Women applicants?

[catwoman15]

I don't know if I'm just oblivious to a lot of these problems, or if I'm just insanely lucky to be in a department with professors who are highly encouraging of female students and with male peers who are respectful and take me seriously. Reading all these things about the climate for women in philosophy almost worries me that I'm going to get to grad school and have a bit of a shock. 

 

You may have a bit of a shock, but you also may not. I came up in anarchist circles for the most part, so it was certainly a bit of a shock when students would say things like, "Why are you talking about women?" or "That's only of consequence for women." I've had, in general, really good experiences in philosophy. That isn't to say I haven't had horrific ones too. But, you'll make it. Philosophy isn't the easiest space to be a woman in, but it also is (I've found) full of some very helpful, kind, and charitable folks. Your department will probably have events for graduate student women (even just drinks organized by the grad students) which are amazing and you should attend. My philosophy-lady-friends are incredible women, and often incredibly smart. They are also amazing sources of support and care (when you need it).

[BeatBackBones]

Hey guys, I'm a black lady philosopher, clearly.  as to the blatant shortage of women in academic philosophy. In the initial stages of researching programs, I quickly noticed that the overwhelming majority of faculty and past and present graduate students were white men. 

 

I found a several arguments that stated the intense/confrontational culture within philosophy programs turned off many women who were initially interested in philosophy and this causes them not to purse it on the graduate level or at all. This sounds overly convenient to me because most people, regardless of gender, are not interested in this type of discourse, so why are the demographics so uneven?

 

To push this a step further, women of color in philosophy are unreasonably absent , too. I didn't decide this until I was done surveying schools because applying to any PhD program really is a niche-y type of thing; considering we're only applying against 300 people, many of which across multiple program choices.

 

But, I'm a black lady philosophy, Adrian Piper is a black lady philosopher and Linda Martin and Anita Allen and so on. Surely, we're not the only ones. Where are the others at? Do they just not purse philosophy on the graduate level? Why not? Are they being reject to programs because of possible academic disadvantages that have made them unattractive candidates? 

 

Further, are female applicants at an advantage as URMs? Some of the programs I researched had a lot of material and resources for diversity initiatives/student life support, but many universities had nothing about diversity at all, which gave me pause. 

[TheVineyard]

 

Further, are female applicants at an advantage as URMs? Some of the programs I researched had a lot of material and resources for diversity initiatives/student life support, but many universities had nothing about diversity at all, which gave me pause. 

 

 

At the couple schools I have seen that post these kinds of statistics, minorities (including women) are accepted at a significantly higher rate than average. Take Duke for example http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitphl.html . Women always over a 10% acceptance rate, white men from America are always below 10%.

There are a million possible explanations of the lack of women+minorities in grad school/professorships phenomenon. It is unfortunate that the only explanation that is allowed to be publicly supported is the position that the power-hungry white man is asserting his dominance and forcing out all of the women and minorities and making them all feel unwelcome, etc. If I were to say something like, "At my university, there is a black female philosopher who gets along famously with everyone and does not at all make any sort of complaints about feeling unwelcome, etc" then it that very piece of testimony will be tossed out because I am a white guy who is part of the problem and is indifferent to my privelaged status, etc. If a black woman said, "Things are great here I never feel any discomfort" then, although it will probably be taken more seriously, it might be said that they have just become numb to the oppression, etc. The position is unfalsifiable.

This is not to say that these concerns are not real...but I believe that social desirability concerns are so intense that there is no way anyone posting non-anonymously would ever take the position that...maybe things most of the time are fine in many/most places. Maybe the lack of female philosophers is an indication of a genuine lack of interest in the subject from the majority of women. Again, the commonly publicly taken position, that females/other minorities are under deep unconscious oppression that keeps them systematically out of the academy, is unfalsifiable, because almost nobody is allowed to speak otherwise without being either the "systematically privileged who cannot see faults because privilege has been ingrained in them" or the "systematically underprivileged who cannot see faults because they only know oppression."

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard

[DHumeDominates]

At the couple schools I have seen that post these kinds of statistics, minorities (including women) are accepted at a significantly higher rate than average. Take Duke for example http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitphl.html . Women always over a 10% acceptance rate, white men from America are always below 10%.

There are a million possible explanations of the lack of women+minorities in grad school/professorships phenomenon. It is unfortunate that the only explanation that is allowed to be publicly supported is the position that the power-hungry white man is asserting his dominance and forcing out all of the women and minorities and making them all feel unwelcome, etc. If I were to say something like, "At my university, there is a black female philosopher who gets along famously with everyone and does not at all make any sort of complaints about feeling unwelcome, etc" then it that very piece of testimony will be tossed out because I am a white guy who is part of the problem and is indifferent to my privelaged status, etc. If a black woman said, "Things are great here I never feel any discomfort" then, although it will probably be taken more seriously, it might be said that they have just become numb to the oppression, etc. The position is unfalsifiable.

This is not to say that these concerns are not real...but I believe that social desirability concerns are so intense that there is no way anyone posting non-anonymously would ever take the position that...maybe things most of the time are fine in many/most places. Maybe the lack of female philosophers is an indication of a genuine lack of interest in the subject from the majority of women. Again, the commonly publicly taken position, that females/other minorities are under deep unconscious oppression that keeps them systematically out of the academy, is unfalsifiable, because almost nobody is allowed to speak otherwise without being either the "systematically privileged who cannot see faults because privilege has been ingrained in them" or the "systematically underprivileged who cannot see faults because they only know oppression."

 

Dude, chill.

[catwoman15]

Hey guys, I'm a black lady philosopher, clearly.  as to the blatant shortage of women in academic philosophy. In the initial stages of researching programs, I quickly noticed that the overwhelming majority of faculty and past and present graduate students were white men. 

 

I found a several arguments that stated the intense/confrontational culture within philosophy programs turned off many women who were initially interested in philosophy and this causes them not to purse it on the graduate level or at all. This sounds overly convenient to me because most people, regardless of gender, are not interested in this type of discourse, so why are the demographics so uneven?

 

To push this a step further, women of color in philosophy are unreasonably absent , too. I didn't decide this until I was done surveying schools because applying to any PhD program really is a niche-y type of thing; considering we're only applying against 300 people, many of which across multiple program choices.

 

But, I'm a black lady philosophy, Adrian Piper is a black lady philosopher and Linda Martin and Anita Allen and so on. Surely, we're not the only ones. Where are the others at? Do they just not purse philosophy on the graduate level? Why not? Are they being reject to programs because of possible academic disadvantages that have made them unattractive candidates? 

 

Further, are female applicants at an advantage as URMs? Some of the programs I researched had a lot of material and resources for diversity initiatives/student life support, but many universities had nothing about diversity at all, which gave me pause. 

 

Hey Lady! ( I hope I can address you as, Lady, you can address me as 'lady' in response.)

 

The representation of black women in philosophy is abysmal. At one recent count, there are 55 black women tenured or in tenure track positions in philosophy departments in the US. (If you haven't yet, you may want to consider getting involved in the Collegium of Black Women Philosophers http://www.cbwp.ktgphd.com/ ).

 

It isn't clear that women, and/or people of color are at either an advantage or disadvantage. Our acceptance rates (relative to the number of people in our underrepresented groups) are higher, because there are fewer applicants like us applying. That is to say, Vineyard is going off the rails a little bit. For instance, if 100 people apply to a graduate program. 80 are white men. 20 are members of an underrepresented group. The proportional representation if 6 people are accepted, 3 white men, and 3 from some kind of underrepresented group, are highly disproportional. This doesn't mean that there's some kind of 'boost' from being a member of an underrepresented group in admissions though--it just has to do with disproportionate numbers of applicants. 

 

Lastly, the thing that being a member of an underrepresented group will actually get you is more access to varied sources of funding. There are numerous fellowship and scholarship programs that only fund members of underrepresented groups. You will, at the very least, have to deal with micro-agressions at times (like reading, Vineyard's post, for example)--also, in most departments you will be the only black woman in the department (this isn't true for all departments, but for nearly all). You may also be the only black person in the department. The effects this can have on your progress and success vary (and the data on this is sometimes scatter-shot as well). 

[Monadology]

BeatBackBones, I think it's difficult to pinpoint the causes but what little data we have  suggests that a big drop-off happens between Phil 101 classes and becoming majors. The underrepresentation seems to be already significantly in play at the level of philosophy majors. The drop-off from majors to grad students (and then from grad students to faculty) is less severe. 

 

 

I found a several arguments that stated the intense/confrontational culture within philosophy programs turned off many women who were initially interested in philosophy and this causes them not to purse it on the graduate level or at all. This sounds overly convenient to me because most people, regardless of gender, are not interested in this type of discourse, so why are the demographics so uneven?

 

One thing that's worth noting about the intense/confrontational style is it may be that it is likely to be more unpleasant for those that are already dealing with implicit bias and who feel alienated because of underrepresentation.  

[catwoman15]

 

 

 

One thing that's worth noting about the intense/confrontational style is it may be that it is likely to be more unpleasant for those that are already dealing with implicit bias and who feel alienated because of underrepresentation.  

 

I think you're onto it, Monadology. For example part of it, also, I think has to do with it gendered and racialized social expectations for behavior. Women are faced with a social double bind: participate in a confrontation (at the risk of being seen as more confrontational than a similarly behaving man would be seen, because women are expected to be nonconfrontational), or refuse to participate (at the rick of being seen as meek, stupid, overly modest, not a philosopher, or as a spoil-sport). In either case, there's no solution that will allow her to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

[Table]

Welcome to the forum, BBB!

 

I think you're onto it, Monadology. For example part of it, also, I think has to do with it gendered and racialized social expectations for behavior. Women are faced with a social double bind: participate in a confrontation (at the risk of being seen as more confrontational than a similarly behaving man would be seen, because women are expected to be nonconfrontational), or refuse to participate (at the rick of being seen as meek, stupid, overly modest, not a philosopher, or as a spoil-sport). In either case, there's no solution that will allow her to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

 

This seems accurate. Another thing I suspect is a significant contributing factor: people are less inclined to read women and URMs as academically competent.  So a woman or URM student making a comment in an intro class is presumably less likely to be treated by their peers and instructor as though they're making an valuable contribution. Beginning students often have trouble vocalizing their thoughts. I would guess that a white male student having trouble putting a thought into words is more likely to be read as getting at an insightful point, while a woman or URM is more likely to be read as having trouble understanding the text. Pressures for women to not be confrontational make this worse. Multiple times, I've seen a woman make a critical comment about an argument, an instructor respond by explaining some part of the argument that doesn't address the criticism, and then the woman drop the point.  

 

I ended up majoring in philosophy because I liked it and because I thought I was good at it. These are interconnected: part of why I liked it, of course, was that I was treated like a participant and contributor in discussions. If women's and URMs' comments are more often being dismissed in intro classes, that's going to make the classes less fun, and is likely to make students think they're not especially good at it. 

 

Further, are female applicants at an advantage as URMs? Some of the programs I researched had a lot of material and resources for diversity initiatives/student life support, but many universities had nothing about diversity at all, which gave me pause. 

I think many programs would consciously like to have more diversity and might try to give a boost to women and URMs because of that. There's also plenty of evidence that unconscious biases in hiring and admissions can have significant effects on how files are evaluated. It's hard to tell how it would even out.

 

At the couple schools I have seen that post these kinds of statistics, minorities (including women) are accepted at a significantly higher rate than average. Take Duke for example http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitphl.html . Women always over a 10% acceptance rate, white men from America are always below 10%.

 The link doesn't seem to be working. "Over 10%" and "below 10%" is not obviously a significant difference.

 

There's plenty of data about how young women tend to have more polished high school records than young men—on average, they study more, get better grades, have fewer disciplinary problems, etc. In undergrad admissions, if you didn't pay attention to gender and admitted people based only on the quality of their files, you'd probably have a higher acceptance rate for women. With that in mind, I wouldn't assume a higher acceptance rate for women in grad admissions is the result of an intentional bump. In college too, women, on average, have higher GPAs and complete more credit hours.

 

Vineyard, unfortunately, is an example of the kind of attitudes that continue to hinder progress in the discipline, and has recently been on a campaign to minimize the issues women in particular face.

[TheVineyard]

 The link doesn't seem to be working. "Over 10%" and "below 10%" is not obviously a significant difference.

 

There's plenty of data about how young women tend to have more polished high school records than young men—on average, they study more, get better grades, have fewer disciplinary problems, etc. In undergrad admissions, if you didn't pay attention to gender and admitted people based only on the quality of their files, you'd probably have a higher acceptance rate for women. With that in mind, I wouldn't assume a higher acceptance rate for women in grad admissions is the result of an intentional bump. In college too, women, on average, have higher GPAs and complete more credit hours.

 

Vineyard, unfortunately, is an example of the kind of attitudes that continue to hinder progress in the discipline, and has recently been on a campaign to minimize the issues women in particular face.

 

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitphl.htm < Here is the fixed link.

As far as the idea that women have better high school and undergrad records...okay. Let's assume that's true. It seems to be reflected in their higher acceptance rates. That's what we should expect. Also, shouldn't the fact that women do better in high school and undergrad be some evidence that women are not disadvantaged in that level of schooling? We don't say, "we need to discover the problematic climate that makes men less successful in high-school and college and makes them uncomfortable during these formative years."

Now, what really pisses me off is that you assume I am hindering progress in the discipline or attempting to "minimize the issues." No, I am bringing up concerns I see in the way this is being debated. Don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you does it with evil intentions. Weren't you one of the people trying to give a lecture on reading charitably? You are probably the kind of person that assumes that if someone doesn't like Obama or Hillary Clinton, they are automatically a racist or sexist. (I'm a supporter of Obama and Clinton, by the way). However, I see tons of fellow liberals merely assume that they couldn't possibly dislike Obama or Clinton for any other reason, (just like you are doing regarding me and my arguments) and I call them out for it.

l am as full of a supporter as any of you for fairness and equality, and I understand there are issues. However, just because I agree with this sentiment, I don't have to accept ANY AND EVERY argument that comes across the table. I have used this example before and I'll use it again: I believe that climate change and a general trend toward global warming is real. However, I do not consider "it was really hot today in my city" as a convincing argument for climate change/global warming. In fact, I would call out any like-minded liberal who attempted to use this argument. One could say "Vineyard you are contributing to the problem, you are anti-science" and I would be left shaking my head, as I am here.

If you don't disagree with the points I'm making, then talk about those points like you did in the first half of the post. However, don't assume that I have evil intentions just because I disagree with you.

In a room full of conservatives, I am the vocal feminist. In a room full of fellow feminists, I will be the vocal challenger, making sure assumptions are rigorously thought out. Challenging ideas, exploring those challenges, etc, helps make our positions more than merely socially desirable monologues. I do this with everything. In a room full of philosophers, I stress the importance of science, and the philosophers call me anti-philosophy, scientistic, etc. In a room full of scientists, I stress the importance of philosophy, and the scientists call me mysterious, old fashioned, and think I'm overinflating philosophy's role. Oftentimes, neither understand that we can all come out of this with a better understanding of our own positions and with more solid answers to our critics.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Hypatience]

A loud, blustery man derailing and dominating a discussion about women in the discipline -- business as usual, I see. 

[TheVineyard]

A loud, blustery man derailing and dominating a discussion about women in the discipline -- business as usual, I see. 

 

Hop aboard the unfalsifiability train!

[Cottagecheeseman]

A loud, blustery man derailing and dominating a discussion about women in the discipline -- business as usual, I see. 

Damn I used all my upvotes

[hopeontelevision]

Hop aboard the unfalsifiability train!

 

As a public service to female philosophy students, you might want to let us know what school you end up attending. I know that personally, I would be unhappy if I had to do my PhD in a cohort with unsupportive (verging on hostile) collegues who were dismissive of climate issues. (Not that the attitudes of members of your cohort are wholly decisive factors, but they could certainly be considerations.)

[maxhgns]

I'll (very briefly) step in to comment on something else:

 

 

I have used this example before and I'll use it again: I believe that climate change and a general trend toward global warming is real. However, I do not consider "it was really hot today in my city" as a convincing argument for climate change/global warming. In fact, I would call out any like-minded liberal who attempted to use this argument. One could say "Vineyard you are contributing to the problem, you are anti-science" and I would be left shaking my head, as I am here.
 

 

On this, you are correct (although perhaps not for the reason you think). Climate =/= weather. The temperature in some city on a given day = weather. The city's generally prevailing weather conditions = its climate. Similarly, of course--and I think this is more what you have in mind--when we're talking about global climate, there can be all sorts of variations (or not) at regional levels.

[BeatBackBones]

Thanks for the discussion, y'all! 

 

Monadology, I agree with your point about confrontational discourse being especially unpleasant for URMs who face micro and macro-aggressions daily. I've had quite the opposite experience and am, like many of you, I'm sure, the most valuable/engaged person in most academic philosophical settings thus far, so my ideas and arguments are almost always taken seriously. 

 

I'm a non-major, however, so my experience is limited. Have any of you seen or experienced an inordinate amount of gender/race-based hostility, in the classroom, from either side? I'm not concerned with not being seen as authoritative figure—I do a lot of public speaking/lecturing and hold long-term leadership positions—but I do want to be part of the community within the department. 

Any thoughts on why sexism/racism are even issues amongst enlightened thinkers? I expect these things, to a degree, in every aspect of life, but why is it a fundamental and institutional issue in philosophy?  

[Rollontheground]

Deleted.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Rollontheground

[Hypatience]

Has this thread now devolved into satire or are we all still being entirely serious? Wow, people... 

[Mavngoose1]

I'm posting this in the spirit of RATIONAl philosophical inquiry — not sociology, not politics. I think we need to take facts into account.

 

Quote from the aricle: "For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html

 

I don't know the IQ of the average tenured-philosophy professor at a top 50. But if Wittgenstein and Russell were reported to crack 200, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that people being offered tenure positions at top-50s are near 145. Thus, they would seem to be 8X more likely to be a genius. If this is true, insisting that women and men ought to be employed equally seriously hinders philosophy by subjugating truth and inquiry to politics.

 

If there are counter studies here, please share them with me. I do not care about whom I offend or about being offended myself. I want hard data, regardless of how people feel about it.

The Daily Mail is not really a reputable news source to begin with, but more importantly there is no study cited here at all. One professor asserting this does not make it true. I'd like to see the actual study. Until then, I don't think this link warrants any discussion. 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mavngoose1

[Cottagecheeseman]

Has this thread now devolved into satire or are we all still being entirely serious? Wow, people... 

God now I'm soooo curious as to what that [deleted] post said. (Nevermind, I see that Goose posted it. And... WOW)

Edited February 27, 2014 by zizeksucks

[Hypatience]

God now I'm soooo curious as to what that [deleted] post said.

 

It's your lucky day, because Mavngoose1 has quoted it in full.

[Rollontheground]

Personally, I trust that this guy knew what he was talking about. Professor of Psych who has dedicated his whole career to intelligence better be able to remember a simple statistic like that. — Unless he's just making it up; but I don't wish to a accuse him of that. And your claim is valid; I didn't realize he didn't cite anything. I just remembered reading it a while ago.

[Rollontheground]

God now I'm soooo curious as to what that [deleted] post said. (Nevermind, I see that Goose posted it. And... WOW)

 

I don't know why this has to be so shocking. Several people made a claim, I challenged that claim; I was challenged back. However, if I were to be lambasted for thinking … that would be unacceptable. I deleted it, originally, because I realized that this might not be the best time (I know I'm an insecure wreck right now). But the cat's out of the bag … 

[maxhgns]

 

Any thoughts on why sexism/racism are even issues amongst enlightened thinkers? I expect these things, to a degree, in every aspect of life, but why is it a fundamental and institutional issue in philosophy?  

 

 

I suspect it's because we don't get much in the way education on these topics through our regular training, and we develop a big old blind spot: philosophy is intimately tied to a mythos of rationality, and we tend to think we're above explicit and implicit bias, among other things. So we turn out not to be particularly self-reflective. And, of course, when someone points out the problems with our thinking, we have the same knee-jerk responses as everybody else. I know I do.

 

 

 

 

God now I'm soooo curious as to what that [deleted] post said. (Nevermind, I see that Goose posted it. And... WOW)

 

It's quoted just above your post. I think I may have lost brain cells from reading it, however. I'd best turn back to my grading instead: at least my students rot my brain at a slower pace!

 

Curses. Sarnath'd. Ah well, now you've lost some cells too.

[TheVineyard]

Deleted.

 

The Daily Mail is not really a reputable news source to begin with, but more importantly there is no study cited here at all. One professor asserting this does not make it true. I'd like to see the actual study. Until then, I don't think this link warrants any discussion. 

 

Rollontheground your post, as with any statement or question, was actually worth considering. It's unfortunate that you can't ask the question because of social desirability reasons. As you can see, the people in this thread beat you down, ate you up, spit you out, and acted like their mind was blown that you would have the GALL to bring up a fact that is common knowledge to every Psychology 101 student as a freshman.

I'll summarize your question, "Aren't men more likely to have the highest IQs, and if the best professors have the highest IQs, shoudln't we expect more of the best professors to be men?"

It is a well-established fact that men and women have equivalent average IQs (in fact, women currently score a tiny bit higher) but it is also well-established that the top 2% and bottom 2% are made up of primarily males. In other words, men have a more variable IQ range.

Here is one of the peer-reviewed journal studies of this phenomenon published by top researchers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115

 

Personally, I don't know if IQ or any of these "intelligence tests" are relevant. I haven't seen any scientific connection between being a philosophy professor and having a high IQ. I guess it isn't the most insane assumption to make, but you'd have to be very careful before drawing any conclusions about it.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Rollontheground]

It wasn't out of fear. It was more about timing. Though I stand by my question, it was insensitive to ask right now. I am a little shocked by the response though. The second I attempt to critique anything, I'm accused of oppression. How that's philosophical, I'm not sure.