No abstract

<p>Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in academic personnel decisions as a measure of teaching effectiveness. We show:</p><ul> <li>SET are biased against female instructors by an amount that is large and statistically significant</li> <li>the bias affects how students rate even putatively objective aspects of teaching, such as how promptly assignments are graded</li> <li>the bias varies by discipline and by student gender, among other things</li> <li>it is not possible to adjust for the bias, because it depends on so many factors</li></ul><ul> <li>SET are more sensitive to students&#39; gender bias and grade expectations than they are to teaching effectiveness</li> <li>gender biases can be large enough to cause more effective instructors to get lower SET than less effective instructors.</li></ul><p>These findings are based on nonparametric statistical tests applied to two datasets: 23,001 SET of 379 instructors by 4,423 students in six mandatory first-year courses in a five-year natural experiment at a French university, and 43 SET for four sections of an online course in a randomized, controlled, blind experiment at a US university.</p>

This paper explores the recent efforts by the corporate world and public policy to increase the number of women in leadership positions in the workplace. We review and empirically evaluate the ‘business case’ for gender equality, showing some evidence in favour of it. Despite the evidence and growing support, progress towards more diversity in leadership positions has been slow. We study the importance of supply-side constraints, as well as the main diversity policies (gender quotas, mentoring and network programmes, diversity training to change firm culture, and family friendly policies) that have been implemented. We focus on the effectiveness of these policies, their shortcomings, as well as potential future steps that could help guide policy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract