Assorted links

by on November 4, 2014 at 11:32 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 P November 4, 2014 at 11:42 am

Regarding #1, here’s a recent paper on similar findings in academic philosophy: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/WIP-AQ.pdf

2 prior_approval November 4, 2014 at 11:45 am

‘…an interdisciplinary team of psychological scientists and economists aims to cut through the confusion, synthesizing available research and providing a host of new analyses to identify the factors that drive women’s underrepresentation in STEM. Their analyses show that, despite many differences between the sexes prior to college — reflected in occupational preferences, math ability, cultural attitudes, and amount of AP coursework taken, for example — the playing field eventually levels for women who continue in these fields once they earn their PhD.’

And I’m sure that with the proper viewpoint, this link to the GMU econ dept. demonstrates how that works in practice – http://economics.gmu.edu/people/all_faculty

Assuming, of course, that one considers the GMU econ dept. to be representative of anything typical.

3 P November 4, 2014 at 11:54 am

From the study:

Taken together, the research indicates no significant sex differences in promotion to tenure and full professor in the GEEMP fields. However, women are significantly less likely to be promoted in some of the fields in which they are most prevalent: life science and psychology.

Economics is an outlier, with a persistent sex gap in promotion that cannot be readily explained by productivity differences.

GEEMP=geoscience, engineering, economics, mathematics/computer science, and physical science

4 TMC November 4, 2014 at 12:08 pm

So why is Econ so resistant to affirmative action?

5 Ricardo November 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Rational expectations.

6 China Cat November 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm

+1

7 JWatts November 4, 2014 at 11:47 am

“5. The hamburger returns to the culture that is Germany.”

Soylent green is people!

8 prior_approval November 4, 2014 at 11:54 am

And Frikadelle is what Germans along the Rhine seem to call hamburgers. Though I have heard Bulette, Klops, and Fleischküchle.

Admittedly, they aren’t exactly the same as American hamburgers – for one thing, the bread is in the meat, so to speak.

9 chuck martel November 4, 2014 at 11:59 am

#5. Will the Germans fall for the “Angus beef” marketing ploy used in the US? The number of purebred Angus cattle turned into hamburger is inconsequential and there’s no practical method of determining if your particular burger is composed of ground Holstein-Friesan, Brown Swiss or Charolais bovine muscle. The Angus cattle are attractive but snotty little black beeves, though, and don’t look as passively stupid as some other examples of Bos taurus, whose flavor is determined more by the food they’ve consumed than their genetic background. Take a drive through an area like that around Liberal, KS, with its many beef feedlots, and see just how many cattle standing side-by-side at the feed trough match your mental picture of an Angus. Of course, the Angus marketing people will say that it’s just a name, like Chevrolet or Captain Crunch. That might not fly in the EU.

10 Mark Thorson November 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm

My understanding is that the Angus marketing myth was introduced when cheap beef from Texas began to be available on the East Coast. Black Angus couldn’t handle the hot weather in Texas, so they were raising a different breed of cattle. Northern producers needed some way to distinguish themselves, and that was the best they could come up with.

11 Axa November 4, 2014 at 12:05 pm

#2: Vikings cut down the trees to keep themselves warm, forest covered area went from 40% 1000 years ago to 0% a century ago. Why the title is about climate change? It is important but no the main topic.

12 Cahokia November 4, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Viking history is all about non-anthropogenic climate change.

P.S. It’s odd that the confirmation that Easter Island Polynesians reached South America centuries prior to European contact has received so little attention. Now we have the Norse and Easter Islanders discovering America prior to Columbus.

13 Marian Kechlibar November 5, 2014 at 10:58 am

I think this is because no actual ancient Polynesian settlement was found so far.

I do not really doubt the fact that Polynesians were there, but the general public is much more excited about freshly dug-out skeletons and other physical, tangible artifacts than about the invisible and intangible DNA.

14 China Cat November 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm

#1 So now we have new acronym, GEEMP, because some idiots think STEM encompasses psychology? We can’t just tell people they are wrong anymore?

15 P November 4, 2014 at 2:12 pm

Who thinks that STEM encompasses psychology?

16 P November 4, 2014 at 2:21 pm

The point of “GEEMP” is to have an acronym that encompasses all math-intensive fields.

17 PD Shaw November 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm

Is geoscience a math-intensive field? In my high school “Earth Science” was the science course that non-College-bound students took instead of biology, with some emphasis on oil and mining. Looking at the BLS description, I’m uncertain that geoscience necessarily requires more math than any biology-related field, i.e. it depends.

18 Curt F. November 4, 2014 at 5:33 pm

Think of seismographic tomography of subsurface reservoirs. Think of modeling fluid flow in porous media. Think of calculating thermodynamic oxygen fugacities implied by different mantle-based redox buffers. Think of using a pre- and post-earthquake GIS data from terrestrial observation stations to model the earthquake-induced movement of tectonic plates. Etc etc etc.

19 commentariette November 5, 2014 at 2:25 am

No. STEM doesn’t include psychology. It does include life sciences, primarily biology, which are not math intensive (relatively speaking) in most subfields and have for some years been female-dominated.

I agree, geosciences is relatively mathematically intense; modeling and signal processing are major subfields. Also there are close connections to mine and petroleum engineering.

20 Jan November 4, 2014 at 9:19 pm

#4 I wonder what substance she might have been using to poison them all.

21 jb November 5, 2014 at 5:42 am

“Why we kill “.
“Because even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don’t practice it. Look at what we kill. Mosquitoes and flies, because they’re pests! Lions and tigers, because it’s fun! Chickens and pigs, because we’re hungry. Pheasants and quail, because it’s fun, and we’re hungry. And people! We kill people, because they’re pests… and it’s fun!

And you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of life doesn’t seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You never see a bumper sticker that says ‘save the tumors’ or ‘I brake for advanced melanoma.’ No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e. coli bacteria, the crabs, nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up! Made it up, the same way we made up the death penalty. We made them both up, the sanctity of life and the death penalty. Aren’t we versatile?!””.
George Carlin.

22 James Davies November 7, 2014 at 5:11 pm

#1 – Its been well documented that gender fairness doesn’t hold in academic science. This NY Times op-ed misrepresents what the authors’ paper found, and the paper misrepresents what the science actually says. They’re trolling. There’s been several good rebuttals of this op-ed. I won’t repeat them.

The original paper to which the authors refer is here, which shows lots of data that don’t support the assertions in their op-ed:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Women-Academic-Science.pdf?utm_source=nytimes&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=pspitimes

and rebuttals are here

http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2014/11/academic-science-is-sexist-we-do-have.html
http://www.stemwomen.net/sexism-in-academic-science/

Basically, everyone I know in STEM (there are a lot of us) howled about this Times op-ed, as it’s so divorced from the reality we see in our field.

23 James Davies November 7, 2014 at 5:12 pm

And my favorite, snarky response to the paper in #1.

http://www.redink.cc/2014/11/02/let-me-fix-that-for-you-new-york-times/

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: