm0ss117]

Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.

First, this study was only in academia, and not industry so the results aren't necessarily generalizable. They probably do have some correlation, but they're very different environments.

Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem, "...including inadequate mentoring and networking (1); a chilly social climate (2); downgrading of work products such as manuscripts (3), grant proposals (4), and lectures (5); and gender bias in interviewing and hiring (6–9)."

Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game. While experiment 5 did try to account for this by removing the direct competition aspect so they only rated a single candidate rather than selecting a better choice from 2 options, however again there's no consequence for the choice except having your response presented in a paper.

What this study does show is that academics think that other academics view hiring equally women over men as socially desirable. This is not the same as actually doing it when given the opportunity, for an example of this see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711747?seq=1 and the general trend of Americans saying they go to church even when they don't.

[anthony_d]

The paper is pretty clear in its findings. Why do you feel compelled to dismiss it based on what it doesn’t say?

It adds to our knowledge of a real issue and you seem to be more concerned with not having to adjust your views at all.

[lowbloodsugar]

The claim "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track" is not only unproven, it is not even examined. Instead, one small part of that complicated hiring process is examined.

Indeed, one possible explanation is that every woman who participated preferentially selected women because they want more women in the workplace, and every man who participated preferentially selected women because they definitely don't want women, but want to claim that they do, and this study offered them the perfect opportunity. "Look! We're not biased! This survey, which, thank god, didn't require that we actually hire one of these insane harpies, says that I love hiring women! Baaah! Cigars all round!"

An extreme possibility, I concede, and yet one which would explain the findings.

What do you think the paper proved?

[HillRat]

As a potted experiment, it really doesn’t generalize well. Weighting identical candidates except for race/gender/etc. may help uncover obvious forms of discrimination, but doesn’t address the path dependency aspects. For example, in the life sciences, women get less funding and fewer staff when founding research groups, while “elite” male researchers train 10-40% fewer women than other labs; as a result, women tend to have “worse” CVs later in their career due to earlier discrimination.

[esjeon]

If a paper claim 1 + 1 = 3, one gotta introduce 2 to claim that the equation is wrong. Plus, you must not change your view based on single paper, because papers are not always 100% correct. There are always papers that contradict each other.

[Glawen]

Given two candidates, one being a woman with so-so skills, and the other a competent man, I would (and have done so) hire the woman if no woman was in my team. The main reason being the change in group dynamics that a woman brings.

If enough women are in the team, my attention would revert to the candidate skills and I would probably choose the man.

[mpweiher]

> Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.

Hmm. Yes, that's a good idea.

> Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game

Hmm...from the article:

"Real-world data ratify our conclusion about female hiring advantage. Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired (16, 30–34),...

Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings."

So this was real world data of a preference confirmed by the experiment.

What's interesting is the amount of pushback this study has received compared to the widely acclaimed "lab manager" study that "proves" women are discriminated against, which is much weaker (far less data), less well-designed, also exclusively from academia (and from different disciplines than the ones with the high imbalances!) and without the counterpart of real-world data.

Hmm.

See also: Gender Bias in Science? Double standards and cherry-picking in claims about gender bias.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/rabble-rouser/2017...

> Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem

No, it does not "go into why". It lists claims that have been made. That's not the same thing.

> grant proposals (4)

Study: No race or gender bias seen in initial NIH grant reviews

https://news.wisc.edu/study-no-race-or-gender-bias-seen-in-i...

> a chilly social climate (2)

Women and men leave STEM in roughly the same rate and for the same reason, climate is not the top reason. Lack of advancement and "didn't like the work" are. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/

etc.