This study (PNAS) surveyed 127 professors of biology, chemistry and physics, asking them to evaluate resumes of potential lab managers. Half the pool received a particular resume with a male name and the other half with a female name -- the applications were otherwise identical. There was a significant preference for male applicants over female applicants, and, strikingly, this preference was independent of the gender of the evaluator (professor).
Click for larger figure.
I've always felt that gender plays a big role in academic careers. Men in my field are much more likely to bluff, win arguments by intimidation, oversell results, etc. Usually if a woman says she understands a result or calculation, she really does.
See also Women in the Classroom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(222)
-
▼
09
(25)
- Buffett's secret
- "Net-zero" housing
- Moneyball in academia
- Genetic prediction for Autism
- MSU photos 3
- "... the good things just don’t get shown to Weste...
- Male and female science professors equally gender ...
- BGI acquires Complete Genomics
- Swedish height in the 20th century
- Heckman and social mobility
- Hooking up on campus
- Last days in Oregon
- "People ... do not want to think probabilistically...
- ARPA-E
- AIG accounting
- Spatial structure of SNP distributions
- Big Science
- NYC Bed Bugs
- The choice
- You'd be hedging too if you were a Chinese billion...
- Sterilization and ECB quantitative easing
- MSU photos 3
- Cloud Atlas movie
- A dean's apologia
- MSU photos 2
-
▼
09
(25)

Labels
- physics (336)
- genetics (266)
- finance (258)
- globalization (252)
- brainpower (242)
- technology (193)
- american society (182)
- China (168)
- genomics (168)
- economics (160)
- psychometrics (159)
- science (155)
- photos (154)
- innovation (151)
- psychology (140)
- travel (126)
- ai (118)
- credit crisis (115)
- universities (114)
- higher education (111)
- human capital (107)
- biology (106)
- iq (101)
- startups (98)
- genetic engineering (93)
- machine learning (93)
- cognitive science (91)
- careers (78)
- credit crunch (78)
- evolution (71)
- gilded age (71)
- autobiographical (70)
- elitism (70)
- income inequality (69)
- statistics (69)
- quantum mechanics (64)
- books (61)
- genius (60)
- social science (59)
- caltech (58)
- politics (56)
- political correctness (55)
- talks (55)
- mma (51)
- geopolitics (50)
- sci fi (50)
- silicon valley (50)
- bounded rationality (49)
- history of science (49)
- kids (49)
- academia (48)
- bgi (48)
- education (48)
- cdo (45)
- podcasts (44)
- mathematics (43)
- derivatives (42)
- harvard (41)
- MSU (40)
- realpolitik (40)
- behavioral economics (39)
- history (37)
- intellectual history (37)
- jiujitsu (37)
- bubbles (36)
- literature (36)
- mortgages (36)
- computing (34)
- film (34)
- physical training (34)
- bjj (33)
- ufc (33)
- expert prediction (32)
- hedge funds (32)
- neuroscience (32)
- foo camp (30)
- google (30)
- many worlds (30)
- black holes (29)
- quants (29)
- economic history (28)
- efficient markets (28)
- race relations (27)
- sports (27)
- von Neumann (27)
- feynman (26)
- movies (26)
- nuclear weapons (26)
- entrepreneurs (25)
- obama (25)
- subprime (25)
- housing (24)
- singularity (24)
- taiwan (24)
- music (23)
- affirmative action (22)
- berkeley (22)
- ultimate fighting (22)
- athletics (21)
- biotech (21)
- security (21)
- wall street (21)
- cds (20)
- scifoo (20)
- meritocracy (19)
- quantum field theory (19)
- venture capital (19)
- gender (18)
- goldman sachs (18)
- internet (18)
- blogging (17)
- treasury bailout (17)
- university of oregon (17)
- video (17)
- conferences (16)
- cryptography (16)
- freeman dyson (16)
- smpy (16)
- algorithms (15)
- autism (15)
- cosmology (15)
- japan (15)
- oppenheimer (15)
- personality (15)
- happiness (14)
- height (14)
- new yorker (14)
- chess (13)
- fitness (13)
- hedonic treadmill (13)
- probability (13)
- wwii (13)
- aspergers (12)
- christmas (12)
- india (12)
- malcolm gladwell (12)
- net worth (12)
- nobel prize (12)
- social networks (12)
- television (12)
- blade runner (11)
- dna (11)
- geeks (11)
- les grandes ecoles (11)
- neanderthals (11)
- string theory (11)
- entropy (10)
- football (10)
- government (10)
- italy (10)
- mutants (10)
- nerds (10)
- olympics (10)
- privacy (10)
- pseudoscience (10)
- Einstein (9)
- Go (9)
- ability (9)
- complexity (9)
- dating (9)
- encryption (9)
- eugene (9)
- flynn effect (9)
- nsa (9)
- crossfit (8)
- determinism (8)
- harvard society of fellows (8)
- keynes (8)
- pca (8)
- philip k. dick (8)
- philosophy of mind (8)
- pop culture (8)
- real estate (8)
- research (8)
- robot genius (8)
- usain bolt (8)
- war (8)
- aig (7)
- alpha (7)
- art (7)
- ashkenazim (7)
- basketball (7)
- data mining (7)
- energy (7)
- free will (7)
- game theory (7)
- games (7)
- hugh everett (7)
- james salter (7)
- manhattan (7)
- poker (7)
- qcd (7)
- russia (7)
- turing test (7)
- Fermi problems (6)
- alan turing (6)
- anthropic principle (6)
- bayes (6)
- class (6)
- climate change (6)
- democracy (6)
- environmentalism (6)
- france (6)
- fx (6)
- nassim taleb (6)
- noam chomsky (6)
- patents (6)
- prostitution (6)
- success (6)
- tail risk (6)
- teaching (6)
- volatility (6)
- academia sinica (5)
- bobby fischer (5)
- cold war (5)
- econtalk (5)
- iraq war (5)
- kasparov (5)
- luck (5)
- nonlinearity (5)
- paris (5)
- quantum computers (5)
- renaissance technologies (5)
- sad but true (5)
- software development (5)
- vietnam war (5)
- warren buffet (5)
- 100m (4)
- Iran (4)
- Poincare (4)
- bill gates (4)
- borges (4)
- cambridge uk (4)
- charles darwin (4)
- creativity (4)
- fake alpha (4)
- feminism (4)
- global warming (4)
- godel (4)
- hormones (4)
- humor (4)
- inequality (4)
- information theory (4)
- intellectual property (4)
- judo (4)
- kerviel (4)
- markets (4)
- microsoft (4)
- mixed martial arts (4)
- monsters (4)
- moore's law (4)
- perimeter institute (4)
- rationality (4)
- solar energy (4)
- soros (4)
- trento (4)
- 200m (3)
- babies (3)
- brain drain (3)
- censorship (3)
- charlie munger (3)
- chet baker (3)
- correlation (3)
- demographics (3)
- ecosystems (3)
- equity risk premium (3)
- facebook (3)
- fannie (3)
- fst (3)
- intellectual ventures (3)
- jim simons (3)
- language (3)
- lee kwan yew (3)
- lewontin fallacy (3)
- lhc (3)
- magic (3)
- michael lewis (3)
- nathan myhrvold (3)
- neal stephenson (3)
- new york times (3)
- olympiads (3)
- path integrals (3)
- risk preference (3)
- search (3)
- sec (3)
- sivs (3)
- society generale (3)
- thailand (3)
- alibaba (2)
- assortative mating (2)
- bear stearns (2)
- bruce springsteen (2)
- charles babbage (2)
- cheng ting hsu (2)
- cloning (2)
- david mamet (2)
- digital books (2)
- donald mackenzie (2)
- drones (2)
- eliot spitzer (2)
- empire (2)
- exchange rates (2)
- freddie (2)
- gaussian copula (2)
- heinlein (2)
- industrial revolution (2)
- james watson (2)
- ltcm (2)
- mating (2)
- mba (2)
- mccain (2)
- monkeys (2)
- national character (2)
- nicholas metropolis (2)
- no holds barred (2)
- offices (2)
- oligarchs (2)
- palin (2)
- population structure (2)
- prisoner's dilemma (2)
- simulation (2)
- skidelsky (2)
- socgen (2)
- sprints (2)
- supercomputers (2)
- systemic risk (2)
- twitter (2)
- variance (2)
- virtual reality (2)
- abx (1)
- anathem (1)
- andrew lo (1)
- antikythera mechanism (1)
- athens (1)
- atlas shrugged (1)
- ayn rand (1)
- bay area (1)
- beats (1)
- book search (1)
- bunnie huang (1)
- car dealers (1)
- carlos slim (1)
- catastrophe bonds (1)
- cdos (1)
- ces 2008 (1)
- chance (1)
- children (1)
- cochran-harpending (1)
- computers (1)
- cpi (1)
- david x. li (1)
- dick cavett (1)
- dolomites (1)
- drugs (1)
- dune (1)
- eharmony (1)
- epidemics (1)
- escorts (1)
- faces (1)
- fads (1)
- favorite posts (1)
- fiber optic cable (1)
- francis crick (1)
- frauds (1)
- gary brecher (1)
- gizmos (1)
- greece (1)
- greenspan (1)
- hypocrisy (1)
- igon value (1)
- iit (1)
- inflation (1)
- information asymmetry (1)
- iphone (1)
- jack kerouac (1)
- jaynes (1)
- jfk (1)
- john dolan (1)
- john kerry (1)
- john paulson (1)
- john searle (1)
- john tierney (1)
- jonathan littell (1)
- las vegas (1)
- lawyers (1)
- lehman auction (1)
- les bienveillantes (1)
- lowell wood (1)
- lse (1)
- mcgeorge bundy (1)
- mexico (1)
- michael jackson (1)
- mickey rourke (1)
- migration (1)
- mit (1)
- money:tech (1)
- myron scholes (1)
- netwon institute (1)
- networks (1)
- newton institute (1)
- nfl (1)
- oliver stone (1)
- phil gramm (1)
- philanthropy (1)
- philip greenspun (1)
- portfolio theory (1)
- power laws (1)
- pyschology (1)
- randomness (1)
- recession (1)
- sales (1)
- singapore (1)
- skype (1)
- standard deviation (1)
- star wars (1)
- starship troopers (1)
- students today (1)
- teleportation (1)
- tierney lab blog (1)
- tomonaga (1)
- tyler cowen (1)
- ussr (1)
- venice (1)
- violence (1)
- virtual meetings (1)
- war nerd (1)
- wealth effect (1)

6 comments:
"Men in my field are much more likely to bluff, win arguments by
intimidation, oversell results, etc. Usually if a woman says she
understands a result or calculation, she really does."
!!! just like E. Asians, women under-promise and over-deliver. But they don't get the rewards -- the loudmouths do !!!
Before we get too carried away about the noble female professor, perhaps we might remember the name Amy Bishop.
"this preference was independent of the gender of the evaluator (professor)."
The difference not being statistically significant is not the same as saying there is no difference (especially problematic for small samples). The authors also assume that women would prefer women, while the opposite might easily be true and is definitely not ruled out by their data.
Well, there are different types of understanding. Off the top of my head,
a. you can have basic operational knowledge of a result/calculation, enough to have confidence that it's correct, properly use it, and derive similar results using the same method.
b. you can have deep understanding of a surrounding range of derivation techniques. Most useful with open-source software where you can actually go and improve the "derivation", but this is also very valuable for deriving new things. Which gets us to #3...
c. you have deep understanding of the pattern of work in the surrounding field, enough to have developed good taste in choosing projects. People with either of the previous types of understanding can do original work, but it's less likely to be meaningful than that done by someone who really understands the context they're working in.
(Note that (b) and (c) are, strictly speaking, branches of a tree rather than a linear progression.)
Personality plays a role in this. There are stereotypes concerning the conditional probability of someone developing type (b) and/or (c) understanding given that they have type (a), which have varying accuracy. These conditional probabilities can also be highly sensitive to environment.
My dad used to say, "I don't really understand (x)." Then he would say something else that showed he really understood it better than most, but knew his understanding was moderate given the bigger picture.
This test I think is somewhat limited because a lab tech is not the same as hiring faculty or a post-doc or the decision to have a grad student join a research group. In those cases you know the person better and aren't just looking at a resume. Secondly, there is a large variation in competence in being a grad student/post-doc/faculty where in a lab tech it may be hard to judge the person very well in whether they are good at the task they are needed for.
More interesting to me is the fact that the physics results and the biology results are more or less the same. This seems to make one believe that having more women in the faculty won't make the faculty more friendly to new women. This is completely the opposite of the dogma that has been pushed in physics (and other male dominated fields) for a long time. Of course, I don't expect this study to be spun that way.
Post a Comment