< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 57 OF 57 ·
|Jan-14-17|| ||Annie K.: <Fusilli> Hi - would you agree to become a <cg> editor? We editors tend to become absorbed each in our own chosen projects, so every new contributor helps... and you certainly meet criteria for being reliable and trustworthy. Please? :)|
|Jan-14-17|| ||Fusilli: <Annie K> Thank you for the offer, but what does it entail? Any expectations? I would not want to disappoint.|
|Jan-14-17|| ||Annie K.: There are no expectations (well, except for reading the Chessgames Editor Guide, maybe). ;)|
You decide what you want to do, and when you want to do it. :)
|Jan-15-17|| ||Fusilli: <Annie K> Count me in, then!|
|Jan-15-17|| ||Annie K.: Great - welcome to the team!
Your superpowers will kick in later today... :)
|Jan-20-17|| ||perfidious: <Annie K.: Great - welcome to the team!>|
I'll sign that.
<....Your superpowers will kick in later today... :)>
|Jan-29-17|| ||Knight13: Don't forget to openly disagree with feminism on campus for a chance to get fired for wrongthink and win cool prizes! Prizes include $500,000 in cash, a free house up to $350,000 of your choosing, a 2017 Mercedes Benz S600 sedan, and $50,000 worth of gift cards to Best Buy. Expires Feb. 10, 2017.|
|Jan-30-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> I respect your opinions (and sense of humor) but is it possible that it's time to buy a premium membership again and revive your own forum? I promise to visit you and post on it now and then. :) (Besides, you'd get more traffic there than on my forum.)|
|Feb-02-17|| ||Knight13: <Fusilli> Sorry for the late reply. My forum is closed not because my premium membership is about to end. I'm just not visiting this site often enough to justify the forum being on.|
|Feb-08-17|| ||Fusilli: Sad day:
|Mar-11-17|| ||Fusilli: Practice your Spanish!
|Apr-13-17|| ||Knight13: <"Immigrants and natives in U.S. science and engineering occupations, 1994–2006"> So what do you think of Trump's recent signing of "Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act"? |
This I want to know: who the hell is discouraging women from entering STEM in 2010s? Is it not women's personal choice not to enter STEM, or decide not to work in STEM long-term?
|Apr-13-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> I didn't look at INSPIRE, nor do intend to (I can't follow everything). (BTW, the Demography paper you quoted had no reference to gender.)|
From what I have read, the real problem is that most STEM environments tend to treat women in ways that discourage them from pursuing their careers there, even after they have already started them. So, labs tend to give women the most routine and mind-numbing tasks, STEM departments at universities give women faculty heavy service responsibilities, and so on. But I haven't looked at the issue in a long time.
|Apr-16-17|| ||Knight13: <Fusilli> The paper didn't have to have reference to gender--it showed indication that you had some knowledge in this topic.|
Citation needed for your claims.
Here's my citation: "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track" http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/... Significance: <"The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers."> Abstract: <"National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.">
|Apr-17-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> My recollection is that the main concern was with attrition, and that's why in my previous post I wrote "even after they have already started [careers in STEM]" and referred to the kind of work they do once hired. As for hiring, every department out there wants diversity, including gender diversity, so hiring women is a priority for everyone everywhere. It makes them look good. |
That said, I don't really come to this website to engage in time consuming discussions that would force me to do research. If I wanted to do that, I'd regularly post and argue on the Kenneth Rogoff page. I come to this website to relax and look at chess. Occasionally, I exchange opinions and some knowledge, but without having to do extra work. For research, I have my job. I don't want to come here and find that I have to do more work.
So, since you are interested in these topics, why don't you look for research on attrition (including students changing majors after testing the waters) and on female satisfaction in STEM jobs and tell me what you find? Maybe what I remember has been refuted, or maybe it's still a concern. But this is not a topic that I am interested in now (I realize you assumed I was given my publication record), so I'm not going to do the work.
|Apr-17-17|| ||Fusilli: Just played on ICC (5-min game). I was black. Black to move:|
click for larger view
I believe one pawn move wins, another one draws, and the other one loses. Which one is which? Any takers?
I played the one that draws, and my opponent... resigned!
|Apr-17-17|| ||WannaBe: I think, ...a3 wins, ...b3 draws, ...c3 loses|
|Apr-17-17|| ||Fusilli: |
click for larger view
<wannabe> Sorry, I think I got it wrong and none wins. I think both a3 and b3 lose, and c3 draws.
1...b3 2.axb3! c3 3.Kd3! cxb2 4.Kc2 a3 5.b4 and the black king can't stop both the b and f pawns.
click for larger view
1...a3 2.bxa3! bxa3 (b3 3.axb3 cxb3 4.Kd3 white wins) 3.f6 Ke6:
click for larger view
4.g5 and white wins. (4.Kd4 enters an unnecessary race but I think White wins that one too. I count 10 tempi each to promotion but white promotes first @a8, thwarting black's promotion @h1.)
1...c3 --this is what I played, and he resigned (??) 2.b3! The white king will get stuck to stop the c-pawn and the black king will get stuck to stop the f-g pawns. Draw.
I haven't checked with a computer, but I hope I didn't overlook anything.
|Apr-18-17|| ||Knight13: <Fusilli> Your claims, the burden of proof is on you. You don't want to provide any, that's fine. I don't have to believe them, either.|
The research paper from Cornell found that women are 2:1 more likely to get hired than men. You're telling me that women get the short end of the stick after getting hired, presumably just because they're women. So let me get this straight: they hire women over men only to screw them over after hiring them? Is this a game or something? Oh, and at least they get the jobs, unlike the men who got rejected based on their gender so that they can hire women (couldn't even get their foot in the door).
|Apr-18-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> <So let me get this straight: they hire women over men only to screw them over after hiring them?>|
You asked as if that were some kind of illogical situation. It's called sexism. Hiring them makes departments and labs look good. Then sexism kicks in. I am not saying this happens everywhere, but it happens. And I am not saying this is a conscious plan. There is no dark back room of male scientists plotting the exploitation of female scientist-to-be.
On a different environment, but related topic, when I was an assistant professor at LSU, my senior colleagues routinely declared "we don't burden assistant professors with service work, so that they can focus on research and getting tenure." Yet, when service committees were announced by the chair, year after year, assistant professors got more and heavier committee assignments than senior faculty (and, btw, the women more than the men). But I am sure my senior colleagues really believed the opposite to be true.
You may find this one interesting:
This said, I am sure things have been changing for the better.
This discussion ends here, and as a matter of fact, your posting on my forum ends here. For the first time in my almost 13 years on this website, I am going to block someone from posting on my forum. (And I yet have to put anyone on ignore.) You keep using my forum to display your ideas, and keep making me invest time in what I am not interested in discussing. I come to this website to look at CHESS. It is not what you think, but your persistent attitude. I recommend that you invest the 20 bucks or however much it is to become a premium member and open your own forum and post there at will.
|Apr-18-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> Apparently I can't block you from posting here. My only choice seems to be to ignore you altogether, but I don't want to do that. I don't mind reading your posts elsewhere (especially about chess), I just don't want them here. Please abstain from posting here or I'll delete what you post.|
|Apr-18-17|| ||Knight13: Sexism, but only against women because reasons and never against men nor is that ever a problem. Women are always innocent victims and men are always getting the better deal at the expense of women. (Now you know where my "attitude" comes from because this is the impression I am getting from you.)|
On a another note: understood. Your forum, your rules. Will respect. Until I change my mind in five years.
|Apr-18-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> That's not the attitude I meant. I meant being pushy. I just don't want to debate these things, let alone here. Again, I suggest you set up your forum.|
|Apr-18-17|| ||Knight13: <Fusilli> I'll send you two dozen live freshwater clams (Corbicual sp.) as an apology. :-D Gimme your P.O Box.|
|Apr-19-17|| ||Fusilli: <K13> Apology accepted. No clams needed. Really, start your own forum! You want to have a voice. Give yourself the proper outlet. :)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 57 OF 57 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com