Colorado Going Color Blind

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Let's play a game. The game is called "Find the Oppressed People." You start with three hundred million points. Every person you point to who has not been oppressed on the basis of race subtracts one from your score. Hint: try not to point at entire races.

An excellent way of putting it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by ColdWizard


Source: American Council of Education.

But if older PhDs are mostly male (this is true), isn't that to be expected?

If it is true in 30 years, I would be surprised.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Coldwizard:

So you concede the point that women are not a minority of students granted a PhD?

I'm certainly willing to concede the point that women are not a majority among university presidents, but as JM already said, it has nothing to do with discrimination at present.

[Jon Miller]

Ben, it doesn't just have to do with who is granted PhDs. It has to do with who is hired as well.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

It also has to do with experience.

You aren't going to elect a newly minted PhD the president of the university.

We'd expect it to take some time before you had equal numbers of equally experienced women with PhDs, just because of the time lag.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It also has to do with experience.

You aren't going to elect a newly minted PhD the president of the university.

We'd expect it to take some time before you had equal numbers of equally experienced women with PhDs, just because of the time lag.

I agree with that. My issue is that both you and ColdWizard are ignoring the important issue. Which is whether women are getting hired after getting their PhD.

JM

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you concede the point that women are not a minority of students granted a PhD?

Not quite. As you said, more women are enrolled in higher education and as yet receive just under half of PhDs conferred. I do concede the difference is not that great (enough that there may be other factors involved in the difference) and my prior information was out of date.

However lower levels of education seem to be dominated by women and yet their university president status seems extraordinarily low.

We'll see how much more progress has been made as the current crop of aging (over 60) presidents (over 40% of the total) step down or replaced (hopefully not due to age discrimination).

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is whether women are getting hired after getting their PhD.

Do you have any stats to show there's a significant difference?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Do you have any stats to show there's a significant difference?

There use to be. I don't know whether there is now. Since there use to be, it is up to those who say it is different now to show that that is the case.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Since I've proven that women for the last 5 years receive PhD's more often then men, the burden is now on you to show that there is a differential in the hiring rates.

All else being equal, we would expect there to be no difference.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.ade.org/facts/placement/placement_table3-10.htm

Here's a study done which shows that while the men had 44.8 percent placement rates, the women have a rate of 40.0 percent. That's slightly higher then the margin of error, which is +/- 4.2 percent.

So there's a small difference, but not much.

Why? 2.6 percent of the women say they are not interested in employment.

If you take that number out, the hiring rates are within the margin of error.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

http://www.ade.org/facts/placement/placement_table3-10.htm

Here's a study done which shows that while the men had 44.8 percent placement rates, the women have a rate of 40.0 percent. That's slightly higher then the margin of error, which is +/- 4.2 percent.

So there's a small difference, but not much.

Why? 2.6 percent of the women say they are not interested in employment.

If you take that number out, the hiring rates are within the margin of error.

You realize you are only looking at the English PHD portion of that list right?

Foreign Language PHDs are more weighted towards men as are Spanish & Portugese PHDs. The rest have under 100 graduates, so dunno how significant they are (though, factoring in tenure track and not seeking employment, French & Italian is heavily weighted towards men, Germanic is towards women, Slavic toward men, Near Eastern toward men [look at the not seeking employment], and Asian is toward women).

Probably should have something more broad.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because more of the women with a PhD in foreign languages end up taking a job elsewhere. The difference in placements is about 6 percent, (45 to 39), with about 2 percent of the women choosing no employment whatsoever.

The interesting thing is that there are fewer women looking for work, the difference is 2 percent in favour of the men, at 5 percent compared to 3 percent.

I'm really not seeing anything statistically significant here. Even if you include the foreign language folks, it's within the margin of error when you take out the percentage of women who choose not to work at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's because more of the women with a PhD in foreign languages end up taking a job elsewhere.

More than men? Cite?

And furthermore, what about other fields aside from English and languages?!

[Ben Kenobi]

If you can find it go right ahead.