Why does John get the STEM job rather than Jennifer?

[eridani]

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.

Despite the scientific valuation of objectivity, gender stereotypes tainted the judgments of the scientists, generating a bias that dampened the STEM career prospects of Jennifer. Even women scientists favored John. This finding supports the understanding among researchers that gender biases are not a result of in-group favoritism. Rather, gender bias is often an outcome of an implicit cognitive process in which pervasive gender stereotypes shape our judgments, regardless of our intentions. Moss-Racusin stressed that the participants in her study were likely unaware they were discriminating against Jennifer.

[redqueen]

1. Why is this so surprising? This is literally Sociology 101 stuff.

This finding supports the understanding among researchers that gender biases are not a result of in-group favoritism. Rather, gender bias is often an outcome of an implicit cognitive process in which pervasive gender stereotypes shape our judgments,

This has been demonstrated over and over again. Yet still you have morons saying things like 'well women do it too!'

Yeah no shit, Sherlock. Its called the patriarchy. Fucking learn! Ugh it SO pisses me off.

[laundry_queen]

2. IKR?

I was just reading this to my daughter and paused at the 'surprising' part...I said to her, "I don't get why THEY are surprised - It's pretty obvious, I'm not surprised at all." And yeah, about sociology 101 (still fresh in my mind from last semester, lol). This is not new stuff.

[redqueen]

3. I wish it wasn't the case that we stay so stunted in some areas.

In some areas we've made great progress. And pressure to keep moving forward stays strong.

In other areas.... well...