Female only professorships

robp

Minister Mitchell O’Connor is expected to announce plans for female applicants only professorships. It is deeply worrying. It seems like a powerful way to undermine the elitism of our top universities and plunge their global rankings. At a time when university autonomy has already been deeply undermined this can only signal to universitiy chiefs how little power they have to manage their own institutions.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fears-over-jobs-for-the-girls-backlash-as-high-education-minister-to-create-professor-posts-only-for-women-to-end-bias-37514739.html

Charles Babbage

Political manipulation of universities is never a good thing, especially half baked manipulation like this.

Black Swan

Any university demographics by gender for lecturers and professorships, tenure track and tenured, doctoral scholarships, PhDs awarded, post-doctoral fellowships, and discipline by NUI campus, as well as historical tracks?

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

Any university demographics by gender for lecturers and professorships, tenure track and tenured, doctoral scholarships, PhDs awarded, post-doctoral fellowships, and discipline by NUI campus, as well as historical tracks?

undergrad 55 per cent
lecturer 51 per cent
senior lecturer per cent
associate prof 32 per cent
professor 23 per cent


There has been a lot of talk of glass ceilings in Irish academic but clearly there is none if nearly one in four profs are female. The idea that there is systemic bias is possible but unlikely given that most lecturers are female and
Irish academics is heavily left wing it seems highly unlikely. Becoming a lecturer is no joke and the competition is probably a lot stiffer than more senior jobs. A lectureship can easily have 100 applicants

robp

It is worth mentioning that this plan came about from a task force composed of two accountants, a trade unionist, a bochemist and a medical doctor. In other words no one with any formal training in understanding and testing human behaviour. Not hard to understand why they came up with such a half baked plan. I'd much rather a task force peopled with economists like Claudia Goldin the eminent economics professor in Harvard who argued the gender pay gap is a myth.


http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Elemonator

This is actually permissible under EU Equal Treatment Directives. It is a while since I looked at it so you will have to forgive me for any misrepresentations I make. It is called positive action. The aim is to create equality and a gender balance in the place of employment. The directives allow for rules to favour hiring the underepresented gender over the other. It has its limitations however, these are usually clauses like if both parties are equally qualified the hire should go to the under represented sex unless reasons specific to an individual candidate tip the balance in his favour (degree vs a masters, experience, suitability for the role etc). I have attached a Wikipedia article and the major cases are included in this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_action

robp

Elemonator wrote: »

This is actually permissible under EU Equal Treatment Directives. It is a while since I looked at it so you will have to forgive me for any misrepresentations I make. It is called positive action. The aim is to create equality and a gender balance in the place of employment. The directives allow for rules to favour hiring the underepresented gender over the other. It has its limitations however, these are usually clauses like if both parties are equally qualified the hire should go to the under represented sex unless reasons specific to an individual candidate tip the balance in his favour (degree vs a masters, experience, suitability for the role etc). I have attached a Wikipedia article and the major cases are included in this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_action

Very interesting. This case is a bit more extreme as men can't even apply. However I presume it could be legal because there are other examples of this in Europe. Nevertheless, it seems like a very unintelligent approach.

I managed to find data on the genders of professorships.
Although only 28% of those promoted for the period 2007-2017were women, just 30% of the applicants were.
So therein lies the problem!

Female Male % Female
Applicants 61 145 30%
Promoted 29 75 28%

Gender Action Plan 2018-2020. Gender Equality Taskforce Action Plan. hea.ie/assets/uploads/2018/.../Gender-Equality-Taskforce-Action-Plan-2018-2020.pdf

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

There has been a lot of talk of glass ceilings in Irish academic but clearly there is none if nearly one in four profs are female.

Does this depend upon how glass ceilings are conceptually and operationally defined? Is the glass ceiling concept appropriate to investigate this research problem, or are there other concepts that may be better suited to measure it (i.e., concepts measured by variables)?

robp wrote: »

The idea that there is systemic bias is possible but unlikely given that most lecturers are female

What does the data suggest for positions higher than lecturers?

robp wrote: »

Irish academics is heavily left wing it seems highly unlikely.

Is this anecdotal and subjective?

robp wrote: »

Becoming a lecturer is no joke and the competition is probably a lot stiffer than more senior jobs.

Is the criteria for advancement identical for both lecturer and more senior jobs? What do the gender differences suggest for "more senior jobs?"

Peregrinus

There's a thread over in the legal forum on whether this is lawful or not. (General conclusion seems to be that it looks pretty dodgy. In post #3 robp give the make-up of the panel that came up with this recommendation; as well as the point that he makes that it contained no social/behaviour scientists, I note that it also contains no lawyers.)

But the OP here raises different points. Will this "undermine the elitism of our top universities"? (If so, that would be a good thing, surely? "Elitism" is not a positive term.) Will it "plunge their global rankings"? I think that must depend on how the global rankings are measured. My guess would be that it has more to do with the research output of an institution than with the employment practices, but my guess could easily be wrong. Anybody know?

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a thread over in the legal forum on whether this is lawful or not.

Good source to check out.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the OP here raises different points. Will this "undermine the elitism of our top universities"? (If so, that would be a good thing, surely? "Elitism" is not a positive term.)

Does this depend upon how you conceptually define and operationalise "Elitism?" For example, the original aristocracy of Aristotle (see Plato) appeared to be based upon merit, and not the later perversion of the concept by the royal houses (i.e., heredity not merit). The same could be said of the original bureaucracy concept defined by Max Weber in Economy and Society (1922), where it was said to be the most effective and efficient form of social organisation; whereas today many define it as the opposite.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Will it "plunge their global rankings"? I think that must depend on how the global rankings are measured.

My subjective experience suggests that flagship universities are ranked by their fellows in accordance with grants and publications in superior scholarly journals by discipline (yet another ranking system, which may or may not be flawed too).

Peregrinus wrote: »

My guess would be that it has more to do with the research output of an institution than with the employment practices, but my guess could easily be wrong. Anybody know?

There are probably several recent publications that address these issues, but unfortunately I do not have time today to search and post them here.

Peregrinus

it does indeed depend on what is meant by "elitism", but if it means "defend the outcome of the current promotion process, because it's assumed to be the best possible process", yeah, that's an attitude that could do with being subverted.

I share everyone's queasiness at the notion of gender-specific positions. At the same time the gender gradient by seniority is striking, and looks to be prima facie disadvantageous to women and suboptimal for the institutions, so it makes sense to explore why it persists, and to think about what to do about it.

Obviously there could be a historical legacy at work here. It would be interesting to look at appointments made over the past 3-5 years; is there the same gender disparity in the proportion of women applicants, or in the proportion of women who are successful?

it may be that the paucity of women at the senor ranks reflects tacit discrimination suffered by women in education in the 1980s/in or seeking starter positions in the 1990s. The people who might now be contesting for chairs, in this hypothesis, aren't contesting for them because they were filtered out of competition by discriminatory practices/attitudes along the way. But if that's so, you can't remedy that by creating women-only positions today; the women who suffered from that past discrimination still won't be candidates for those positions.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

Does this depend upon how glass ceilings are conceptually and operationally defined? Is the glass ceiling concept appropriate to investigate this research problem, or are there other concepts that may be better suited to measure it (i.e., concepts measured by variables)?

What does the data suggest for positions higher than lecturers?

Is this anecdotal and subjective?

Is the criteria for advancement identical for both lecturer and more senior jobs? What do the gender differences suggest for "more senior jobs?"

All lecturerships are open hires but for all other positions, you can get there by promotion. It is possible that promotion is an easier route. This might explain why there is a typically a lower salary scale for professors who got the job through promotion.

The glass ceiling concept is a very faulty approach since female profs are plentiful. A leaky pipeline is a much more suitable model. A glass ceiling gives no women agency and assumes they always have the same ambitions as men.


Of course, people have very different definitions of elitism, but academics should be an elite in their field. If 70% of the typical applicants are barred from applying how can they the best?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I share everyone's queasiness at the notion of gender-specific positions. At the same time the gender gradient by seniority is striking, and looks to be prima facie disadvantageous to women and suboptimal for the institutions, so it makes sense to explore why it persists, and to think about what to do about it.

It is very normal to have that gradient. There are plenty of female TDs but only not so many female ministers and there has never been a female head of gov. In health, about 36% of surgery trainees are female but only 7% of consultant surgeons are female. It is prob driven by choice

Peregrinus

The gender gradient may be normal, but "normal" doesn't mean "optimal". And, while it could be driven by choice, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that it's "probably" driven by choice. And, even if it is, that just raises the question, what is driving the choices?

Unless we have some reason to think that women make fine TDs but lousy ministers, fine medics but lousy consultants, the gender gradient looks to be damaging to those professions and, therefore, to the public which those professions serve. I don't think we can glibly assume that if people aren't applying for senior positions it must be because they are not "the best"; unless we adopt the axiom that our existing processes and culture are perfectly meritocratic, we can easily think of lots of other factors which might be discouraging or hampering their applications.

robp

Peregrinus wrote: »

The gender gradient may be normal, but "normal" doesn't mean "optimal". And, while it could be driven by choice, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that it's "probably" driven by choice. And, even if it is, that just raises the question, what is driving the choices?

Unless we have some reason to think that women make fine TDs but lousy ministers, fine medics but lousy consultants, the gender gradient looks to be damaging to those professions and, therefore, to the public which those professions serve. I don't think we can glibly assume that if people aren't applying for senior positions it must be because they are not "the best"; unless we adopt the axiom that our existing processes and culture are perfectly meritocratic, we can easily think of lots of other factors which might be discouraging or hampering their applications.

I mean choice literally. You mean choice as in desire or aspire. We don't know how many academics aspire to being a prof but we know literally how many choose to apply. The professor application requirements are gender blind. It is all online. There may be hidden barriers (e.g. child care), but that is is not systemic discrimination.

Climbing the academic ranks is no small commitment. It takes extraordinary commitment. Most men and women self select and do not apply. It is farcical to expect every job to have a representative numbers of people. We should watch for systemic discrimination and glass ceilings but beyond that worry less.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unless we have some reason to think that women make fine TDs but lousy ministers, fine medics but lousy consultants, the gender gradient looks to be damaging to those professions

Not in academia because a professorship is literally the same job as a lecturer! Just extra pay in recognition of more achievements. A prof may be a chair but often they aren't so we are actually talking about the same job. It is shocking that the minster in charge of Irish universities doest understand this.

AlphabetCards

Peregrinus wrote: »

The gender gradient may be normal, but "normal" doesn't mean "optimal". And, while it could be driven by choice, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that it's "probably" driven by choice. And, even if it is, that just raises the question, what is driving the choices?

What is optimal? Is there any definition of optimal here?

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

I share everyone's queasiness at the notion of gender-specific positions.

Indeed. There may also be a stigma attached to those women who are appointed, with some colleagues claiming that they got their positions due to gender and not merit.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously there could be a historical legacy at work here. It would be interesting to look at appointments made over the past 3-5 years; is there the same gender disparity in the proportion of women applicants, or in the proportion of women who are successful?

Across the pond The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported a gradual structural change that has been occurring over decades in the States regarding the enrollment of women in undergraduate and graduate programs of study. Just after WWII women only comprised a little over 30% of 4-year degree enrollments, whereas today women surpass men in both enrollments and graduations from university in both 4-year and graduate programs.

Unfortunately, women still lag behind in the sciences, computer, and engineering disciplines, although they are very slowly gaining in these enrollments. Just subjectively guessing, it may take another 100 years before the supply meets the demand of women and men being balanced in numbers at senior ranks of these traditionally male disciplines.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

Across the pond The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported a gradual structural change that has been occurring over decades in the States regarding the enrollment of women in undergraduate and graduate programs of study. Just after WWII women only comprised a little over 30% of 4-year degree enrollments, whereas today women surpass men in both enrollments and graduations from university in both 4-year and graduate programs.

So, therefore, young men are being discriminated against?

Black Swan wrote: »

Unfortunately, women still lag behind in the sciences, computer, and engineering disciplines, although they are very slowly gaining in these enrollments. Just subjectively guessing, it may take another 100 years before the supply meets the demand of women and men being balanced in numbers at senior ranks of these traditionally male disciplines.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the supply of posts is not meeting the demands of women. It is simply is irrational to expect the market demand of women to be 50%. In the same way it is irrational to assume that if more female students enter university than men that there must be toxic matriarchy blocking men from entering universities.

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

So, therefore, young men are being discriminated against?

I believe that the reasons for increased participation of young women in American higher education enrollments are considerably more complex, and it would be misleading or perhaps spurious to label it simply as discrimination against males.

There was no evidence given by The Chronicle in the tracking of this trend in US increased enrollments by young women that would suggest that "young men are being discriminated against." Rather, it had been suggested it was a long term structural change occurring in American society that was due to many variables interacting to produce this longitudinal change. Emphasis here is on the word "suggested," given that there was no prior historical evidence that would anticipate such a gradual increase of higher education enrollments by women in American colleges and universities; e.g., history was not repeating itself.

Comparatively speaking, the family structure has been changing in America too, where in the 1950's and before many families exemplified the "Ozzy and Harriet" mode, where the male spouse was the principle breadwinner, and the female spouse the homemaker, the latter generally having no employment or part-time. Today dual career couples are found more frequently in American families where both spouses are fully employed, which may suggest that the increased demands for employment related credentials, knowledge, and skills that may be found in higher education may have served to motivate an increased participation of young women in higher education enrollments overtime.

There is scholarly literature I've read awhile back on dual career couples and the increased participation of women in full time employment beginning with, and expanding with WWII, where millions of American men left their employment to fight the war. Was the war one pretext (variable) for structural change in employment patterns? To what extent did expanding employment demands on women motivate their later increased enrollment in higher education? This is not my field of research, and I don't have time to provide rigourous empirical citations that may or may not support the above suggestions. Anyone?

Turbulent Bill

How transparent is the appointments process in Ireland for lectureships etc.? Obviously it's a small pool of vacancies and there are confidentiality concerns about identifying candidates, but seeing how appointments are made today would be useful. Number of male / female candidates per position, selection criteria, anonimised scoring etc.

I think gender-based (or government-driven) appointments stink, but querying why women appear to be underrepresented is valid. As a tax paying ex-researcher, 3rd-level autonomy is important to me, but there needs to be demonstrated transparency too that the best people are being chosen for positions.

Black Swan

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

How transparent is the appointments process in Ireland for lectureships etc.?

To what extent does transparency become transparent only after it becomes a political issue; e.g., gender-based government appointment policy?

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I think gender-based (or government-driven) appointments stink, but querying why women appear to be underrepresented is valid.

Agree on both points.

Turbulent Bill

Black Swan wrote: »

To what extent does transparency become transparent only after it becomes a political issue; e.g., gender-based government appointment policy?

I don't really understand your question. In my mind, the universities should be proactive in demonstrating that their selection processes are fair, not waiting for political interference and then reacting. Especially when they're trying to maintain their independence.

Was there any comment from the universities on the proposal? Don't think I saw anything in the media.

Tree

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I don't really understand your question. In my mind, the universities should be proactive in demonstrating that their selection processes are fair, not waiting for political interference and then reacting. Especially when they're trying to maintain their independence.

Was there any comment from the universities on the proposal? Don't think I saw anything in the media.

I think you don't hear anyone calling for transparency in the hiring process when the roles are not specifically calling for underrepresented groups to apply.

The idea that everything before was always taken on merit seems to be taken for granted and not questioned until someone seeks quotas for underrepresented groups. Indeed, when quotas are raised, it is the quality of the underrepresented group that is *always* challenged, never the status quo.

FWIW, the number of positions planned is low compared to the overall scheme, and I think quotas are necessary to overcome existing biases in the system. (Not just for hiring, and not just in the academy). Remove the quotas when the status quo becomes more equal and see that things are not worse than they were before, there are simply more voices with more points of view at the table.

robp

Tree wrote: »

I think you don't hear anyone calling for transparency in the hiring process when the roles are not specifically calling for underrepresented groups to apply.

The idea that everything before was always taken on merit seems to be taken for granted and not questioned until someone seeks quotas for underrepresented groups. Indeed, when quotas are raised, it is the quality of the underrepresented group that is *always* challenged, never the status quo.

FWIW, the number of positions planned is low compared to the overall scheme, and I think quotas are necessary to overcome existing biases in the system. (Not just for hiring, and not just in the academy). Remove the quotas when the status quo becomes more equal and see that things are not worse than they were before, there are simply more voices with more points of view at the table.

The solution to the possibility of biased hiring is not hiring that is granted to be non meritocratic such female only posts. It has to be restated that there is no real evidence yet that women suffer from discrimination in hiring. They are broadly hired as profs in the same number that they apply. About 70% of applicants for professorships are male so if talent is equally distributed that means that these female posts will be probably lower quality. Why exactly it is it plausible that their should be a 50 : 50 sex split in professorships? There are only 500 profs in all of the 26 counties so 50 new token ones is actually a huge number.

Tree

robp wrote: »

The solution to the possibility of biased hiring is not hiring that is granted to be non meritocratic such female only posts. It has to be restated that there is no real evidence yet that women suffer from discrimination in hiring. They are broadly hired as profs in the same number that they apply. About 70% of applicants for professorships are male so if talent is equally distributed that means that these female posts will be probably lower quality. Why exactly it is it plausible that their should be a 50 : 50 sex split in professorships? There are only 500 profs in all of the 26 counties so 50 new token ones is actually a huge number.

Why do you keep implying the hiring will not have merit taken into account? Beyond elimating biases against the hiring of women by having a women only pool, there is nothing to say the interviews will be conducted with any other restriction?

There is a systemic bias against women in society at large, it will not suddenly right itself without intervention.

And quite frankly, there are a lot of mediocre men in positions that could be equally be filled by a women, but for some reason, men are considered to be there on merit and not simply because they look like the people on the hiring committee.

Black Swan

Government imposed gender preference hiring policies focus on correcting the obvious disparity between men and women at higher levels of professorships after the problem has already occurred, rather than before. Further, the Irish policies are too broad sweeping and general, appearing as a numbers game, and do not address cultural and historic root causes for the under-representation of women at advanced levels, especially in the math-intensive science and engineering disciplines.

For example, discipline choice by gender has been one (of many variables) that may influence the under-representation of women at advanced professorship levels. The "best predictor of international sex differences is the degree to which its citizens exhibit implicit gender-science stereotypes" (Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, 2011); i.e., historically men have been stereotyped as scientists and engineers, and women not. These stereotypes have occurred in childhood family, peer group, and cultural associations for hundreds of years, and continue in primary and secondary education experiences, sometimes subtle and unintended, and sometimes not so subtle.

If government policies are to have substantial impact, they need to address when the problem begins and not after it has long since occurred; e.g., during childhood development. This is a long term solution, not a quick fix that may have adverse, unforeseen consequences. This is also a grand area for further research and development. Any takers?

Ref: Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, Reply to Drago: Culture and history are important in understanding the low number of women, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, United States, 24 May 2011.

robp

Tree wrote: »

There is a systemic bias against women in society at large, it will not suddenly right itself without intervention.

That is an impossibly vague statement. It is possible that there is a systemic bias against women in certain areas today and a systemic bias against men in other areas but perhaps not. Mostly men and women have always worked together. Notably, there is evidence of systemic bias against women in the hiring of professors.

Tree wrote: »

And quite frankly, there are a lot of mediocre men in positions that could be equally be filled by a women, but for some reason, men are considered to be there on merit and not simply because they look like the people on the hiring committee.

I have never met any Irish prof who is mediocre. Have you?
I think you dont fully understand what the job is of a prof. It is actually the same as the job of a lecturer. Getting to the prof level is simply extra pay in recognition of achievements.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

For example, discipline choice by gender has been one (of many variables) that may influence the under-representation of women at advanced professorship levels. The "best predictor of international sex differences is the degree to which its citizens exhibit implicit gender-science stereotypes" (Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, 2011); i.e., historically men have been stereotyped as scientists and engineers, and women not. These stereotypes have occurred in childhood family, peer group, and cultural associations for hundreds of years, and continue in primary and secondary education experiences, sometimes subtle and unintended, and sometimes not so subtle.

That doesn't explain the fact that nations that broke down gender roles more than any other such as Sweden have less female STEM grads than say Albania, UAE, Tunisia, Algeria (Stoet and Geary) where gender roles are still traditional and restricted. Maybe women just have different preferences?


Stoet, Gijsbert, and David C. Geary. "The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education." Psychological science 29.4 (2018): 581-593.

Turbulent Bill

Black Swan wrote: »

If government policies are to have substantial impact, they need to address when the problem begins and not after it has long since occurred; e.g., during childhood development. This is a long term solution, not a quick fix that may have adverse, unforeseen consequences. This is also a grand area for further research and development. Any takers?

This makes sense to me. I've been involved with STEM promotion at primary level, and the general level of subject awareness is very low. Kids don't understand the disciplines and hence have no idea of what they could potentially pursue. By the time they get to 2nd-level, stereotypes have taken hold and you end up with the current gender split. Early intervention is critical.

I'm aware of the "if you can't see it, you can't be it" argument in favour of quotas, but your average 9 year old (male or female) isn't aware of any 3rd-level role models. The gender focus should be at primary level rather than on lectureships.

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

I have never met any Irish prof who is mediocre.

Alleged certainty fallacy?

robp wrote: »

Have you?

Yes*

(*But my answer is of no consequence, being anecdotal)

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

Maybe women just have different preferences?

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'm aware of the "if you can't see it, you can't be it" argument in favour of quotas, but your average 9 year old (male or female) isn't aware of any 3rd-level role models.

The under-representation of women at advanced professorships is a complex problem with many different variables that may interact and affect outcomes. With your mention of role models (one variable), especially in the math-intensive sciences and engineering disciplines, to what extent does the small number (relative to males) of significant female role models affect career choices, including the pursuit of advanced degrees, grants, peer-reviewed publications, and professorships?

Turbulent Bill

Black Swan wrote: »

The under-representation of women at advanced professorships is a complex problem with many different variables that may interact and affect outcomes. With your mention of role models (one variable), especially in the math-intensive sciences and engineering disciplines, to what extent does the small number (relative to males) of significant female role models affect career choices, including the pursuit of advanced degrees, grants, peer-reviewed publications, and professorships?

There's a useful study idea!

In my (sample-of-one) experience, about 10% of my undergrad STEM course was female, increasing to 15-20% at postgrad level and about the same at postdoc. I'm too long out of academia to know what the split currently is for career researchers.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

The under-representation of women at advanced professorships is a complex problem with many different variables that may interact and affect outcomes. With your mention of role models (one variable), especially in the math-intensive sciences and engineering disciplines, to what extent does the small number (relative to males) of significant female role models affect career choices, including the pursuit of advanced degrees, grants, peer-reviewed publications, and professorships?

Well as I said before there is no evidence that women are being discriminated against in hiring, aside from rare cases. There is no evidence of a glass ceiling. Why there is a difference is not a fully resolved question but it is unlikely to be so complex. Different life preferences is the glaringly obvious answer. The lack of role model argument is probably BS in most cases because most undergrads are female and most lectures are female. Are we really to believe that the lack of senior females discourages female academics to go for professor jobs but it is no barrier to entry into undergrad courses. So 30-50 YO academics need role models, while 16-17 YOs get on fine without them?

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

Why there is a difference is not a fully resolved question but it is unlikely to be so complex. Different life preferences is the glaringly obvious answer.

So your answer is that it's a simple "different life preferences" choice, and that it is not due to a complex of variables interacting overtime; i.e., you believe that most of the explained variance for the under-representation of women at higher professor ranks is due to choice and nothing else? Is this an either/or nominal categorisation of choice (professor; not professor) that Jacques Derrida has cautioned about as an over-simplistic dichotomy?

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

So your answer is that it's a simple "different life preferences" choice, and that it is not due to a complex of variables interacting overtime; i.e., you believe that most of the explained variance for the under-representation of women at higher professor ranks is due to choice and nothing else? Is this an either/or nominal categorisation of choice (professor; not professor) that Jacques Derrida has cautioned about as an over-simplistic dichotomy?

If getting to the level of prof requires a relentless grind of working very long hours from your 20s to 40s with a limited chance of success than it is entirely plausible that a somewhat higher portion of one sex might take that route. Why women might have different preferences is a complex question but a very separate one. Realizing that womens' choice is at play is actually deeply empowering for women. The Mary Mitchell O'Connor version of reality is that women are incapable of controlling their destinies without handouts and frankly the Irish women I know are a lot stronger than that.

Fathom

robp wrote: »

Why there is a difference is not a fully resolved question but it is unlikely to be so complex.

Human behavior is multi-variate and complex.

robp wrote: »

Different life preferences is the glaringly obvious answer.

What contributes to the formulation of "different life preferences" for women? A complex of factors?

robp

Fathom wrote: »

Human behavior is multi-variate and complex.

What contributes to the formulation of "different life preferences" for women? A complex of factors?

Biology. Men and women are not the same, and science show this. That being said, although I disagree with some of what you say, at least there is logic and methodology to your and the other posters points. In contrast, we don't see that in Mary Mitchell O'Connor. Just Fine Gael imposition on the universities.

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

Biology. Men and women are not the same, and science show this.

Although not falling into my research agenda, I have not encountered rigourous and compelling empirical evidence that would suggest "different life preferences" for women were biologically determined when attempting to explain and predict the under-representation of women in higher professor ranks.

robp wrote: »

That being said, although I disagree with some of what you say, at least there is logic and methodology to your and the other posters points.

Fits with the general expectations of our Researcher forum.

robp wrote: »

In contrast, we don't see that in Mary Mitchell O'Connor. Just Fine Gael imposition on the universities.

As mentioned before, gradual long term structural change since WWII with increasing enrollments of women in university may lead to increasing participation of women at higher professor ranks. I doubt that there is a viable slam dunk solution to women's under-representation in Eire or elsewhere, and such government attempts may have unforeseen adverse consequences.

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

Although not falling into my research agenda, I have not encountered rigourous and compelling empirical evidence that would suggest "different life preferences" for women were biologically determined when attempting to explain and predict the under-representation of women in higher professor ranks.

Yes, but does that matter? if, in fact, women's underrepresentation in certain sectors is a result of women's choices/preferences, that's only a problem if we assume that the women's choices/preferences are suboptimal, or in some way less valid than men's choices/preferences. Or, to put it another way, if people see a dearth of women professors as a problem, could that be because they buy into a typically male mindset with attaches a high value to the status, power, control that a professor has?

I recall a study I came across some time ago that looked at the effect of extending suffrage to women in various European countries at various dates in the twentieth century. A common expectation before the extension of suffrage was that it would lead to more women candidates, more women representatives and, in time, more women political leaders. This, as we all know, hardly happened at all. One account of this is that culture, convention, networks, power structures, etc operated to neutralise the ability of women to secure political power. But the study posited an alternative; that women did not prioritise using their vote to elect other women, but instead used it to support policies that were more appealing to women. So the introduction of femal suffrage was followed not by the election of women politicians, but by the reorienting of public policy and public expenditure in favour of education, healthcare, social supports, etc.

In short, giving women more power did not result in women using the power to achieve status, leadership, etc that men tend to use power to seek.

I don't know whether that's correct or not, but it's at least woth considering. If women don't use the vote to seek office but prioritise influencing policy, could that also help to explain why women might be less concerned with becoming professors than men seem to be? And, if that is so, is there any basis on which we can say that women are making the "wrong" choice?

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know whether that's correct or not, but it's at least woth considering.

It would be interesting to see if there have been some comparative studies between the pursuit of public office and professorship careers by gender.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If women don't use the vote to seek office but prioritise influencing policy, could that also help to explain why women might be less concerned with becoming professors than men seem to be?

I am uncertain if you can deconceptualise and transfer from one domain to a completely different one in this case. Once again, a comparative study between the two may be useful.

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

I am uncertain if you can deconceptualise and transfer from one domain to a completely different one in this case. Once again, a comparative study between the two may be useful.

It's speculative, I admit, but my hypothesis is that a significant motivator for seeking public office is the desire for status ("It gratifies me to be acknowledged and respected") and for power/influence ("It gratifies me to feel that my decisions can make a difference to other people"). If so, then it's reasonable to think that those who are less motivateed by these considerations may be less likely both to seek electoral/government positions and to seek senior managerial/executive positions (which is what a professorial position basically is, in the academic world).

But, as against that, in the political world you do have the alternative of shaping or influencing policy - using your vote, essentially, to influence the decisions that the elected representatives/leaders make. Whereas I don't think there's an obvious analogue to that in the academic world.

fits

I had one female lecturer all the way through my undergrad and there were no women in lecturing positions in my old university school until recently. I feel I would have definitely benefitted from having more women in these positions while I came up. It’s far from an ideal solution but things will never change if it’s not forced a little. Current system has women at a disadvantage from the start if they want to have children at all.

robp

fits wrote: »

I had one female lecturer all the way through my undergrad and there were no women in lecturing positions in my old university school until recently. I feel I would have definitely benefitted from having more women in these positions while I came up. It’s far from an ideal solution but things will never change if it’s not forced a little. Current system has women at a disadvantage from the start if they want to have children at all.

But now in 2018 there is a majority of female lecturers and at the highest level a third of hires are female. There is plenty of female role models. If 43% (1871 of the 4345 university staff are female according to the task force report) female staff isn't enough for female students I can't fathom how rough university is for working class kids or black kids or Polish kids. Working class lecturers are fierce rare and most universities don't have a single black or Polish lecturer, let alone a professor.

BTW all hiring for all academic posts give special exemptions to people who took career breaks for the sake of illness or child raising. Try doing that in the private sector.

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's speculative, I admit, but my hypothesis is that a significant motivator for seeking public office is the desire for status ("It gratifies me to be acknowledged and respected") and for power/influence ("It gratifies me to feel that my decisions can make a difference to other people"). If so, then it's reasonable to think that those who are less motivateed by these considerations may be less likely both to seek electoral/government positions and to seek senior managerial/executive positions (which is what a professorial position basically is, in the academic world).

Mid-term elections. America November 2018. More women ran for office than ever before. Me Too movement. Are times changing?

Black Swan

robp wrote: »

Biology. Men and women are not the same, and science show this.

Just ran across an interesting opinion piece featured in the 3 December 2018 NY Times titled "Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?" They contend that "the notion that sex determines the fundamentals of brain structure and behavior is a misconception."

Also a research article titled "Analysis of Human Brain Structure Reveals that the Brain “Types” Typical of Males Are Also Typical of Females, and Vice Versa," Front. Hum. Neurosci., 18 October 2018.

Fathom

The old left brain (male), right brain (female) dominance model once again refuted by recent research. See above citations. Typical male and typical female brains were more similar than different. Only rare incidences outside the normal distribution appear different by gender. Brain biology does not suggest a clear answer to under-representation of women in higher professor ranks. Religious effects. Could this be another variable not mentioned in discussions above? To what extent does religious indoctrination and primary/secondary education affect gender preferences for pursuing higher professorship ranks in Ireland? Comparatively speaking, how many Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes have been women? Does male dominated religious hierarchies translate across to male dominated higher academic ranks?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

87% of teachers in primary schools are female.

71% of teachers in secondary schools are female.

Can we have the same rules apply for men here, oh no wait that’s sexist.

Fathom

Hunky Monster wrote: »

87% of teachers in primary schools are female. 71% of teachers in secondary schools are female. Can we have the same rules apply for men here, oh no wait that’s sexist.

Any demographics on primary and secondary job applications? If so, sources?

Black Swan

Hunky Monster wrote: »

87% of teachers in primary schools are female.

71% of teachers in secondary schools are female.

Can we have the same rules apply for men here, oh no wait that’s sexist.

This observation is not "sexist," and addresses an important problem that exists in primary and secondary education. Personally, methinks that primary, secondary, and tertiary should be roughly gender balanced. Especially primary, where if we screw-up at that level and perpetuate archaic gender stereotypes, they will be more difficult to change at the next two levels. In like manner, if both men and women foster academic excellence at the primary level, it should be easier to do so at the next two.

fits

Newly qualified male primary teachers walk into jobs as far as I know.

Black Swan

fits wrote: »

Newly qualified male primary teachers walk into jobs as far as I know.

Cannot speak for STEM job availability in Eire, but across the pond in California they are almost always short of qualified STEM teachers for K-12 and tend to pay more for them than other disciplines, so gender is not a factor. Although California is only one of 50 states, 20% of the US population resides there, and most of their K-12 is public.

Fathom

Palm Springs Unified School District Science Teacher yearly salaries in California $70,644 per year.