Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Enduring Gender Gap in Pay

April 5, 2011

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The gender gap in faculty pay cannot be explained completely by the long careers of male faculty members, the relative productivity of faculty members, or where male and female faculty members tend to work -- even if those and other factors are part of the picture, according to research being released this week at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.

When all such factors are accounted for, women earn on average 6.9 percent less than do men in similar situations in higher education, says the paper, by Laura Meyers, a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington. The finding could be significant because many colleges have explained gender gaps by pointing out that the senior ranks of the professoriate are still dominated by people who were rising through the ranks in periods of overt sexism and so are lopsidedly male, or that men are more likely than women to teach in certain fields that pay especially well.

Meyers found not only that gender-neutral characteristics do not explain away the gaps, but also that they may play out in some ways that benefit men more than women when it comes to faculty salaries -- even for women who are on similar career trajectories to men. A few other studies, praised by some and doubted by others, have also found pay gaps after adjusting for a range of factors -- and the Meyers work may add credence to them as well.

Meyers based her research on the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, which includes extensive data on faculty members at two-year and four-year, public and private (nonprofit) colleges. Of all the faculty members in the survey, women earn an average full-time salary of $56,100, more than 18 percent less than the male average of $68,900.

Some of that gap is explained, Meyers notes, by the sorts of factors that have been used in the past to explain disparities. But her paper notes a variety of situations where men and women do not appear to fare the same financially -- even with comparable levels of experience, institutional homes and disciplines.

For instance, part of the gap is explained by women being more likely than are men to teach at institutions that value teaching over research -- and pay favors those at research universities. But women gain less of a pay bump than do men for working at research universities, even when controlling for other factors, Meyers found. This leaves women "essentially at a loss when trying to improve their salary through research orientated positions," she writes.

Some of the paper explores the applicability of "comparable worth" theory to academic jobs. That theory holds that some jobs are devalued precisely because women hold them, not because they requires fewer skills or less experience than do comparable jobs that tend to be held by men. Here, Meyers found "a significant and negative connection" between increases in the percentages of a discipline's faculty members who are women, and salary relative to other disciplines. (While the paper cites these and other trends as evidence that comparable worth theory may well apply, it cautions against expectations of applying the theory in lawsuits over salary gaps.)

By using information in the database about how faculty members use their time, Meyers also suggests that some activities that both men and women perform seem to have different results. For instance, men who spend significant time on professional service activities that are not based at their institution (say, working with a disciplinary group) do not see any negative impact on their salaries. Women, however, see a consistent, negative impact on their salaries from similar contributions to their professions.

Meyers argues in the paper that the presence of unexplained pay gaps by gender -- and of differential treatment of men and women who make similar choices about their careers -- should be cause for concern.

"Understanding and responding to gender wage gaps in the academy is critical for policymakers who are interested in ensuring that all faculty members are compensated in an equitable manner," she writes. "That fact that female faculty continue to experience a wage gap even after controlling for disciplinary and institutional characteristics, individual factors, human capital, principal activity and demographic factors is problematic. Faculty members should not be paid differently based on their gender."

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Enduring Gender Gap in Pay

  • Don't discriminate, either way
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on April 5, 2011 at 9:00am EDT
  • The obvious possibilities that occur to me that might explain this disparity (assuming it exists and is statistically significant) are: (a) Women are being discriminated against, or (b) the women being hired are not performing as well as the men being hired in the quality of their work in some respect that has not been (and perhaps cannot be) controlled for -- and an obvious explanation for that discrepancy is because universities are lowering standards in an effort to hire more women. Either way, what is cried out for is for universities to commit to treating men and women nondiscriminatorily, and for people to complain or sue if they think this is not happening.
  • Posted by Benjamin on April 5, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • Why are we so worried about a small gender pay gap, when the college attendance gender gap is much worse. I know which one needs fixing first.
  • Sex Differences Not Gender
  • Posted by Surfing by on April 5, 2011 at 10:16am EDT
  • Why do so many statistically based articles in Inside Higher Ed continue to mistake sex for gender? Gender includes the full range of sexual preference/orientation. This article doesn't differentiate between gay/lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, straight, etc. In short, it adheres to the traditional categories of biological plumbing. The world is more complicated than that, and your critique should be as well.
  • Equal pay
  • Posted by Don Bevirt , Assoc. Prof Dept. Chair Art at Southwestern Illinois College on April 5, 2011 at 10:30am EDT
  • Here at Southwestern Illinois College the faculty union as for many years now required equal pay for men and women. The only differential is degrees accumulated as to where one starts on the pay scale and that staring point has been gender neutral. Our union founded in 1946 is IFT/AFT/AAUP affiliated.
  • Women's Reluctance
  • Posted by Retired Prof on April 5, 2011 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I am a woman who worked successfully for over 30 years in academia. There are two factors that are never discussed in articles like this one.

    The first factor that may keep women's salaries lower is that women are reluctant to go to Chairs or Deans and ask for or fight for an increase in salary. Women also tend not to negotiate their salaries when first hired and so their base pay (at least the way it was calculated at my university) starts slightly lower than some men's. I used to discuss this with my women colleagues and, from my point of view, they had silly reasons for not asserting themselves individually with regard to pay. The most common reason they gave for not negotiating personally with a Dean or Chair over salary was that they "felt uncomfortable." I used to say, "Well, get over it," and became a bit unpopular with some women. I don't think women should blame men or administrators when women are too weak or too afraid to stand up for themselves personally. I don't think we can blame others for our own weaknesses. We should personally rectify our flaws and weaknesses.

    The second reason that women's salaries may remain slightly lower than men's is that I found that many women don't stick up for other women. Those of us who are assertive about things like salaries for ourselves are often resented by the other women who like to play the role of "oppressed gender."
  • Sex/Gender
  • Posted by Mrs. Underhill on April 5, 2011 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Dear Surfing By,

    Check your terms. Gender identity is unrelated to sexual orientation. Gay is not a gender. Trans is not an orientation. There's plenty of gender variation in the world, and how it plays into pay and career success is a question worth investigating on its own. It doesn't really alter the fact that sexism plays a significant role in the pay between cis-gendered women and men.
  • Obvious Factors
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on April 5, 2011 at 1:15pm EDT
  • It would seem to me that some obvious factors omitted by this study are stagnating wages and decreasing benefits. Furthermore, has anyone followed the Chronicle of Higher Education for two or three decades to review changes in education or experience required for academic jobs?
    These topics have frequently been discussed in our faculty lounge and it seems common knowledge to those active on search committees, that sister institutions and our own pay less for insurance and have been edging down the starting salaries with a "take it or leave it" attitude.
    It is a buyers' market for labor in the current economy and has been for years.
  • Posted by Observer on April 5, 2011 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Retired professor has it right. On average, women are less likely to ask for raises, to negotiate at hire and to apply for other jobs simply to use it as a lever to increase pay at their current institution. In other words, raises are a game to be played. It requires an ability to risk and it sometimes results in losing the game. Risk or safety is a lifestyle choice, and there are people of both genders who choose to live one way or another.
  • So many factors....
  • Posted by Dr. BPD at Canada on April 5, 2011 at 8:00pm EDT
  • Eleven years ago I was hired at university A, Friend 1 at university B, and Friend 2 at university 3, all in the same year, and all similar size institutions, and all in the humanities. Last year Friend 1 (male) earned $118,000, Friend 2 (female) earned $114,000, and I (male) about $85,000. If Friend 2 happened to be at my instutition, things would loook a lot worse for women. ON the other hand, she could have been at Friend 1's, and been the highest paid of us. There are just too many personal factors and differences between institutions to make a 6% difference meaningful.
  • deck chairs - Titanic?
  • Posted by Dan King on April 5, 2011 at 9:15pm EDT
  • The whole business model for higher education is collapsing. The market rate PhD's in English probably doesn't exceed minimum wage. And yet Ms. Meyers can only worry about the politically correct topic du jour.

    Please tell us, Ms. Meyers, how fixing this problem is a) going to improve the education of so much as even a single student, and b) how is it going to help our industry save money to live within its means?
  • higher ed issue?
  • Posted by j. vincent nix , OD, Learning & Performance Mgr at N/A on April 6, 2011 at 4:30am EDT
  • Why make this a higher ed issue?

    I'm not claiming Wikipedia is research-citable-material, but look at ANY community in the U.S. on Wikipedia.

    The town/city page shows median salary for male, female, family. The differences are greater than 6%.

  • Clegg and Benjamin are right
  • Posted by Voltaire on April 6, 2011 at 4:30am EDT
  • There are so many flaws in the study and the article which pays it such attention. 1, 6% is not enough to worry about. 2, We quite rightly base excellence in academe on research eminence. For a number of reasons men are more fiercely competitive and ambitious than most academic women. The women lead more balanced lives, including being wives and mothers. 3, No-one has the right to blame women for the choices in life-style they make in the course of their careers. 4, Yes, a genuinely important problem -- the boy problem -- the non-retention of young men at every level in our education system, is infinitely more important than the 6% solution.
  • To R. Clegg
  • Posted by Dr. J on April 6, 2011 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Mr. Clegg- As expected, your post is typical of all of your comments on this site. Analyzing findings such as the ones presented in the article should not entice you to blame affirmative action (or what you perceive to be affirmative action), and yet hear you are again... Universities do not lower their standards in order to hire women. This is a myth of affirmative action programs, which you incorrectly assume is how women are hired into faculty positions in the first place. Women faculty members who are hired are expected to do more than their male counterparts- think of the old saying: "Work twice as hard for half as much"? In faculty positions, women (and underrepresented minorities) are expected to serve on more committees and do other service-oriented tasks than their male peers, while also holding the same teaching load, conducting research, advising students, and publishing. Standards are not lowered; if anything they are (consciously and/or unconsciously) held higher for women. Discrimination exists and manifests itself in tangible ways (i.e., salaries) and intangible ways (i.e., micro-aggressions that women faculty face in their departments and colleges).
  • Summing Up
  • Posted by cts on April 6, 2011 at 3:00pm EDT
  • many of the comments:

    1) There is no problem.
    2) If there is a problem, it does not matter because there are problems for males.
    3) If there is a problem, it is the fault of the women.

    Got it.
  • RE: Summing Up
  • Posted by hmc on April 8, 2011 at 8:45am EDT
  • Thank you, cts. That's just what I gleaned from this discussion, too.
  • Posted by lan on April 8, 2011 at 11:15am EDT
  • Regarding comments by retired prof. I think she has a point regarding the lower negotiated salaries. But too often the solution is just "figure it out" or "stop being a victim" rather than providing opportunities and tools to do better. Negotiation is a skill often explicitly taught in business schools so it's not something that everyone can do effectively without training. There is an art to negotiation. And it can feel like a risky proposition (e.g., I might look greedy or selfish) for those in vulnerable situations (e.g, untenured, newly hired) with limited skills in negotiating. The perceived costs often outweigh the gains. Training in negotiation can diminish those perceived costs so that action is more likely to occur.

    So expecting a group of people to just figure it out because you say to do it is like saying all chairs should be great or all faculty should be good teachers. Only the naturally talented will achieve these goals.
  • Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
  • Posted by Odinsdotter on April 8, 2011 at 5:00pm EDT
  • @ Retired Prof --

    I'm a woman in a male-dominated academic discipline who was on the academic job market this year. I received several offers and I attempted to negotiate my salary at each.

    The chair (a man) at one institution responded thus:
    "*dramatic sigh* I don't really want to negotiate"

    I didn't back down (I had AAUP data on assistant prof salaries to point to), but it became very clear to me as things progressed the chair was unhappy with me for this, and that if I accepted the position I would start my career at that institution with a very strained relationship with my chair.
  • What the previous commenter said.
  • Posted by mdc , N/A at N/A on April 9, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • Men who negotiate are hard bargainers. Women who negotiate are entitled b*tches.

    "Retired Professor" up there is a typical Special Female™ with a ton of internalized misogyny.
  • Posted by Non-tenured female faculty on April 11, 2011 at 5:15am EDT
  • It is true that it is 'buyer' market. But I agree that female hiring/pay problem do exist especially in engineering. From my experience female faculty are more responsible in teaching and have to work much harder than male faculty. And frankly speaking, I do not understand why it is still happening in the 21 century. I beleive that proportional quotes as for other minorities could help to change the situation in future.
  • Posted by Prospective Academic on April 11, 2011 at 4:45pm EDT
  • As someone who hopes to eventually become an academic, I’ve been reading IHE through much of my undergraduate career and am becoming increasingly puzzled by the comments that inevitably follow any article that brings up gender issues or sex discrimination. I’ve never actually commented here before, but today I couldn't resist. So here goes:

    Roger Clegg, I find it odd that for someone so deeply involved in countering affirmative action you would respond in such a way that ignores the substantial literature on implicit bias and the affect that may have on the way women are assessed, and women’s work is valued. I assume no one in your position would so doggedly endorse “color-blindness,” etc. unless you had sufficient reason to think that the psychological literature (indicating that color-blindness and perceived objectivity are associated with greater manifestations of bias, and that implicit bias is fairly prevalent) was wrong. Next time you hypothesize that perhaps standards are being lowered for women, I’d like to hear more about why exactly you think that.

    Benjamin, ironically, it doesn’t seem inconceivable that the two problems are related. If men, on average, can earn more than women for equal work—how’s a gal to get ahead? Get a higher degree. It seems plausible that women are attending college in greater numbers because they have less access to well-paying jobs without one. But regardless of whether or not that’s the case—we can be concerned with more than one problem (and really, even if they are not causally related, both issues amount to one problem: gender inequity).

    Retired Prof (and Observer), actually it turns out that it may *hurt* women to *ask* for raises in ways that it doesn’t hurt men (e.g., see here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1316162). so while I love the idea that what’s standing between me and an equal salary with my future male colleagues is just a “silly reason” not to ask, I’m afraid that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Dan King, do you really not care about justice? About equity? At the risk of being written off as cliché, injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere. Are there bigger problems? Probably. Does that mean we should ignore the others? I’m not sure why it would. There are always bigger problems. We have to start somewhere. But all of that said, I can think of at least one way this could improve the education of more than one student: as long as academia has a poor reputation when it comes to gender equity, fewer women will be looking to join the ranks than otherwise would. The greater the applicant pool, the greater the chances are of finding exceptional teachers and researchers among them.

    Voltaire, 1. What is statistically significant enough that we should worry? 6% adds up to quite a bit of difference in pay over time. How would you feel if you were paid 6% less than your peers? 2. There are lots of reasons to think that women’s work is assessed differently than men’s (again, see research on implicit bias), and I know lots of male professors who are also husbands and fathers. Further, if I recall correctly, there is a study that indicated that when a man’s family life interferes with work (e.g., needing to leave early to take a child to a game, or take a day off to care for a sick child) it is viewed far more positively than if a woman’s family life interferes with work. 3. I agree, but I’m not sure who is blaming women here except some commenters, and 4. See response to Benjamin above.