[untitled]
35 comments
I was part of my university's hiring process for cs professors a few times. Half the time there wasn't a single female applicant. If there was a female applicant, based on the objective measures considered (papers, grants, teaching awards etc) the female applicant always landed in the lower third, the ones that get sorted out quickly. Needless to say, I haven't witnessed a woman being hired, it just never appeared as the sensible choice.
Hiring women is really hard if the hiring pool is too one-sided.
Hiring women is really hard if the hiring pool is too one-sided.
The article doesn't seem to say much beyond the heading.
How do you reconcile being anti positive discrimination, wanting more women in various fields, not having a goal as to what number is enough and not understanding when any of the various sides involved will be happy with the result.
Will the author be happy if women are only promoted because of their talents but an imbalance is achieved as a result?
How do you reconcile being anti positive discrimination, wanting more women in various fields, not having a goal as to what number is enough and not understanding when any of the various sides involved will be happy with the result.
Will the author be happy if women are only promoted because of their talents but an imbalance is achieved as a result?
Seek out the negative aspects of a given thing as a profession, as well as the positive ones.
Make the profession desirably by decreasing the bad and increasing the good; for everyone, fairly.
Make the profession desirably by decreasing the bad and increasing the good; for everyone, fairly.
Exactly. The current approach seems so backwards. Yes, don’t discriminate in either direction - choose based on real value, based on skill, experience or potential. This inverse descriminarion is just as bad, if not worse. It may be necessary for a temporary rebalance, but after that it needs to go away. Just like all the skin color Emoji, what in the world? All they do is promote racism and highlight skin color as a key difference. Why aren’t there Emoji for different eye color , hair color and all combinations? A blended color is far better.
There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic. And there are countless real world examples in particular within business and politics which support the conclusions of the research. Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't.
So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism and racism it might be a more interesting conversation to have. But for now I prefer to stick to the facts and methods that are proven to work.
So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism and racism it might be a more interesting conversation to have. But for now I prefer to stick to the facts and methods that are proven to work.
"Works" according to what definition of working? Works to create a gender balance that you assume a priori is "correct" with any deviation being down to evil discrimination? Or do you have some more interesting definition?
A cursory google search that took 30 seconds.
FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50...
McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-...
It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to broader market fit, which leads to better products, which leads to larger number of sales targets which leads to greater profitability and growth and has the side effect of reducing HR complaints, increasing inclusivity and making work more enjoyable for everyone.
FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50...
McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-...
It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to broader market fit, which leads to better products, which leads to larger number of sales targets which leads to greater profitability and growth and has the side effect of reducing HR complaints, increasing inclusivity and making work more enjoyable for everyone.
> It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to
Is it? Many of the companies with board level quotas aren’t particularly efficient.
Is it? Many of the companies with board level quotas aren’t particularly efficient.
The first link is behind a paywall so I couldn't access it.
The second link is some good research, demonstrating a correlation between diversity and profitability. I was hoping to find within it an analysis of possible confounding factors - for example, what if profitable companies can afford to initiate "diversity and inclusion" campaigns and institute quotas, which would turn the causality the other way around(higher profits -> more diversity), rather than the researchers' explanation(more diversity -> higher profits). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any such analysis in the paper.
Is this the full text of the third link? https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-10-20...
The link is more of an article on what diversity and inclusion is, and how to measure its benefits, rather than research that shows those benefits.
The second link is some good research, demonstrating a correlation between diversity and profitability. I was hoping to find within it an analysis of possible confounding factors - for example, what if profitable companies can afford to initiate "diversity and inclusion" campaigns and institute quotas, which would turn the causality the other way around(higher profits -> more diversity), rather than the researchers' explanation(more diversity -> higher profits). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any such analysis in the paper.
Is this the full text of the third link? https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-10-20...
The link is more of an article on what diversity and inclusion is, and how to measure its benefits, rather than research that shows those benefits.
So you've picked a metric "profitability".
First one paywall, third one no evidence, second one correlation causation. It's head smackingly obvious that the most profitable companies tend to be the largest/most publically visible, and the most vulnerable to lobbying for quotas, and with the most ability (since their profit is based on being a big boy who can extract rent) to implement whatever is socially desired at the time.
Take tech, look at the most profitable companies, they're also the biggest, they're also the most lobbied.
Per your final comment, the job of senior executives is not always, (or even normally?) focussed on market research/product. Old Apple being the famous exception.
There's gap between your prose and how watertight the evidence you presented is.
First one paywall, third one no evidence, second one correlation causation. It's head smackingly obvious that the most profitable companies tend to be the largest/most publically visible, and the most vulnerable to lobbying for quotas, and with the most ability (since their profit is based on being a big boy who can extract rent) to implement whatever is socially desired at the time.
Take tech, look at the most profitable companies, they're also the biggest, they're also the most lobbied.
Per your final comment, the job of senior executives is not always, (or even normally?) focussed on market research/product. Old Apple being the famous exception.
There's gap between your prose and how watertight the evidence you presented is.
A lot of that research is just "research", or at the very least jumping to conclusions. Like finding that "women earn less than men on average", but then jumping to the erroneous conclusion that there must be discrimination against women at work. That kind of pattern is visible in almost every feminist paper. Even if the research is legitimate (for example it IS interesting that women earn less than men on average - clearly something is going on), they end up with jumping to some conclusion that they always wanted to prove to begin with.
> trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence
You're doing exactly the same. You have provided no evidence or facts.
> There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic
Great, so provide it.
You're doing exactly the same. You have provided no evidence or facts.
> There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic
Great, so provide it.
> https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/the-boardroo...
Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%, France from 21% to 38% and on average the world saw a growth of 5% from 2012 to 2015.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Quotas
Of the top-ranked 20 countries in terms of female representation in government, 17 of these countries utilize some sort of quota system to ensure female inclusion.
Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%, France from 21% to 38% and on average the world saw a growth of 5% from 2012 to 2015.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Quotas
Of the top-ranked 20 countries in terms of female representation in government, 17 of these countries utilize some sort of quota system to ensure female inclusion.
Obviously, if you implement a quota, the representation will rise. That says nothing about the side effects, or even the motivation of women to aim for higher careers in general.
As for the research showing higher profitability for diverse teams: a lot if it is about diversity of thought, not diversity of genders. But even if you take gender into account, you have to also consider economic trends. Businesses that flourish might simply be more able to afford women (who are more costly employees than men, if only because of the sick days and higher likelihood to drop out because of pregnancy). So the correlation would actually be inverse (success would cause more female employees, not the other way round). Or think about oil industry vs tech industry. Fewer women work in mining, but the tech industry was exceptionally successful in recent years. It might just be a random artifact that more women work in tech than in mining, and tech happened to be more successful.
If you look at such papers, always pay attention to the interval they use for claiming "more success". If they say "from 2009 to 2016 diverse companies were more successful", bet you ass that if you look at the data from 2000 to 2018, the correlation fades away.
As for the research showing higher profitability for diverse teams: a lot if it is about diversity of thought, not diversity of genders. But even if you take gender into account, you have to also consider economic trends. Businesses that flourish might simply be more able to afford women (who are more costly employees than men, if only because of the sick days and higher likelihood to drop out because of pregnancy). So the correlation would actually be inverse (success would cause more female employees, not the other way round). Or think about oil industry vs tech industry. Fewer women work in mining, but the tech industry was exceptionally successful in recent years. It might just be a random artifact that more women work in tech than in mining, and tech happened to be more successful.
If you look at such papers, always pay attention to the interval they use for claiming "more success". If they say "from 2009 to 2016 diverse companies were more successful", bet you ass that if you look at the data from 2000 to 2018, the correlation fades away.
> Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%
And how much of this is because of quotas?
Australia (ASX200) went from 8.3% in 2009 to 28.5% in 2018 without a quota system.
And how much of this is because of quotas?
Australia (ASX200) went from 8.3% in 2009 to 28.5% in 2018 without a quota system.
The onus is on you to prove that quotas outperform skill-based hiring. Sorry, but d'uh.
That's the beauty of having a large sample size. There are examples everywhere.
Look at political parties which imposed forms of quotas e.g. UK and Australian Labour. They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties. Or look at corporate boards and executives across many countries. Almost all have seen improvements in female participation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...
Look at political parties which imposed forms of quotas e.g. UK and Australian Labour. They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties. Or look at corporate boards and executives across many countries. Almost all have seen improvements in female participation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...
Isn't that pretty much tautological? Yes, if you impose gender quota, then you're obviously going to get more women. The empirical question is whether the organization is better off as a result.
[deleted]
> They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties.
And having more women MPs instead of men has done what exactly for their countries?
I don’t think anyone has particularly great things to say about either countries Labour parties.
And having more women MPs instead of men has done what exactly for their countries?
I don’t think anyone has particularly great things to say about either countries Labour parties.
Meanwhile in other threads we often discuss how the hiring process is broken for technical positions - what makes us think that hiring in other fields is any better?
If the research and conclusions are that clear, lets make it a law. To give that some perspective with Swedish data; 87.4% of men and 87.6% of women has a professions position that is gender segregated. Out of the top five worst offenders four is dominated by women. In higher education there one program that is currently fully dominated by a single gender and that one is 100% women.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a law demand gender quotas for those ~90% of work places. If we assume a linear distribution where the average work place has a gender ratio of 80:20, about 18% of every employed person in Sweden would then get their job through the gender quota law which is then about a half million women and men. That would make for a fascinating social experiment.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a law demand gender quotas for those ~90% of work places. If we assume a linear distribution where the average work place has a gender ratio of 80:20, about 18% of every employed person in Sweden would then get their job through the gender quota law which is then about a half million women and men. That would make for a fascinating social experiment.
Quotas are the definition of discrimination
> Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't
I wonder what other outcome one might expect from quotas.
I wonder what other outcome one might expect from quotas.
> There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic
I'm very much interested in reading about this. I'd be very thankful if you were to provide a few references :)
I'm very much interested in reading about this. I'd be very thankful if you were to provide a few references :)
quotas don't really work and are injust. You don't even know the condition for success, so I doubt there could exists data that would support your assumption in any way.
If by 'work' you mean that quotas lead to more women in the targeted roles then that's obvious...
But actually solving these issues (whether real or perceived) means not having quotas.
But actually solving these issues (whether real or perceived) means not having quotas.
That's the insidious part of affirmative action. It casts shade on even those who are legitimately good enough to succeed without it.
This should not only apply to gender but also to race and ethnicity. I’ve seen too much white, male dominated positions of responsibility beyond an individual contributor. This requires managers to be the ones that promote from within and recognize good skills among any kind of person on their team while keeping in mind their backgrounds and how that may affect their perception.
Wealth, class and attractiveness too right? Then we can work on height, personality type and start breaking ethnicity into appearance, genetics, accent, place of birth, place where you grew up, same for your parents. Make sure we're equalized across all of those then we can go back and iterate on more fractions.
because there are so many examples in history that tell us that these kind of messures lead always to perfect success stories.
Let's start with men..
"its about promoting the fact that these women exist"
I think the actual message of these promotions is "they make a big deal out of the capability of this woman in field x. It must be very rare that women are capable in field x".
I think the actual message of these promotions is "they make a big deal out of the capability of this woman in field x. It must be very rare that women are capable in field x".
[deleted]
This led to the situation where one of the candidates insisted that her husband (who was also a CS academic) be given a job as well as her. The university agreed to her demand, but refused to give him a tenure track position. The funny thing was, IMHO she was not particularly good. I can't remember what she was working on, but it was not very compelling research and she had difficulty getting grants, etc. He, on the other hand, was spectacular (and a great teacher to boot). Eventually, because the university steadfastly refused to give the husband a tenure track position (in a fit of pique???), the couple left the university.
That was my first exposure to this kind of politics and since then I've always kept in the back of my mind that it's always waaaay more complicated than you think it is when you try to introduce weird politics in hiring and promotion policies. Much better to simply clear the barriers as best as you can and measure your progress. It might take longer, but you have a better chance of success, I think.