| > 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. |