Couldn’t part of the disparity be explained by negative self-selection on the part of White men? Do highly systemizing, intelligent White men want to work in a progressively less and less meritocratic (and less scientific, really) environment that dislikes them and will discriminate against them?
On the other hand, there is clear attractive signaling directed toward all other groups, which may lead to positive self-selection among them.
Yes, that probably is part of the explanation. What we're looking at it may be partly discrimination at the point of hiring and partly self-selection due to anticipated discrimination or hostile environment.
That’s most likely part of the problem. Note that among younger generation 20’s to 30’s, females obtained 47% of the 4 year degrees, topping males who obtained 37%. The pool of potential candidates for an academic career (post-graduate) favors women I would assume.
Yes, we’ve discussed that before. Didn’t want to complicate the reply with STEM vs non-STEM. I retired from STEM College at a research university. We still felt the pressure, but the counterbalance was the need for faculty to write grants and produce revenue. The amount of DIE one could suffer with was weighed against revenue. Even at that time I remember two female faculty who did not make tenure, exactly because of such shortcoming. Soft (pseudo?) sciences went by the wayside long ago. As a matter of fact, IIRC, we had no tenured female faculty in the department when I left. Only one female instructor for undergrad classes. No Black or Hispanic faculty as well. However, no shortage of foreign born faculty, most on H1-b’s.
I remember. But I like to see even a small sliver of light in the darkness.
"We still felt the pressure, but the counterbalance was the need for faculty to write grants and produce revenue. The amount of DIE one could suffer with was weighed against revenue."
Not to mention meaningful research. It is sad to see the degeneration of higher learning in our country, as well as in the population.
It would be interesting to extend your analysis to journalism, especially since journalists will report (or not report) Jacob Savage's article. It has certainly gone viral online, especially on Substack, but much less so in the MSM.
Yes, academia is among the worst offenders because of the massive left-wing skew. (I doubt there's any discrimination against white men in, say, the oil and gas industry.)
I don't find the general conclusions implausible, but I'm a little leery about "I had an AI run the numbers" without showing the homework, so to speak.
Also, the top 10% of white men making bank doesn't mean that the other 90% aren't getting shafted to varying degrees, or that the top 10% didn't have to go outside the normal institutional career progression. You would expect the risk of being excluded in favour of DEI candidates to be more prominent in the lower sections of the competence distribution, and less of an issue in private-sector/enterpreneurial roles.
I would be interested in examining fortune 500 companies. I started working at a Fortune 500 company in 2005 in the analytics group of around 100. At that time the group was half white. When I left in 2020, there were only 3 white people left.
Here is a video by Jared Taylor on this very subject and author, with an addendum.
https://rumble.com/v7373mm-yes-we-know-you-got-the-shaft.html
Good vid
—NC
The GOAT looking sharp in those glasses.
Couldn’t part of the disparity be explained by negative self-selection on the part of White men? Do highly systemizing, intelligent White men want to work in a progressively less and less meritocratic (and less scientific, really) environment that dislikes them and will discriminate against them?
On the other hand, there is clear attractive signaling directed toward all other groups, which may lead to positive self-selection among them.
Yes, that probably is part of the explanation. What we're looking at it may be partly discrimination at the point of hiring and partly self-selection due to anticipated discrimination or hostile environment.
—NC
Yes, what you say is probably true, but that is still the consequence of racial sexism against white males.
Good point. It still reduces to that one cause.
That’s most likely part of the problem. Note that among younger generation 20’s to 30’s, females obtained 47% of the 4 year degrees, topping males who obtained 37%. The pool of potential candidates for an academic career (post-graduate) favors women I would assume.
"Note that among younger generation 20’s to 30’s, females obtained 47% of the 4 year degrees, topping males who obtained 37%."
This has been the case for several years. The only saving grace is that STEM is somewhat shielded
Yes, we’ve discussed that before. Didn’t want to complicate the reply with STEM vs non-STEM. I retired from STEM College at a research university. We still felt the pressure, but the counterbalance was the need for faculty to write grants and produce revenue. The amount of DIE one could suffer with was weighed against revenue. Even at that time I remember two female faculty who did not make tenure, exactly because of such shortcoming. Soft (pseudo?) sciences went by the wayside long ago. As a matter of fact, IIRC, we had no tenured female faculty in the department when I left. Only one female instructor for undergrad classes. No Black or Hispanic faculty as well. However, no shortage of foreign born faculty, most on H1-b’s.
"Yes, we’ve discussed that before."
I remember. But I like to see even a small sliver of light in the darkness.
"We still felt the pressure, but the counterbalance was the need for faculty to write grants and produce revenue. The amount of DIE one could suffer with was weighed against revenue."
Not to mention meaningful research. It is sad to see the degeneration of higher learning in our country, as well as in the population.
It would be interesting to extend your analysis to journalism, especially since journalists will report (or not report) Jacob Savage's article. It has certainly gone viral online, especially on Substack, but much less so in the MSM.
Good point. It's more difficult to determine the exact distribution of journalists by race and gender, since so many are independent.
—NC
Thanks for the analysis and breakdown
"Academia does discriminate against white men"
Why would academia be any different than all the other vocations?
"America is still reasonably meritocratic."
That depends on your definition of reasonable.
"Recent discrimination against white men doesn’t show up in the overall labour market statistics."
Why would I believe government statistics, especially in the US?
Yes, academia is among the worst offenders because of the massive left-wing skew. (I doubt there's any discrimination against white men in, say, the oil and gas industry.)
—NC
I don't find the general conclusions implausible, but I'm a little leery about "I had an AI run the numbers" without showing the homework, so to speak.
Also, the top 10% of white men making bank doesn't mean that the other 90% aren't getting shafted to varying degrees, or that the top 10% didn't have to go outside the normal institutional career progression. You would expect the risk of being excluded in favour of DEI candidates to be more prominent in the lower sections of the competence distribution, and less of an issue in private-sector/enterpreneurial roles.
I would be interested in examining fortune 500 companies. I started working at a Fortune 500 company in 2005 in the analytics group of around 100. At that time the group was half white. When I left in 2020, there were only 3 white people left.
Good point — someone ought to do that.
—NC
That would be interesting, but I think we all know the answer, pretty much the same everywhere.