|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 26, 2015 22:07:19 GMT -5
So in summary: There is a perception of bias in favor of female candidates on the job market. That perception is not borne out by facts. There are fewer women coaches in volleyball today than at any other point in the last 40 years. Your perceptions are incorrect. If you wish to read more, the full study is available here: acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf Actually, your conclusion isn't borne out by facts. if the decline in the proportion of women pursuing careers in coaching outstrips the decline in employment numbers, then you have pretty solid evidence in favor of a bias.
|
|
|
Post by goodforthesport on Feb 27, 2015 7:17:18 GMT -5
While I agree with the support systems/drive to want to coach/shape young minds/win or whatever it is you want to accomplish.the system is stacked against men. Not an AD that values their job would admit the truth publically...women coaching women sports in order to be compliant with an outdated sexist policy (Title IX). There is actually no part of Title IX that mandates women coaches for women's sports. You can be totally Title IX compliant and not have a single woman employed by your athletic department. In fact, prior to Title IX, women's sports were almost exclusively coached by women. The profession started to have more of a gender balance when women's sports got more money as a result of Title IX. Then the jobs became more attractive to men. Title IX is about equity in participation opportunities and (somewhat) in funding. There is no gendered personnel component. I have to say, I'm saddened by the level of misogyny in this particular branch of the conversation on a women's sports forum, particularly when the ideas being espoused in it are not backed up by fact or reality. I'm not surprised by it (heck, it figures prominently on the jobs board every year), but I'm frustrated because the idea that women have it easier on the job market is mostly perception and anecdotal "evidence" without any basis in fact or a view of the profession as a whole. Her are some facts to help get you started on the path to enlightenment from Acosta and Carpenter's study on women in intercollegiate sport, widely considered the benchmark in the field. This study has been ongoing since 1972, and these numbers are from the most recent update to this study in 2012: In 1972, 90% of women's teams were coached by women. Women head coaches are in the minority in intercollegiate athletics as a whole (42.9%) by a pretty large margin. Women make up 57% of the assistant coaches for women's sports, so they're in the majority there although their percentage has been steadily in decline in recent years. Now for women's volleyball specific numbers: --In 1972, 86.6% of WVB teams were coached by women. Today 53% of WVB teams are coached by women. This is the lowest percentage of women coaches in volleyball in the four-decade history of the study. There have literally never been fewer women head coaches in the sport. --Women only constitute 45% of the coaches at the DI level, so men are in the lead for the jobs that typically have higher profiles and pay more money. --DII is almost bang-on 50-50. Here women are 52% of head coaches and men are 48%. But this still represents a steep decline. In 1992, 72% of DII head WVB coaches were women. --Division III helps balance out the gender gap in Division I. In DIII, 60% of WVB coaches are women. These jobs tend to pay less, are more likely to be part time, etc., so in short, they are less desirable jobs. So in summary: There is a perception of bias in favor of female candidates on the job market. That perception is not borne out by facts. There are fewer women coaches in volleyball today than at any other point in the last 40 years. Your perceptions are incorrect. If you wish to read more, the full study is available here: acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf Exactly the reaction I would have expected from a liberal (I'm sure). Your cherry picked facts explain your point exactly. well done. However, reality is often very different.
|
|
|
Post by BitterOldDude on Feb 27, 2015 8:06:10 GMT -5
coach1Wow... this subject hits close to home. Not as a coach... but as a former coach's wife. You are wise to ask yourself the questions you are asking now, and honestly please include your spouse in your soul searching process. I hope you will indulge me the opportunity to allow you to consider why it's important to include your wife and family. I dated, fell in love with, and married a college basketball coach. He was a great coach... and lucky for him I was a great coach's wife. I have the type of career that enabled me to move from town to town and find a job... hoping and praying he would find his dream job, the perfect fit. I loved his teams and realized that these young men were often far from home with no real support network other than coach, teammates and some friends made at school. Though when first married I wasn't but about 5 years older than them, I became their "mom"... and because I too was far from home, they in turn became my family. We had weekly dinners and Thanksgiving meals in our home for the guys because they/we couldn't travel home because of tournaments. I never missed a game. At times, I washed uniforms. We always ate dinner together no matter what time practice ended. I got pretty good at scouting and meeting recruits. Our social circle revolved around the sport and the school because oftentimes the only person I knew when we moved to a new place was my husband. Once we'd started a family, the decisions to move became more difficult. We both wanted stability for our family but to also pursue career goals. More than once we decided to have coach go "try on" the job for a year while I stayed home and held down the fort, so that we didn't uproot our entire lives if it wasn't a great job or a great place to raise a family. Those are huge sacrifices for everyone involved. The biggest obstacle to getting that head coaching position, was having never been a head coach. It didn't matter how good of an assistant he was... How good of a recruiter he was... How good his stats were. He(We) finally was offered and accepted a head coaching position. It wasn't his dream job but he could finally get head coach on his resume. A smallish DII school promised him the world. It was a young program and trust me way underfunded. He was afraid to take it because it was far from his network of coaches, his professional support system. He feared it could destroy his career. WE made it work... he grew the program, developed outstanding young men who otherwise might not have had much of a chance. I thought it was incredibly rewarding. And it was for him too... but after 6 years of working 16 hour days for too little money and beating his head against the wall with an ever changing administration he couldn't take it any more. And unfortunately for him, in spite of his ongoing relationships with other coaches he found that he had hit a dead end. Had he been younger and single... he no doubt would have been able to hit the road again and find happiness coaching, but he had a wife and family and quality of life in a beautiful, safe place. So after 15+ years, he left coaching. It broke his heart... and it broke mine. For the following few years he did other work, completely outside of coaching and academia. He was good at it... but it wasn't fulfilling. One of his biggest complaints as a coach had been how ill-prepared these young men were in transitioning out of high school. I encouraged him to think about coaching at the high school level. He didn't really want to do it... but I stayed on him. Eventually, he took the head coaching job at the "the closest thing we have to an inner city" high school. It was rough... but it was awesome. And these lost boys blossomed into young men under his tutelage. It wasn't his dream job... but he was making a difference and he loved it. A long term coaching career isn't for everyone or their family circumstance. That's why your decision is so difficult. I hope this helps! Best wishes If I had married you, I wouldn't have been so damned bitter.
|
|
|
Post by ja on Feb 27, 2015 12:51:57 GMT -5
A little story. I became coach by accident. Never planned, it just happens. First year it was a struggle and I was so ready to quit, but my boys kept coming to practice every day and kept getting better! When they won first match I knew that this is exactly what I want to do for the rest of my life! This job sucks you in and even if you will get out you will be a COACH for life! When group of girls approached me 30 years ago about coaching them as well I just laughed it off and send them home! But they came back and I sent them home again and they still kept coming until I agreed to coach them. Now I am coaching only girls! I was a part-time coach all my life, since I have to pay my bills and, as all of us knows, coaching is not going to pay them. At one moment my club grew so much that I could turn this into full time job. I spoke to my wife and once she supported my decision moved into full time coaching. College, club, financial struggles, recruiting, always on the run and on the phone, driving, eating in the car, and constantly dreaming about an extra hour of sleep! Would I change it for more money? Never, because it will be a somebody else, not me! Before you will make YOUR decision,,look into mirror and ask your self who will look back at you few years from now if you will walk away? Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by cecang on Feb 27, 2015 14:47:14 GMT -5
REALLY, disappointed in the views of some of these men posting on this board. I am deeply troubled that they might actually be in a position to coach women, my daughters, my friends.
|
|
|
Post by BitterOldDude on Feb 27, 2015 14:59:30 GMT -5
There is actually no part of Title IX that mandates women coaches for women's sports. You can be totally Title IX compliant and not have a single woman employed by your athletic department. In fact, prior to Title IX, women's sports were almost exclusively coached by women. The profession started to have more of a gender balance when women's sports got more money as a result of Title IX. Then the jobs became more attractive to men. Title IX is about equity in participation opportunities and (somewhat) in funding. There is no gendered personnel component. I have to say, I'm saddened by the level of misogyny in this particular branch of the conversation on a women's sports forum, particularly when the ideas being espoused in it are not backed up by fact or reality. I'm not surprised by it (heck, it figures prominently on the jobs board every year), but I'm frustrated because the idea that women have it easier on the job market is mostly perception and anecdotal "evidence" without any basis in fact or a view of the profession as a whole. Her are some facts to help get you started on the path to enlightenment from Acosta and Carpenter's study on women in intercollegiate sport, widely considered the benchmark in the field. This study has been ongoing since 1972, and these numbers are from the most recent update to this study in 2012: In 1972, 90% of women's teams were coached by women. Women head coaches are in the minority in intercollegiate athletics as a whole (42.9%) by a pretty large margin. Women make up 57% of the assistant coaches for women's sports, so they're in the majority there although their percentage has been steadily in decline in recent years. Now for women's volleyball specific numbers: --In 1972, 86.6% of WVB teams were coached by women. Today 53% of WVB teams are coached by women. This is the lowest percentage of women coaches in volleyball in the four-decade history of the study. There have literally never been fewer women head coaches in the sport. --Women only constitute 45% of the coaches at the DI level, so men are in the lead for the jobs that typically have higher profiles and pay more money. --DII is almost bang-on 50-50. Here women are 52% of head coaches and men are 48%. But this still represents a steep decline. In 1992, 72% of DII head WVB coaches were women. --Division III helps balance out the gender gap in Division I. In DIII, 60% of WVB coaches are women. These jobs tend to pay less, are more likely to be part time, etc., so in short, they are less desirable jobs. So in summary: There is a perception of bias in favor of female candidates on the job market. That perception is not borne out by facts. There are fewer women coaches in volleyball today than at any other point in the last 40 years. Your perceptions are incorrect. If you wish to read more, the full study is available here: acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf Exactly the reaction I would have expected from a liberal (I'm sure). Your cherry picked facts explain your point exactly. well done. However, reality is often very different. I was going to let this alone, and I'm going to get flamed here, but I just don't care. As it's often said, facts have a liberal bias. I don't agree with somethinbruin's conclusion either, but that's just a conclusion. His facts are irrefutable. The problem lies with you throwing your political opinion, in a snarky way, into the discussion. There is a political forum here; go there and flame liberals all you want. This, however, is a volleyball forum. Ironically, it's a WOMEN'S volleyball forum. No men would have jobs if Title IX didn't exist. I've been passed over for several jobs I was qualified for, and under-experienced women got the job. It sucks, I know. But I also know that without women's sports, and Title IX, none of us would be working. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Feb 27, 2015 15:41:58 GMT -5
REALLY, disappointed in the views of some of these men posting on this board. I am deeply troubled that they might actually be in a position to coach women, my daughters, my friends. How do you know who the women/men are and what views are you troubled by? People are expressing opinions.
|
|
|
Post by stealthspiker on Feb 27, 2015 17:41:18 GMT -5
REALLY, disappointed in the views of some of these men posting on this board. I am deeply troubled that they might actually be in a position to coach women, my daughters, my friends. That is a pretty loaded statement. Are you saying that there is the potential for these women to be damaged based on what these men believe? In what way would they be damaged?
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Feb 27, 2015 17:53:18 GMT -5
REALLY, disappointed in the views of some of these men posting on this board. I am deeply troubled that they might actually be in a position to coach women, my daughters, my friends. Most professions have biases. It is easier for a qualified male to be hired as an elementary teacher, and for a qualified woman to be hired as a HS math teacher. Qualified women are highly sought after in many fields because they are underrepresented. This isn't groundbreaking. However I would agree that some of the opinions were expressed rather emotionally, as they obviously feel it has impacted them negatively and if that is what you are referring to I wouldn't disagree that it came across as less than professional. If you are simply referencing that you think every AD hires the most qualified person regardless of gender then I think you just don't understand the realities of the profession. The same happens in men's sports. The SA Spurs just hired the first FT female as a legit assistant. Not many male teams would have had the leadership to do that.
|
|
|
Post by cecang on Feb 28, 2015 19:54:01 GMT -5
Here are just a few "opinions" I find objectionable, just in 2 pages.
* "The obstacles begin with the liberal feminist colleges" * "lose jobs to under qualified females who ride the power wave all the way to shore" * "because winning sometimes isn't the priority for an AD because they recognize they don't have certain resources, or maybe a school's overall philosophy, etc... Isn't committed to the process of winning" .... IMPLICATIONS WOMEN DON'T WIN , if AD's wanted to win they would hire a MAN this was insulting I could fill pages, if I want to spend the time. There is a constant attack on women, especially in the job thread. As a reader of this blog for a few years, it seems to be especially ugly. There is a pattern, I and others have identified a few posters that I can guarantee when a women is hired, they will follow about how unqualified she is, etc. etc. Rarely do I see this response when a male is hired.
I want my daughters to be exposed to women leaders as much as possible. I am appalled at the statistics mentioned above but not surprised. MAYBE , just maybe there aren't more women coaching because the number of men who are hiring other men because they are men ! Someone wrote how AD's are specifically targeting women to hire but never hear the opposite BECAUSE MEN HIRING MEN IS THE NORM, they don't have say it, its been that way for hundreds of years !!
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Feb 28, 2015 23:01:30 GMT -5
Here are just a few "opinions" I find objectionable, just in 2 pages. * "The obstacles begin with the liberal feminist colleges" * "lose jobs to under qualified females who ride the power wave all the way to shore" * "because winning sometimes isn't the priority for an AD because they recognize they don't have certain resources, or maybe a school's overall philosophy, etc... Isn't committed to the process of winning" .... IMPLICATIONS WOMEN DON'T WIN , if AD's wanted to win they would hire a MAN this was insulting I could fill pages, if I want to spend the time. There is a constant attack on women, especially in the job thread. As a reader of this blog for a few years, it seems to be especially ugly. There is a pattern, I and others have identified a few posters that I can guarantee when a women is hired, they will follow about how unqualified she is, etc. etc. Rarely do I see this response when a male is hired. I want my daughters to be exposed to women leaders as much as possible. I am appalled at the statistics mentioned above but not surprised. MAYBE , just maybe there aren't more women coaching because the number of men who are hiring other men because they are men ! Someone wrote how AD's are specifically targeting women to hire but never hear the opposite BECAUSE MEN HIRING MEN IS THE NORM, they don't have say it, its been that way for hundreds of years !! I will comment on the third quote because that is mine (and personally I complety agree with your classification of the first two, they took me a back as well). My assertion was not that women can't win, or that they are less able to win. It was that winning isn't the priority (again, I'm not making this up, this comes from personal experiences with both male and female administrators), and so when that priority shifts, other priorities - often directly relating to gender - advance. If the goal isn't to win big, but rather to develop more female leaders (as a random example of a different priority I have heard female AD's personally use) then maybe rather than hiring the most qualified coach they hire the most qualified female coach. Or another example I heard was a male AD commenting that he felt like he had too many male coaches in female sports. He was committed to making his next hire a female coach if he could find a qualified hire (NOT necessarily if she was the MOST qualified hire). Again, this is not usually how the Top Programs think. Top programs want the best hire period. Sometimes that's a woman, sometimes it's a man. That doesn't mean there aren't biases (intentional or unintentional) in those hirings, it simply means that philosophically they weren't making a predetermined choice based on gender. You typically see employers try and hire coaches of the same gender. It would be extremely uncommon for an AD to TRY and hire a male coach for a female sport, or a female coach for a male sport. Another factor is that a lot of the women I know in D2/D3 find the commitment level to their job a primary factor in why they stay. I could think of many women who WOULD be highly qualified (and maybe have even had unsolicited offers from AD's) but turn them down because they really like the situation they are in. I would be willing to bet more women have won D3 national championships than D1-D2 combined for that exact reason (they aren't lesser coaches they just aren't chasing the coaching ladder). There are many men that feel this way too, but personally I know many more women who wouldn't be tempted by the increased pay/"prestige" than men; and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. And from experience serving on hiring committees, and hiring my assistants, the majority of applicants tend to be male. For my assistant position, it was probably about 60 (m) -40 (f) on most occasions. Most of the women had 0-1 years of experience where as most of the men had multiple years. Having had a fairly crappy position, most of the best women that I targeted were offered good jobs, where as their male counterparts were still available. I personally preferred to have a female on staff for many reasons, and typically leaned that way unless I felt like I was going to miss someone who really was leaps and bounds ahead of my other candidates. I was a head coach for 8 years and 5 of them had a female as my assistant. I often hired someone who I thought had potential or could fit a specific need over the male who had more experience. So here I am, the person who you'd hate to have had coach your daughter, an example of a male who typically hired slightly less qualified female candidates over more qualified male candidates in part because I thought it was important that women had a chance to mentor women, and have the opportunity to get a job in coaching to give back in a sport we love, to help them grow and become qualified coaches even though they may not have been the most qualified person at the time of me hiring them.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Feb 28, 2015 23:17:10 GMT -5
Here are just a few "opinions" I find objectionable, just in 2 pages. * "The obstacles begin with the liberal feminist colleges" * "lose jobs to under qualified females who ride the power wave all the way to shore" * "because winning sometimes isn't the priority for an AD because they recognize they don't have certain resources, or maybe a school's overall philosophy, etc... Isn't committed to the process of winning" .... IMPLICATIONS WOMEN DON'T WIN , if AD's wanted to win they would hire a MAN this was insulting I could fill pages, if I want to spend the time. There is a constant attack on women, especially in the job thread. As a reader of this blog for a few years, it seems to be especially ugly. There is a pattern, I and others have identified a few posters that I can guarantee when a women is hired, they will follow about how unqualified she is, etc. etc. Rarely do I see this response when a male is hired. I want my daughters to be exposed to women leaders as much as possible. I am appalled at the statistics mentioned above but not surprised. MAYBE , just maybe there aren't more women coaching because the number of men who are hiring other men because they are men ! Someone wrote how AD's are specifically targeting women to hire but never hear the opposite BECAUSE MEN HIRING MEN IS THE NORM, they don't have say it, its been that way for hundreds of years !! Also I agree, there are handful of men who attack most female hires on that board. But that doesn't have anything to do with AD's making hires (and a lot of SWA's - females - play a key role in hiring female coaches). I disagree with the whole men hire men because that's the norm, etc... And that's why they don't say it. At least amongst the male AD's I've been around, or have heard about. More men are drawn to coaching. That is simply a reality, that if you look at numbers exists. I constantly laugh at how much easier it is for male teams to find volunteer assistants, because guys tend to want to stay involved at a high level. Just look at a men's basketball staff versus a women's staff at a D3 school (or baseball/ softball). The men will have 4 male volunteers and the women will have 1 or 2. And 50% of the time, the women's volunteer is a male.
|
|
|
Post by stealthspiker on Mar 1, 2015 3:00:03 GMT -5
Here are just a few "opinions" I find objectionable, just in 2 pages. * "The obstacles begin with the liberal feminist colleges" * "lose jobs to under qualified females who ride the power wave all the way to shore" * "because winning sometimes isn't the priority for an AD because they recognize they don't have certain resources, or maybe a school's overall philosophy, etc... Isn't committed to the process of winning" .... IMPLICATIONS WOMEN DON'T WIN , if AD's wanted to win they would hire a MAN this was insulting I could fill pages, if I want to spend the time. There is a constant attack on women, especially in the job thread. As a reader of this blog for a few years, it seems to be especially ugly. There is a pattern, I and others have identified a few posters that I can guarantee when a women is hired, they will follow about how unqualified she is, etc. etc. Rarely do I see this response when a male is hired. I want my daughters to be exposed to women leaders as much as possible. I am appalled at the statistics mentioned above but not surprised. MAYBE , just maybe there aren't more women coaching because the number of men who are hiring other men because they are men ! Someone wrote how AD's are specifically targeting women to hire but never hear the opposite BECAUSE MEN HIRING MEN IS THE NORM, they don't have say it, its been that way for hundreds of years !! However, your position is EXACTLY why a fair number of men feel the way they do. The problem with feminism is that they create false constructs of men in order to make some of their points. For example, there are many female players that prefer to be coached by men. Leadership isn't just about good female role models. It is about creating a supportive environment where young women can maximize their potential. You would be surprised at the number of female athletes that admit that they prefer male coaches and the preference is rarely a technical matter. So, your preference for coaching is not necessarily your daughter's (or her friends) preference. There is no question that less qualified females are getting jobs over more qualified men. The problem is rarely that these females are not technically qualified. Rather, a 24 year old female is less capable at managing 18-22 year old females than someone older with regards to social interaction. The social aspect of managing these women is a bigger challenge than the Xs and Os. As a volunteer assistant, this is the part of the equation that I needed to see because on the lower levels of vb, this is much less of a problem. The implication is not that women don't win, but that women are going from team captain to head coach without being properly prepared for the challenges of the position and it is damaging the experience for both player and coach. Should we discuss how many ADs are nervous about having young males around female players? Why aren't they that nervous about lesbian coaches? Yes, we as men have the right to complain about the process that is taking place. As someone who was taught to play by females, grew up playing with them in their environments, and managed the volleyball team in high school, I am more sensitive to the life of a female volleyball player than most men. However, you would be deeply troubled by my presence because I share the views of those who keep getting passed over because of their gender.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Mar 1, 2015 16:26:49 GMT -5
Should we discuss how many ADs are nervous about having young males around female players? Why aren't they that nervous about lesbian coaches? Yes, we as men have the right to complain about the process that is taking place. However, you would be deeply troubled by my presence because I share the views of those who keep getting passed over because of their gender. Bring IT GODFATHER!
|
|
|
Post by somethinbruin on Mar 2, 2015 0:57:32 GMT -5
Yes, we as men have the right to complain about the process that is taking place. As someone who was taught to play by females, grew up playing with them in their environments, and managed the volleyball team in high school, I am more sensitive to the life of a female volleyball player than most men. However, you would be deeply troubled by my presence because I share the views of those who keep getting passed over because of their gender. I want to focus on something you said in your last statement ("I share the views of those who keep getting passed over because of their gender"). One of the really frustrating things about the ways that these issues of hiring get discussed on this board is when people say stuff like "people get passed over for their gender" like they have intimate knowledge of the hiring processes at all of these schools. They don't, they're just making an unfounded assumption based on their own feeling that they "deserved" a job--an absurd (and arrogant) statement on its face. Hiring a coach is a process that is concerned with more than just one qualification, be it winning, gender, or something else. Like any job interview, it can go awry for many reasons (both within and out of the candidate's control). I honest to god once sat on a hiring committee for a faculty member at my university where a candidate was disqualified because some committee members thought she had bad breath. Maybe the AD didn't feel the coach's personality was the right fit for the department or the program. Maybe the last coach was very quiet and for the next coach they want someone a bit more fiery (or vice versa). Maybe the interviewee got a tepid reference from former players. Maybe another coach came into the interview with an innovative marketing or recruiting idea for the team that blew the AD/hiring committee away. Maybe the team members you met with gave lukewarm feedback to the AD. Maybe you did everything right, and they liked you a lot, but they liked someone else a lot too, and after discussion and debate they decided to offer to someone else. Basically, there is no way of knowing if some other candidate came in and knocked it out of the park. And barring asking the AD why you didn't get the job, you'll never know why you got "passed over" or if it was "because of gender." But phrases like that reek of entitlement, as though someone thinks their resume (or their maleness) alone entitles them to whatever job they're applying for. The reality of hiring and interviews is much more nuanced. Unfortunately, on this board, the default setting seems to be "I didn't get the job--must be because they wanted a woman," with no consideration that there are many other factors involved. From there it's just a hop skip and a sexist jump to claiming that the woman they hired is unqualified because she is younger/has been coaching for fewer years/hasn't paid her dues/whatever. It's demeaning to all involved--it says the AD doesn't have the intelligence to make a decision for the good of the program and his/her own department. It says that women (particularly young women) succeed in the job market only due to bias in the hiring process rather than on their merit or their ability to perform well in an interview. And it makes the men who make these statements seem defensive and bitter when the reality is they're probably just disappointed and rationalizing--but doing so in a particularly hurtful way to the women in the coaching profession.
|
|