|
Post by how much on Nov 6, 2011 15:41:23 GMT -5
As candidate lists for some of the top positions become known, some small mention of the homogeneity of selected contenders has emerged (specifically in the Columbia thread). Obviously, we have no way of knowing if minority candidates with excellent profiles are being passed over, but how conscious should hiring committees be of diversity within the talent pool, and is a homogeneous list of finalists necessarily problematic?
|
|
|
Post by hmm on Nov 6, 2011 16:49:24 GMT -5
While there are probably MORE than enough excellent candidates to make short lists pretty homogenous in any category (wm, wf, mm, mf), I think committees and departments should be aware of how it looks - to external audiences (at and outside the university), but perhaps more importantly to their own students.
|
|
|
Post by dontknow on Nov 6, 2011 16:59:45 GMT -5
I don't know... does berkeley really have a track record of showing favoritism to white male candidates? I don't think so. One job search does not a pattern make. I think it is also unreasonable to expect that every bunch of candidates will reflect the diverse profile that a department hopes to attain.
As for external audiences...yeah. I'm sure that the press is going to have a field day with this tempest in a teapot.
|
|
|
Post by eh on Nov 6, 2011 18:24:38 GMT -5
I'm sort of on the fence for this one.
On one hand, yes, diversity makes the world a magical place, and some departments obviously are lopsided when it comes to diversity issues. Some of that's obviously due to the top-heavy old-white-males-about-to-die population typical of so many departments, even if the younger/newer faculty are much more diverse along both gender and racial lines.
On the other hand, if people are uptight about being judged on those not-specific-to-my-own-ability things like what school/department you graduated from (as referenced by the myriad of arguments about prestige of program vs. hiring options), then I don't see how anyone could support hiring/interviewing decisions on non-academic characteristics like race and ethnicity. Theoretically, a candidate's race/ethnicity would have already been taken into account in undergrad admissions, and then again in grad admissions, and then again for potential scholarships specific to their racial/ethnic minority status.
At this point in the game, candidates should really be judged based on their own academic-related achievements (pubs, classes taught, dissertation research/topic, recommendations letters, etc, etc, etc), and not on other things that do not inform on their academic ability. In the same way that family status, religion, sexual preference, etc. aren't supposed to come into play (while typically used in a negative way), I guess I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into play (while typically used in a positive way).
|
|
|
Post by hmm on Nov 6, 2011 18:38:10 GMT -5
At the same time, Columbia sociology is somewhat infamous for not giving tenure to women. Perhaps they're just trying to cut that future 'decision' out of the equation now
|
|
|
Post by eh on Nov 6, 2011 20:07:30 GMT -5
Based on my experience on multiple search committees, nonwhite candidates tend to look really great on paper (usually much better than most white candidates) but few do well in phone interviews. At this point in the game, (again, based on my experience) it seems that search committees could care less about "affirmative action" with regard to race. However, the same is not true about gender. On two of the search committees I've been on, people have mentioned that they would like to see some females as finalists (there is NEVER any mention about race - except in "training sessions" that asks search committee members to be aware of bias). Although I see such patterns as problematic (this supports research suggesting that white women have benefited most from "affirmative action"), I usually just nod because I do not have tenure at the moment :-X. These are of course anecdotal accounts and only represent a couple institutions, so I'm not sure how this is handled at other institutions.
|
|
|
Post by well on Nov 6, 2011 20:15:30 GMT -5
^Uhhh... where is the emoticon for pained, shamed grimace?!?
|
|
|
Post by second eh on Nov 6, 2011 20:38:21 GMT -5
I just realized there was already a "eh" poster. Ironically, I was posting (the second "eh") in response to the first. It's funny how people think that affirmative action always benefits nonwhites but even funnier when it comes from highly educated sociologists ;D The face I meant to make earlier was If you want tenure (I learned my lesson my first year as an assistant prof - don't rock the boat or you'll tip over!), you have to learn how to play with others. Once I get tenure, I promise I'll rock the boat. For now, I'll accept the shame
|
|
|
Post by iirc on Nov 6, 2011 21:40:28 GMT -5
There was a paper by Joya Misra on SF some 10 years ago that found that advances in diversity were happening in new positions, not in replacement for old positions. I.e., hires in new areas like women's studies and so on tended to be more diverse, but the "core" positions remained very homogeneous.
And I think that is sort of related to the habitus of sociology, if you will, where, say, research on consecration of 19th century orchestras ends up more valued that research on current racial disparities.
|
|
|
Post by ToEh2 on Nov 6, 2011 21:44:36 GMT -5
but few do well in phone interviews. eh, that's an interesting observation. Can I ask for more about what you mean by patterns of poor performance? My interest is because I am a (white) first-gen college grad and I've been struggling to hit what seems to be the right tone in academic phone interviews. I'm not totally new to professional phone manners, but in this case overpreparing the information I want to present about myself doesn't really seem to be helping with perceived performance, and with opportunities few and far between, it's unnerving me. Thanks for your insights.
|
|
this should be obvious
Guest
|
Post by this should be obvious on Nov 7, 2011 0:44:01 GMT -5
I'm sort of on the fence for this one. On one hand, yes, diversity makes the world a magical place, and some departments obviously are lopsided when it comes to diversity issues. Some of that's obviously due to the top-heavy old-white-males-about-to-die population typical of so many departments, even if the younger/newer faculty are much more diverse along both gender and racial lines. On the other hand, if people are uptight about being judged on those not-specific-to-my-own-ability things like what school/department you graduated from (as referenced by the myriad of arguments about prestige of program vs. hiring options), then I don't see how anyone could support hiring/interviewing decisions on non-academic characteristics like race and ethnicity. Theoretically, a candidate's race/ethnicity would have already been taken into account in undergrad admissions, and then again in grad admissions, and then again for potential scholarships specific to their racial/ethnic minority status. At this point in the game, candidates should really be judged based on their own academic-related achievements (pubs, classes taught, dissertation research/topic, recommendations letters, etc, etc, etc), and not on other things that do not inform on their academic ability. In the same way that family status, religion, sexual preference, etc. aren't supposed to come into play (while typically used in a negative way), I guess I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into play (while typically used in a positive way). I find it amazing that people actually entertain such thoughts as to claim that minority status is no longer an issue at the PhD level. Just look around the country and count how many racial minorities are even candidates for the degree and the bogusness of this assertion will be self-evident. First, you assume that minority candidates have already benefited from extra consideration at previous levels, because it is apparently impossible that they were just BETTER than the white competition that they faced while getting into college and then getting into grad school. Next, you claim that race/ethnicity should not come into consideration after earning the credential because it should be based on merit; again, you assume that the minority candidate has a weaker profile for no good reason. If this is not a backdoor justification of white privilege, then I don't know what is. Look, getting through grad school as "the only" is tough, and getting many of the opportunities that are afforded other colleagues who "look the part" is also difficult. It doesn't take much thinking to come up with ways in which race informs the building of the profile that you are arguing as meritocratic in the first place. Both the assumption of equal opportunity in the path to the PhD and that of equal payoff to success flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary that we have seen in education literature at every level of schooling. Finally, if we are researching social matters, then the problem with only white males being in strong position to evaluate and lend voice to the challenges of minority status should be blatantly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by original eh on Nov 7, 2011 9:57:38 GMT -5
First, you assume that minority candidates have already benefited from extra consideration at previous levels, because it is apparently impossible that they were just BETTER than the white competition that they faced while getting into college and then getting into grad school. Next, you claim that race/ethnicity should not come into consideration after earning the credential because it should be based on merit; again, you assume that the minority candidate has a weaker profile for no good reason. If this is not a backdoor justification of white privilege, then I don't know what is. You sir, are an idiot. I never said anything about minority candidates not being better than white competition or having a weaker profile. I said that their minority status may have already been taken into consideration at prior levels. There is a difference between those two statements, and if you can't see it, you need to go back to school and learn how to read. In fact, your statement supports my point. If the minority candidate has a better profile, then they should make the top of the list without having to account for their minority status. When a less qualified non-minority candidate is selected, that is a problem. There is also a problem when a minority candidate DOES NOT have as strong a profile as others, and is placed OVER other non-minority candidates when determining who to shortlist, who to interview, and who to hire. I simply don't see how race/ethnicity is an important basis for selecting who to hire. If a less qualified non-minority is selected, then there is clearly a problem. However, if you do not see how selecting a LESS qualified candidate on the basis of race/ethnicity represents a problem, then I'm not really sure how we can come to an agreement on anything (especially given your low reading comprehension level, as demonstrated earlier.)
|
|
|
Post by disagree on Nov 7, 2011 10:40:27 GMT -5
I disagree with this. I think legitimate cases can be made for placing a less qualified minority over a more qualified non-minority. I don't think it's good for a department to be made up entirely of white men. I think students benefit from having diversity among their faculty for a number of reasons. Now I'm not talking about placing a minority with a terrible record over a non-minority with a stellar one, but a slightly less impressive CV is fine.
|
|
|
Post by or on Nov 7, 2011 10:50:49 GMT -5
or rethink the definition of which qualifications matter in this profession. I dislike this notion that being weaker on one or two possible metrics of selection means that there cannot be a discussion of other strengths.
|
|
|
Post by tttt on Nov 7, 2011 10:55:24 GMT -5
You sir, are an idiot. I never said anything about minority candidates not being better than white competition or having a weaker profile. I said that their minority status may have already been taken into consideration at prior levels. There is a difference between those two statements, and if you can't see it, you need to go back to school and learn how to read. In fact, your statement supports my point. If the minority candidate has a better profile, then they should make the top of the list without having to account for their minority status. When a less qualified non-minority candidate is selected, that is a problem. There is also a problem when a minority candidate DOES NOT have as strong a profile as others, and is placed OVER other non-minority candidates when determining who to shortlist, who to interview, and who to hire. I simply don't see how race/ethnicity is an important basis for selecting who to hire. If a less qualified non-minority is selected, then there is clearly a problem. However, if you do not see how selecting a LESS qualified candidate on the basis of race/ethnicity represents a problem, then I'm not really sure how we can come to an agreement on anything (especially given your low reading comprehension level, as demonstrated earlier.) Yes, because there is such a thing as a value neutral way of deciding who is a more qualified candidate, right? There is an objective measure of which specializations matter more, right?
|
|