'Mediocre men outperform outstanding women'

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
In the linked artcile, a TCD academic asserts that "Mediocre" men outperform more capable women.

She offers no systematic way of assessing this; no evidence at all, in fact, that would allows us to judge whether her contention is true.

At one level, the proof of the pudding is the eating. If a particular person has a successful career, then it might just mean (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that they are pretty good at what they do. And, whatever about the odd individual managing to slip through the assessment process, if you find a particular category of person achieving career success, you'd have to demonstrate a widespread systematic conspiracy.

Ironically, in the academic sphere, this would involve undermining the systems that establish the validity of the academic credentials that, presumably, women academics would point to as the evidence of their suitability for senior posts.

Put simply:


If men are outperforming the competition, then maybe they're not the ones who are mediocre. How would we know for sure?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/mediocre-men-outperform-outstanding-women-1.3160597
 
Last edited:


Burnout

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
7,153
Twitter
I have a life.
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior. All through the centuries nothing changed. All religions, politicians and business treat women as inferior through pay,promotion and exploitation etc.
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
9,977
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior. All through the centuries nothing changed. All religions, politicians and business treat women as inferior through pay,promotion and exploitation etc.
Because for much of time who was the "best" was decided based on who was the most aggressive, ruthless and terrifying, or at least when the "rules" were decided on.
I like it now better.
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
9,977
Well, Professor Ohlmeyer has certainly considerably outperformed me in the gum department. (As too has Senator Alice Mary Higgins.)

But is excess female gumminess a guaranteed indicator of top level performance?

I'd like to see the research findings.
I would like to see facts and figures for this too, it is quite a claim that so many of her colleagues are mediocre.
My experience of academia is that great ability is not the only factor in success, there is also networking ability, luck, hard work, long hours, creativity, intellectual rigour, perseverance, ability to write a good article that will be published, an eye for a gap in research etc.
If you are a brilliant and original thinker but you don't get with people or can't write an article the way it should be written you could well be passed over repeatedly.
My point is that the reasons for success are complex and I wonder if the research takes that into account or if it just looks at the vanilla numbers and says this is wrong.


I read somewhere recently that the gender gap closing is having an unexpected benefit, all the mediocre men are being edged out and the remaining blokes are generally most excellent in some areas.
Dude.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior. All through the centuries nothing changed. All religions, politicians and business treat women as inferior through pay,promotion and exploitation etc.
They were never inferior.

Genetics gave them a different purpose in life and evolution.

No amount of Lefty politics and virtue signalling nor female affirmative action will ever change that.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,679
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior. All through the centuries nothing changed. All religions, politicians and business treat women as inferior through pay,promotion and exploitation etc.
IMO the reason is that women didn't need to "own" men to ensure that any children born would be theirs. Men often felt they did, especially as societies became more hierarchical, and inheritance/genetic origins began to define "who" someone was.

That is probably a likelier explanation for all sorts of social constructs like religion which insist on women's "place" as being to varying degrees the "possessions" of men than mere coincidence.
 

mossyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
4,948
They were never inferior.

Genetics gave them a different purpose in life and evolution.

No amount of Lefty politics and virtue signalling nor female affirmative action will ever change that.
You should join the Taliban.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,399
Another "we wan't free stuff" push dressed up like a moral crusade. Also, 3.5/10 WNB.
 

Strawberry

Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,294
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior. All through the centuries nothing changed. All religions, politicians and business treat women as inferior through pay,promotion and exploitation etc.
Chilbirth. A woman could always be sure her children were her own, men needed to exercise control over the women in their lives to ensure they weren't wasting resources raising another man's offspring.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
You really have to wonder why, from the beginning of time women were looked on as inferior.
This academic talks of competition and performing so she has clearly bought into the capitalist ethos where people are set against each other rather than co-operating. In the early stages of human society - the period known as primitive communism - there was no division of labour. That came later and like much else is not permanent.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
It said the fact that women were not found in the same proportion as men in the most senior positions in higher education institutions was not because women were less talented or driven enough to fill these roles.
I dunno. Women seem to be just as good as men at getting jobs in education based on nepotism and cronyism.

Former Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore's wife has been appointed to a major education post with a salary of up to €136,000.

Carol Hanney is to take over as CEO of the City of Dublin Education Board (CDETB), just as Mr Gilmore becomes eligible to start drawing from a €2m pension pot on the back of his political career.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
This academic talks of competition and performing so she has clearly bought into the capitalist ethos where people are set against each other rather than co-operating. In the early stages of human society - the period known as primitive communism - there was no division of labour. That came later and like much else is not permanent.
Utter drivel. There was division of labour from forever. It was a biological imperative and advantage.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Maybe just close this thread down. Everyone knows a mediocre man is superior to an outstanding woman. Of course the outperform.
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,150

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
This ain't going to be popular, but from what I can see from the point of view of the 21st century is that the university environment is now actually more favourable to women than it is to men, and that the reason women are not in the majority in the very highest echelons of university hierarchies is because of a differential in terms of the life choices women make as compared to their male counterparts.

The figures on male and female participation in positions at various levels in university hierarchies look less like evidence of a glass ceiling than they do like a flatter bell curve (I hasten to add that I don't mean an intelligence bell curve).

Why that is is difficult to say, but I'd expect something as nefarious as "the patriarchy" to be a little more drastic: a little more like a glass ceiling.

I suspect that, like in politics, in very many cases in western Europe the men and women who do the choosing, go looking for quality women candidates who actually want the job and quite simply find less of them than their male peers.

I don't know, but the most parsimonious explanation is simply women's life choices. And if that is an adequate explanation, then I'm not entirely sure that there is any real problem to solve.

*Enters bomb shelter and shuts reinforced door*
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,798
I dunno. Women seem to be just as good as men at getting jobs in education based on nepotism and cronyism.
It is peculiar that there has never been a female university president. If there was ever a sector where back slapping and cronyism gets you places, it's probably the third level sector. Though I find quotas to be such a destructive and self defeating way of making progress; there should be other ways explored. AFAIK in most cases, it's the universities academic staff who vote for the president. Maybe change that system. Let the students have a say and maybe other constituencies as well.

I believe the lady mentioned was a candidate for the top job in TCD, which she didn't get obviously. I wonder is the "mediocre men" comment aimed at the chap who did get it. The trouble is, it's hard to be objective about a job you went for and didn't get.
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
''They say a woman's work is never done. Might be why they get paid less?''

Jimmy Carr, comedian (I think).

(Runs away very fast....)

:shock2:
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,250
I dunno. Women seem to be just as good as men at getting jobs in education based on nepotism and cronyism.
Didn't a lot more men lose there jobs during the recession , mostly due to them being "overrepresented" in the building sector and women being "overrepresented" in the public sector ? Will we be seeing quotas for brickies next ?

Let people work where then want without these tax payer funded overcompensated quangos sticking their noses in.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top