Well, no meritocracy is perfect. The economists Liran Einav and Leeat Yariv analyzed the faculty in the top 35 U.S. economics departments. Their conclusions were startling, especially if your last name begins with the letter Z:
Faculty with earlier surname initials are significantly more likely to receive tenure at top ten economics departments, are significantly more likely to become fellows of the Econometric Society, and, to a lesser extent, are more likely to receive the Clark Medal and the Nobel Prize. These statistically significant differences remain the same even after we control for country of origin, ethnicity, religion or departmental fixed effects.
[Hat Tip: Mankiw, hereafter known as Aaamankiw]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Shane asked the following:
So Zuska, just to be clear, did your post mean to suggest:
1. The structure of science is hostile to or biased against women, leading to an under-representation of women at its highest level. Eliminate this bias and more women would be awarded the Nobel Prize *in the…
There was a lot of buzz online a couple months back when an article entitled "Moniker Maladies" made what seemed to many to be a startling claim: Baseball players strike out more often when their names start with "K"; Students with the initials "C" and "D" get worse grades than others.
Actually,…
There's a very interesting article in Emerging Infectious Diseases about which risk factors are likely to result in an increased likelihood of a macrolide (a class of antibiotics) resistant Streptococcus pneumonial infection. One important factor: having failed to take a full course of antibiotic…
I've spent a bunch of time recently blogging about baseball statistics, which you might be inclined to write off as some quirk of a sports-obsessed scientist. I was very amused, therefore, to see Inside Higher Ed and ZapperZ writing about a new AIP report on women in physics (PDF) that uses…
Thanks for the heads up...
My first guess as to an explanation is this.
The list of finalists for a spot is always ordered alphabetically. When a committee reads through the list they're likely to start making judgments about who should win the spot. This premature judgment will be difficult to change in the face of a second deserving applicant who is just as, or very slightly more, qualified than the first. Unless the second person heavily outweighs the first they won't get selected.
So the "tie-breaker" tends to go to the first person the committee evaluates.
The solution? Randomize the order on nomination lists.
Einav and Yariv hypothesize that the convention in economics of alphabetized ordering of authors on co-authored papers is the primary cause. From the perspective of the sciences where co-authored papers are the norm, such conventions seem unfair and inefficient (as no infomation as to contribution can be drawn from order of authorship). I imagine single-authored papers would be significantly more common in economics than the sciences even absent this system, however this must present a strong disincentive for economists with late-in-the-alphabet last names to collaborate. Can I also add that I dislike the European system, where an advisor gets first authorship on his/her student's paper.