Sexist fucking jerks
Kinda pissed right now.
I knew that there was bias in science and that people assume that men are better than women. I knew this was true of men and women. (Most of the female scientist I know undersell their work, while most of the male scientist will oversell their work. This is true of Mr Bob and I as well)
I just read a paper in Nature showing that women have to have 2 1/2 times the number of publications to be ranked as competant as men by a judging committee (this was for a post doc scholarship in Sweden).
So a note to everyone who will be examining my research proposal.
I'm 2 and a half times smarter than you think I am. So is Iggy.
Jerks
posted by Aislinn Sirk @ 11:20 AM
19 Comments:
Was the paper in Nature written by a man or a woman? Was the method used to come up with the results scientific and objective, or subjective?
Is it possible that men *ARE* 2 1/2 times more competent, and you and Iggy are just the exceptions? (just raising the question ;) )
Was the method used to come up with the results scientific and objective or subjective?
The study I am discussing was objective. It was comparing the objective ranking of scientists (by themselves) to the subjective rankings (made my people responsible for funding)
Basically, the authors (both female) obtained the competancy rankings (determined by the subjective committee) for the 114 applicants for a scholarship.
The authors then ranked the applicant themselves by looking at number of publications, journals the publications were in (ie Nature has a higher impact factor than the Journal of Slovenian mud science) and how many times the papers were cited and obtained an "impact factor".
The authors compared the actual competancy (impact factor) to the competancy (from the committee).
They found that woman needed 2 1/2 times as much impact (publications) to be ranked the same as the men.
(They also found that if you knew the committee members, you were ranked higher as well)
MTW, I'd be happy to forward you (or anyone) the actual paper. (you can email me at Bobdechemist@yahoo.ca)
So to answer your second question, this study did not look at the over competancy of men versus woman.
It looked at how men and women of equal competance are precieved by the scientific community.
Perhaps this accounts for the masculine /either sex names so many children have now. A way to keep the gender secret when things are submitted.
Generally, I am precieved as someone who can't spell.
What year is it again?
This is actually an improvement, bob. It used to be one had to have (my best guess) 4 & 1/2 times as many publications to be considered minimally competent. Also, I think academic search committees are heavily populated by the less exhalted faculty members who have a lot of insecurities to deal with.
Swami <--- has seen one too many drunken professors exposing their inner asses.
I guess I'm really not surprised because I see many examples of female professors receiving tenure less often and playing second fiddle to the male professors on campus. It's part of this age old profession thing where it's always been the good ol boys club. It's the same crap with doctors and nurses. Nurses are given very little respect by many physicians, and thus nursing as a science is given less respect from the medical school next door.
HD, The year of the goddamn patriarchy. *seeth*
Swami, we've come a long way baby.. I know it's better, but I'm a little sick of "I could get a prof job if I were a woman". Well, maybe you couldn't and( new topic) if you were a woman it's unlikely you wife would have supported you through grad school.
Kim, My mom is a nurse. I agree totally.
That's what I figured, Bob. Check out the number of tenured female faculty at my university --- in any department. The Humanities and Social Sciences do not seem to be any more enlightened.
You have 2 1/2 times as many blog posts as most of us, too.
I'll always have blogland.
Sadly, that doesn't count as a publication.
$20 to put your blog permenently on your cv under publications.
fucking assholes.
i would love to see your CV with your blog on it.
LOLOLOL
anyway, that's why my daughter's name is alex. :)
and? you're fine. so long as you keep going by 'bob,' anyway. :)
*raises angry fist in solidarity with bob*
I'm 2 1/2 time nicer than I appear.
Women, minorities - the more the world changes the more it stays the same.
I'll give you 2 1/2 times the praise as usual if you could get Pre to agree that this is insane!
And I think you are 10 times smarter than 90% of men in science.
Thank you for including me. :)
This sort of thing infuriates me to no end. What makes it even worse is that (at least in my program) the really successful women have some of the most dysfunctional personal lives that I've heard about...as if getting the extra 2.5 times more pubs results in the rest of your life being in shambles. I think that all of this is a major reason why I have tended to work with really gigantic names in the field-that way I at least might know someone on the committee or might have someone famous pulling for me. Then again, the one I work for now isn't exactly known for being Mr. unchauvinistic.
Waaaaaah. This sucks.
I can also send anyone a copy of the article (written in 1997)if they are interested. It is a little scary in that one (I) assume that Sweden is a relatively progressive country that would have fewer gender bias issues than might other countries. The article was also discussed extensively (with alot of other things including Larry Summers) in an article from the July 6th issue of Nature, called "Does Gender Matter" written by a female to male transexual who disusses his experiences and how perceptions of him changed.
Iggy, that was actually where I got the paper from. I was reading that article and thought that graph was so scary.
The lack of life is kinda disturbing too. I think you should marry a teacher or plumber or someone with a nice simple job. Two time sucking careers is bit much to juggle.
Post a Comment
<< Home