<p>I agree that the studies are probably biased. Another possible source of bias in the studies is multiple occupations. Women are far more likely than men to work (whether part- or full-time) and raise children full-time simultaneously. The natural consequence of this is that these women tend, at no fault of their own, to have less satisfactory work than men, who are able to give their full concentration to their work. Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting study alh. I’m curious whether the authors had any theory as to why the women faculty also were found to discriminate against the female applicant. Is the discrimination gender neutral (e.g., some societal factor that influences both men and women against the female applicant) or is the study somehow flawed? Was there something that somehow could have been picked up and used to distinguish between the two applicants?</p>
<p>Wow. Interesting how hard people are working to avoid coming to grips with some pretty clear data.</p>
<p>I’m sure there is lots of subtle discrimination against women. Advisors who don’t believe they are capable. Assumptions that they’ll have kids and be less productive, etc. My wife was actually passed over for an academic prize (recognition and money) she deserved and the department said explicitly, “You are going to get married and the number 2 candidate, a male, will need to be able to raise a family and so we are giving it to him.”</p>
<p>But, it is always a little more complex. Back in the dark ages, when I was an academic at an elite school, we were definitely eager (desperate?) to hire our first female faculty member in a department in which heavy-duty math was sort of a prerequisite. We would have hired a lesser female (though still plenty good) to have one. We wouldn’t have paid less, as the first year salary was fixed as far as I know. </p>
<p>And, although I only skimmed the comments, there is one important factor that does not seem to have been mentioned (though I may have missed a comment). Women ask for raises less frequently and shy away from a perception that negotiating for compensation will be damaging to the relationship. Linda Babcock of CMU has done some very good work on how women negotiate for their salaries in the US and it turns out they don’t generally do it so well (many exceptions I’m sure). See her book ([Babcock</a>, L. and Laschever, S.: Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide.](<a href=“http://www.nathist.princeton.edu/titles/7575.html]Babcock”>http://www.nathist.princeton.edu/titles/7575.html)) and there are a number of earlier papers. I haven’t looked at this in years, but remember thinking her original paper in this area was really striking.</p>
<p>Oh, and alh, one of the fun pastimes of the last few years has been to argue that any study whose conclusion you don’t like is biased or has flawed methodology. At the same time, as sewhappy (I think), there is a lot of advocacy science from the right and the left.</p>
<p>What are typically the highest paying jobs with a B.S. after graduation? Engineering.
And what is the gender ratio for those graduating with engineering degrees? Men >> Women</p>
<p>Solve the gender inequality in STEM majors and these numbers might come closer to being balanced.</p>
<p>shawbridge “Wow. Interesting how hard people are working to avoid coming to grips with some pretty clear data.”</p>
<p>Which study do you think presents clear data? One study shows that women appear to discriminate against female applicants. That, to me, is illogical and there was no apparent attempt to explain why that might occur. I may have missed it as I just skimmed that study. Another study shows average pay for new graduates but men were paid less than females in one occupation grouping. One would think that societal discrimination would be consistent. If bias is not consistent then some other factor is also present. Where women were paid less than men in one occupation (business) its clear that pay levels vary based on major. If you are going to take the time to do this study why wouldn’t you eliminate those extraneous factors?</p>
<p>If it’s accurate, that is quite the gap. You hear about it all the time, but it is hard to believe, and this study makes it a little easier to believe.</p>
<p>According to the 2012 AAUW report at figure 8, in seven of twelve occupations there is no significant gender difference in earnings one year after graduation. Signficant differences occur in sales, management, business, other (a useless classification IMO), and teaching. Women make up 79% of positions in teaching and teaching salaries are pretty much set by locality. If men make up a greater percentage of STEM teachers than women and STEM teachers get bonus pay then the pay discrepancy is explained by factors other than bias or discrimination.</p>
<p>Yes, the authors of the study identified subtle bias as that societal factor. (Anyone reading the commentary in this thread should not be surprised to discover that women discriminate against other women just as much as men do.)</p>
<p>The study itself mentioned that similar subtle bias on the basis of race has historically been identified as an issue in recruiting / retaining qualified minorities in the sciences, and that simply making decision-makers aware of their own bias is sufficient to significantly reduce its effects.</p>
<p>Someone way up-thread asked why employers didn’t see women as a “good value” due to the pay gap, and hire them preferentially. My reading of the study is that potential employers mistakenly perceive the women as less qualified than an identical male candidate, and pay each the going rate for their perceived level of competence. So if you pay a woman less, you don’t see yourself as having gotten a good deal - you see yourself as having gotten a fair deal for a worse employee.</p>
<p>That’s closer to the mark than the people who have spent this whole thread beating the “sexism” dead horse. The answer is statistical discrimination (unfortunately-named), and it’s a fact of economics. Women are generally paid less not ONLY because they are less inclined to enter lucrative fields, but because (once they get into their fields) they are less likely to work overtime or in dangerous conditions, and more likely to change jobs or go on maternity leave. Statistical discrimination is the same reason any one teenage boy may have to pay a higher insurance premium on a vehicle; even if he personally has never gotten into an accident, he is statistically more likely to. Sexism has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>“That’s closer to the mark than the people who have spent this whole thread beating the “sexism” dead horse. The answer is statistical discrimination (unfortunately-named), and it’s a fact of economics. Women are generally paid less not ONLY because they are less inclined to enter lucrative fields, but because (once they get into their fields) they are less likely to work overtime or in dangerous conditions, and more likely to change jobs or go on maternity leave. Statistical discrimination is the same reason any one teenage boy may have to pay a higher insurance premium on a vehicle; even if he personally has never gotten into an accident, he is statistically more likely to. Sexism has nothing to do with it.”</p>
<p>Please, continue to justify discrimination.</p>
<p>How would you explain then that women of color or paid have a great pay gap than 7% due to being paid less than their white counterparts (assuming all things equal)? Or that black men are paid less (again, assuming all things equal)?</p>
<p>Sexism is only a “dead horse” to the people who are tired of hearing of it… and more often than not these the people benefiting from legislation remaining the way it is. Funny how that happens!</p>
<p>Big10Champ “Please, continue to justify discrimination.”</p>
<p>It’s pretty hard to even begin to deal with issues if everyone doesn’t agree on what is discrimination. BrotherAtticus gave a succinct explanation of some factors that contribute to pay differences that are unrelated to discrimination. These factors cannot be explained away unless one believes (and some do) that regardless of such differences women in these situations should still be paid the same as men. Eliminating the influence of these factors requires sociological changes that men and women may not favor. For example, workers with more experience shouldn’t be paid more as that penalizes women who leave work for several years to take care of children. Women who choose to sacrifice stay-at-home time for work are also penalized for that decision. There should be no overtime pay because a greater proportion of women can’t work overtime due to family commitments. Or, society should force men to work less overtime so that instead their wives can work overtime (regardless of the wives’ actual preference). No one, except a few radicalists, are going to agree to those type of changes.</p>
<p>1.) Semantics, semantics, semantics.
Person One: “I’m lactose intolerant.”
Person Two: “Please, continue to justify intolerance.”
2.) We’re not talking about race. We’re talking about gender. If there is an alleged wage gap based on race, investigate that on another forum. The real causes are not likely to be the same.
3.) You can’t be sure of all my demographics, and if you could, you couldn’t just assume bias on my part. I notice that (particularly given the upcoming election) there is a real trend among people who demand that women agree with them on issues like abortion, contraception, wage gap, etc.–and those who don’t, well, they’re obvious not “real” women, or they aren’t “feminist” enough, or they have “Stockholm syndrome” towards their evil male oppressors, etc., etc.</p>
<p>The average female earns 54 cents for every dollar her male counterpart makes. This is one of the problems in a sexist world that does not expect as much from females as they do from males.</p>
<p>Have you not been following any part of this discussion? The “sexism” facade has been shattered…or at least massively de-simplified. And “54 cents” is atrociously false.</p>