Mon 19 May 2008
Dan Drezner ‘90 notes that he hasn’t “angered feminists” in awhile and so links to recent discussions of why women are “underrepresented” in technology jobs.
Dan quotes a Boston Globe article:
Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people’s preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom’s study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.
Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field.
Don’t tell Professor Wendy Raymond! Consider this Q&A in the Record.
Do you see your gender as having an effect on your work or your education?
Yes. At Williams, my gender has less of an effect than at any other place, and part of that is the fact that the biology department has so many women members. It’s the first place I’ve been where women are half or more than half of the department. Gender has always played a role because there are so few women in chemistry. I have certainly experienced sexist behavior from my colleagues. Often that behavior is so ingrained in out social fabric that those colleagues have no idea that they’re doing it.
Part of what I’ve done as a woman in science is to objectively educate my colleagues as to these problems. For example, one common thing people do when they invite people to conferences is to invite their friends, who often happen to be guys who they grew up in science with so the program will be 80 percent male, even though woman are about 50 percent of biologists. We have to educate people that gender should be one thing you consider when you invite people to give talks at a meeting. That’s a gentle example.
Want to get funding for a meeting from someone like Raymond? Better make sure that 50% of the speakers/attendees are women.
I feel that it’s excellent for Williams students to have a lot of female professors in their early years here as it breaks own their expectation that scientists will be men. At Williams, it’s clear that’s not the case. I only hope that improves the way men and women leaving Williams will see their scientific colleagues, they won’t always assume that they’ll be male. Unfortunately, in the other physical sciences women are not as well represented.
That’s right. The world will not be a truly just place until half the physicists and mechanical engineers are women. And don’t forget to ensure that 50% of the elementary school teachers are men.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
According the this recent Record article, the incoming Williams Class of ‘12 is 55% female. What happens when the 60-40 female-male imbalance in US college and university enrollments catches up with Williams? Will the cavemen at Williams still need to be “educated” even then?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
And again my attempt to post something positive on Ephblog is quickly overshadowed. I hate jumping at the “how ignorant can I sound to anger the liberals on Ephblog” bait, but I can’t resist.
David, for the sake of your daughters, I sincerely hope that you show more care with your comments around them. I would think that wanting to have positive role models would be a pretty neutral proposition, but I guess not for you. Did Wendy Raymond kick your puppy at some point? This post is absurd. She was asked a direct question about gender, and she answered it.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
1) I am sensitive to the issue of overshadowing, so I have now put 90% of the post below the break.
2) What is “ignorant” about my comments? Raymond explicitly says that you should take account of gender in organizing a meeting and that 50/50 splits are desirable. You think my advice to those seeking funding from Raymond and those like her is wrong? How so?
3) “[W]anting to have positive role models” is both a “neutral” and, in this context, a largely meaningless proposition. We all agree that positive role models are good. Where we disagree is who Williams should hire on the margin. For the next job opening in physics, I want Williams to hire the best candidate. Raymond wants Williams to hire more women, even if there are better candidates who are male. Given the pool, there are many more potential male physics professors than female ones. I have no problem with this. Raymond does. She wants to see a 50/50 split between male and female professors throughout the sciences at Williams. I think that this sort of quota-mongering is absurd.
Although I don’t want to read too much into these made-for-the-Record comments, I do suspect that there are some Div III professors at Williams who agree with me.
I agree that all classes and all majors at Williams should be made welcoming to all students at Williams. I do not think that this requires a 50/50 split in professorial genders.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
David,
I suppose you didn’t read my comment in the Sports and Girls thread that linked to this article.
It’s all about a new study (about to be published in the Harvard Business Review) that shows sexism to be alive and well in Science, Engineering, and Technology.
Apparently plenty of women are qualifying and seeking out these professions, but then, once there, they are leaving in disproportionate numbers because of “sexual harassment”, the “dismissive attitudes of their colleagues” and a “lack of mentors”.
Pretty much substantiates Professor Raymond’s stance.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Thank you for that comment, JG.
(I think we should start a rumor that Ms. Raymond has veto power over who gets hired to teach at Williams, especially for WSPs [and maybe she does -- LOL]. Perhaps that would rein in the attempts to bait in this vein. Probably not [sighs] but it was worth a thought.)
I wonder what would happen if we tried an experiment, with X, Y and Z agreeing not to post at all for a week or two (I’d be happy to join the non-posters if asked). Would the site dwindle off like NESCAC Nation did, or would it bloom in new ways? Would more females post? Would more students post? More faculty and staff? Might some of those who used to post but have gone silent in frustration (and may still read) return? Would the tone change? I’m pretty sure the topics would change. A week probably would not be nearly long enough, but it could still be interesting.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, the class of ‘11 is disproportionately male, so the fact that there are more women in the class of ‘12 doesn’t necessarily indicate any sort of larger trend; the variation from year to year is too great.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Actually, ‘10, Williams has been majority female for most of the last decade, and I see no reason why it should be exempt from the national trend.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Yes, as I understand it, the Class of 2011 is an anomaly in having more males than females.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Well, you certainly angered this feminist.
The end was a particularly flip and useless comment. There are barriers that prevent both women entering the tech field and men from entering teaching. To cover teaching because there’s been enough talk about that.
Men are not elementary school teachers for a number of reasons. Economically, it’s not feasable. A number of men enter the field at the beginning but need to leave because the job doesn’t pay enough to support a family(see also the situation in day care). Also, a number of parents do not trust a male teacher for elementary school because of gender assumption that they are too gruff or might sexually endanger their students.
This is problematic because in both cases, people who might be qualified for a position in either field are discouraged because of persistent social pressure. That’s inefficient.
Some personal anecdotal evidence: my first roommate here at UNC is a Computer Science Ph. D. candidate who is from Istanbul, Turkey. She complained to me that there were more women in CS in Turkey than there were here. The higher rates of women in the sciences in other countries indicates not that American women dislike the sciences but that there is significant pressure to not go into those fields or to not stay in them because of their incompatibility with raising a family. Also the large gender disparity in fields like CS is something to remedy. 50/50 may be the ideal, but it certainly should not be 90/10 or 80/20.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
1) We have occasionally discussed having “Dave take a vacation” from EphBlog for a few weeks. Alas, no one has stepped up to promise to provide content in my absence. Will this year be different?
2) Although females will continue to outnumber males in higher education, what happens at elite schools like Williams is different because males have a higher standard deviation in some measures of academic performance, like SAT scores. So, even a gender-blind Williams admissions process would continue to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50/50. Williams needs to practice affirmative action to get the percentage of football players and URMs that it wants. Doing so for men in general is not necessary.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Why is a disparity something that needs to be remedied? Why not start with, say, elementary education and nursing, which put CS to shame.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
David,
You now have two links (in my comment and in Suz’s comment) to an article that will give you a little perspective on exactly what Raymond is talking about.
Read it. And then hope that Raymond’s astute observations and call for action, can cause enough change, that if and when your daughters choose one of these fields, they won’t have to face the same ridiculous, “time warp” issues.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
In dealing with this issue, I find it helpful to frame the discussion as: What would the world look like if there were no discrimination?
Consider the case of Irish Americans. We can all agree, I hope, that, historically, the Irish faced real discrimination in the US. (There is a great senior thesis to be written about the first Irish Catholic Eph.) No doubt this discrimination affected all sorts of outcomes. In the absence of that discrimination, I suspect that there would have been more, say, Irish American scientists. (If I may brag from a moment, my own great-grandfather was, by all (family!) accounts, a genius and yet the best he could hope for was a career as a police officer.)
We can also agree, I hope, that there is no meaningful discrimination against Irish-Americans today. Indeed, we are about to elect our second Irish-American president! And yet the Irish are still dramatically underrepresented at places like Williams, especially relative to Jews. I make no claims about why this is. I just want to note that, even in the absence of discrimination, differential outcomes are common.
And so my question to the EphBlog community: If there were no discrimination against women, what percentage of the professors in, say, Math and Physics at Williams would be female? My guess: No more than 20%. What is your guess? Why? I would especially be interested to hear from FM and JG on this.
I do not think that I differ from others in terms of how much discrimination/sexism my daughters will face in this imperfect world. I just disagree about how much impact this will have on them. Perhaps I overestimate their resiliency!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
David: You’re making the classic error of assuming that a measure of variance (standard deviation) is (and will continue to be) a constant. But we all know that variance itself is variable.
I would only point out that there has been an enormous gain over the last 20 years, not only in terms of the percentage of women admitted (which is now regularly 55% at Williams, and even higher elsewhere), but also in terms of closing the gender-based score disparity in the SATs.
I also think you over-estimate the role that SATs play in the Williams admissions process - at the very high end of the distribution, personal distinguishing characteristics among applicants play a far more important role than a 10 or 20-point difference in SAT scores.
The fact is that the SAT is not a gender-neutral testing device, and admissions officers know this; given the enormous amount of applications they receive, and the degree of selectivity they have, I hardly think that Williams admissions officers will be led by the statistical idiosyncrasies of SAT scores into bucking the overriding trend towards greater female admissions.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I had no idea Obama was an Irish name.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Ronit: You are confused about what Williams (and its admissions officers) “want.” They prefer a Williams that is 50/50 male/female, both for ideological (!) reasons and because they know that the best students prefer balanced enrollment. The main reason less competitive schools have a problem is that there are more female applicants with, say 500 SATs and above average high school grades than male applicants. Those schools are stuck.
At the extremes of the distribution, however, men outnumber women, at least on standardized tests. (Alas, I can’t find the SAT data to link to just now.) So, Williams will always have no problem finding as many men as women with superb academic credentials because the pool of AR 1 and 2 applicants is at least 50% male.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Obama is not an Irish name but Obama’s mother is part Irish. In fact, both Obama and I are descended from Irish immigrants from County Offaly.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
“the best students prefer balanced enrollment”
huh? I don’t see where you get that, at all. Some of the “best students” go to overwhelmingly-male MIT, while others go to single-gender Wellesley. I don’t see a pattern.
I also disagree that Williams admissions officers actively want a 50-50 distribution (because they have certainly not accomplished this in most recent years), and I seriously doubt they would have any problem going to 60-40.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
1) Every male MIT student who I have ever met wishes there were more women at MIT. They go to MIT despite the gender imbalance, not because of it. You are right, however, about the small percentage of elite female students who choose single sex schools. Yet, with each passing year, only Wellesley seems to stay within our peer group.
2) Williams has not “accomplished” the goal of 50/50 gender split in “recent years?” Try again, please. In 2007-2008, the undergraduate population was 987 male and 977 female. Sure looks 50/50 to me! In 2003-2004, it was 990/1005. Just a coincidence?
May 20th, 2008 at 12:47 am
David,
I will take you up on your request for a response. At the moment, I am SO overloaded. My frosh just arrived home, and devoted mother and wife that I am, I have loads of laundry, shopping, and catching up to do. I also have a very important ‘professional event’ happening in the next couple of days on which I need to focus.
I will add, however, that my response will have more to do with what I feel I have to offer. I know very little about the ‘academic’ world; the quotas, statistics and percentages that may or may not argue for, or against, Raymond’s case. But I do know about sexism, and inequality, and the “resiliency” needed to deal with it on a daily basis.
When Raymond talks about “behavior so ingrained in our social fabric that these colleagues have no idea that they’re doing it”…I know exactly what she means. It is behavior that makes its way into the most basic of interactions between men and women…from simple friendship, to the conversations on a blog site, to the interactions in the boardroom, or in Raymond’s case; the Science department.
Is it something I feel deep anger or bitterness about? No. But by the same token, I will do everything I can, to insure her efforts are not ridiculed or belittled…because simply, she has observed a flaw that needs to be addressed.
So…I will get back to you when I have time to digest the thread, and form a more substantive, linear, argument. Your comment #13, might even inspire me to drag my Cherokee, Irish, Scottish, Southern, heritage into the argument. :-)
May 20th, 2008 at 1:08 am
And read the darn link.
It seems there are many bloggers on this site who just rehash their same old argument over and over.
I mean, really, what is the point in endless discussion unless you’re willing to be receptive? To learn something from the other viewpoint?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Feminist cite contemptuously about the inordinate numbers of males within faculties demanding “gender equity”. The key to advancement lies in establishing females to be victims of sexual discrimination, coercing administration to accept compromised standards or face costly litigation.
What nature does not provide, the adoption of quota system does. Title IX, the gender equity provision of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, was generally applied to college sports, but the measure states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, …be denied the benefits of….any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
The interpretation of this act has led to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality”, that is, if a college student body is 55% female, then 55% of the athletes should be female. Many schools chose to eliminate certain teams because of the problems associated with fielding the appropriate numerical quotas. The application of this act to education would decimate the academic departments particularly within the sciences and mathematics.
Feminism as a political phenomenon is a parasitic behavioral movement in humans. That manipulation occurs between groups is undeniable. The complexity of parasitical behavior among human genotypes is inevitable. We should not be asking “if” but “how” this parasitical behavioral condition was condoned within our society.
We should consider the distinction between symbiosis and parasitism, for example,where a species might practice one by feigning the other. Or in a symbiotic relationship which might be extended to involve an element of parasitism. We observe this in a female’s disguised shortcomings, when the human female obscures her neglect of the symbiotic functions which would normally justify male investment in her. For instance, when a female produces a child which is not fathered by her husband. Note the large numbers of women producing children without paternal interest.
What we are also witnessing is the increasing emasculated male figures assuming high positions of authority but possessing few male characteristics, where these specific males exploit the inherent weaknesses natural males have for females. Unfortunately, many male perceptions of females are irrational, simply because irrational perception is evolutionarily advantageous to the female.
Homosexuals express female characteristics with masculine force, while our emasculated “gatekeepers” and their emasculated males express female traits with singular enterprise and potency.
Many academics, particularly within psychology, claim that genes have no influence on behavior. One of the best known parasites in nature is the cuckoo. In common with a number of other parasites, the cuckoo has no contact with its biological parents, so its parasitic behavior can only be genetically determined, i.e. hereditary.
Females often practice transduction. By generating or inventing a problem for the purpose of blaming someone else. We see this when hear of environmental issues that are increasingly being blamed on male science, male technology or male administrative leaders. Then again, our “gatekeepers” invent the problem for the purpose of selling you a solution.
Females often fear the worst. The female speculates, seeking to foresee any eventuality in which she may be obliged to provide physical sex (which for her can be very costly). For instance, not turning up for meetings in fear of a relationship and/or physical sex. Then we observe how manipulators will use these situations to take active measures to prepare for the feared eventuality and profiting from the surplus when it does not arise.
Females often go too far. They do not limit each others’ behavior, and rely on males to do it. Females’ failure to limit the absurdities of radical feminists, even adopting their language and beliefs years later. While this is in motion, we see the displacement of traditional male leadership and natural male membership behind the scenes.
With the issue of malign motivation, females encourage an opponent to pursue an adverse policy. while conspiring to increase her position at someone else’s expense. This is the practice of compound benefit, of making a profit as the result of an adverse policy.
Females often promote a false expectation of a payoff in the future by facilitating the selection of the best possible mate. This enables the female to maintain a circle of suitors of whom hopefully the best will be successful. We see this effeminization of our society when we foster belief systems in the multi-cultural utopia which will result when racism has been abolished, that peace can only be obtained for the price of a war on terror, or where the belief in an eternal paradise will be realized.
Transduction is the most important negative female characteristic to understand. It is where we induce a false feeling, a feeling of guilt, where the male as a defense mechanism attempts to compensate for his perceived transgressions. We see this in society and in religious organizations.
To deny the biological differences of the “male brain” and the impact of testosterone and behavior is to alter what is natural. The psychological attempts to deny natural functionality as a disorder or disease is tantamount to the hubris of the pathological minds who are obsessed with egalitarianism.
This equity crusade, this seemingly quiet revolution undermines the scientific achievements which is our national resource and the foundation of our economy and the nation’s health and safety.
Will schools, who are quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, produce results?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Not if they choose to spend much time with prolix, pseudo-intellectual, liberal arty gibberish.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Irish Americans are dramatically underrepresented at Williams? Huh? Support for this assertion, please.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:33 am
If you would read the quoted sections in your own post David, rather than simply assuming it says what you want it to say so that you may disagree with it, Raymond pointed out that in a field where there already is a gender balance among professors (biology) conferences tend to be skewed on a regular basis to 80% male. Did she say that she wouldn’t fund such imbalanced meetings? No. Did she say she wouldn’t go to such meetings? No. Did she say it was intentional or some sexist plot? No. In fact, I thought she was rather charitable in her characterization of this issue.
Again, I ask what was bad about her saying that it is a good thing for students to see that both men and women can be scientists. What is it about her response to these questions that provoked such a seemingly angry and accusatory response?
How did you jump from:
To:
Honestly - I really want to know. What in that paragraph that you quoted mentions a “just” world requiring 50% of physicists or mechanical engineers be women? She said a complimentary thing - students at Williams are able to see that scientists don’t have to be men because of solid female representation in the biology faculty. Silly me, I thought that was positive.
And I’m willing to be that if you asked Raymond about the dearth of men in elementary school teaching, she would express a desire for a more gender parity there as well. These things are not mutually exclusive. It would be wonderful if boys could see more reflections of themselves in their elementary school teachers. What is your point? Is it a requirement that someone comment on every single social issue that might possibly be related when asked a question? She was asked about the role of gender in her work and education, not the state of gender equality across all professions or even all teaching professions.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Sorry - to add quickly. She never says or even implies that a 50/50 gender split at meetings is desirable. She says an 80/20 split is undesirable in a field that is 50/50. And considering gender does not mean a quota.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:53 am
We block spam comments, but allow drivel like “Justin Thyme” to get through the filters?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:20 am
David,
What I take issue with is the way you presented the post.
Drezner’s original comment actually posted a small part of the study that would serve to support Raymond (the same link I provided). He then prefaced the Boston Globe piece, calling it “alternative explanations”. Although you provided the link, you chose to ignore and omit the balanced part of Drezner’s piece and start your thread with only the piece that disputes Raymonds point.
If you really wanted an open discussion, one that explored the issues from all sides, why not post it in an unbiased manner?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I am keen to follow up on claims that Williams’ admissions officers pursue an ideal 50-50 gender balance.
1. What is the evidence that “customer satisfaction” (for lack of a better term) is the explanation? What do you mean, David, by “ideological (!) reasons”?
2. Why is the ten-year trend toward more female admits if, per David, Williams can buck national trends due to its elite status?
As a public service, data from the College’s Common Data Sets except where noted:
Class of ‘12 — 55% female (per The Record)
Class of ‘11 — 48% ”
Class of ‘10 — 53% ”
Class of ‘09 — 52% ”
Class of ‘08 — 51% ”
Class of ‘07 — 51% ”
Class of ‘06 — 54% ”
Class of ‘05 — 49% ”
Class of ‘04 — 49% ”
Class of ‘03 — 49% ”
Class of ‘02 — 49% “
May 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
1) There are numerous articles (e.g., here) about how many schools are doing whatever they can to attract male applicants (i.e., re-institute football) at least partly because women want to go to a college with plenty of men. By inspection, I know that 18 year old men want to go to a college with plenty of women.
2) There are many who have an ideological belief that all important positions in society should have a 50/50 gender split. I don’t think that such reasoning plays a major role in admissions at Williams.
3) There is no 10 year trend!
a) The number for ‘12 does not include the wait list. You can be sure that many more men than women are getting calls from the admissions office.
b) Be careful about generalizing from freshmen admissions to undergraduate enrollment. I bet that many more men then women fail/drop out.
c) There is no meaningful trend in the data that you cite. If ‘02 is 49% female and ‘11 is 48%, it is hard to tell stories about inevitably rising female enrollment.
d) Even though the College aims for 50/50, it will always be hard to hit that number exactly since there are issues (relative yields, decisions to take time off) that vary so much from year to year.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Isn’t the fact that some of the best students freely choose to go to majority-male schools like MIT itself a revealed preference?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Common data set is here, and I believe it does reflect actual enrollment:
http://www.williams.edu/admin/provost/ir/
May 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Williams and other elite colleges are by no means immune to the current female bias in the applicant pool. Just the opposite, in fact:
a) Females are killing the males in presenting college applications with the desired academic and extracurricular weight.
b) As admissions moves towards African American and Latino/a ethnic groups, the gender imbalance grows signficantly. By any academic measure, African American and Latino males lag far behind their female counterparts.
BTW, don’t kid yourself. The Williams admissions office would be fired if they let the gender imbalance get to 60%/40%.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
XFM, Frosh Mom, Hello There, Purple unicorns (whatever moniker you choose),
Stay on Kane! Drezner, in fact, doesn’t post anything to really anger feminists…as he writes himself when commenting on the articles, “I don’t think this is an either-or issue — sexism and self-selection can be mutually reinforcing narratives.” Not only can they be so, they often are so.
It’s a shame. Hell, if we want to try the experiment, I’ll promise to post an actual blog post once a week as part of the effort (and I’ll vow to stay out of commenting too if that helps).