Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta= =2Eca]
Sebastian,

First of all, thank you for that very detailed = breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the= blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion=2E

You'= re asking if you are forgetting anything in your list=2E I would actually e= xpand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgrounds= enough - from the perspective of the current issue=2E How girls and women = are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it abso= lutely is about gender too=2E This can be very clearly demonstrated=2E For = example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lea= d to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of compet= ence and hireability for scientific positions=2E [1] One study found that a= lready in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better = than boys in math exams, but only if thally as well or even better than boy= s in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is= a distinct bias against them=2E This has obvious and lasting effects on th= eir academic career choices right from the very start=2E [2]

Gender = bias among teachers and professors is an open secret=2E Putting the "merito= cracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury= =2E It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootst= raps" thing=2E

Best,
Matthias

[1] https://www=2Epnas=2Eorg/content/109/= 41/16474
[2]

Am 19-Dec=2E-2019 um 12= :51 a=2Em=2E schrieb Sebastian seb=2Ekozuch*o*gmail=2Ecom:

Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb=2Ekozuch= _-_gmail=2Ecom]

Dear CCLers:

Since the topic of the women "qu= ota" in comp chem has been already discussed
here before (see the grand = ICQC affair), I won't talk about it=2E Enough is to say
that I believe t= hat Jim Kress is wrong=2E

However, I would like to talk about th= e concept of Meritocracy=2E

TL;DR version: Whoever believes in m= eritocracy is wrong=2E Horribly wrong=2E Savage
capitalism style of wron= g=2E "Make America great again" kind of wrong=2E

Long version:
For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in = economy,
sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matt= hew effect:

"For to every one who has will more be given, and he wil= l have abundance; but
from him who has not, even what he has will be tak= en away=2E" (Matthew 25:29)

In simple words: "the rich get richer an= d the poor get poorer"
(https://en=2Ewikipedia=2Eorg/wiki/Matthew_effect)

= We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21= st
century, but there are many studies that point to something that we a= ll know
here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a= huge advantage
to receive more grants, good students and honors in the = future=2E There are
mathematical models
(https://www=2Eworl= dscientific=2Ecom/doi/abs/10=2E1142/S0219525918500145) already
point= ing to the obvious:

Success =3D Talent + Luck

Great Succe= ss =3D A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck

(Daniel Kahneman, "Th= inking, Fast and Slow")

Nobody says that the big names in comp c= hem are not bright=2E But there are tons
of other bright and extremely h= ard working people that never made it to the big
leagues due to a lack o= f luck=2E Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but
nobody could k= now that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods
of scie= nce)=2E Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole=2E Maybe they were born i= n
the wrong side of the world=2E And yes, maybe you come from a culture = where women
are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the = family values"=2E If
by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your= chances of success in the
future grow exponentially=2E

In other = words: Meritocracy is a myth=2E A dangerous, unfair myth=2E Both in the
= economic and in the academic world=2E

We are loosing many talent= s due to the lack of diversity and the belief that
people reached their = status only due to their capacity=2E We are making things
worse each tim= e:

1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women=2E

2= ) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors
<= br>3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to prono= unce the
names of the authors (this is a real thing!)

4) We do no= t put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less
happ= y backgrounds or less "academic" cultures

5) We give great honors to= selected people just because they got honors in the past

6) We blin= dly take the H-index as THE measure

7) We applaud the people that pu= blished more papers than can humanly write (or
even read!)

(what = am I forgetting in this list?)

Of course that publishing more an= d getting prizes is great=2E Each time that my
H-index climbs one number= I get drunk=2E But we must acknowledge the luck effect,
and especially = the Matthew effect, in our and others successes=2E

The fair thing is= to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less
lucky ones, = with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their
capacity= =2E Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century=2EIt's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/or = people
whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invit= ed speakers=2E

Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits= , should receive=2E If you
believe that the ones that received did so ex= clusively because they merit, oh
boy=2E Not only you are unfair, you are= unscientific=2E

Thanks for listening to my rant,

Sebasti= an

On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail=2Ecom wr= ote:
Sent to CCL by: "= Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail=2Ecom]
So, they need to ensure they have= proper representation of all 26 genders in their program=2E

From the responses I have seen, i= ncluding the personal attacks by Mr=2E Seifert, it is obvious the concept o= f meritocracy is dead=2E
That is unfortunate=2E It reduce= s these Workshops to useless displays of virtue signaling and mediocre scie= nce=2E

I will not comment further=2E I'll have to invoke Mark Twai= n when he said " "Never argue with a pig=2E It just frustrates you and irri= tates the pig=2E"

Jim Kress

-----Original Message-----
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">From: owner-chemistry+jimkr= ess35=3D=3Dgmail=2Ecom{:}ccl=2Enet <owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmai= l=2Ecom{:}ccl=2Enet> On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail=2Ecom

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Kress, J= im <jimkress35{:}gmail=2Ecom>
Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese = Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry

Sent to CCL by: = Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail=2Ecom] I agree with Kathrin here, it is the = role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conference=2E=

And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fai= l to do so=2E

Shahar

On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zbor= owsk,chemia=2Euj=2Eedu=2Epl wrote:

Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia=2Euj=2Eedu=2Epl] W = dniu
2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin=2Ehopmann=2E:=2Euit= =2Eno
napisa=C5=82(a):
Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin=2Ehopmann=2E=2Euit=2Eno]= Dear
Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry,

I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it = seems there is 1 female
speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers= (perhaps I have
misinterpreted some of the other name and there are mo= re?)=2E

I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a=
gender-balanced program=2E But we need to talk about this problem
= sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things=2E

wit= h best regards,
Kathrin Hopmann
Do not only talk about= , simply take a part in the conference, then the
balance will be signif= icantly improved=2E

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann
Sent: onsdag 18=2E d= esember 2019 11:27
To: 'CCL Subscribers' <chemistry^ccl=2Enet> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
Metho= ds in Chemistry

Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop= on Computational
Methods in Chemistry,

I counted 19 confirmed = invited speakers on your website=2E
Sadly, not a single of these seems = to be a woman=2E

with best regards
Kathrin Hopmann

= -----Original Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+kathrin=2Ehopmann=3D=3Duit=2Eno^ccl=2Enet
<= owner-chemistry+kathrin=2Ehopmann=3D=3Duit=2Eno^ccl=2Enet> On Behalf Of<= br>Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand=2Eeu
Sent: onsdag 18= =2E desember 2019 06:47
To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann <kathrin=2Ehopmann= ^uit=2Eno>
Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computation= al Methods
in Chemistry

Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger= " [mlists- -ligand=2Eeu]
Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Works= hop on Computational
Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open!

= Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto
univers= ity (Japan)=2E

We will be lucky to have presentations by many prest= igious speakers:
http://www=2Echem=2Ekumamoto-u=2Eac=2Ejp/~= frjp2020/invited-speakers=2Ehtml

More information can be found = at:
http://www=2Echem=2Ekumamoto-u=2Eac=2Ejp/~frjp2020/index=2Ehtml

The registration page is:
http://www=2Echem=2Ekumamot= o-u=2Eac=2Ejp/~frjp2020/registration=2Ehtml

We are looking forw= ard to meet you in Kumamoto, The

organizers=2Ehttp://www=2Eccl=2Ene= t/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www=2E
ccl=2Enet/chemistry/sub_uns= ub=2Eshtmlhttp://www=2Eccl=2Enet/spammers=2Etxt>>> Conferences: http://server=2Eccl=2Enet/chemistry/announcements/conferences/--
Krzysztof K=2E Zborowski
Faculty of Chemistry
Jagiel= lonian University in Krakow
2 Gronostajowa Street
30-387 Krakow
= Poland
email: zborowsk-#-chemia=2Euj=2Eedu=2EplConferences:
http:/= /server=2Eccl=2Enet/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> >

Shahar Keinan
(919)-357-5319http://www=2Eccl= =2Enet/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www=2Eccl=2Enet/chemistry/sub_uns= ub=2Eshtmlhttp://www=2Eccl=2Enet/spammers=2EtxtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMIS= TRY() ccl=2Enet or use:>>
E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQ= UEST() ccl=2Enet or usehttp://www=2Eccl=2Enet/chemistry/sub_unsub=2Eshtml<= br>
Before posting, check wait time at:http://www=2Eccl=2Enet

J= ob:http://www=2Eccl=2Enet/jobs
Conferences:http://server=2Eccl=2Enet/= chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages:http://www=2Ec= cl=2Enet/chemistry/searchccl/index=2Eshtmlhttp://www=2Eccl=2Enet/spammers= =2Etxt

RTFI:http://www=2Eccl=2Enet/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/= To

Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca]
Sebastian,

First of all, = thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument= really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're see= ing in this discussion.

You're asking if you are forgetting anyt= hing in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not foster= ing students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the = current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is= not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be = very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on = otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applican= ts are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific position= s. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform eq= ually as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if thally as= well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are ano= nymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obviou= s and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very = start. [2]

Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secr= et. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing le= ss than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "= pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing.

Best,
Matthia= s

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
[2]
<= br>

Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gma= il.com:

Sent to= CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com]

Dear CCLers:

Sinc= e the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already di= scussed
here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about = it. Enough is to say
that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong.

= However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy.

= TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Sa= vage
capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kin= d of wrong.

Long version:

For those that are not familiar= with it, there is a concept known in economy,
sociology and obviously i= n sociology of science called the Matthew effect:

"For to every= one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but
from hi= m who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29)
In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer&qu= ot;
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)

We kn= ow this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21stcentury, but there are many studies that point to something that we all kn= ow
here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge= advantage
to receive more grants, good students and honors in the futur= e. There are
mathematical models
(https://www.w= orldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already
pointi= ng to the obvious:

Success =3D Talent + Luck

Great Succes= s =3D A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck

(Daniel Kahneman, &quo= t;Thinking, Fast and Slow")

Nobody says that the big names = in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons
of other bright and extr= emely hard working people that never made it to the big
leagues due to a= lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but
nobody co= uld know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods
of= science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born = in
the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture w= here women
are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect = the family values". If
by a stroke of luck you had a good head-star= t, your chances of success in the
future grow exponentially.

In o= ther words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in theeconomic and in the academic world.

We are loosing many talents= due to the lack of diversity and the belief that
people reached their s= tatus only due to their capacity. We are making things
worse each time:<= br>
1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women.

2) We = review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors
3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pr= onounce the
names of the authors (this is a real thing!)

4) We do= not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less
h= appy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures

5) We give gr= eat honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past
<= br>6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure

7) We applaud the p= eople that published more papers than can humanly write (or
even read!)<= br>
(what am I forgetting in this list?)

Of course that publi= shing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my
H-index climbs= one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect,
and es= pecially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes.

The fair t= hing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less
lucky= ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their
ca= pacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century.<= br>It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women a= nd/or people
whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' lis= t of invited speakers.

Meritocracy should be one-way: the one wh= o merits, should receive. If you
believe that the ones that received did= so exclusively because they merit, oh
boy. Not only you are unfair, you= are unscientific.

Thanks for listening to my rant,

Sebas= tian

On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote:
Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [j= imkress35[a]gmail.com] So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 gender= s in their program.

From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seif= ert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead.
Tha= t is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue= signaling and mediocre science.

I will not comment further. I'= ;ll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a = pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig."

Jim Kress<= br>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net <owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net> On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com
Sent= : Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Kress, Jim <jimkress35{= :}gmail.com>
Subj= ect: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistr= y

Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is = the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conferenc= e.

And it is the role of the community to call them out when they f= ail to do so.

Shahar

On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zbor= owsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl= wrote:
Sent to CCL= by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu
2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopman= n kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no<= br>napisa=C5=82(a):
Se= nt to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear
Organizers of the 8th French-Ja= panese Workshop on Computational
Methods in Chemistry,

I am sor= ry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female
speaker among= the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have
misinterpreted some = of the other name and there are more?).

I know it is not easy for c= onference organizers to ensure a
gender-balanced program. But we need t= o talk about this problem
sometimes, so that we can find out how we can= improve things.

with best regards,
Kathrin Hopmann
Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then th= e
balance will be significantly improved.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann
Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27
To: 'CCL Subscribers= 9; <chemistry^ccl.net&g= t;
Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
= Methods in Chemistry

Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Wor= kshop on Computational
Methods in Chemistry,

I counted 19 confi= rmed invited speakers on your website.
Sadly, not a single of these see= ms to be a woman.

with best regards
Kathrin Hopmann

= -----Original Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^c= cl.net
<owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^ccl.net> On Behalf Of
Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu
Sent: on= sdag 18. desember 2019 06:47
To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann <kathrin.hopm= ann^uit.no>
Subject:= CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods
in Chemistr= y

Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu]
Registration = for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
Methods in Chemis= try (FJCMC2020) is open!

Please consider joining us March 19th and = 20th 2020 at Kumamoto
university (Japan).

We will be lucky to h= ave presentations by many prestigious speakers:
htt= p://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html

M= ore information can be found at:
http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac= .jp/~frjp2020/index.html

The registration page is:
http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html
We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The

organize= rs.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.
ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://= www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences:
h= ttp://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/--
Krzysztof K. Zborowski
Faculty of Chemistry
Jagiellonian Univ= ersity in Krakow
2 Gronostajowa Street
30-387 Krakow
Poland
= email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences:
http://se= rver.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> >

<= /blockquote> --
Shahar Keinan
(919)-357-5319http://www.ccl= .net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.sht= mlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>>
E= -mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.sht= ml

Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net

Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Con= ferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/confer= ences/

Search Messages:htt= p://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.= txt

RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instruc= tions/To
recover the email address of the author of th= e message, please change the
strange characters on the top line to the = :-: sign. You can also look up the
X-Original-From: line in the mail he= ader. E-mail to subscribers:
CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail
to administrators: CHEMISTRY-R= EQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBef= ore posting, check wait time at:
http://www.ccl.netConferences:
http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Mess= ages:
http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If y= our mail bounces from CCL
with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI:
http= ://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/

-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing sc= ript =3D-
To recover the email address of the author of the message, ple= ase change
the strange characters on the top line to the () sign. You ca= n also
E-ma= il to subscribers: CHEMISTRY()= ccl.net or use:
http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_mes= sage

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST()ccl.net or use
http://www.cc= l.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message
http://www.ccl.net/c= hemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net
Job: http://www.ccl.= net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry= /announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.cc= l.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml

If your mail bounces from = CCL with 5.7.1 error, check:
http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: <= a href=3D"http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/" target=3D"_b= lank">http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/

Seasons greetings to everyon= e. I agree with Igor that this conversation needs to end. I have known seve= ral extremely bright ladies in the lipid biophysics area who have done exce= ptional work on the international stage in physical disciplines against the= odds. A former partner was head of WISEST locally. Women bring a different= perspective on science & academic bureaucracy than men & I think w= e should encourage, not discourage that contribution.

Respectfully yours,

Dr David Mannock

=20

On Friday, December 20, 2019, 10:35:31 a.m. MST, Igors = Mihailovs igorsm]=3D[cfi.lu.lv <owner-chemistry%ccl.net> wrote:

Dear everyone,

A= s far as I understand, the original problem of this discussion (unbalanced = selection of invited speakers at a workshop) got its solution as good as th= is community can provide - by sending the notification about the concerns t= o the organizers. I sincerely doubt that further heated discussion would be= helpful considering the staunch positions of both sides. Let me remember M= ax Planck:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way = by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens t= hat Saul becomes Paul."

I believe this is applicable to the present = discussion, too. Seldom arguments are solved by persuading, especially on t= he Internet. Let us better remember that Christmas is approaching and just = wish/pray for everyone around us and us ourselves to be kinder towards each= other.

With best regards to everyone,
Igors Mihailovs

19 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=B1=D1= =80=D1=8F 2019 =D0=B3. 20:45:09 GMT+02:00, "Matthias Heger heger=3D-=3Dualb= erta.ca" <owner-chemistry()ccl.net> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:


Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [hege=
r(a)ualberta.ca]
Sebastian,

First of all, thank you for that very=
 detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to j=
ustify the blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion.
=

You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actu=
ally expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backg=
rounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and wo=
men are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it =
absolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For =
example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lea=
d to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of compet=
ence and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that alr=
eady in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better th=
an boys in math exams, but only if thally as well or even better than boys =
in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a=
 distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their =
academic career choices right from the very start. [2]

Gender bias a=
mong teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the "meritocracy" n=
onsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury. It actua=
lly reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing.=


Best,
Matthias


[1] https://www.pnas.org=
/content/109/41/16474
[2] 



Am 19-=
Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com:
Se=
nt to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com]

Dear CCLers:
Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already discuss=
ed
here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enoug=
h is to say
that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong.


However, =
I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy.


TL;DR ver=
sion: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Savage
c=
apitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong.

=

Long version:

For those that are not familiar with it, there is =
a concept known in economy,
sociology and obviously in sociology of scie=
nce called the Matthew effect:

"For to every one who has will more b=
e given, and he will have abundance; but
from him who has not, even what=
 he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29)

In simple words: "the r=
ich get richer and the poor get poorer"
(https://=
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)

We know this from the grea=
t inequality that has plagued the world in the 21st
century, but there a=
re many studies that point to something that we all know
here: Whoever r=
eceived scientific prizes in the past will have a huge advantage
to rece=
ive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There are
mathe=
matical models
(https://www.world=
scientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already
pointing t=
o the obvious:


Success =3D Talent + Luck

Great Success =
=3D A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck

(Daniel Kahneman, "Think=
ing, Fast and Slow")


Nobody says that the big names in comp chem=
 are not bright. But there are tons
of other bright and extremely hard w=
orking people that never made it to the big
leagues due to a lack of luc=
k. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but
nobody could know tha=
t until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods
of science). M=
aybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born in
the wr=
ong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture where womenare not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family values=
". If
by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of suc=
cess in the
future grow exponentially.

In other words: Meritocrac=
y is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in the
economic and in the a=
cademic world.


We are loosing many talents due to the lack of di=
versity and the belief that
people reached their status only due to thei=
r capacity. We are making things
worse each time:

1) We do not ch=
eck that we give enough slots to women.

2) We review in a more harsh=
ly way a paper if we don't know the authors

3) We review in a more h=
arshly way a paper if we don't know how to pronounce the
names of the au=
thors (this is a real thing!)

4) We do not put more effort in teachi=
ng and forming students coming from less
happy backgrounds or less "acad=
emic" cultures

5) We give great honors to selected people just becau=
se they got honors in the past

6) We blindly take the H-index as THE=
 measure

7) We applaud the people that published more papers than ca=
n humanly write (or
even read!)

(what am I forgetting in this lis=
t?)


Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. =
Each time that my
H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must ack=
nowledge the luck effect,
and especially the Matthew effect, in our and =
others successes.

The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more=
 opportunities to the less
lucky ones, with the hope they will have the =
same chances of showing their
capacity. Sadly we must include women in t=
his bag, even in the 21st century.
It's not always easy, but we can star=
t by trying to put more women and/or people
whose names we cannot pronou=
nce in the conferences' list of invited speakers.


Meritocracy sh=
ould be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If you
believe that=
 the ones that received did so exclusively because they merit, oh
boy. N=
ot only you are unfair, you are unscientific.


Thanks for listeni=
ng to my rant,

Sebastian



On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kres=
s jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote:
 Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com]
 So=
, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 genders in =
their program.

From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Se=
ifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead.
 T=
hat is unfortunate.  It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virt=
ue signaling and mediocre science.

 I will not comment further.  I'l=
l have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a pig. It just=
 frustrates you and irritates the pig."

 Jim Kress

 -----Orig=
inal Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net <owner-chem=
istry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net> On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan sk=
einan : gmail.com
 Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43=
 PM
 To: Kress, Jim  <jimkress35{:}gmail.com>
 Subject: CCL: 8t=
h French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry

 Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin =
here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanc=
ed conference.

 And it is the role of the community to call them out=
 when they fail to do so.

 Shahar


 On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, z=
borowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote:
Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.=
pl] W dniu
2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit=
.no
napisa=C5=82(a):
 Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dea=
r
 Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
 M=
ethods in Chemistry,

 I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seem=
s there is 1 female
 speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (pe=
rhaps I have
 misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?)=
.

 I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a
 g=
ender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem
 sometime=
s, so that we can find out how we can improve things.

 with best reg=
ards,
 Kathrin Hopmann
 Do not only talk about, simply t=
ake a part in the conference, then the
 balance will be significantly im=
proved.


 =
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann
 Sent: onsdag 18. des=
ember 2019 11:27
 To: 'CCL Subscribers' <chemistry^ccl.net>
 Su=
bject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
 Methods i=
n Chemistry

 Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on =
Computational
 Methods in Chemistry,

 I counted 19 confirmed invi=
ted speakers on your website.
 Sadly, not a single of these seems to be =
a woman.


 with best regards
 Kathrin Hopmann

 -----Ori=
ginal Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^ccl.net
<owner-c=
hemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^ccl.net> On Behalf Of
Francois B=
erenger mlists(a)ligand.eu
 Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 =
06:47
 To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann <kathrin.hopmann^uit.no>
 Subj=
ect: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods
 in Chem=
istry


 Sent to CCL by: "Francois  Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu]=

 Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
=
 Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open!

 Please consider joining =
us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto
 university (Japan).

 We =
will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers:
 http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/=
invited-speakers.html

 More information can be found at:
 http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.htm=
l

 The registration page is:
 http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html

 =
We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The

 organizers.http=
://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.
 ccl.net/chemistr=
y/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announc=
ements/conferences/--
 Krzysztof K. Zborowski
 Facul=
ty of Chemistry
 Jagiellonian University in Krakow
 2 Gronostajowa St=
reet
 30-387 Krakow
 Poland
 email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plCon=
ferences:
 http://server.ccl.net/chemistr=
y/announcements/conferences/>     >

 -- S=
hahar Keinan
 (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_mess=
agehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.=
txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net  or use:>>
 E-mail to=
 administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net  or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemi=
stry/sub_unsub.shtml

 Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.=
ccl.net

 Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs  
 Conferences:http://server=
.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

 Search Messages:http:=
//www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.tx=
t

 RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To
 recover the email address of the author of the message, please c=
hange the
 strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can a=
lso look up the
 X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to sub=
scribers:
 CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail
 to administrators: CHEM=
ISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, check wait time at:
 ht=
tp://www.ccl.netConferences:
 http://=
server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml=
 If your mail bounces from CCL
 with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI:
 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/




-=3D This is automatically added to each=
 message by the mailing script =3D-
To recover the email address of the =
author of the message, please change
the strange characters on the top l=
ine to the () sign. You can also
look up the X-Original-From: line in th=
e mail header.

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY()ccl.net or use:
=
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST()ccl.net or use
  =
    http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=


      http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml=


Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: =
http=
://www.ccl.net/jobs 
Conferences: htt=
p://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search M=
essages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/inde=
x.shtml
      http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/

--
=D0=9F=D1=80=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D0=B8= =D1=82=D0=B5 =D0=B7=D0=B0 =D0=BA=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82= =D1=8C, =D1=81=D0=BE=D0=B7=D0=B4=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 K-9 Mail.

------=_Part_2065925_1702557546.1576876007356-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Fri Dec 20 18:04:00 2019 From: "Salter-Duke, Brian James - brian.james.duke###gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy Message-Id: <-53910-191220163356-26021-XbOQfZ5yBgy4zNk8Kgm/QQ%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Salter-Duke, Brian James -" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 08:33:43 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Salter-Duke, Brian James -" [brian.james.duke---gmail.com] This post is interesting, but it is not my experience in Australia. Is it about the US? In discussions of this kind, I think the writers need to say where they come from. Brian Duke, Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University, but I also know Melbourne University Chemistry quite well. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:45:09AM -0700, Matthias Heger heger=-=ualberta.ca wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca] > Sebastian, > > First of all, thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion. > > You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very start. [2] > > Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing. > > Best, > Matthias > > > [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 > [2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w20909 > > > > Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com: > > Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com] > > > > Dear CCLers: > > > > Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already discussed > > here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enough is to say > > that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong. > > > > > > However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy. > > > > > > TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Savage > > capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong. > > > > > > Long version: > > > > For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in economy, > > sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matthew effect: > > > > "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but > > from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29) > > > > In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) > > > > We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21st > > century, but there are many studies that point to something that we all know > > here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge advantage > > to receive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There are > > mathematical models > > (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already > > pointing to the obvious: > > > > > > Success = Talent + Luck > > > > Great Success = A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck > > > > (Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow") > > > > > > Nobody says that the big names in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons > > of other bright and extremely hard working people that never made it to the big > > leagues due to a lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but > > nobody could know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods > > of science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born in > > the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture where women > > are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family values". If > > by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of success in the > > future grow exponentially. > > > > In other words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in the > > economic and in the academic world. > > > > > > We are loosing many talents due to the lack of diversity and the belief that > > people reached their status only due to their capacity. We are making things > > worse each time: > > > > 1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women. > > > > 2) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors > > > > 3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pronounce the > > names of the authors (this is a real thing!) > > > > 4) We do not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less > > happy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures > > > > 5) We give great honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past > > > > 6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure > > > > 7) We applaud the people that published more papers than can humanly write (or > > even read!) > > > > (what am I forgetting in this list?) > > > > > > Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my > > H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect, > > and especially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes. > > > > The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less > > lucky ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their > > capacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century. > > It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/or people > > whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invited speakers. > > > > > > Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If you > > believe that the ones that received did so exclusively because they merit, oh > > boy. Not only you are unfair, you are unscientific. > > > > > > Thanks for listening to my rant, > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote: > >> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com] > >> So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 genders in their program. > >> > >>> From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead. > >> That is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue signaling and mediocre science. > >> > >> I will not comment further. I'll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig." > >> > >> Jim Kress > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM > >> To: Kress, Jim > >> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry > >> > >> > >> Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conference. > >> > >> And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fail to do so. > >> > >> Shahar > >> > >> > >> On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote: > >>> Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu > >>> 2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no > >>> napisał(a): > >>>> Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear > >>>> Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>> > >>>> I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female > >>>> speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have > >>>> misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?). > >>>> > >>>> I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a > >>>> gender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem > >>>> sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things. > >>>> > >>>> with best regards, > >>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>> Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then the > >>> balance will be significantly improved. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27 > >>>> To: 'CCL Subscribers' > >>>> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>> Methods in Chemistry > >>>> > >>>> Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>> > >>>> I counted 19 confirmed invited speakers on your website. > >>>> Sadly, not a single of these seems to be a woman. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> with best regards > >>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann==uit.no^ccl.net > >>>>> On Behalf Of > >>>>> Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu > >>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 06:47 > >>>> To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods > >>>> in Chemistry > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu] > >>>> Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>> Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open! > >>>> > >>>> Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto > >>>> university (Japan). > >>>> > >>>> We will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers: > >>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html > >>>> > >>>> More information can be found at: > >>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.html > >>>> > >>>> The registration page is: > >>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html > >>>> > >>>> We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The > >>>> > >>>> organizers.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www. > >>>> ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences: > >>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/-- > >>> Krzysztof K. Zborowski > >>> Faculty of Chemistry > >>> Jagiellonian University in Krakow > >>> 2 Gronostajowa Street > >>> 30-387 Krakow > >>> Poland > >>> email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences: > >>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> > > >>> > >> -- > >> ----------------- > >> Shahar Keinan > >> (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>> > >> E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml > >> > >> Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net > >> > >> Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs > >> Conferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ > >> > >> Search Messages:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > >> > >> RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To > > recover the email address of the author of the message, please change the > > strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can also look up the > > X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: > > CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail > > to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, check wait time at: > > http://www.ccl.netConferences: > > http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Messages: > > http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail bounces from CCL > > with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI: > > http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/> -- Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Brian.Salter-Duke,,monash.edu Adjunct Associate Professor Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Monash University Parkville Campus, VIC 3052, Australia From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Fri Dec 20 22:58:00 2019 From: "Matthias Heger heger|ualberta.ca" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy Message-Id: <-53911-191220210043-1395-Q6RCHEoK+Y0aoa52cA7QHQ[*]server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Matthias Heger Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:00:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger..ualberta.ca] Hello Brian! The first study I referred to was indeed from the US, the second one from Israel. After some quick googling, here are two more studies specifically from Australia: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749 (I'm also curious why you stated that this is not your experience. After all, you're a man, so why should it be? - Or maybe I just misunderstood what you meant.) Best, Matthias Am 20-Dec.-2019 um 2:33 p.m. schrieb Salter-Duke, Brian James brian.james.duke###gmail.com: > > Sent to CCL by: "Salter-Duke, Brian James " [brian.james.duke---gmail.com] > This post is interesting, but it is not my experience in Australia. Is it > about the US? In discussions of this kind, I think the writers need to say > where they come from. > > Brian Duke, Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University, but I also > know Melbourne University Chemistry quite well. > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:45:09AM -0700, Matthias Heger heger=-=ualberta.ca wrote: >> >> Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca] >> Sebastian, >> >> First of all, thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion. >> >> You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very start. [2] >> >> Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing. >> >> Best, >> Matthias >> >> >> [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 >> [2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w20909 >> >> >> >> Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com: >>> Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com] >>> >>> Dear CCLers: >>> >>> Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already discussed >>> here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enough is to say >>> that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong. >>> >>> >>> However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy. >>> >>> >>> TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Savage >>> capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong. >>> >>> >>> Long version: >>> >>> For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in economy, >>> sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matthew effect: >>> >>> "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but >>> from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29) >>> >>> In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) >>> >>> We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21st >>> century, but there are many studies that point to something that we all know >>> here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge advantage >>> to receive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There are >>> mathematical models >>> (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already >>> pointing to the obvious: >>> >>> >>> Success = Talent + Luck >>> >>> Great Success = A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck >>> >>> (Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow") >>> >>> >>> Nobody says that the big names in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons >>> of other bright and extremely hard working people that never made it to the big >>> leagues due to a lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but >>> nobody could know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods >>> of science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born in >>> the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture where women >>> are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family values". If >>> by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of success in the >>> future grow exponentially. >>> >>> In other words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in the >>> economic and in the academic world. >>> >>> >>> We are loosing many talents due to the lack of diversity and the belief that >>> people reached their status only due to their capacity. We are making things >>> worse each time: >>> >>> 1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women. >>> >>> 2) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors >>> >>> 3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pronounce the >>> names of the authors (this is a real thing!) >>> >>> 4) We do not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less >>> happy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures >>> >>> 5) We give great honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past >>> >>> 6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure >>> >>> 7) We applaud the people that published more papers than can humanly write (or >>> even read!) >>> >>> (what am I forgetting in this list?) >>> >>> >>> Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my >>> H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect, >>> and especially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes. >>> >>> The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less >>> lucky ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their >>> capacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century. >>> It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/or people >>> whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invited speakers. >>> >>> >>> Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If you >>> believe that the ones that received did so exclusively because they merit, oh >>> boy. Not only you are unfair, you are unscientific. >>> >>> >>> Thanks for listening to my rant, >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote: >>>> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com] >>>> So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 genders in their program. >>>> >>>>> From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead. >>>> That is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue signaling and mediocre science. >>>> >>>> I will not comment further. I'll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig." >>>> >>>> Jim Kress >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM >>>> To: Kress, Jim >>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conference. >>>> >>>> And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fail to do so. >>>> >>>> Shahar >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote: >>>>> Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu >>>>> 2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no >>>>> napisał(a): >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear >>>>>> Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female >>>>>> speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have >>>>>> misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?). >>>>>> >>>>>> I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a >>>>>> gender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem >>>>>> sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things. >>>>>> >>>>>> with best regards, >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann >>>>> Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then the >>>>> balance will be significantly improved. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27 >>>>>> To: 'CCL Subscribers' >>>>>> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I counted 19 confirmed invited speakers on your website. >>>>>> Sadly, not a single of these seems to be a woman. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> with best regards >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann==uit.no^ccl.net >>>>>>> On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 06:47 >>>>>> To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann >>>>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods >>>>>> in Chemistry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu] >>>>>> Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open! >>>>>> >>>>>> Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto >>>>>> university (Japan). >>>>>> >>>>>> We will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers: >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html >>>>>> >>>>>> More information can be found at: >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.html >>>>>> >>>>>> The registration page is: >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html >>>>>> >>>>>> We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The >>>>>> >>>>>> organizers.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www. >>>>>> ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences: >>>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/-- >>>>> Krzysztof K. Zborowski >>>>> Faculty of Chemistry >>>>> Jagiellonian University in Krakow >>>>> 2 Gronostajowa Street >>>>> 30-387 Krakow >>>>> Poland >>>>> email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences: >>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> > >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> ----------------- >>>> Shahar Keinan >>>> (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>> >>>> E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml >>>> >>>> Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net >>>> >>>> Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs >>>> Conferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ >>>> >>>> Search Messages:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt >>>> >>>> RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To >>> recover the email address of the author of the message, please change the >>> strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can also look up the >>> X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: >>> CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail >>> to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, check wait time at: >>> http://www.ccl.netConferences: >>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Messages: >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail bounces from CCL >>> with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI: >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/> >