CDJ having a fit on twitter...

Toby

6 day(s) ago

....because someone used her work to make points she would rather ignore:

https://twitter.com/cdj140/status/875768096409006080

Kurt

6 day(s) ago

What false claims is she talking about?

Louis

6 day(s) ago

False claims about why she didn't publish her findings.

Matthew

6 day(s) ago

Somewhere in that Twitter thread, someone says "Ppl don't understand the structures that impede women in phil from doing more/as much as the men."

That's not the point of the study, though. It's not about how hard women have it and why they don't do as much or more than men (as if we should concede that women don't do as much or more as men!). The point of the study is to ask what *actual effects* these "structures that impede women" have *on hiring*. That is an empirical question. The empirical data so far suggest they do not have any harmful effects on women getting jobs.

Keith

5 day(s) ago

a) This is hardly a "fit"

b) You'd be pissed too if someone published your data without even talking to you about it

c) You'd be pissed too if you got shit in the mail from Peter Auduren

Chantal

5 day(s) ago

So what's the background? How did her results get circulated amd published against her wishes? And what reason could she have for not wanting the results published? It does look at least suspicious, what with the results strongly suggesting a trend that's against her personal view.

Leonard

5 day(s) ago

Here is the link that CDJ posted on Daily Nous, as :http://blog.apaonline.org/2016/05/03/academic-placement-data-and-analysis-an-update-with-a-focus-on-gender/ . In discussion of the fact that women are more likely to get permanent jobs, CDJ et al say:

We have two hypotheses regarding this result that we hope to explore:

Women philosophy graduates are more likely to find permanent academic placements because those women who would have been less likely to find permanent academic placement are more likely to leave the discipline before graduating than men in the same position. Here is one example of how this might occur: women are less likely to receive positive feedback or more likely to face a hostile environment than men such that less confident women are more likely to leave the field than less confident men. Women graduates are thus more confident, on average, than men graduates and confidence boosts likelihood of placement. (Thanks to “another commenter” at Daily Nous for this hypothesis.) To test this we will need attrition data that include gender. We intend to ask philosophy programs for this information in our next round of data gathering.

Women philosophy graduates are more likely to find permanent academic placements because women are more likely to specialize in areas sought by hiring programs. Although our analyses accounted for first-reported area of specialization, they did not account for the area of specialization sought by the hiring program. To test whether hiring AOS helps to explain the gender effect, we intend to match our placement data to the job ads from the same time period.

Another possibility is that women philosophy graduates are more likely to find permanent academic placements because hiring programs have a preference for hiring women, all else being equal. This hypothesis has found some support in STEM fields. We do not now have plans to test this hypothesis, but could attempt in future to gather information from graduates relevant to hiring, such as publication and teaching records.

If you don't want to get scooped on the interpretation of the results from your own study, perhaps it's not the best idea to ignore their most natural explanation for transparently political reasons?

Natalie

5 day(s) ago

The percentage of women on the job market is almost exactly the same as the percentage of women in PhD programs. If attrition is correlated with gender, this would be surprising.

I don't see why CDJ would be upset that someone else published her data. She published her date (with her co-authors). That's what happens when you publish data: other people look at it and publish things.

Frank

5 day(s) ago

That CDJ passage from DN is comedy gold. The lengths to which she will go to avoid the most obvious explanation, that everyone already knows is true anyway. But then again, maybe it's worth it for these people. By whipping up this frenzy they've managed to do quite well for themselves with little philosophical accomplishments under their belts. If we don't stop them now that sanctimonious AA hire from Chapel Hill is going to get her way with quotas in journals too.

Frank

5 day(s) ago

Sorry: Ann Arbor, not Chapel Hill.

posts per page.