New, interesting tidbit from The Chronicle of Higher Education (emphasis mine):
"White students make up 62 percent of full-time students enrolled in four-year colleges but receive 76 percent of institutional merit scholarships; and white students are 40 percent more likely to receive private scholarships than minority students are."
I look forward to the excuses explanations for why white folks are so much more deserving. Perhaps they will take inspiration from the recent NIH kerfluffle that makes my teeth grind to just to look at the various analyses, cries of indignation, and self-satisfied bigotry.
Figure 1: Have you somehow escaped this juggernaut of the science bloggynets? Go read that shit
For example, one brilliant comment at The Chronicle (with 39 likes) elucidates the inherent inferiority of black applicants, which is 100% (NOT) confirmed by the actual fucking study. Italics are the comment, quotations are data from Ginther+'s study
Black investigators may be the result of "special initiative" graduate and postgraduate training programs that provided poor preparation for a competitive research career, leading to poorer quality proposals.
"Model 4 included controls for previous NIH grants, NIH review experience, and NIH institute, and while it reduced the award differential for blacks and Asians by 1 percentage point, the differential was still significant (P < .001)." -Ginther et al Nature 2011
Black investigators are more likely to come from predominantly minority institutions, which rarely (if ever) offer infrastructure necessary to support cutting edge research, leading to poorer quality proposals.
"...when we added controls for education and NIH training in Model 2, the marginal effects did not change in size or significance. Model 3 added controls for employer characteristics, which reduced the significance of the marginal effects for Hispanics, but not for Asians or blacks (P < .001), compared with Model 1." -Ginther et al Nature 2011
Black investigators have available numerous "minority candidate status required" research support initiatives which are reviewed only against other minority candidates, and this experience denies them the opportunity to hone proposal development skills, leading to poorer quality proposals.
"For all applicants who received F or T training, blacks were 27.4 percentage points (P < .001), Asians were 6.9 percentage points (P < .01), and Hispanics were 9.5 percentage points (P < .01) less likely to ever receive an R01 award compared with whites" --Ginther et al Nature 2011
Another bit of brilliant flamebait:
Has anyone considered this perspective: Minorities have received preferential admissions treatment for admission to college, graduate school, for academic positions, and for tenure...
"Out of 69,300 science and engineering full professors in 2006, a mere 600--less than 1%--were African-American women." -ScienceMag
"Nationwide, blacks make up 5.3 percent of all full-time faculty at American colleges and universities. But a more accurate picture is obtained when we eliminate from the count the nation’s predominantly black colleges and universities. With that adjustment... nationwide, blacks are slightly more than 4 percent of the full-time faculty at predominantly white institutions of higher education." -JBHE
"None of the 28 other high-ranking universities (Ed: out of 30) have a percentage of black faculty that is equal to the national average of 5.3 percent. At Rice University, Stanford University, MIT, and CalTech, blacks make up less than 2 percent of the total faculty."-JBHE
FYI, we're almost 13% of the American population. Maybe the commenter meant the mythical fairy job they did not get last application cycle. But before my Caucasian readers dissolve in a puddle of white guilt, fear not! There are those wise ones that point out the "myopic view" of the study, for example:
"I think the data paint a fairly accurate picture of the current state of efforts to increase minority representation in the sciences – highlighting remaining challenges, but also noteworthy accomplishments that the paper and discussions about it have completely ignored." -Michael Eisen
Yea, we should have had a paragraph congratulating white people for accepting desegregation, allowing us to vote, and that super sweet moment when we got to be outside after 10pm. Whee.
Look, I'm sorry to break it to you, but every black person already in science knew this. They knew it, but couldn't get 100% incontrovertible evidence for it, so they never brought it up to you because you would scoff and say the anecdotal data of their getting slammed every review cycle while you sailed through was just their being a sore loser. When institutions devoted to minority issues start sniffing out the same problems, they are promptly ignored because everyone knows that minorities can't be objective about problems concerning them. That's for the big boys.
And then when some nice white people (Ed: not all white, as mentioned by DM, but a good faith effort!) come do an in-depth study and publish it in a respectable place that other white people can go to without feeling uncomfortable, we must then listen to the neverending wail of excuses. But we are totally making progress! I, and none of my friends, would never have that kind of bias EVER, so it can't be possible! There must be some magical other variable that addresses this because scientists can't be racists! I totally made a rocker launcher for 4th grade science fair and the black kid won with a poster on diabetes so it's just SCIENCE KARMA!111!!!
Seeing cold, hard , numbers to confirm what we already knew is not going to scare the poor widdle minorities away, don't worry. We have actually been secretly indoctrinating our children that we have to be twice as good as the majority to hit the bottom rung, so it appears we were overzealous. The idea that this will frighten minorities away into some fictitious career where things are not exactly the same fucking way is at best, epically condescending. What makes me, personally, want to quit is when overeducated buttholes who are completely logical about everything else promptly shut down their brain and turns into the stereotypical Tea Bagger they like to make fun of whenever race comes up.
In summary,
"yeah, they controlled for that too"
-answer to 89.453 of the comments critical of Ginther
"yeah but..."
-response from 95.43% of those educated on this fact
An invigorating takedown of some epic stupidsauce. Thank you.
Even now with this study out there I still wouldn't bring this issue up in real life. I would more certainly be labeled a complainer, a sore looser, unwilling to work twice as hard.
On the one hand you have those who are certain the data must be a mistake, because all the people they know in science are "nice", and nice = not biased. Then you have those who think this data actually proves the opposite, as they always suspected. Blackfolk in science get a free ride.
Then there are the momentary pearl clutchers, who will talk a good game for a week or so, then promptly forget the whole thing whenever there is an opportunity for some sort of action.
Between all that and some NIH navel gazing by committee, I doubt any substantial changes in the situation anytime soon. The only response left is to shrug and get back to work.
Well, does anyone have the stats on college enrollment or even high school graduation or even grad school marks? Because who would be surprised if they were lower?
Gasp, is this a racist pig in the wild? No, my point is that this isn't a exactly unique facet of the problem, and they stem largely from a common cause, which is wealth disparity.
These things are all heavy markers for wealth or even wealth in themselves. But try explaining to someone that most of what they think they "achieved" is actually just the exact analog of capital gains on the wealth they were given. Oh goodness no, "achievement" and wealth are always earned and therefore deserved, and therefore anyone who lacks it is just lazier or stupider.
Go Hermitage!
(Is there such a thing as whitesplaining?)
I think there is now. Or at least, there should be.
This is bullshit. *solidarity*
Minor correction of
I don't think the senior author is "white".
Hermie, you are spot on. All this discomfited fluttering around making excuses sounds just like the white response to "The Help" illustrated in the comments here:
http://www.beforebarack.com/2011/07/28/sniffing-dirty-laundry-a-true-story-from-%E2%80%9Cthe-help%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D-daughter/
"We" (as in white people) need to just fucken get over ourselves, stop racesplaining and patting ourselves on the back and LISTEN instead of talking.
Yeah, I saw the trailer for The Help when I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Another movie about the pretty, slim white woman saving the stereotypical black women because they aren't as dimensional or as talented as she is? No, thanks. I got enough of that growing up in the '80's and '90's in the whitest-ass communities ever. Hell, I got enough of that in college. I got quite enough.
The fact that movies and books like The Help still become commercial successes in 2011 is a major reason why I stick to nonfiction, "classic" literature, science fiction and fantasy. I avoid "contemporary fiction" like the plague.
Holy shit, that picture caption is awesome. Well played Hermie, well played.
I <3 that image.
I second that <3.
But, but, what about the white womenz?
LOL
Just returning from DM's joint, I see my forshadowing was uncanny.
For real. It is driving me crazy that my final comment to that nutcase is stuck in moderation. I don't know why she doesn't just get her own motherfucking blog or simply hang out on forums where she's welcome.
Godamnit - first you bully me off this blog and then you use it as a place to spread bullshit about me? That was not my message at all. I was objecting to the framing of the problem as one of "anglo saxons" retaining a majority hold in science and academia. And my comment was in response to something DM said, not in response to this post.
Nuuuuu e-shanking! Or the kitten gets the hose again. Muffins and minions are allowed to duel using SAT words, not insults. That goes for both of you if I was not clear.
No problem, Hermitage.
I really appreciate you quoting the part where they describe controlling for previously sitting on study section. That makes it clear that when someone suggests addressing the problem by adding black members to study section, they are asking those people to 'fix' other peoples racism, not asking them to do something that necessarily benefits themselves. It may be necessary, but without any other changes it will result in service-duty accumulation for black professors.
Here's the thing that's been mentally bugging me. You can't use these data to conclude there is not racism against hispanics and asians. Therefore, other explanations than racial bias on the part of the reviewers could account for some of the discrepancy.
Personally, I can't imagine racial bias on the part of the reviewers not being part of the explanation, but it seems like there might be other things as well.
Personally, I can't imagine racial bias on the part of the reviewers not being part of the explanation, but it seems like there might be other things as well.
I agree. I keep coming back to this study because it nags at me. It's not that I don't think that racism exists. It's that I think something really complicated is going on.
For example, in 2004, there were a number of STEM subfields in which not a single black person in the entire country took a PhD. (I don't have access to the article right now, but I will post a link to it when I can.) I believe some of them were in math, physics and engineering. Since biomedical science is increasingly driven by biophysics, bioinformatics, biomedical engineering and systems biology, does the preference for certain subfields over others comprise one of the variables reflected in the disparity in grant success rates?
What about its effect on obtaining faculty positions at an institution such as MIT or CalTech vs. an institution such as UCSF? They're all world-class institutions. They don't all focus on the same things. Meanwhile, the pioneers of biomedical science migrate as the times change.
Of course, that leads to the question of what induces blacks to favor some subfields over others. Yeah, yeah, I know: cue the Greek chorus on "genetic inferiority"*. Ignoring the eagerly racist perspective that Hermitage has already lambasted, however, I think the answers are complicated. For starters, how many blacks from non-academic families are going to have this sort of familiarity with scientific breakthroughs and trends?
As DuWayne Brayton astutely pointed out to me once, most of us learned the history of science instead of modern science as kids. Since the effect of the internet age on access to information is beyond the scope of this discussion, I'll state that the exceptions to this rule were the most affluent kids at the best college-preps. I'm not talking merely middle-class kids, either. Socioeconomic class is more than salary. It's also culture-- connections, expectations, "breeding" and environment. What's the racial makeup of the truly upper-middle and upper classes today? What was it ten years ago? And how are these ineffable differences presently reflected in the distribution of professorships, grants, financial aid, etc.?
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that the percentage of grants, awards, scholarships, student loans, etc. held by members of one racial (or socioeconomic) group should be proportional to percentage of the general population. That is seriously problematic. I get that it's one legitimate way to determine disparity caused by bigotry. However, it is simultaneously problematic. I don't know how to approach the problem.
Arrgh. I'm having a hard time saying what I want to say. Maybe I am way out in left field. Meanwhile, there are two cats who demand that I play with them now. They belong to my PI. I have to come back later.
*You know, John McWhorter, the author of Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America and its sequel, pointed out that a number of poor black schools outscored more affluent white schools on standardized tests during the segregationist era. He attributed it to the fact that the black folks who miraculously permitted to earn degrees from top-tier US universities could nevertheless only find work as teachers at black schools. The talent was concentrated all in one place, and the schoolchildren benefitted accordingly. McWhorter used this not as an argument in favor of segregation but as part of an argument that blacks are not intellectually inferior to whites.
And education was likewise better when being a teacher was one of the top jobs available to women?
I've never written or reviewed proposals for NIH, and I'm curious how the reviewers know that the PI is black/African American. Is it a name thing? Or is the health field so small that everyone knows each other? Or is there a potential hint in an outreach section? Or do reviewers just infer it from educational background and other info way down on the CV? Curious about where in the process the bias begins to creep in.
[...] At Work May Cause You To Call in Sick In which Hermitage is a pissy black person Deep-sea fish in deep trouble: Scientists find nearly all deep-sea fisheries unsustainable, call [...]
Hear, hear. Good post.
I would like the poster to explain why most of these gaps disappear when controlling for IQ.
There are possible non-racist explanations but until he acknowledges that a simple variable underlies most of the findings he and the studies he cites find, this is a post that is intellectually weak.
Yeah! Because IQ tests are completely free of racial/socioeconomic bias! Or not but but still!
This is a fascinating study. I believed minority students received far more in grants than white students. These findings are definitely eye-opening.
You got a link in Freakonomics blog in an article about white students receiving more grants- and of course the comments read exactly like the comments from The Chronicle.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/12/study-shows-minorities-less-likely-to-win-grants-scholarships/
Where are the data on controlling for the IQ of NIH applicant PIs, random racesplainin trolly dude?
Beat me to it DM. Commenter V apparently has a whole extra set of analyses to share with us - I can't wait!
...but I'll likely have to because V is the first of many racist trolls likely to swing by now. Oh joy.
Nice "othering." Very Manachean.
Look, racial grievance and race baiting is not going to solve the problem. Grievance is a tactic used to cover up problems. It is far easier politically to redistribute resources towards a noisy socioeconomic group than it is to solve real structural problems. This is why the black family was allowed to collapse in the hayday of the Civil Rights era.
Politicians are not very good at "standing up" and "fighting for" the "downtrodden" in society, even when they act in good faith, which they usually do not. Those of us in those few disadvantaged socioeconomic groups that were spared the political exploitation of identity politics see this a lot.
"Identity politics" and "race baiting" are terms that belong to the same category as "political correctness". They don't constitute arguments in and of themselves-- at least, not logically coherent ones-- and they betray your bias against Hermitage's point of view.
[...] 23 2011: Hermitage for “In which Hermitage is a pissy black person” (excellent analysis of the recent [...]