Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Female only professorships

2

Comments

  • #32
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #34
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,983 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #38
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,983 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,206 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    MEGA BRO WOLF 5000
    Registered Users Posts: 17,351 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,206 ✭✭✭✭fits


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


  • #46
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    fits wrote: »
    Newly qualified male primary teachers walk into jobs as far as I know.
    Lets not undermine them with such generalisations. Just like we shouldnt make rumours that female academics walked into their jobs.


  • #48
    Caquas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭Caquas


    18 women-only jobs at the top-level of our Universities, with 4 more in the other 3rd. level institutions. And that is only the start.

    http:// https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/green-light-for-first-20-women-only-professor-roles-in-higher-education-38830975.html"]http:// http:// https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/green-light-for-first-20-women-only-professor-roles-in-higher-education-38830975.html[/URL]
    Min. MMO’C is so proud of her initiative that she buries it with a leak to the Indo on 3 January. I assume these posts are supernumerary i.e. they exist solely because the politicians want them. I’d love to know who actually got these plum jobs. I’m not reassured by this:
    An expert international panel, chaired by Professor Lesley Yellowlees of the chemistry department of Edinburgh University, assessed the applications and made recommendations.

    Even if these were real jobs, this initiative could only be justified if the gender imbalance in such appointments is caused by a systemic bias against women and the government had no other means of redress. Politicians often treat correlation to mean causation but it is the worst error in the social sciences. Will the government hire women carpenters to redress the egregious imbalance in the construction sector?

    Imagine the ruckus if they had forced the universities to take 18 loyal FG members?! What chance these jobs will go to any woman who is not 100% committed to the liberal agenda?

    Will any woman in academia challenge this politicisation of our academic institutions?


  • #49
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Caquas wrote: »
    http://https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/green-light-for-first-20-women-only-professor-roles-in-higher-education-38830975.html
    Your link does not load. I've tried it twice.
    Caquas wrote: »
    Even if these were real jobs, this initiative could only be justified if the gender imbalance in such appointments is caused by a systemic bias against women and the government had no other means of redress.
    I've sat on faculty search committees (but across the pond), and our 1st criterion is the qualification of candidates, not gender. If after candidates have been short-listed by qualifications, and the discipline has historically been underrepresented by gender, only then may this be a consideration, although there are no guarantees for a gender preference.
    Caquas wrote: »
    Politicians often treat correlation to mean causation but it is the worst error in the social sciences. Will the government hire women carpenters to redress the egregious imbalance in the construction sector?
    Correlation is a necessary, but insufficient condition towards estimating and explaining causation. There are other conditions that must also be present.
    Caquas wrote: »
    Will any woman in academia challenge this politicisation of our academic institutions?
    Do you have scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles to suggest this is a problem; i.e., empirical, research based, not news media?


  • #50
    Asitis2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭Asitis2019


    Regarding second level teaching, I seem to recall reading in Freakonomics (can't remember of first or second book) that the average IQ of female teachers has been falling over several decades. The reason being is that in the past that most intelligent women went into teaching because there were few other opportunities. Today, however, as there are more opportunities for those comparably intelligent women, the IQ naturally declines.

    Regarding this initiative, it is clearly unlawful, and I don't believe there is a glass ceiling in academia.


  • #51
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Asitis2019 wrote: »
    Regarding second level teaching, I seem to recall reading in Freakonomics (can't remember of first or second book) that the average IQ of female teachers has been falling over several decades. The reason being is that in the past that most intelligent women went into teaching because there were few other opportunities. Today, however, as there are more opportunities for those comparably intelligent women, the IQ naturally declines.
    IQ has been a greatly debated measure of intelligence in terms of validity and reliability. Caution should be exercised accordingly.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    shesty
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,891 Mod ✭✭✭✭shesty


    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.

    But when my mother did primary teaching back in the...60s, I think it was...teaching was predominantly male.I did Engineering myself and from what she says, the proportion of men to women when she did teaching was similar enough to when I did engineering in the 2000s.

    What changed?

    Myself, as an engineer, I don't particularly like initiatives that are as direct as this.I am all for opening some doors for women, once their qualifications are acceptable.But specifically making jobs women only...I would just feel like everyone said I got the job because I was a woman, and as a result, ignore my actual qualifications for the job.(to clarify.I am female!)


  • #53
    Asitis2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭Asitis2019


    These professorships are not necessary

    If we believe in equality, then may the best man or woman win. In most cases both can win - unless there are caps on promotion


  • #54
    Asitis2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭Asitis2019


    Black Swan wrote: »
    IQ has been a greatly debated measure of intelligence in terms of validity and reliability. Caution should be exercised accordingly.

    That's a cop out argument

    How would the trend be altered if another measure of IQ/G was used?


  • #55
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Asitis2019 wrote: »
    That's a cop out argument
    You are not aware of this IQ debate that has gone on over the decades? There are perhaps hundreds of scholarly sources that address and debate the problematic use of IQ as a measure of intelligence. To add substance from an IQ review article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that addresses your "cop out argument:"

    Ken Richardson (June 2002). What IQ Tests Test. Theory and Psychology Vol 12, issue 3, page(s): 283-314. Abstract: "...there is still little scientific agreement about how human intelligence should be described, whether IQ tests actually measure it, and if they don't, what they actually do measure. The controversies and debates that result are well known."


  • #56
    Asitis2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭Asitis2019


    Black Swan wrote: »
    You are not aware of this IQ debate that has gone on over the decades? There are perhaps hundreds of scholarly sources that address and debate the problematic use of IQ as a measure of intelligence. To add substance from an IQ review article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that addresses your "cop out argument:"

    Ken Richardson (June 2002). What IQ Tests Test. Theory and Psychology Vol 12, issue 3, page(s): 283-314. Abstract: "...there is still little scientific agreement about how human intelligence should be described, whether IQ tests actually measure it, and if they don't, what they actually do measure. The controversies and debates that result are well known."

    Yes, I am aware.

    But I still abide that it is a cop out argument because you have not addressed how deficiencies in reliability and/or validity would alter the trend?


  • #57
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Asitis2019 wrote: »
    But I still abide that it is a cop out argument because you have not addressed how deficiencies in reliability and/or validity would alter the trend?
    Where are the empirical details that include specific research design, variable operationalisations, collection, analysis, results, and limitations given? You did not specify them, consequently, only generic answers may apply in their absence. Furthermore, in science we can not prove, only suggest, so long as the preponderance of data continues to support your "trend."

    Upon further reflection, I do not know what you are saying above. I'll take a guess in replying, given the nonspecific limitations noted above. Reliability is a necessary but insufficient condition for estimating and explaining validity; i.e., no reliability; no validity. But you can have reliability without validity; e.g., misspelling the same word over and over again is highly reliable but invalid. I can "trend" line (descriptively) such misspellings, but in terms of establishing and explaining validity, we may end up with spurious outcomes.

    In terms of this "trend" you "seem to recall reading in Freakonomics," without specific details as to how this "trend" may have been measured, at this moment in time, it is mere subjective hearsay and anecdotal. You have not given empirical evidence that would suggest if this "trend" was descriptive or inferential, or what independent and dependent variables were measured, or excluded, or controlled, or what the explained and unexplained variance was if inferential.

    Consequently, my nonspecific answers to your nonspecific comments that you "seem to recall" were consistent with each other, and not your cliche and superficial "cop out" ad hominem.


  • #58
    Asitis2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭Asitis2019


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Where are the empirical details that include specific research design, variable operationalisations, collection, analysis, results, and limitations given? You did not specify them, consequently, only generic answers may apply in their absence. Furthermore, in science we can not prove, only suggest, so long as the preponderance of data continues to support your "trend."

    Upon further reflection, I do not know what you are saying above. I'll take a guess in replying, given the nonspecific limitations noted above. Reliability is a necessary but insufficient condition for estimating and explaining validity; i.e., no reliability; no validity. But you can have reliability without validity; e.g., misspelling the same word over and over again is highly reliable but invalid. I can "trend" line (descriptively) such misspellings, but in terms of establishing and explaining validity, we may end up with spurious outcomes.

    In terms of this "trend" you "seem to recall reading in Freakonomics," without specific details as to how this "trend" may have been measured, at this moment in time, it is mere subjective hearsay and anecdotal. You have not given empirical evidence that would suggest if this "trend" was descriptive or inferential, or what independent and dependent variables were measured, or excluded, or controlled, or what the explained and unexplained variance was if inferential.

    Consequently, my nonspecific answers to your nonspecific comments that you "seem to recall" were consistent with each other, and not your cliche and superficial "cop out" ad hominem.

    You are still deflecting from my question - how would a purported deficiency in reliability and/or validity alter the trend?

    I don't have the answers to your question, though if I did have time on my hands I could write a research paper on said topic :rolleyes:


  • #59
    Tree
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tree


    I'm delighted these posts have been announced. Systemic imbalances can only be addressed head on.


  • #60
    Caquas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Your link does not load. I've tried it twice.

    .....

    Do you have scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles to suggest this is a problem; i.e., empirical, research based, not news media?

    I can’t get the link to work but just go to independent.ie.

    Do you need scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles to see that these appointments are a problem? Or do you mean the existence of systemic gender bias? If there was such evidence about Irish academic appointments, I’m sure the Minister would have trumpeted it.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Caquas wrote: »
    I can’t get the link to work but just go to independent.ie.
    OK.
    Caquas wrote: »
    Do you need scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles to see that these appointments are a problem?
    Scholarly research and articles may better articulate what would make for an excellent research topic and project, if there is little to find in the literature at present. I have not conducted a search. Certainly, the problem that may or may not exist with this gender preference system would be examined at a greater depth than what news media sources (independent i.e.) may discuss.


Advertisement