Banner
    College Major Still A Factor In The Narrowing Gender Wage Gap
    By News Staff | August 9th 2009 01:00 AM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Higher education has helped women narrow the wage gap but there is one college-related factor that has becoming increasingly important in perpetuating that gap, according to new research.

    And that factor is their college major.   Women dominate the social sciences, for example, so by not moving more into hard sciences, the numbers are not normalizing across all fields.   Women at the higher levels of research and in disciplines like engineering show no modern wage gap.

    Donna Bobbitt-Zeher, author of the study and assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University at Marion used data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. With these data sets, she was able to compare women who graduated from high school in 1972 and 1992. She compared the incomes of college graduates seven years after their high school graduations, in 1979 and 1999. Both samples included about 10,000 cases.

    Findings showed the income gap between college-educated men and women declined significantly in 20 years – in 1979, women’s earnings were 78 percent of their male counterparts, but by 1999 the women were earning 83 percent as much as men.

    Bobbitt-Zeher then estimated how much of that income difference between men and women was explained by various factors in 1979 versus 1999. Some of the factors she examined included occupations and industries that men and women work in; background, including socioeconomic status and race; how much individuals valued earning a lot of money; factors related to parental and martial status; SAT scores; the colleges that people attended and whether they earned graduate degrees; and, of course, the percentage of women in their college majors.

    Findings showed that about 19 percent of the income gap between college-educated men and women in 1999 could be explained by their college major,  nearly twice as much as in 1979, when 10 percent of the gap was explained by college major.  Although work-related characteristics combine to explain a bigger share of the gap, no other single known factor was more important than college major in explaining the income gap in 1999.

    Many college majors did become more integrated between 1979 and 1999, she noted.

    “Most of integration has come from women making different choices, rather than men moving into traditionally female fields,” Bobbitt-Zeher said.

    However, significant differences remain in the majors women and men choose. And this is contributing to the gender income gap in a more meaningful way than it did in the past.

    But the continuing wage gap isn’t explained completely by men choosing majors that require greater skills than majors chosen by women, she said, and the reasons for the gender segregation of majors are not entirely understood, she said, since much of it is a matter of personal choice.

    Bobbitt-Zeher said the results should be a reminder for us not to believe gender inequality in higher education is a problem of the past.

    “There’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that women seem to be doing so well in college compared to men. But what people don’t know is that education is playing a bigger role than ever in perpetuating the gender income gap,” she said.  “It’s an issue that we need to keep at the forefront.”

    No mention of outreach for men in education and psychology fields, though, where the ratio in favor of women is the same as men in particle physics.

    Bobbitt-Zeher presented her research August 9 in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

    Comments

    I wonder if her research mentions that there are more women entering college then men, and that there are more women on scholarships then men. One reason men may earn more money then women, all things being equal, is that some men have to work through college, and thus, they have an additional four years of work experience to include on their resume.

    Hank
    Bobbitt-Zeher is a sociologist, in one of the 70% women fields, so anything less than that looks like inequality.   My favorite NBA example was Chris Webber, who hinted around he might like to leave the Sacramento team to find someplace more 'diverse' - a confusing statement since Sacramento is only 45% white.   But in context he moved from Detroit and having 85% black people.   So diverse to him meant everyone looking like him.

    When your teaching interest are Social Inequality, Gender Relations and Race and Ethnicity and your research interests include Education and Gender Inequality, Workplace Discrimination and Pregnancy Discrimination, you're going to find inequality everywhere because, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to be a nail.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gary Herstein
    Starting from the unfounded presupposition that any discovery of bias is a fraud you reach the conclusion that any discovery of bias is a fraud. Just because a person is using a hammer does not mean that they are not striking a nail. Absent any actual evidence or argument, your claim above is indistinguishable from any other form of enabling for sexism &/or racism; and this is the kindest interpretation that might be offered.

    Following your own example, I could (by your own standards of argument above) assert that, being white and male, of course you refuse to acknowledge the presence of descrimination. If my exempli gratia is not valid, how is it that your genuinely offered analogous claim fares any better?
    Hank
    Starting from the unfounded presupposition that any discovery of bias is a fraud you reach the conclusion that any discovery of bias is a fraud.


    I made no supposition and the word 'fraud' is emotional verbage you chose, not me.



    I simply went to her CV and noted her past research. Pointing out that if she begins to write 'things are a lot better than 30 years ago' articles she is out of a job is not sexism. Why you chose to additionally attempt to slur me with "&/or racism" I am going to just attribute to you having a bad day.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gary Herstein
    Fair enough, and thanks for the "bad day" latitude. I'll spare you the details and ask you to trust me when I say it falls under the "two hanky" classification. (No, really ... )
    Pointing out that if she begins to write 'things are a lot better than 30 years ago' articles she is out of a job is not sexism.
    Isn't it? It is imposing a political agenda upon her research without supporting that claim with evidence. It is implicitly applying a political interpetation upon matters all the while claiming there is nothing else in play but a purely objective point of view on your part. You've evidently posed a "he said/she said" and then insisted that the "she said" is ideologically driven, while evidently claiming that the "he said" is not.

    Plus, let us note that the assertion is false. Even if the scholars writing such articles are in a minority, they clearly exist if you examine the literature, and are not on that account populating lines at the soup kitchens. Indeed, even amongst those who would still argue for substantial and unforgivable problems in the culture, a significant number of such persons also acknowledge that things are much better now than they were 30 years ago.

    Not being an expert in the field, my own observation that one would be extremely hard pressed to find someone who would not make that conscession must be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I'd be rather surprised if my limited expertise were any more limited than yours, yet that did not prevent you from making a sweeping generalization that cannot be supported by facts.
    Hank
    Obviously if we all need to be sociology professors specializing in Social Inequality to recognize that someone specializing in Social Inequality is going to find it, there isn't much point to having any science sites or doing any science outreach.  We should just give up and lament how stupid the public is because they don't "get" it the way you and Bobbitt-Zeher do.

    You also seem to persistently want to try and jam me through some prism of politically correct gender politics - I have no agenda one way or another but if your leaning is one way, my being in the middle will certainly appear to be the other.   Maybe I am just old fashioned but I refuse to kneejerk my opinions on their research, much less give them a free pass, because of their gender.
     
    You can be sure if a man produced the results above, I would still have criticized it.

    It isn't in this article but in other places she used hot phrases like "college major segregation" - that's intentionally inflammatory verbage which has no data foundation at all.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    I think your speculation that men having to work more (and hence get work experience) because women get scholarships and therefore don't have to work is flawed. People (regardless of gender) get scholarships because they need them, or deserve them (in the case of athletic or musical or merit based scholarships), not because they were born a female or a minority. I'm a recent college graduate, and a female. I did get scholarships, but I still had to work three part time jobs because scholarships didn't pay for it all. My scholarships were based on financial need, not my gender. Most students don't get full rides to college, and scholarships rarely cover the full cost. Most students (of any gender) who get financial aid of any sort also work on top of that using work study or an off campus job. Most students do internships or work during the summer, regardless of gender. The only students who don't work while in college are those who take out loans, or whose parents are rich enough to pay for tuition. Many of the men at my college never worked while in school because they tended to be more affluent. For the most part, I don't think work experience is the reason for the gap. The reason has to do with the fact that women unfortunately major in topics that are less valued by companies and lead to less income. If more women majored in the hard sciences, mathematics, computer science, accounting, economics, and engineering, then the gender gap wouldn't exist. If women major in something useless, like art history, where your skills are mostly useless in the job force, then of course a gap exists.

    Many female-dominated fields are just social engineering sub-disciplines in the subsidized "diversity" industry.

    "Diverse" has come to mean "as non-white and as female as possible."

    "Diversity" is the modern summum bonum.

    I liked the article. I will say, again, that to me, there is no real wage gap. Women choose different paths than men. They tend to be less money-oriented. Less competitive in the work force, and more likely to have custody of children, and so, need to take off for a number of reasons. That has a serious impact on earnings.