It could easily be the case that there was bias, but women have overcome or chosen to ignore that bias to take their job of interest.
She argues, as summarized in a commentary by Rachel Bernstein in Science on Novermber 14, 2014, that observational data can make it hard to identify causes and effects. It's that those who have encoutered and extensively documented discrimination against STEM women, like Virginia Valian at Hunter College of CCNY don't believe for a minute that the sexism is gone. Of course, it's not that people dispute the data. For example, in physics women were 12% of applicants, 19% of those interviewed, and 20% of those offered the position.ĭiane Halpern, Psychologist at the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences and former president of the American Psychological Association, wrote a commentary that was published alongside the paper and commented, "That's really something to celebrate." Their conclusion, presented in the headline the NYT article ran under, was "Academic Science Isn't Sexist." Their finding, perhaps unexpected by many in science or studying scientific gender balance, was that in recent tenure track searches in math-intensive fields at 89 US universities, women were interviewed and hired at rates that were equal to or higher than their proportions in the applicable pools of potential employees. Hi friends of women in science, Back on October 31, Ceci and Williams wrote in T he New York Times about hiring in math-heavy fields, based on a study they had published in P sychological Sciences In The Public Interest.
0 kommentar(er)
