love it or leave it. wrote:
You whining about supply and demand capitalism again, you commie!
Love it or Leave, hippie!
Academic hiring (salaries) does not really follow the laws of supply/demand, especially cross-departmentally.
On the whole, it follows the law of increased bureaucracy/admin for sure, but..
Read the post above yours man.
Lemon Lime 5000 metre runner wrote:
Because, in there eyes everything has to be "equal". Not realizing that males and females on average have different interest. The square root of the leftist ideology is egalitarianism. But, the problem is, is that people are naturally different i.e. this will make people unequal in outcome. Take for example the Olympics, most people no matter how hard they train will never make it to the Olympics. Even the 0.01% of athletes that do make it to the Olympics only the top 0.01% of that will win any medals. I.e. the Pareto principle. So, the leftist will fight against nature in a futile attempt to make everyone equal. And, if the egalitarians do get there way to try to make everyone equal you'll end up with what happened in the USSR; with there gulags and mass executions.
You mentioned Pareto principle and gulags in one post. I estimate a 99% probability that you know who Jordan Peterson is:)
https://www.thecollegefix.com/ohio-state-employs-88-diversity-related-staffers-at-a-cost-of-7-3m-annually/https://www.thecollegefix.com/high-priced-diversity-bureaucrats-arent-improving-diversity-on-campus-study-finds/well-endowed chair holder wrote:
love it or leave it. wrote:
You whining about supply and demand capitalism again, you commie!
Love it or Leave, hippie!
Academic hiring (salaries) does not really follow the laws of supply/demand, especially cross-departmentally.
On the whole, it follows the law of increased bureaucracy/admin for sure, but..
Those numbers are crazy. Here is an entertaining perspective on the gender pay gap from Bill Burr:
Ted Hill is pretty famous for the 2002(?) meltdown of GA Tech, but still, his article is ominous.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
Apparently feminists are more civic minded and generally smarter than you are. They want women to go into STEM and make tangible contributions to society. You just care about what job pays the best.
Most of the Big Donors at unis these days seem to prefer this modern VS.
I'm wondering who is including in "profs". Large numbers of undergraduate science and math service courses (freshman non-major) are taught by lecturers who typically earn much less than tenure track profs. Lecturers are relatively rare in gender studies. So this would skew the earnings.
I'm a female full prof (tenured) in a STEM discipline. While I'm very fortunate to have tenure, my job choice is not primarily about the money. I worked for a major oil company for several years and I now earn much less than I would have had I stayed in industry, but teaching/research/freedom to run my own program is much more satisfying. I couldn't stand working in gender studies or anything to do with the humanities.
Here are the types of Important Questions the GenStud'ers are debating, even as we speak!‘We oppose biological essentialism’: Campus feminists embrace transgender ideology Controversy has been brewing among feminist over the use and significance of the term “TERF.” The acronym stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” and the term, as well as the ideology it represents, have become points of contention in the new age of “intersectional feminism.” Campus feminist groups meanwhile, are largely lining up on one side of the issue. Transgender ideology holds that men who “identify” as women are actually women and should be treated as such, and vice-versa. So-called “trans-exclusionary” feminists, on the other hand, believe, according to a report from Inside Higher Ed, that “the interests of cisgender women (those who are born with vaginas) don’t necessarily intersect with those of transgender women (primarily those born with penises).”
Additionally, these feminists believe that transgender women cannot fully comprehend womanhood for two major reasons: One, they lived at least part of their lives as men, and were therefore, beneficiaries of male “privilege;” and two, they do not, and will never be able to, experience biological femininity.
To some feminists, the descriptor “trans-exclusionary” is an accurate description of a hateful fringe-feminist ideology. To others, it is a slur meant to silence and discredit.
Campus feminist groups expressed support for transgender ideology and a rejection of so-called TERF politics.
A representative of Indiana University’s Feminist Student Association told The College Fix via Facebook Message that the organization does not support “trans-exclusionary” feminism. “IU FSA is not trans exclusionary. Feminism is intended to be supportive, inclusive and empowering so we do not support or promote any branches of feminism that seek to isolate marginalized populations like trans individuals,” the representative said.
“Feminism is for everyone. Gender is personal and it is in opposition to our beliefs and goals to follow strict definitions of masculinity or femininity and gender,” the representative added.
When asked to clarify their definition of gender, the representative admitted that the group members are not “experts on the subject by any means,” but offered a series of definitions from the Trevor Project, a crisis intervention center for LGBTQ youth. That definition states that gender is “an idea created by society” and “a social construct” that “tells us what certain genders are ‘supposed’ to be like.”
TERF ideas ‘not new’
Becca Vorrick, the editor-in-chief of the feminist magazine “FEM” at the University of California, Los Angeles, echoed the Indiana group’s response stance.
“FEM is not trans-exclusionary — we fully support trans folks, as well as gender non-conforming and non-binary folks. As intersectional feminists, we do not support the ideology of TERFs. We oppose biological and gender essentialism,” Vorrick said.
“The purposes of feminist movements have been clouded by TERF ideology officially since the 1970s — TERF ideology is not new to the movement, and intersectional feminist historically argued against it. At FEM, we maintain that legacy through our own intersectional analyses,” she added.
Although Vorick did not respond when asked to clarify what “gender essentialism” means, according to Wikipedia, the term refers to “the theory that there are certain universal, innate, biologically- or psychologically-based features of gender that are at the root of observed differences in the behavior of men and women.”
Feminists elsewhere have been critical of transgender ideology. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian author, activist, and feminist, has said that she does not equate trans-women’s experiences with women’s experiences. “I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges of the world accords to men and then sort of changed or switched gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate to your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning in the world as a woman,” Adichie has argued.
Rose McGowan, a central figure of the #MeToo movement, has also been critical of transgender ideology, saying of men who identify as women: “They assume, because they felt like a woman on the inside, that’s not developing as a woman, that’s not growing as a woman, that’s not living in this world as a woman.”
And now for the report from the First "High Energy Theory and Gender" physics/gen-stud conference at CERN:
https://freebeacon.com/culture/scientist-suspended-put-under-investigation-for-arguing-physics-isnt-sexist/And now for the report from the First "High Energy Theory and Gender" physics/gen-stud conference at CERN:
And now for the report from the First "High Energy Theory and Gender" physics/gen-stud conference at CERN:
Maybe the first with this name, but certainly not the first of its kind.
E.g.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/570671/attachments/1364448/2203674/3DSTAG_childress.pdfHere's the real scoop, The GenStud profs KNOW their field is useless, so steer Women elsewhere.
Kevin Drum, wrote: I can’t think of any serious field in which an amateur who’s done a few month’s reading could even produce a plausible parody, let alone a paper that would be taken seriously by dozens of editors and peer reviewers. If that’s all it takes, a PhD is a meaningless five-year waste of time.
This is the problem the academy needs to address, and they need to address it for exactly the reason the hoaxsters gave: these fields are mostly important ones. They deserve rigorous, high-quality scholarship. They can’t be treated as dumping grounds for impassioned mediocrities and then ignored.
If they are, and everyone tacitly agrees to sweep away the whole episode because the hoaxsters didn’t get IRB approval or something, it just gives the game away: these fields exist only to placate troublemakers, and nobody in the serious parts of the university cares about them.
Gender Studies is TOO IMPORTANT to be elft to hoaxsters!!
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/cultural-studies-hoax-mostly-being-brushed-off-as-tiresome-bs/Here is the Applied version of the subject.
https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1049359029330477057In the clip, released under the BBC Ideas brand, Amrou al-Khadi, also known as Glamrou, uses the infinite complexity of quantum physics to explain his views on modern gender theory, one of the few things that can rival quantum physics in leaving outside observers baffled.
To OP:
Gender Studies profs are the very best in their field and earn accordingly. The only place where you can earn a lot as a gender study major is at university. In STEM subjects, the very best often go to private companies and earn much more than any prof is going to make. So the best STEM graduates earn more than the best gender studies graduates, the median STEM graduates earn more than the median GS graduates and the lowest-paid STEM graduates certainly still make more than the lowest-paid GS graduates.
You have to compare apples with apples here.
somple wrote:
To OP:
Gender Studies profs are the very best in their field and earn accordingly. The only place where you can earn a lot as a gender study major is at university. In STEM subjects, the very best often go to private companies and earn much more than any prof is going to make. So the best STEM graduates earn more than the best gender studies graduates, the median STEM graduates earn more than the median GS graduates and the lowest-paid STEM graduates certainly still make more than the lowest-paid GS graduates.
You have to compare apples with apples here.
In other words, "gender studies profs" have essentially zero real-world demand (unlike STEMs profs), but leftist universities still bilk their funds to pay these "field leaders" exorbitant amounts due to their political idealism. (The lesser-lites likely get paid by Soros to protest?)
Noted above, true supply/demand doesn't reasonably describe the university hiring system too well, due to the administrative bureaucratic control and inelasticity from reality.
Stony Brook University in New York invites students to express their diversity through cupcake decorating and "tie-dye-versity" in October.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11406Students can attend an Oct. 15 “Diversity Cupcakes” event, designed to make them aware of “how different each individual can be, without even realizing it.” Attendees will decorate cupcakes “which best defines their identity.”
Different cupcake toppings will represent different aspects of each individual’s intersectional identity, such as race, sexual orientation, class, and even relationship status. Each frosting color will also signify a certain hobby. Event organizers call it “a fun, colorful, and tasty way” to “create an appreciation” for differences.