Lots of good stuff here, but I don't see how it points to any problem in the economics profession. Why is this kind of concentration bad? It could easily be the result of increasing meritocracy, where the top departments hire the top people. Harvard and Yale in 1980, when I was a student, had a lot of deadwood, people who never were very good. I don't think that's true any more.
The point being made is not that this type of agglomeration effect is necessarily bad, but that certain types of people are excluded from it, even if they are just as smart. For example, women and minorities.
They are absolutely still excluded, for two reasons: historical exclusion and difficulty staying in the profession/department.
With the recent acknowledgement that these groups have historically been disadvantaged, many places are purposely trying to diversify and I commend them for that. However, note that it is sometimes (NOT always) just to tick a box. I was actually told that I would definitely be hired at a particular place because I am a woman, a visible minority, and hold a Kenyan passport (so can be considered African) so it "ticks all the boxes". While I do have a Kenyan passport, I also hold a Canadian passport and went to Oxford. The networks also play a role - for example, there was not a single black Ph.D. student at Oxford. So I mostly know a certain type of person that I can call on for referee reports, seminars, etc. One would have to do more homework to find a more diverse group. Of course, I and others do, but those networks remain and perpetuate the historical disadvantages.
Additionally, the traditional "boys club" is still there - white men disproportionately get invited to professors' houses (I have experienced this when a colleague invited a male RA to his place in front of me and did not invite me), have more informal conversations, etc. This behaviour is not due to these men being bad people - the person I'm referring to is great. Another example is women and children/childcare. The burden still disproportionately falls on them and they are still penalized for that (again, not in all cases but in many). These types of "soft" exclusion also make it difficult to expand networks, get feedback on your work, get invited to conferences/seminars, etc. It's norms that have been cultivated, and norms are hard to change. That's what these movements are trying to bring attention to.
The point I'm trying to make (and the point of the post) is about historical discrimination, which takes time to resolve, and so we should keep raising these points to keep them salient and keep the momentum going.
Lots of good stuff here, but I don't see how it points to any problem in the economics profession. Why is this kind of concentration bad? It could easily be the result of increasing meritocracy, where the top departments hire the top people. Harvard and Yale in 1980, when I was a student, had a lot of deadwood, people who never were very good. I don't think that's true any more.
The point being made is not that this type of agglomeration effect is necessarily bad, but that certain types of people are excluded from it, even if they are just as smart. For example, women and minorities.
But are they excluded? Both of those groups have a huge advantage in hiring--- the top departments would love to have more.
They are absolutely still excluded, for two reasons: historical exclusion and difficulty staying in the profession/department.
With the recent acknowledgement that these groups have historically been disadvantaged, many places are purposely trying to diversify and I commend them for that. However, note that it is sometimes (NOT always) just to tick a box. I was actually told that I would definitely be hired at a particular place because I am a woman, a visible minority, and hold a Kenyan passport (so can be considered African) so it "ticks all the boxes". While I do have a Kenyan passport, I also hold a Canadian passport and went to Oxford. The networks also play a role - for example, there was not a single black Ph.D. student at Oxford. So I mostly know a certain type of person that I can call on for referee reports, seminars, etc. One would have to do more homework to find a more diverse group. Of course, I and others do, but those networks remain and perpetuate the historical disadvantages.
Additionally, the traditional "boys club" is still there - white men disproportionately get invited to professors' houses (I have experienced this when a colleague invited a male RA to his place in front of me and did not invite me), have more informal conversations, etc. This behaviour is not due to these men being bad people - the person I'm referring to is great. Another example is women and children/childcare. The burden still disproportionately falls on them and they are still penalized for that (again, not in all cases but in many). These types of "soft" exclusion also make it difficult to expand networks, get feedback on your work, get invited to conferences/seminars, etc. It's norms that have been cultivated, and norms are hard to change. That's what these movements are trying to bring attention to.
The point I'm trying to make (and the point of the post) is about historical discrimination, which takes time to resolve, and so we should keep raising these points to keep them salient and keep the momentum going.
Is that the full document that Ken Arrow wrote? I'd love to read it if there's more!