Why are Feminists pushing for 'STEMs Women' (Science, Tech, Engineering, Math), when Gender Studies profs make more money?

I think the OP is rojo.

Wejo, can I get an IP check please?

Clearly not a STEM thread wrote:

Selection bias here: not all schools have Cultural and Gender Studies professors; the ones that do tend to be the more elite schools.

0/10 to non-OPs wrote:

Getting Old wrote:

As has already been pointed out, and as you should have realized it if you spent even a minute thinking about it, this is simply selection bias. ...

Nope. Facts disagree with your assumptions. ...

Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender and Group Studies

Job Title All Institutions Research Other Doctoral Master's Baccalaureate

Professor $105,656 $118,772 $108,376 $94,299 $95,430

Mathematics and Statistics

Job Title All Institutions Research Other Doctoral Master's Baccalaureate

Professor $89,691 $112,930 $92,914 $83,489 $78,194

In fact, the data directly rebut your idea. At Top (Research) level schools, the delta is only $6K.

At the Bacc schools that you feel don't have AECGG studies, the delta nearly triples to $17K.

It's amazing how many people can invent "selection bias" in others, while insouciantly ignoring their own.

Good to know the price distinction exactly proves the supply/demand ratio is the *opposite* at high/low level schools as the politically-motivated pontificated.

Feminists are driving female women into failure, but of/c they don't really care. Next step up... Lower the Standards?

Two Kansas State University professors have discovered that women in engineering are 11.6 percent less likely to pass the field’s professional license exam, which they suggest may partly be due to “biases in the exam itself.”

To obtain a license, engineers must pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam after four years of field experience.

Nationwide, women were both less likely to pass and less likely to take the test at all than their male counterparts.

Lead author Julia Keen says she was motivated to investigate after earning her PhD in Engineering and seeing many of her peers leave the field.

Though Keen notes that women’s decision to leave engineering is influenced by many factors, during her dissertation research, she discovered that the PE exam repeatedly came up as a roadblock for women.

Women in engineering may also have spent less time developing technical skills, Keen said, due to life timing issues.

She conceded that there is no way of knowing for sure whether gender bias is to blame until more research is done.

But the first step to fixing this, Keen writes, is addressing the “biases in the exam itself.”

She conceded that there is no way of knowing for sure whether gender bias is to blame until more research is done.

Smart move, that way she can get follow-up funding to do such "research" on this pressing issue....

love it or leave it. wrote:

You whining about supply and demand capitalism again, you commie!

Love it or Leave, hippie!

You are racist and sexist, this is an offensive post.

There are too many genders, these days, who can keep up. Math is nice, it only has 10 numbers.

mountains wrote:

There are too many genders, these days, who can keep up. Math is nice, it only has 10 numbers.

This is a low kinetic 9/10. Good job.

Karl Hungus wrote:

mountains wrote:

There are too many genders, these days, who can keep up. Math is nice, it only has 10 numbers.

This is a low kinetic 9/10. Good job.

Binary math (as opposed to binary gender) also only has 10 numbers.

You correctly pointed out that the other poster was wrong as the study is broken out into different educational institutions, but it still doesn't solve the point many made that there are many more people vying for STEM professorships so this is probably a good reason for the discrepancies.

it still doesn't solve the point many made that there are many more people vying for STEM professorships so this is probably a good reason for the discrepancies.

I don't think one can argue on "probablys"...

Why do you feel there are "many more people" vying for STEM professorships? How 'bout some actual numbers?

It could be that the number of PhD's in pseudo-subjects is sufficiently large, along with real-world not being an option, that univ GenStud has more high-level applicants these days (I don't count the e.g. flood of Chinese applicants for any USA science position, that get dustbinned early in the process for various reasons).

The data provided do little to refute my point. The break down by institution type refers to the highest level of degree granted, not the "tier" of the institution. Williams and Amherst for instance (and almost all other upper crust New England liberal arts colleges) do not grant doctoral degrees. Meanwhile ASU is a research university. No counts of the number of institutions of each type in each sample are provided, so you could still have a small number of New England liberal arts colleges in the Master's and Baccalaureate buckets for various area studies and a larger, more diverse selection (including geographic diversity) of institutions in the same buckets for things like math and biology. You can clearly see that the sample size and constitution varies from subject to subject because there are several subject with no data in the various institutional type buckets. Also, there is no provision of the statistics provided regarding the distribution of salaries within each subject or across subjects, and therefore no way to know if the observed differences in mean salary are statistically significant either across institution type or subject area.

Again, apply some critical thinking here. Don't just look to confirm the conclusion you want to be true.

doesn't make an ass-u-me wrote:

it still doesn't solve the point many made that there are many more people vying for STEM professorships so this is probably a good reason for the discrepancies.

I don't think one can argue on "probablys"...

Why do you feel there are "many more people" vying for STEM professorships? How 'bout some actual numbers?

It could be that the number of PhD's in pseudo-subjects is sufficiently large, along with real-world not being an option, that univ GenStud has more high-level applicants these days (I don't count the e.g. flood of Chinese applicants for any USA science position, that get dustbinned early in the process for various reasons).

Indeed, it's pretty amazing that more than half of posts in this thread make sprawling assumptions about the basic facts, which are directly in their face when you investigate.

Getting Old wrote: As has already been pointed out, and as you should have realized it if you spent even a minute thinking about it, this is simply selection bias.

Getting Old wrote: Again, apply some critical thinking here. Don't just look to confirm the conclusion you want to be true.

Again, maybe you could actually look at the facts, rather than concluding minutely (i.e. in a minute) that it must be "selection bias". Which seems likely the conclusion you want to be true.

I don't know how "critical" your thinking can be when unobserved by actual facts, but then maybe you can make a political pundit as a career.

Now I see why the "gender pay gap" myth exists wrote:

Again, maybe you could actually look at the facts, rather than concluding minutely (i.e. in a minute) that it must be "selection bias". Which seems likely the conclusion you want to be true.

I don't know how "critical" your thinking can be when unobserved by actual facts, but then maybe you can make a political pundit as a career.

The OP presented the salary differences observed in the study as the result of some Feminist agenda to inflate the salaries of area studies professors. I simply pointed out that critical thinking would suggest that sample bias in the study is a far more likely explanation than some type of nefarious collusion between colleges and universities to undermine the machinations of the academic labor market. However, fair point that I did not provide any supporting data, so here goes:

According to Google, there are ~2500 4-year, degree granting colleges and universities in the US. Per the OPs link, the salary data was compiled from a survey of 696 4 year, degree granting colleges and universities. The same Google search indicates that there are ~350 bachelors level gender and sexuality studies programs available in the US and only ~75 graduate level gender and sexuality programs. Those sources may be crap, the numbers are corroborated across multiple results. So it's probably a safe bet that only a small minority of US colleges and universities offer a gender or sexuality studies program. So if the studies sample is representative of the composition of US colleges and universities as a whole, then potential for a sample bias is there due to the limited availability of gender and sexuality studies programs. Now you'd just need to confirm that the subset of colleges and universities that have gender or sexuality studies programs have overall higher salary levels than those that do not.

The easiest, quick and dirty way that I can think of to do that is to look at where those colleges are located because salary tends to be highly correlated with cost of living. Here's a map of where universities offering Ethnic, minority, and gender studies degrees are located (hopefully the link works, if not apply the appropriate filter under major):

Hmmm. Looks like the coasts, with the highest concentrations in New England, and California. Here's the same map all majors:

Far more geographic diversity.

It's no mathematical proof, but seems pretty clear that 1) only a small minority of colleges and universities offer degree programs in gender and sexuality studies, and 2) that minority is dis-proportionally concentrated in high cost of living markets. Infer what you will.

I think your "point" would be more well made if you would get down off your pontifical pedestal, actually get the data that you assume "proves" your feelings, and post it here.

You "could" have a small number of whatevers (as you speculate)... well, the data is out there, if you wish. But you've already decided it's "selection bias" as your point, so zero amount of effort will amount of effort will be expended to care.

Bizarrely, you call this "critical thinking"?! Let me guess your major....