1. By: Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse
Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians
By: Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse

2. The Typical Orchestra
About 100 members but may vary between 90 and 105
The positions are nearly identical between orchestras and over time
What does this mean to the study?
The proportion of women in an orchestra can be analyzed without a concern for changes in the composition of occupations and the number of workers. For example, an increase in the number of women from 1 to 10 cannot arise because the number of harpists (a female-dominated instrument) has greatly expanded. It must be b/c of the proportion of female within many groups has increased.

3. Orchestras Examined Top Tier (the “Big Five”): Second Tier
Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO)
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Cleveland Symphony Orchestra
New York Philharmonic (NYPhil)
Philadelphia Orchestra
Second Tier
Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra (LA)
San Francisco Philharmonic (SF)
Detroit Symphony Orchestra
Pittsburg Symphony Orchestra (PSO)

4. Noteworthy Data
Currently, NYPhil has the highest percentage of females at 35% after being the lowest (generally at zero) for decades
Female increases in orchestras is even more remarkable because of low turnover rates.
An average of 4 “new hires” per year for top-ranked Chicago and NYPhil and about 6 for the others.
The number of new hire was small after 1960 and declines over time.
The proportion of new players who were women must have been (and was) exceedingly high.

5. Changes in Gender Share of New Hires
Since the early 1980’s the share female among new hires has risen.
About 35% for the BSO and Chicago
About 50% for NYPhil
Compare this to the rate of less than 10% before 1970.

6. Main Question:
Did the screen matter in a direct manner or did the increase in women hires come as the result of a host of other factors, including the appearance of impartiality or an incresed pool of female contestants coming out of music schools?
So, where the most selective music schools producing substantially more female students in the early 1970s?
Only have 1 data set of the Julliard School of Music, and with the exception of the brass section, there is no noticeable increase.

7. Could Changes in Audition Procedures Unveil Hiring Bias?
Quotes concerning women in orchestras:
“women have smaller techniques than men”
“are more temperamental and more likely to demand special attention or treatment”
“the more women (in an orchestra), the poorer the sound”
Zubin Mehta
Conductor of LA Symphony ( ) and NYPhil ( )
“I just don’t think women should be in an orchestra.”
Note: author of paper notes that the person she quotes suggests Mehta’s views changed because about 45% of new hires were females while he was at NYPhil.
It can be convincingly argues that female musicians have historically faced considerable discrimination.

8. The Audition Process: Today
The orchestra advertises auditions
Interested applicants submit resume and often a tape of compulsory music
In some, may audition live, even if previously rejected based on tape
3 Rounds:
Preliminary
Semifinal
Finals
Two Main Types:
Live
Blind

9. Live Auditions The semifinal round is sometimes live
The final round is almost always live and involves the attendance and input of the music director.
Committee advances all deemed qualified, so no limit to number of musicians in each round
The final round generally results in a hire, but sometimes does not

10. Blind Auditions Almost all preliminary rounds are now blind.
A screen is used to hide the identity of the player from the committee.
Examples:
Large pieces of heavy (but sound-porous) cloth
Sometimes suspended from the ceiling of the symphony hall
Similar to large room dividers
To ensure even more impartiality, some roll out a carpet leading to center stage to muffle footsteps that could betray gender
Only the personnel manager knows the mapping from number to name

11. Is Blind Really Blind?
Can trained musicians discern candidates based on different playing styles?
Ultimately, it would be vary rare for this to happen, as it would have to be a well-known candidate with an unusually distinctive musical style.

12. Data and Methods
Actual audition records of 8 major symphony orchestras
To preserve full confidentiality, do not reveal names of orchestras
Rely on first name of the musician in determining sex
Determined sex of 96% of those auditioning
Excluded incomplete auditions
Considered each round separately
Restrictions exclude 294 rounds and 1,539 individuals
Final sample: 7,065 individuals and 588 audition rounds (from 309 separate auditions)
Records obtained from personnel managers and the orchestra archives.
Incomplete: no women auditioned, only women auditioned, rounds from which no one was advanced and the second final round, if existed, for which the candidates played with the orchestra

13. Data and Methods Cont… Second data set: Orchestra personnel rosters
Musician considered new to the orchestra if he or she had not previously been a regular member of that orchestra
Excluded temporary and substitute musicians, as well as harpists and pianists
Final sample of 1,128 new orchestra members from 1970 to 1996

14. Effect of Screen of Likelihood of Being Advanced
Raw data:
Without a variable for orchestral “ability”, women fare less well in blind auditions than otherwise
The relative of success of female candidates (compared to male) appears worse for blind than for not-blind auditions and holds for every round
Limited Sample:
For those who auditioned both with and without a screen, women’s success rate is almost always higher in blind auditions

15. Effect of Screen of Likelihood of Being Advanced
Examples:
Preliminary round with no seminfinals:
Blind:
28.6% of women advance; 20.2% of men advance
Not-blind:
19.3% of women advance; 22.5% of men advance
Since these are the same women, a woman enhances her own success rate by 9.3% by entering a blind preliminary round
These differences are large relative to the average rate of success
Women’s success rate increased by 14.8% for blind finals and overall success rate is 1.6 times higher for blind auditions

16. Controlling for “Ability”
Used an individual fixed-effects strategy to control for contestant “ability” that does not change with time
Can do so because 42% of individuals in sample were in more than 1 round in the data set and 6% competed both with and without a screen
24% of the musicians competed in more than one audition

17. “Ability” Findings
The screen had a positive effect on the likelihood that a woman is advanced from the preliminary round (when there is no semifinal) and from the finals
For preliminaries not prceded by a semifinal, woman had a 11% better chance of selection
For those in the finals, chances of winning increased by about 33%
The effect in the semifinal round remains strongly negative.

18. Potential Biases
Could the females that are improving over time be those that switch from not-blind to blind auditions?
Could the growth rate of their “ability” be faster than that of men?
What if those individuals who get hired at their first audition are more able musicians than those who audition multiple times
Could the orchestras that use screens be less discriminatory against women than those that do not?
What if they did a bad job picking the sex of participants based on their first names?
Responses follow list of Biases within the paper on the following pages ( ), except #4 which is just they estimated it.
Bias #2: so they do not contribute to the identification of the effect in the presence of individual fixed effects

19. Effect of the Screen on the Hiring of Women
Compare auditions that are blind versus those that do not use the screen at all or for early rounds only.
Women are about 5% more likely to be hired than are men (not significant)
Effect is nil when there is a semifinal round.
Impact for all rounds is about 1% (large standard errors and not significant)
But, given that the chance of winning an audition is 3%, the authors need more data to be able to estimate significantly and even a 1% increase is large
In addition, these estimates demonstrate a difference stimulated by a completely blind process
Note that a Blind audition contains all rounds that use the screen

20. Example for Clarification on Hiring Results
Two Regimes:
Not Blind: no screen; Blind: with screen
Not Blind: 20% female candidates
Blind: 30% female candidates
In 1970s, 10% of new hires were woman
Assume 30 candidates enter each audition
Success rate for not-blind will be for female and for typical male
In blind regime, % of new hires that are female is 35% (approx. figure for last 10 yrs)
The success rate must now be for females and males decreased to .0310
Therefore, success rate for woman had to increase by almost 2.2% when going from not-blind to blind
Note at the end: And the authors point estimate is that about half of that increase

21. Conclusions from Example
The point estimate of 1% for the result of the effect of screening describes half of the increase in the success rate
The increase of being hired out of audition accounts for 66% of the total increase of females among new hires
Half of the 66% comes from the switch to blind auditions
Other half could be from a greater acceptance of female musicians by music directors
The remaining 34% is a result of a higher percentage of females as a part of the applicant pool.

22. Conclusions
The audition process began changing in the 1970s and physical screens were increasingly used to conceal candidate’s identity and ensure impartiality
The weight of the evidence persuaded the author’s and is what they decided to emphasize
They find that:
the screen increases - by 50% - the probability that a woman will be advanced from certain preliminary rounds
Increases by severalfold the likelihood a woman will be selected in the final round