Quote:
|
Said Mr. Lichter: "And this is the first study that statistically proves bias [against conservatives] in the hiring and promotion of faculty members."
|
This is completely false, and a professor of anything should know better. They teach you this in the Research Methods paper taught at ANY and I assume EVERY department of every university.
The study does not statistically prove any hiring bias, as it makes no attempt to control for the political preference of those applying for jobs in the first instance. If 59% of applicants for sociology positions are Democrats, and 0% are Republicans, does this mean there is a hiring bias? Of course not.
Moreover, the reason for the supposed bias in this instance is (to me) self evident. The average conservative places almost no importance on sociology as a subject - go on, admit it, you think its a waste of time. The people who don't think it is a waste of time are... you guessed it... liberal.
The so called "study" has a severe and unavoidable selection bias, imho.
I hope I didn't already post this, but here goes. I did postgrad finance at university. The dept was accounting and finance. 9/10 postgrad finance people were guys, 9/10 postgrad accounting people were girls. 9/10 finance graduate roles go to guys, more than half of graduate accounting roles go to girls (skewed stat because you don't NEED post grad to get an accounting job (and boy/girl split is pretty even at undergrad level), but it is essentially a prerequisite to a finance job).
So, is there a hiring bias in New Zealand's investment banks, or is the 1/10 female hiring ratio a reflection of the applicants? If this "study" had been done, it would have spuriously concluded that there was a severe gender bias, when there is not.