Posted by Soulskillon Wednesday July 22, 2015 @12:15AM from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.
dcblogs writes: An Ivy league graduate, with a Ph.D. in geophysics, Cheryl Fillekes, who also specializes in Linux and Unix systems, was contacted by Google recruiters four separate times over a seven year period. In each instance, she did well enough on the phone interviews to get invited to an in-person interview but was rejected every time for a job. She has since joined an age discrimination lawsuit against Google filed about two months ago by another older worker. "The amended lawsuit also alleges that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 'multiple complaints of age discrimination by Google, and is currently conducting an extensive investigation.'"
Posted by samzenpuson Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:14AM from the what's-in-it-for-me? dept.
HughPickens.com writes: Richard Horton writes that a recent symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research discussed one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with science (PDF), one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. According to Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a United Kingdom-based medical journal, the apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world or retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive and innovative. Tony Weidberg says that the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication following several high-profile errors. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticize. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. "The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously," says Horton. "The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system."
For the past 5 or 10 years, Harold Bab [Correction: That's no way to treat a friend. His name is Babb.] and I have exchanged greetings/ideas/thoughts on an occasional basis. Since neither of us is a dyed-in-the-wool blogger and neither of us is a dyed-in-the-wool e-mailer, "an occasional basis" has served us adequately. Today, however, I would like to direct anyone who cares to make the "journey" to hop over to Harold's blog to read his posting Openly Secular?
History: I don't really recall, but I suspect that Harold and I met through Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By. At the very least I know that he shares my admiration for Ronni, as a person and as a blogger. Harold and I hit it off because we had a couple of things in common: 1) He served 20+ years in the US Navy, retiring in 2009 as a Chief Hospital Corpsman (while I served 6 years in the US Naval Reserves as a Aircraft Structures Mechanic at the grade below Chief) and 2) We both spend a lot of time in voluntary service to the American people through the same organization. I had previously mentioned Harold, and a previous blog that he had, in A bit on USN rating badges.
Theft: Harold had a device on his blog that told how many people there are in the USA who have the same first and last name as his. I took it as my own - using my real name. Thanks, Harold. Others may steal the device from him or from me!
Q: Does the program really know how many people have the same name as me?
No. The program returns an estimate based on available data. It should be considered a "ballpark figure". It will usually return an answer in the right general area, but the chances of the figure being exactly right are very low.
A full discussion of the accuracy of the program may be found here.
BTW: When I input my birth name, the occurrence rose to 905 in the USA.
Undoubtedly, like the rest of us, elementary school teachers are not perfect and, undoubtedly, those teachers do exhibit (as studies have shown) a bias toward boys. However, they get blamed no matter what they do.
Posted by timothyon Monday February 09, 2015 @08:07AM from the would-blame-middle-school-teachers-myself dept.
theodp (442580) writes "Citing a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (free to Federal employees), the NY Times reports on how elementary school teachers' pro-boy biases can discourage girls from math and science. "The pipeline for women to enter math and science occupations narrows at many points between kindergarten and a career choice," writes Claire Cain Miller, "but elementary school seems to be a critical juncture. Reversing bias among teachers could increase the number of women who enter fields like computer science and engineering, which are some of the fastest growing and highest paying. 'It goes a long way to showing it's not the students or the home, but the classroom teacher's behavior that explains part of the differences over time between boys and girls,' said Victor Lavy, an economist at University of Warwick in England and a co-author of the paper." Although the study took place in Israel, Lavy said that similar research had been conducted in several European countries and that he expected the results were applicable in the United States."
IMO, educators have a difficult time of it. In general, teachers at the elementary school level are drawn from the populace of a locale and, in general, reflect the values of its residents. It isn't the teachers who force parents to dress their kids in sex-appropriate colors (Girls aspire) and teachers dare not teach things that parents don't support. (Here in Kansas, our legislators make every effort to assure that science is taught from a religious book, the Christian Bible, rather than from science books.) The educators pretty much follow the will of the residents.
I can "prove" this (well, demonstrate it with a single data point). My one conversation with the superintendent of schools, caused the local school system to change the policy that kept girls out of "shop" classes and boys out of "home economics" classes. A friend shook his head as he told me of attending the open-house night at the local junior high school at which he saw the work of my daughter in a shop class and of my closest friend's son in a sewing class.
Historical tale: Back when the earth was cooling and I was in 7th grade, they forced girls to take home economics and boys to take shop. However, toward the end of the year, they switched off and had the boys take several classes in home economics while the girls took several classes in shop. I was disappointed when they cancelled that arrangement for my 7th grade class. School closed early that year - probably to avoid the heat of summer at a time when polio was making the rounds.
In addition (I understand that I've written this before): 1) They keep putting stupid pink hats on girls and stupid blue hats on boys in the neo-natal care units of the hospitals and 2) parents continue to dress babies/toddlers/infants in clothes that scream out, "I am a boy!" or "I am a girl!" (Please note blue and pink clothing in the cartoon, for gods sake.)
“Data were obtained from a stratified random sample of veterinary practices throughout Great Britain, and questionnaires were sent to owners of dogs with tail injuries and owners of a randomly selected sample of dogs without tail injuries…. Two hundred and eighty-one tail injuries were recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending 52 participating practices….. Dogs with a wide angle of wag and dogs kept in kennels were at significantly higher risk of sustaining a tail injury. Dogs with docked tails were significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury.”
See the problem with the logic? One hundred percent of the "Dogs with docked tails...." were injured (ask your dog!); thus, they cannot be "...significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury."