Physics Gender Bias in Particle Physics?

[ParticleGrl]

I suspect that a Congressman's reaction to "I wanted to be a professor and couldn't get a job doing that" would be along the lines of "So you didn't get your first choice of jobs. Well boo freaking hoo. Welcome to the real world, kiddo." What is a personal tragedy to you is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Most physics phds I know are upset that they couldn't get a job that uses ANY skill they learned in graduate school. We do feel like we were used for cheap labor and then we scrambled into jobs we could have had after undergrad.

I know STEM phds in various disciplines who have gone back and got nursing degrees, stats degrees, econ phds, law degrees, etc. Before I had landed my job, I had worked through most of the material for a statistics masters in my spare time. If the system "working" is 5-years of grad school and then complete retraining to scramble into a job where physics isn't value added, its a stupid system.

This is not the only place this happens. Annapolis admits about 1100 students a year. Pretty much all of them want to be admirals some day, but there are only 220 admirals in the entire navy.

Every single Annapolis grad gets a job in the navy (in fact, its required they TAKE a job in the navy). Yes, they might not get a job as Admiral some day- but they do get jobs in their field. If getting a physics phd required signing a 5 year commitment to a national lab or even a specific companies scientific lab I'd be much happier with the system.

I went and got my physics phd not because I insist on becoming a professor (my first choice job) but because I wanted to do science for a living in any way, and that hasn't worked out at all, and it hasn't worked for many of the physics phds I know.

 

[Zarqon]

The trouble is that is that budgeting happens like clockwork according to the fiscal year. Funding often depends on a legislature allocating money on a yearly budget and you aren't going to change that easily.

Also, budgeting rules are extremely rigid and are designed specifically to make it difficult or impossible to move money from year to year or from project to project. It's easier (note I didn't say easy, just easier) to move money in private companies.

But ultimately the problem is that we have such a supply/demand imbalance that no one is going to make it easier for you to do physics. If you leave the field because you want to have kids, then *GOOD*, that's one less person that's competing for jobs.

Ok, it may be hard, but from what I can tell these rules make a significant systematic disadvantage for women (and others who stay home with family). If we're actually serious about equality then it has to change in some way, hard or not. All the gender issue seminars and forums threads in the world can't be expected to create an equal society if the infrastructure of the real world doesn't support it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think that there more than two. Also, imbalances will self-adjust. One thing that people assume happens is that we disagree, we have a big meeting, we come to a consensus, and then we implement a plan. That's usually *NOT* how things work. Usually, we have meeting after meeting in which people can't agree on what to do, the system goes into auto-pilot, and then "stuff" happens based on the auto-pilot settings.

In the case of physics hiring what is happening is that people are being forced into industry. Also, the system requires people to incur more and more pain and sacrifice more and more to get the job which might not exist.

One reason I try to encourage younglings not to talk about "passion" is that a system in which people have to become monks in order to do physics is the logical result of the talk about passion and sacrifice to do science. I'm trying to get young people to realize that there are limits to passion and sacrifice.

I don't have an issue with physics PhDs being forced into industry, so long as those physics graduates are actually using the skills they have acquired in their newfound roles there. ParticleGrl and others have argued that for them (and for many others) that this is not the case. In which case we have to ask ourselves (a) are the skills they are acquiring really preparing them for the "real world" of work, whether in academia or in industry, (b) what can we do to address the supply/demand imbalance -- can we find some way to generate more demand for physics (or more generally, science) graduates in areas that make full use of their skills, and (c) perhaps too many departments are producing too many PhDs.

Which isn't going to happen either. The problem is that Ph.D.'s are the "grunt workers" of academia, and if you have fewer Ph.D. students, you are going to have fewer tenured faculty. If you drastically reduce the number of physics Ph.D.'s then you have to start shutting down departments. The trouble is that this will cause a negative spiral which will get us back to where we were before World War II before the age of big science.

If we accept for argument's sake the premise that the US government (either at the state or the federal level) has only limited funds available to fund both higher education and/or science, then it is only logical that the government should be selective about where that funding should go. One could argue that if there are too many PhD students, then there are too many physics departments in too many schools, so it would be logical to shut down some of these departments. This argument can also be applied to lawyers and other professions in which there is an oversupply.

BTW, I don't personally accept this argument, but I would suspect that there are some (if not many) who do, and one needs to make strong counter-arguments against this view.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Most physics phds I know are upset that they couldn't get a job that uses ANY skill they learned in graduate school. We do feel like we were used for cheap labor and then we scrambled into jobs we could have had after undergrad.

I know STEM phds in various disciplines who have gone back and got nursing degrees, stats degrees, econ phds, law degrees, etc. Before I had landed my job, I had worked through most of the material for a statistics masters in my spare time. If the system "working" is 5-years of grad school and then complete retraining to scramble into a job where physics isn't value added, its a stupid system.



Every single Annapolis grad gets a job in the navy (in fact, its required they TAKE a job in the navy). Yes, they might not get a job as Admiral some day- but they do get jobs in their field. If getting a physics phd required signing a 5 year commitment to a national lab or even a specific companies scientific lab I'd be much happier with the system.

I went and got my physics phd not because I insist on becoming a professor (my first choice job) but because I wanted to do science for a living in any way, and that hasn't worked out at all, and it hasn't worked for many of the physics phds I know.

Would you agree with me then that a physics PhD is a waste of time, and not worth pursuing (a conclusion I have reached based on the experiences of many on these forums, including yourself)? What about other science PhD programs such as chemistry, biochemistry?

 

[StatGuy2000]

If an auto worker said that or an investment banker, they wouldn't have the same reaction. The difference is that there are maybe 1000 or so disgruntled physicists whereas we are looking at a million or so auto workers or investment bankers. Politicians can count. If you have enough votes, they aren't going to *think* "get a life."

If you watch auto makers talk to congress people, it's "give us jobs or we'll find someone that will." Personally, I think it would be a better world if particle physicists and adjunct faculty had that sort of clout. Part of this is that I've seen first hand how banks formulate the rules to stay in business, and I think it would be good if scientists had that sort of political power.

One other thing is that it feels *good* to talk to a politician. Politicians know what to say to make you feel good, and every Congressperson I've ever met up close has this "feel good" aura. They might be thinking "get a life, you worthless bum", but as long as you are a registered voter they won't say anything like that.

A politician's response to what an auto worker or investment banker's statement will largely depend on whether he/she can assume whether or not the auto worker or investment banker will ever support him/her or his/her party, either with fundraising or with votes. If the answer is no because, for example, it is inconceivable that an investment banker will vote Democrat, then a Democratic House member or Senator could easily say "screw you".

Now as far as feeling "good" talking to a politician -- to me, what a politician tells me has absolutely no weight unless he/she, or specifically his/her political party actually takes up my cause and provide actionable results. Whether I feel good or not is completely irrelevant.

In the US, if you care about science and technology and the role of US in maintaining its role, then the only logical choice is to vote Democrat. I find it highly disturbing that the Republican party has mutated into such a blatantly anti-science party, with members proudly rejecting the theory of evolution and endorsing creationism and other such nonsense, and otherwise rejecting all facts that do not fit in with their narrow ideology.

 

[twofish-quant]

A politician's response to what an auto worker or investment banker's statement will largely depend on whether he/she can assume whether or not the auto worker or investment banker will ever support him/her or his/her party, either with fundraising or with votes.

Sure, but most registered voters aren't branded with the people that they are going to vote for.

If the answer is no because, for example, it is inconceivable that an investment banker will vote Democrat, then a Democratic House member or Senator could easily say "screw you".

One bit of education that I got over the last few years was to see how real legislation gets done. New York is a blue state, and so the Congress people from New York and Connecticut are very heavy boosters of the finance industry. New York is a pretty solid blue state, and you have people like Chuck Schumer who is very pro-investment banking. There are also Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who have been *extremely* helpful.

The lobbyists that I've seen in action care about issues and not about parties. It's a seriously bad thing if one party thinks that they've got you in their pocket during the financial crisis, people were on the phone with people in both parties. In 2004 and 2008, the banks tended to contribute to Democrats. This election cycle, things are going Republican.

There's also "political microphysics". Hedge funds and big investment banks love each other on some things hate each other on others. Then you have big banks versus small banks versus credit unions versus Walmart. Foreign banks versus local banks. One thing that keeps people polite is that your worst enemy today could be your best friend tomorrow.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't have an issue with physics PhDs being forced into industry, so long as those physics graduates are actually using the skills they have acquired in their newfound roles there.

I don't have a problem with Ph.D. getting forced into industry as long as industrial Ph.D.'s are seen as "first class Ph.D.'s." I sometimes get the feeling that there is this attitude that if you aren't a tenured professor, you have no right to comment on your experiences. One thing is that you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk. If industrial Ph.D.'s are "first class" then people's views should be represented in professional societies and should influence the curriculum.

There was someone that tried to justify the current system by saying that not every that joins the Navy gets to be an Admiral. But I think that we need a really serious talk about whether that model in which academic professors are the admirals really makes sense.

ParticleGrl and others have argued that for them (and for many others) that this is not the case. In which case we have to ask ourselves (a) are the skills they are acquiring really preparing them for the "real world" of work, whether in academia or in industry, (b) what can we do to address the supply/demand imbalance -- can we find some way to generate more demand for physics (or more generally, science) graduates in areas that make full use of their skills, and (c) perhaps too many departments are producing too many PhDs.

I'm unusual here because I happen to think that my Ph.D. training was perfect for the type of work that I'm doing, and I really wouldn't change a thing about the curriculum I got. Also, I am skeptical of anything that requires a committee meeting to change. One of the things that was very important is that I was able to get the support (both emotional and intellectual) of a lot of individual people. As long as my adviser and my committee thought I was doing the right things, everyone else could jump in the lake.

I think what "we" can do may be the wrong question since different people may disagree too much to get anything done, and one thing that happens in consensus driven systems is that talking about "we" means that people have vetoes and nothing gets done.

The question I ask myself is what can *I* do.

If we accept for argument's sake the premise that the US government (either at the state or the federal level) has only limited funds available to fund both higher education and/or science

It's not true. The US government can print and borrow vast sums of money, and if as I believe that science and technology is the main economic driver, then printing or borrowing vast sums of money is going to have huge returns.

One could argue that if there are too many PhD students, then there are too many physics departments in too many schools, so it would be logical to shut down some of these departments. This argument can also be applied to lawyers and other professions in which there is an oversupply.

Except that the United States is not a dictatorship in which the President can order schools to shut down. You can limit funding through Congressional funding, but that's a political process, and people quite intentionally set up a system in which it's hard to zero out funding.

There comes a time in which you just have to say that one's mind is made up. I believe that science is vital for global prosperity and even global survival. I don't think that there are too many Ph.D.'s, and if I had my way, we'd increase the number of physics Ph.D.'s by factors of 100x or 1000x. You just aren't going to change my mind on this. Now if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, then we both get out our lobbyists and fight this out in Congress.

BTW, I don't personally accept this argument, but I would suspect that there are some (if not many) who do, and one needs to make strong counter-arguments against this view.

Or maybe not. If you've got the votes, you don't have to argue. Also there is an aspect to politics which is a lot like chess. Rather than coming up with an grand argument, you move the pieces to be where you want them to be so that you get what you want. There's also an aspect to politics that involves emotion. Yes, more money for science might be a good thing in the abstract, but are you going to get someone out of their chair to do something. There's also nose counting. There is someone in my company (and indeed a whole team of people) that looks at every vote that happens before congress and plans out corporate strategy around those.

And then there is "reproduction." People get old. People die. One important part of any sort of ideological system is to take values and transmit them from the old to the young. It worries me that this isn't happening. If you have young Ph.D.'s that are disillusioned by science, then who is going to fight tomorrow's battles, because we are going to have to keep the flame alive until we move off this rock to Alpha Centauri and beyond so that we've going somewhere to go when the sun goes red giant.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Would you agree with me then that a physics PhD is a waste of time, and not worth pursuing (a conclusion I have reached based on the experiences of many on these forums, including yourself)?

It depends on what you want to get out of it, I guess. I enjoyed my program, and loved being able to do the research, but I don't think I get much (any) benefit out of holding the degree.

what can we do to address the supply/demand imbalance -- can we find some way to generate more demand for physics (or more generally, science) graduates in areas that make full use of their skills

I think the government needs to be actively pursuing policies that push us back to full-employment. I think that generalists are hurt particularly badly by a weak labor market because when a company can find a specialist for any open spot they have, they aren't going to hire the generalist. Why hire "trainable" when you can hire "trained"?

A lot of people I talked to who were able to move into jobs closer to what I'd prefer to be doing had a story along the lines of "they couldn't find someone to fill the position, so they hired me." That hasn't worked for my cohort because most of us graduated after the crash in 2008 and even after some of have done postdocs, the labor market hasn't recovered.

 

[mal4mac]

I think it's a *very* bad thing that the Higgs Particle was found at CERN rather than in Texas...

Why?

 

[daveyrocket]

Would you agree with me then that a physics PhD is a waste of time, and not worth pursuing (a conclusion I have reached based on the experiences of many on these forums, including yourself)? What about other science PhD programs such as chemistry, biochemistry?

I would certainly agree. I wish there had been some honest discussion about the career prospects for a physics PhD before I started it because I might have made different choices. But there was this attitude that "physics is the best, physics is versatile, every one wants to hire a physics PhD" which is really easy to believe because it feeds the ego.

It depends on what you want to get out of it, I guess. I enjoyed my program, and loved being able to do the research, but I don't think I get much (any) benefit out of holding the degree.

I started out grad school being really excited about it. But that slowly died off after doing years of research and seeing first hand almost all of my creative ideas get crushed by reality. Now, I wish I had never done it.

I don't have a problem with Ph.D. getting forced into industry as long as industrial Ph.D.'s are seen as "first class Ph.D.'s." I sometimes get the feeling that there is this attitude that if you aren't a tenured professor, you have no right to comment on your experiences. One thing is that you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk. If industrial Ph.D.'s are "first class" then people's views should be represented in professional societies and should influence the curriculum.

Yeah it's funny about not having a right to comment if you aren't a tenured professor. I often see in this forum and other places that people often dismiss others' experiences and arguments by saying "oh that person is bitter, there is no point in listening to him." The fact that this is common should be enough to point out a problem with the system. And certainly part of it is what you say -- anyone who leaves physics for a job in industry that isn't related to their field is seen as some sort of failure, a "second class PhD" as you might put it. And their experience/opinions don't matter and aren't worth listening to, even though the system is designed to produce a large number of them.

 

[twofish-quant]

Why?

I think it's a bad thing that the Higgs wasn't discovered in Texas because I'm from Texas.

It's like watching your soccer team get beaten. You congratulate the people that won for a job well done. At the same time, you are annoyed that your team didn't win. In this particular situation, I'm annoyed that my team didn't even try to play the game.

CERN got the Higgs, and all we have to show for $2 billion is a hole in the ground that's good for growing mushrooms.

One good thing about it though is that I got a first hand education in "science politics." I'm thinking of one professor in particular that not only is a world class cosmologist and particle physicist but also a world class heavyweight political lobbyist, and it was just amazing seeing him in action. You win some, you lose some. We lost the SSC but at least we got the HET and WMAP, and managed to pressure NASA into fixing Hubble.

 

[Bacle2]

Thats hard to answer. I only know the experiences I have had, or others I've known. I think events as ridiculous as this are probably (hopefully) rare, but little events (asked if you are planning to have a kid in an interview, not invited out-with-the-guys,etc) happen all the time.
The gender gap is worse in physics than in biology. I don't know about sexism because the only science I've ever worked in is particle physics.

I can say that sexism is much worse in particle physics than it is in data-mining/insurance.

Do you mean in your personal experience, or are you making a more general statement?

There is data to suggest that, at least until recently, men were (statistically) more
willing to sacrifice more of their lives than women were, in order to advance in their careers. This is not a healthy thing, but it seems to have been the case. I will look up the sources (yet another crash of pos. Windows 7 lost me all my links.)

 

[ParticleGrl]

There is data to suggest that, at least until recently, men were (statistically) more
willing to sacrifice more of their lives than women in order to advance in their careers.

This says nothing about the prevalence of sexism in a given field- it simply suggests that things like how fast someone rises through a corporation (or male-female wage differential) might not be indicative of sexism. I hope you understand the difference.

Its also worth keeping in mind that such a difference could be a result OF sexism- imagine a couple that can afford for one member of the pair to leave work to be a primary care giver. The decision is likely to be made on the basis of earning potential so if women are making less, women are more likely to stay home, thus exacerbating the earning-differential. I have no idea if this story is true, we'd have to do a study, I'm just trying to point out that your study might not mean you think it does. For anecdotal evidence of this, in the two (male) physics phd + high earner couples I've seen, the physics phd has become the stay-at-home Dad because the wife's field had much higher earning potential. i.e. women might sacrifice less for work because they perceive the sacrifice will pay off less.

Anyway, the sort of sexism I was discussing (blatantly illegal interview questions, firing someone for being pregnant) seems much less prevalent in industry than academic physics. We can discuss why that is (maybe HR is better in industry, OR maybe HR has more power to enforce,etc).

 

[Bacle2]

This says nothing about the prevalence of sexism in a given field- it simply suggests that things like how fast someone rises through a corporation (or male-female wage differential) might not be indicative of sexism. I hope you understand the difference.

Its also worth keeping in mind that such a difference could be a result OF sexism- imagine a couple that can afford for one member of the pair to leave work to be a primary care giver. The decision is likely to be made on the basis of earning potential so if women are making less, women are more likely to stay home, thus exacerbating the earning-differential. I have no idea if this story is true, we'd have to do a study, I'm just trying to point out that your study might not mean you think it does. For anecdotal evidence of this, in the two (male) physics phd + high earner couples I've seen, the physics phd has become the stay-at-home Dad because the wife's field had much higher earning potential. i.e. women might sacrifice less for work because they perceive the sacrifice will pay off less.

Anyway, the sort of sexism I was discussing (blatantly illegal interview questions, firing someone for being pregnant) seems much less prevalent in industry than academic physics. We can discuss why that is (maybe HR is better in industry, OR maybe HR has more power to enforce,etc).

No, of course a single study would not , on its own, give a definitive answer to such

a complex question, but it seems the best predictor yet known of success is grit

and perseverance :

http://the99percent.com/articles/70...ent-Part-I-Grit-Is-More-Important-Than-Talent

So that, a full devotion may explain at least part of the reason.

And men tend to die on the job at a much higher rate than women:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoiarchive.htm#rates

Which seems to be related to a willingness to take-on more risks and harder tasks; I cannot think of a different interpretation.



Of course, a much more detailed study needs to be made,maybe factor analysis or

something similar for a more definitive answer. I'm just trying to give some context.

 

[twofish-quant]

For anecdotal evidence of this, in the two (male) physics phd + high earner couples I've seen, the physics phd has become the stay-at-home Dad because the wife's field had much higher earning potential.

The reason that I like these conversations is that they often go "I see this" and then a light clicks. I happen to know of an astrophysicist that's been able to stay in the field because his wife is an extremely wealthy professional. Among the "how to become a scientist" guides, I've never seen someone mention "marry someone with money" but that seems to be something people are doing.

One common practice in academia which is totally bizarre in any other situation is "two for one." It's often the case with married academics that they work as a team so when one gets a job in a university, the other one also gets a position, and one astrophysics drinking game is "guess who the university really wanted." I can come up with a half dozen astrophysics couples off the top of my head.

This also gets to the point of why leaving academia turns out to be so traumatic. It's not like you are switching jobs or moving across town. When you are a graduate student, the university is your entire life, and so leaving the university is like being disowned.

 

[twofish-quant]

It seems the best predictor yet known of success is grit and perseverance :

http://the99percent.com/articles/70...ent-Part-I-Grit-Is-More-Important-Than-Talent

I'm very suspicious about these sorts of "pop psychology" articles because they end up wildly generalizing things. One thing that I've found in being in different environments is that the definition of "success" is place dependent, the skills that are useful for "success" in one environment may not apply in another.

The other problem is that there is a assumption that because X correlates with Y, getting more X will give you more Y. Suppose you have ten people and one spot. If you work harder and everyone else does the same thing, then your odds of getting that one spot increases. However, in the real world, everyone will work harder, so you'll end up running in place.

And then there is the final question "how much is too much?" If you get a Ph.D. in physics, then you are a hard worker, but at what point do you say "this is just too much sacrifice?" One problem with these articles is that they contribute to the "cult of success." If you didn't get that faculty position then you are a loser that just didn't work hard enough. Now maybe that's true, but at what point do you just look at the situation and say "enough, what you are asking me to do is just unreasonable."

 

[kloptok]

And men tend to die on the job at a much higher rate than women:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoiarchive.htm#rates

Which seems to be related to a willingness to take-on more risks and harder tasks; I cannot think of a different interpretation.

I'm sorry but this seems like a very strange interpretation to me. The obvious reason for the higher number of fatalities for men compared to women is that men tend to work in fields with higher fatality rates, such as security, construction, maintenance. Women tend to work in fields such as social services and health (which is a reason for the wage gap - fields dominated by women employees generally have lower pay). Looking at the data you linked to I am not surprised to see that indeed the higher number of fatalities are in traditionally male-dominated fields.

On topic I can only say that my experience is that gender bias in physics most certainly exists - but to how great extent I'm not sure. I can say that a female student I know was told by a member of the group she did her thesis in that "women can't think as good as men" and this man at first refused to cooperate or share his work with her. Sure this is one person, but if he could get away with it who knows what happens "in the dark"? And my country is supposed to be one of the more gender equal countries in the world.

 

[jk]

I'm sorry but this seems like a very strange interpretation to me. The obvious reason for the higher number of fatalities for men compared to women is that men tend to work in fields with higher fatality rates, such as security, construction, maintenance. Women tend to work in fields such as social services and health (which is a reason for the wage gap - fields dominated by women employees generally have lower pay). Looking at the data you linked to I am not surprised to see that indeed the higher number of fatalities are in traditionally male-dominated fields.

On topic I can only say that my experience is that gender bias in physics most certainly exists - but to how great extent I'm not sure. I can say that a female student I know was told by a member of the group she did her thesis in that "women can't think as good as men" and this man at first refused to cooperate or share his work with her. Sure this is one person, but if he could get away with it who knows what happens "in the dark"? And my country is supposed to be one of the more gender equal countries in the world.

I don't think that wage disparities between the genders are due to the types of jobs men and women tend to gravitate to. There have been numerous studies done which show that women get paid less than men for the same jobs, even if they have similar levels of experience

 

[Bacle2]

I don't think that wage disparities between the genders are due to the types of jobs men and women tend to gravitate to. There have been numerous studies done which show that women get paid less than men for the same jobs, even if they have similar levels of experience

I have not seen a single one myself despite asking others to offer them. I have seen studies to the effect that women get paid less

than men in the same profession,but none that has claimed that both did the same amount and type of work, let alone that the pay difference was due to discrimination.

The best I was offered was:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-892R

See the colum on the left on page 8 .

which clearly states that the study does not claim the pay difference is due to discrimination.

And I have
seen studies that have concluded some women demographics get paid more than the equivalent male demographic:http://www.warrenfarrell.net/TheBook/index.html

 

[Bacle2]

I'm very suspicious about these sorts of "pop psychology" articles because they end up wildly generalizing things. One thing that I've found in being in different environments is that the definition of "success" is place dependent, the skills that are useful for "success" in one environment may not apply in another.

The other problem is that there is a assumption that because X correlates with Y, getting more X will give you more Y. Suppose you have ten people and one spot. If you work harder and everyone else does the same thing, then your odds of getting that one spot increases. However, in the real world, everyone will work harder, so you'll end up running in place.
."

I don't think it is pop psychology: it was the factor that best predicted which players

drafted by sports teams made the cut as well as which college students accepted into colleges

remained in college, i.e., did not drop out and completed their degrees. Neither "raw talent" nor IQ, nor other factors that many

would at-first think serve as predictors helped explain who succeeded here --and, yes, in this particular case, the notion of success is

a clear and reasonable one IMHO: coaches want to know the best predictors for who remains of the team --success-- similar for

schools and students; this is not a fuzzy definition of success . Moreover , the study, a logistic regression, controlled for other factors;

saying that X predicts Y does not imply the author claims X causes Y. Still, if you see

flaws with the design of the experiment, I will gladly read it.

 

[ParticleGrl]

And I have
seen studies that have concluded some women demographics get paid more than the equivalent male demographic:


http://www.warrenfarrell.net/TheBook/index.html

This appears to be a popular book, not a study. Does it rely on studies? If so, references please. Does it present results of his own study? If so- what journal did he publish in?

 

[Bacle2]

This appears to be a popular book, not a study. Does it rely on studies? If so, references please. Does it present results of his own study? If so- what journal did he publish in?

Areyou referring to the claim on the fact that the referenced women demographics outearn the same male demographic? The source is mentioned on the bottom

of the graph. With respect to the rest, O.K, I will. And please reference the studies in which women get paid less than men

for doing exactly the same work.

 

[twofish-quant]

drafted by sports teams made the cut as well as which college students accepted into colleges

Which may mean nothing in other situations. Also one problem with pop psychology articles is like pop astrophysics articles. The original papers can be well researched, but often when science gets popularized, a lot of caveats get removed.

 

[Bacle2]

But what level of generality do you want? These studies are almost necessarily of

a narrow scope; I doubt you can find a clear, concise description of the best predictor

of success for all people under all situations --I'd be skeptical if someone claimed to

have come up with such a descriptor. And, as to the claim that research gets distorted,

that is sometimes true, but not always. Your disagreement with me would carry more

weight if you had checked the originals before claiming that the statement I refer

necessarily contains distortions.

 

[twofish-quant]

And, as to the claim that research gets distorted, that is sometimes true, but not always.

It's pretty clear that the research is not being handled carefully in the article you cited. If you look at the original papers, Duckworth is looking at particular situations, whereas the article that you cited seems to be a "self-help" article that contains several assumptions and statements that weren't anywhere in the Duckworth's original research.

1) Duckworth studied "success" is some pretty narrow situations, and she has a particular definition of "success" and "achievement" that shouldn't go unchallenged. What if you end up getting your Ph.D., but you end up feeling miserable.

2) Duckworth didn't make any statements in her research that seems to imply causation. The article you referenced seem to be a "self-help" article that has implies that if you work harder and be more persistent you will be more successful. It doesn't consider the possibility that causation is reversed (i.e. people are more persistent at things that they are successful at, or the possibility of a third factor say, people with higher incomes have more ability to be persistent.)

3) As far as I know Duckworth didn't study physics Ph.D.'s, and I can think of some ways that Ph.D.'s are different than draft picks or spelling bee winners.

Your disagreement with me would carry more weight if you had checked the originals before claiming that the statement I refer necessarily contains distortions.

I did. I think that the article you referenced is coming to a lot of conclusions that are not supported by the people that they reference.

 

[jk]

CNN has an article by a female physicist at Yale today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/urry-women-science/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[Bacle2]

It's pretty clear that the research is not being handled carefully in the article you cited. If you look at the original papers, Duckworth is looking at particular situations, whereas the article that you cited seems to be a "self-help" article that contains several assumptions and statements that weren't anywhere in the Duckworth's original research.

1) Duckworth studied "success" is some pretty narrow situations, and she has a particular definition of "success" and "achievement" that shouldn't go unchallenged. What if you end up getting your Ph.D., but you end up feeling miserable.

2) Duckworth didn't make any statements in her research that seems to imply causation. The article you referenced seem to be a "self-help" article that has implies that if you work harder and be more persistent you will be more successful. It doesn't consider the possibility that causation is reversed (i.e. people are more persistent at things that they are successful at, or the possibility of a third factor say, people with higher incomes have more ability to be persistent.)

3) As far as I know Duckworth didn't study physics Ph.D.'s, and I can think of some ways that Ph.D.'s are different than draft picks or spelling bee winners.



I did. I think that the article you referenced is coming to a lot of conclusions that are not supported by the people that they reference.

I'm sorry, I should not have implied you did not read it. I should have said that you should give specific reasons why you believe a certain article misrepresents the study it refers-to.
And you did; my bad.

I will re-read the Duckworth article; please give me some time, a bunch of things fell on
me at the same time.

 

[Bacle2]

CNN has an article by a female physicist at Yale today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/urry-women-science/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

It gets tiring to see women who seem to believe only they have experienced bias and injustice as a group. More realistically, join the

club; bias is part of all societies at all times. Try to get support for your child as a father after divorcing, and you'll

see bias. try having reproductive rights, only to be told "it's my body and I get to decide what to do with my baby --but

you should support him if I choose to give birth; it'll only be around $1,000,000 from birth to 21".

If you want to know about the other side of the coin, check, e.g:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

Which seems a pretty reasonable site.

EDIT (one of many) Didn't mean to come of so nasty, sorry. I just feel tired of what seems like a constant demonizing by

some far-out feminist sections . Of course, there are legitimate points to be made, it just seems like radicals have

taken over the debate, both left- and right. Hope my comment is not affecting the debate negatively.

 

[jk]

It gets tiring to see women who seem to believe only they have experienced bias and injustice as a group. More realistically, join the

club; bias is part of all societies at all times. Try to get support for your child as a father after divorcing, and you'll

see bias. try having reproductive rights, only to be told "it's my body and I get to decide what to do with my baby --but

you should support him if I choose to give birth; it'll only be around $1,000,000 from birth to 21".

If you want to know about the other side of the coin, check, e.g:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

Which seems a pretty reasonable site.

EDIT (one of many) Didn't mean to come of so nasty, sorry. I just feel tired of what seems like a constant demonizing by

some far-out feminist sections . Of course, there are legitimate points to be made, it just seems like radicals have

taken over the debate, both left- and right. Hope my comment is not affecting the debate negatively.

I think you're straying far from the original discussion. I'd like to steer the discussion back to the original subject. The thread is about gender bias in particle physics and the article I linked has an interview with a female physicist, which is relevant to the discussion. That is why I posted it.

I haven't seen any claims that only women suffer bias in science so I'm not sure where you're getting that. As to your assertion that bias is a part of all societies, it may be true but does it mean that we should not discuss it? I do not feel that the original question was "demonizing" anybody, just discussing some people's experience. As for your "radical" comment, a lot of calls for change are sometimes dismissed as being the work of radicals by those who may feel threatened by proposed change (case in point, women's right to vote in the US) so I do not think it adds to the discussion.

Here is another article in the NY Times about gender bias in science. It quotes a study that was done to study gender bias. (I have not read the study.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html Some of the comments from female readers are particularly illuminating.

 

[Bacle2]

O.K, my bad; I forgot physics forums' posters are not as bad as those in other sites,
e.g:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/17/women-get-little-help-from-men-in-workplace.html

Look at the picture in the article , and its tone.
(I'll link to many more articles of this type if someone wants me to. )

Or go to a feminist studies class and disagree with the prof., as I did, and get lashed-at repeatedly throughout the semester. I have heard of similar stories by my friends, Etc.

As a whole, if I perceived the reporting on bias was more fair in this respect, less strident ,I would

take it more seriously . I mean, if I saw bias in all areas being address to the

same extent ( like, e.g. the ones I previously mentioned: family court, reproductive

rights, etc. ), and with the same vehemence, I would be less likely to suspect an

agenda or bias on those decrying a(n) (alleged) bias. Then again, my perception may be the result of the fact that my exposure to the media is non-standard,

but my repeated requests (in many sites) to support claims like " 70 cents to the dollar" were never addressed. Nor were my claims of biases on other areas.

Anyway. End of my reply on the "meta" issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's address the study you referred-to:Still, the study could use some tweaking to be more convincing: larger sample size,

addressing the name issue, addressing self-selection are ones I saw.

And the study could address what I believe may help explain the response (this

was also addressed by one of the people who commented on the article. I paraphrase):

Wether correctly or not, men in our society are perceived as having the

disease of "statusism", meaning men are perceived as being more willing than women

to put their careers above everything else, often at the expense of the rest of their

lives. This is not overall a healthy thing, and it is not often conducive to a balanced

life. Women, as a whole, are seen --for a set of reasons; correctly-or-not-- as

not being as willing as men to make the same choices at the expense of the parts of their life outside

of their work. This is not a bad thing , nor a sign of weakness, and it is overall healthier. I'm not being condescending here; I mean it.

And commitee members expect this level of devotion.

I agree with this last observation; I think this--the willingness of men to sacrifice their

non-academic life in order to succeed, and women being less willing to do so-- has

been the case until recently (and this perception is influencing hiring choices) . As to why this is so, I have some ideas, but

I'm not sure.