Teaching Evaluations and Gender Bias

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
My hypothesis does not say that - it is is based on the possibility that perhaps the more intelligent women do not remain in academic life but pursue alternative careers.
Why should we think that is plausible explanation?
 


Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
That's what I asked you, but you replied by misrepresenting what I had said.
I'm asking you why we should think it's a plausible explanation that intelligent women are less likely to stay in academia compared to intelligent men.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

I'm asking you why we should think it's a plausible explanation that intelligent women are less likely to stay in academia compared to intelligent men.
That's what you need to investigate if, in fact, that proves to be the case. They may, for example, find academic politics not to their taste, they may find greater challenges elsewhere, but the point is that you must consider these possible explanations, not rule them out without consideration. By the way you're going round in circles now and I'm getting off a merry go round that's going nowhere.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
That's what you need to investigate if, in fact, that proves to be the case. They may, for example, find academic politics not to their taste, they may find greater challenges elsewhere, but the point is that you must consider these possible explanations, not rule them out without consideration. By the way you're going round in circles now and I'm getting off a merry go round that's going nowhere.
We're going round in circles because I already explained that I see no reason to think that those explanations are plausible, not least because they don't explain differences across disciplines.

The simplest explanation, given the empirical evidence available, is that the differences are largely if not entirely the result of bias on the part of the evaluators.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

We're going round in circles because I already explained that I see no reason to think that those explanations are plausible, not least because they don't explain differences across disciplines.

The simplest explanation, given the empirical evidence available, is that the differences are largely if not entirely the result of bias on the part of the evaluators.
You can't just assume your favorite explanation is the correct one without considering any other possible explanations. That would be truly dismal science.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
You can't just assume your favorite explanation is the correct one without considering any other possible explanations. That would be truly dismal science.
There aren't any other plausible explanations. The available evidence best supports the explanation I have offered.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

There aren't any other plausible explanations. The available evidence best supports the explanation I have offered.
This is nonsense, even if bias partly explains the findings, it is highly unlikely to be the only factor. If this is the way the social sciences arrive at their conclusions they are no longer deserving of being referred to as sciences.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
This is nonsense, even if bias partly explains the findings, it is highly unlikely to be the only factor. If this is the way the social sciences arrive at their conclusions they are no longer deserving of being referred to as sciences.
Why do you think it is highly unlikely to be the only factor?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Why do you think it is highly unlikely to be the only factor?
Because human behaviour and attitudes are complex phenomena that do not lend themselves to such simple one to one correlations. But even in the physical sciences, where such relations are not unusual, one would not simply plump for one explanation, no matter how obvious it might seem, without considering others and eliminating them.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
Because human behaviour and attitudes are complex phenomena that do not lend themselves to such simple one to one correlations. But even in the physical sciences, where such relations are not unusual, one would not simply plump for one explanation, no matter how obvious it might seem, without considering others and eliminating them.
You've had ample opportunity to present some other plausible explanation, but so far failed to do so.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
26,514
Here is an interesting tool, that allows you to compare the words used to describe professors (lecturers) from roughly 14 million reviews on ratemyprofessors.com

Studies have suggested that female teachers tend to be evaluated more harshly than their male counterparts, and tools like this would seem to support the idea that there is a gender bias among students. Even counting only positive evaluations, there still seems to be clear differences along gender lines. For example, here's what you get for the keyword "intelligent" (only positive)



And here's what you get for the word "helpful" (only positive)




Have a go yourself, and see if you can come with any interesting results.


Why Female Professors Get Lower Ratings : NPR Ed : NPR

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...evidence-against-student-evaluations-teaching
Interesting, note how between "intelligent" and"helpful", the positions of maths/science and history/philosophy are completely reversed.

I wonder why that would be?
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,346
Intelligence is such a hard thing to define and perceptions of it are quite subjective. It must be very difficult to disentangle observer bias from signals that come from the people themselves, such as confidence, authoritative personality types etc.

Whereas helpfulness is clearly useful as an entirely subjective thing. If you think someone was helpful, then by definition they were.

If anything, my experience would be that sometimes you might describe someone as intelligent when you didn't have a clue what they were talking about. "Wow, I didn't understand a word of that. He must be very intelligent!". But, in reality someone who has the ability to make complicated things seem simple might not seem at first sight be very intelligent, but in reality is.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
90,430
Interesting, note how between "intelligent" and"helpful", the positions of maths/science and history/philosophy are completely reversed.

I wonder why that would be?
Different disciplines probably attract different types of compliment. For example, I would guess you are more likely to see a philosophy professor being praised for being "analytic" and more likely to see a music professor being praised as "creative". (I haven't checked the actual figures, though so I might be wrong on that particular example)
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top