« Greenpeace and Sex Toys | Main | Book Tag. »

September 12, 2006

Economist Watch

Expanding the number of sources we check for editing and typo type blunders, welcome to Economist Watch.

On the subject of gender differences in pay in academia:

Explicable differences amounted to 77% of the overall pay gap between the sexes. That still left a substantial 23% gap in pay, which Dr Connolly attributes to discrimination.

Err, no. What is meant is that 77% of the observed pay gap can be explained (time off for children, all that sort of stuff) and that 23% of that observed gap was not, and should therefore be put down to discrimination.

Most certainly not that there was a 23% gap in pay.

Don’t these people have editors?

September 12, 2006 in Telegraph Watch. | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834e5b07c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Economist Watch:

Comments

Presumably too the 23% is down to all sorts of inexplicable (so far) reasons, one of which may be discimination.

Posted by: RichardR | Sep 12, 2006 12:32:01 PM

Yep, or even due to the different proportions of the sexes in, say, computing and biology. The 23% covers every possible explanation that hasn't been explicitly tested for.

Posted by: dearieme | Sep 12, 2006 3:06:02 PM

Two female academic scientist chums of mine have a specific complaint: because of the shortage of people in their category, they have to spend an inordinate proportion of their time being The Science Woman on various committees. It's not clear that allowance will be made for that in promotion procedures. They are therefore paying part of the price of femininism. I have no idea what proportion of the 23% that is, but I do feel that Germaine Greer and co ought to drop them the odd cheque in compensation.

Posted by: dearieme | Sep 12, 2006 3:11:21 PM

If the average difference is about 1500 and if male professors have an advantage of 4000, are there female "other than" professors making, on average, a lot more than their male counterparts so as to reduce the "gap" by 2500?

Posted by: MikeinAppalachia | Sep 12, 2006 8:03:23 PM

At least they knew not to use gender when they meant sex. ;)

Posted by: Paul Davies | Sep 13, 2006 10:53:59 AM