Am I a man or a woman?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ok. Nothing there whatsoever about any studies being done on it. If orchestras practiced gender bias they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. Did you read the thread? The example you were commenting about was the opposite of what the research found to be true. PC strikes again. By all means get rid of bias where it's proven to be actually happening, but don't assume it is when it isn't.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

The point is no-one is 'practicing' it, it's subconscious.

And that 'tells' us what? That society has changed since the 1970s? Which orchestras are auditioning 'blind'? How does it work? Perhaps not many women were auditioning for orchestras in the 1970s? There's not a heck of a lot of information there.

[Arising_uk]

Did you bother to read the paper?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Did you bother to read the paper?

Well you didn't even bother to read this thread. Actually there's far more evidence for bias AGAINST boys in the school system over the past few decades. That's obvious and well-documented. The education was deliberately and systematically changed to give females an advantage, and it has worked--at the expense of boys of course.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The point is no-one is 'practicing' it, it's subconscious.

That takes the cake.
And I did follow your link. I assumed there must be more to it, but there are no examples, no evidence, no controlled studies mentioned. They have a link to something, but it goes nowhere.

[Arising_uk]

Why are you changing the subject?

My post was a related one, whether the OP was right or wrong the subject was gender-bias in selection or grading processes and I thought it interesting that this topic had been addressed in the 70's and 80's by symphony orchestras and had been shown to be a reasonable factor in the passing of women through their initial selection tests. You appear to disagree but have no evidence to back up your claim whereas I do but you appear to insist that you are right in this matter? This is your anti-PC blinker in action.

[Arising_uk]

That takes the cake.

How so?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are you changing the subject?

My post was a related one, whether the OP was right or wrong the subject was gender-bias in selection or grading processes and I thought it interesting that this topic had been addressed in the 70's and 80's by symphony orchestras and had been shown to be a reasonable factor in the passing of women through their initial selection tests. You appear to disagree but have no evidence to back up your claim whereas I do but you appear to insist that you are right in this matter? This is your anti-PC blinker in action.

WTF? I'm not saying I'm right! I just want evidence! What is so weird about that?? That link you posted was ambiguous at best. No studies cited. No mention of which orchestras or whether they still do this today. It looks as if the piece was written by a couple of 'feminists' with an axe to grind.

[Arising_uk]

Well you didn't even bother to read this thread. Actually there's far more evidence for bias AGAINST boys in the school system over the past few decades. That's obvious and well-documented. The education was deliberately and systematically changed to give females an advantage, and it has worked--at the expense of boys of course.

You clearly didn't read my post as I said exactly that some boys have suffered under such a system but it wasn't done to 'give females an advantage' but to try and give them an opportunity in a system that was biased towards those who excel under exam pressure and those who don't. That there are unintended consequences is a given with all such things but it was not some plot by the PC.

[Arising_uk]

WTF? I'm not saying I'm right! I just want evidence! What is so weird about that?? That link you posted was ambiguous at best. No studies cited. No mention of which orchestras or whether they still do this today. It looks as if the piece was written by a couple of 'feminists' with an axe to grind.

Go away.

You clearly didn't read the paper and just make shit-up to fit your axe.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

WTF? I'm not saying I'm right! I just want evidence! What is so weird about that?? That link you posted was ambiguous at best. No studies cited. No mention of which orchestras or whether they still do this today. It looks as if the piece was written by a couple of 'feminists' with an axe to grind.

Go away.

You clearly didn't read the paper and just make shit-up to fit your axe.

Go away. You clearly didn't read my comments. Are you talking about that one paragraph? Why do you think I didn't read it?
And the Berlin Philharmonic doesn't just have one audition. It's a long process, and they are going to have to see the musician at some point along the line. Whatever it's doing works, since it's the greatest orchestra in the world. I'm not making anything up. I'm only asking questions and pointing out flaws. Sorry if that upsets your applecart. You could always try to answer some of them.
Real research involve trying to DISPROVE a hypothesis, not starting with a conclusion and then using or discarding 'evidence' that suits that conclusion. That's pseudoscience.

[Arising_uk]

Popper may well work for physics but in the ...ologies I doubt he holds much sway and even in the former it is not always to disprove an observation that a study is carried out.

As soon as I hear 'pseudoscience' I know I'm talking to a pseud.

I take your point about the Berlin Orchestra but the whole point of the paper was about initial auditions and back in the 70's and 80's things was a lot different with respect to how men and women interacted, women knew their place back then and the changes introduced were not just for gender bias but bias in general and came from a general change in how orchestras were selected in the first place as the conductors and teachers were just choosing their favourites.

Again, you obviously didn't read the paper. Do that and then get back to me with objections about their methodology rather than just adding stuff.
p.s.
You know the paper you posted about GCSE's was about 'A' levels don't you?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Popper may well work for physics but in the ...ologies I doubt he holds much sway and even in the former it is not always to disprove an observation that a study is carried out.

As soon as I hear 'pseudoscience' I know I'm talking to a pseud.

I take your point about the Berlin Orchestra but the whole point of the paper was about initial auditions and back in the 70's and 80's things was a lot different with respect to how men and women interacted, women knew their place back then and the changes introduced were not just for gender bias but bias in general and came from a general change in how orchestras were selected in the first place as the conductors and teachers were just choosing their favourites.

Again, you obviously didn't read the paper. Do that and then get back to me with objections about their methodology rather than just adding stuff.
p.s.
You know the paper you posted about GCSE's was about 'A' levels don't you?

So you think there's no such thing a pseudoscience? What do you call UFOlogy? Why would someone have to be a 'pseud' to use the word? It's a perfectly good and valid word. What word would you replace it with?
And all research should follow the same stringent methodoloy, whether it's 'ific' or 'ologic'.
What's GCSE then? Is there a difference in examiner selection methods?

''Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.''

Are you suggesting I become an 'AEA' member in order to see the 'full text'????

Or are you referring to THIS?

''Discrimination against women has been alleged in hiring practices for many occupations, but it is extremely difficult to demonstrate sex-biased hiring. A change in the way symphony orchestras recruit musicians provides an unusual way to test for sex-biased hiring. To overcome possible biases in hiring, most orchestras revised their audition policies in the 1970s and 1980s. A major change involved the use of blind' auditions with a screen' to conceal the identity of the candidate from the jury. Female musicians in the top five symphony orchestras in the United States were less than 5% of all players in 1970 but are 25% today. We ask whether women were more likely to be advanced and/or hired with the use of blind' auditions. Using data from actual auditions in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases by 50% the probability a woman will be advanced out of certain preliminary rounds. The screen also enhances, by severalfold, the likelihood a female contestant will be the winner in the final round. Using data on orchestra personnel, the switch to blind' auditions can explain between 30% and 55% of the increase in the proportion female among new hires and between 25% and 46% of the increase in the percentage female in the orchestras since 1970. ''

Ok. It says 5% in 1970. Then it jumps straight to 'today' (1997?). There is no mention of what happened in between. Just a lot of assumptions. I can't comment on these 'findings' because there is no access to the actual research (if there is any).

[ForCruxSake]

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

Education-line Home Page
What's in a name?
Experiments with blind marking in A level Examinations
Jo-Anne Baird
Research and Statistics Group
The Associated Examining Board
Stag Hill House
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5XJ

jbaird@aeb.org.uk

This paper has been accepted for publication in Educational Research and is due to appear in the Winter 1998 issue (Volume 40 Number 3) © NFER, Slough, Publisher Routledge. It appears in Education-line by permission of the National Foundation for Education Research

Summary

A level results have a substantial impact upon candidates' futures and it is crucial that the results are as fair as possible. Candidates' names appear on examination scripts and some have suggested that this could produce bias in the marking. Introduction of blind marking in A level examinations would be unwieldy and costly. Two experiments on blind marking were carried out: in A level Chemistry and A level English Literature. In each study, presentation (and not the content) of 30 scripts was varied. Eight Chemistry A level examiners and sixteen English Literature A level examiners took part in the studies. Scripts were presented as blind or non-blind, with a male or female name and with 'male' or 'female' handwriting. The studies addressed the issue of possible gender bias in marking and investigated whether blind marking could overcome gender bias. It was concluded that bias was not present in the marking and therefore no support was found for the introduction of blind marking in A levels.

The full results are easy enough to find.

This piece is 20 years old and refers to A'levels, you stupid cow. Scrape away at your barrels but you're done wasting any more of my time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

Education-line Home Page
What's in a name?
Experiments with blind marking in A level Examinations
Jo-Anne Baird
Research and Statistics Group
The Associated Examining Board
Stag Hill House
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5XJ

jbaird@aeb.org.uk

This paper has been accepted for publication in Educational Research and is due to appear in the Winter 1998 issue (Volume 40 Number 3) © NFER, Slough, Publisher Routledge. It appears in Education-line by permission of the National Foundation for Education Research

Summary

A level results have a substantial impact upon candidates' futures and it is crucial that the results are as fair as possible. Candidates' names appear on examination scripts and some have suggested that this could produce bias in the marking. Introduction of blind marking in A level examinations would be unwieldy and costly. Two experiments on blind marking were carried out: in A level Chemistry and A level English Literature. In each study, presentation (and not the content) of 30 scripts was varied. Eight Chemistry A level examiners and sixteen English Literature A level examiners took part in the studies. Scripts were presented as blind or non-blind, with a male or female name and with 'male' or 'female' handwriting. The studies addressed the issue of possible gender bias in marking and investigated whether blind marking could overcome gender bias. It was concluded that bias was not present in the marking and therefore no support was found for the introduction of blind marking in A levels.

The full results are easy enough to find.

This piece is 20 years old and refers to A'levels, you stupid cow. Scrape away at your barrels but you're done wasting any more of my time.

So where's your 'study' then, you stupid cow. I'm pretty sure that's the study your 'reputable source' would have been referring to. Do you think examiners are more gender biased today than they were in 1997? If anything the bias today would more likely be against males than females.
Are they supposed to do a different study for every level of education? Why would there be any difference between GCSE or 'A level' examining?

[ForCruxSake]

Education-line Home Page
What's in a name?
Experiments with blind marking in A level Examinations
Jo-Anne Baird
Research and Statistics Group
The Associated Examining Board
Stag Hill House
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5XJ

jbaird@aeb.org.uk

This paper has been accepted for publication in Educational Research and is due to appear in the Winter 1998 issue (Volume 40 Number 3) © NFER, Slough, Publisher Routledge. It appears in Education-line by permission of the National Foundation for Education Research

Summary

A level results have a substantial impact upon candidates' futures and it is crucial that the results are as fair as possible. Candidates' names appear on examination scripts and some have suggested that this could produce bias in the marking. Introduction of blind marking in A level examinations would be unwieldy and costly. Two experiments on blind marking were carried out: in A level Chemistry and A level English Literature. In each study, presentation (and not the content) of 30 scripts was varied. Eight Chemistry A level examiners and sixteen English Literature A level examiners took part in the studies. Scripts were presented as blind or non-blind, with a male or female name and with 'male' or 'female' handwriting. The studies addressed the issue of possible gender bias in marking and investigated whether blind marking could overcome gender bias. It was concluded that bias was not present in the marking and therefore no support was found for the introduction of blind marking in A levels.

The full results are easy enough to find.

This piece is 20 years old and refers to A'levels, you stupid cow. Scrape away at your barrels but you're done wasting any more of my time.

So where's your 'study' then, you stupid cow. I'm pretty sure that's the study your 'reputable source' would have been referring to. Do you think examiners are more gender biased today than they were in 1997? If anything the bias today would more likely be against males than females.
Are they supposed to do a different study for every level of education? Why would there be any difference between GCSE or 'A level' examining?

At the risk of repeating myself to you, you deliberately deaf heifer: I never claimed a report. I said I heard about something. it is you who insisted on evidence I never claimed to have. It is you, who said I was stating things as fact, when not only did I clearly state it as hearsay, but then further explained where I heard it. The fact that I trust the source of the information as being more reliable than your dumbass twenty year scraping off the bottom of a barrel, is something we will have to agree to disagree over. End of.

To be honest, there are better people here to engage with than you. I can chase up the source but for you... Fuck that! You're not worth it. There are others here who are. Time wasting fool.