Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>    They still earn less than male EEs...
>    [mean salary--I think it's mean rather than median, but they don't
>    actually specify--$38,900 for women -vs- mean $49,800 for men]

	 HANG ON! Wait a minute..this means for X men in engineering
	 and Y women in engineering, the men make $49.8K on the
	 average and the women make $38.9K on the average.

	 But of course!  A large number of the women in engineering
	 are in the lower ranks....we can't possibly be compared to
	 the men that have been in the upper ranks before we even
	 thought of being engineers.

	 I'd say that is a very valid statistic, but not a bad
	 statistic at all!  I would, however, be curious to know what
	 the typical male engineer that has been in the workforce for
	 the same amount of years as I have in earning....

	 I know I started at $3K more than any male engineer at my
	 college that graduated with me.

	 

	 Base these statistics on years in the workforce, then we can
	 start discussing the differences.

	 (BTW...I read this article about a week ago....and didn't
	 agree with their findings then either)

	 kath

Granted, the stats are "skimpy", as the article admits, but some effort was made
to compare workers with similiar amounts of experience:


>   'When comparing medians in
>    the groups with less than 15 years' experience,' the report says,
>    'females earn consistently less than men at all levels of experience. 
>    The disparity is quite large--a $9000 difference--in the 10-to-14-
>    years-of-experience group.' 


A 15 year range is rather wide, but I think these numbers are indicative of a
real problem.

Regarding earning more than your male contemporaries when you graduated, I'm 
pretty familiar with this, as I just graduated a little over a year ago. 
However, I've heard/read in several places that this is due in part to there
being a fairly short supply of women engineers graduating and the companies need them
to make their numbers look good.  Hence there's pretty stiff competition to get
them.  The problem is, once they're in their salaries and promotions don't 
necessarily keep up with the men's

IMO,
Sue

>   'When comparing medians in
>    the groups with less than 15 years' experience,' the report says,
>    'females earn consistently less than men at all levels of experience. 
>    The disparity is quite large--a $9000 difference--in the 10-to-14-
>    years-of-experience group.' 

I musta missed this.....Even so...within the first 5 years, you set a pace for
yourself.....many women (at least that I know), even though they are engineers
they don't spend the time and the energy to go gung ho into their work.
Some stop for a year or two for a family, others simply can't work more than
8-5 because of family obligations (I don't like that, but it
happens).....

Perhaps not a matter of more or less dedication to their job, but
probably more like more devotion/realization that there are outside things.

So many factors to influence in.......that would probably make the numbers
even closer.

>However, I've heard/read in several places that this is due in part to there
>being a fairly short supply of women engineers graduating and the companies need them
>to make their numbers look good.

No one could ever convince me that I was hired because I'm a female.  Many
of the men I went to college with were partiers, they felt they didn't need
to work hard to get their degree because there are "so many" engineering
jobs out there, and they would get one of them.

I think you'll find more women engineers with experience coming out of
college than the male engineers (%age-wise).  That accounts for higher
salaries for the women.

BTW.....DEC has certain restrictions, I beleive, for who they hire at
what salary.....it is all based on work experience and grades....other
companies simply pull a number out of the air.....that is where you might
get some descrepancies.

>The problem is, once they're in their salaries and promotions don't 
>necessarily keep up with the men's

Like I said, there are many factors having to do with that...and possibly
(though I know I will get flamed for saying it) the women themselves
have had something to do with that?!

I see very little, if any, instances of women being overlooked because of
a man competing with her....but perhaps that is just the environment I
work in out here.  Quite a few of our managers are women out here, and we have
quite a few women engineers......I've yet to see a case of this.....

But, I know...it exists....but perhaps I've just been lucky and sheltered!

kath

    This string seems to be a side issue to the string about women's jobs
    being a second income.
    
    If you are a woman engineer (or any other profession) and you earn the
    same or better salary as a man with the same qualifications/exprience
    do NOT assume that that is the way it is for everyone.  Good for you,
    its great; I'm overjoyed for your success, talent, intelligence, and
    good fortune.  I wish the equity was more widespread.  (Also, have you
    considered how much more you might be earning with your considerable
    talents if you were male?)
    
    Also, do not assume that women who earn less somehow deserve less. 
    There are tons of serveys out there that show income discrepancies
    to the detriment of women workers.  I have never seen figures that
    suggest that the unbalance is in the other direction.  
    
    I used to work for an engineering college.  One responsibility I had
    was assembling the stats on how the graduates were doing, by
    discipline, in the job stakes.  (BS in EE grads avg offer is $XX,XXX.00
    kind of stuff.)  Too bad I didn't get to break it down by sex. 
    
    More than 80% of the time, the offers over the median went to the male
    graduates, less than median went to the female grads.  The top half 
    of the class was pretty evenly distributed in terms of grades and coop
    experience between men and women. But the offers were NOT evenly
    distributed.
    
    The EE Times study, even when taken with a large grain of salt, shows 
    that inequalities in pay still exist.  It's NOT okay that they do.
    Check out the Stone Center findings.

>                      <<< Note 829.4 by CUPCSG::RUSSELL >>>

>    I wish the equity was more widespread.  (Also, have you
>    considered how much more you might be earning with your considerable
>    talents if you were male?)

	 Considering I get ave-above ave raises, I assume I'm doing
	 good..and probably couldn't do better if I was a male.

>    Also, do not assume that women who earn less somehow deserve less. 

	 Assuming that you are addressing this to me.....I would be
	 the last one to ever make that assumption....basically, I'm
	 just stating reasons why it might be lower...You will never
	 hear me say someone "deserves" less...But there are so many
	 factors involved in earnings and such...that people have to
	 realize that it's just not the cut and dry case of "women
	 engineers are being paid less"....it's just not as easy as
	 that......

	 Statistics never are.
	 

	 kat

    
re .1
    
>	 But of course!  A large number of the women in engineering
>	 are in the lower ranks....we can't possibly be compared to
>	 the men that have been in the upper ranks before we even
>	 thought of being engineers.

>	 I'd say that is a very valid statistic, but not a bad
>	 statistic at all!  I would, however, be curious to know what
>	 the typical male engineer that has been in the workforce for
>	 the same amount of years as I have in earning....
    
>	 Base these statistics on years in the workforce, then we can
>	 start discussing the differences.
    
    Okay, from the base note:


>    And like last year, the gender gap in salaries continues to widen. 
>    With such a small sample, we can't draw conclusive opinions.  But it's
>    a curious phenomenon that's been going on for six years.
>    [difference in mean--I think--salary in favor of men:  
>    	1984	$ 4,210
>    	1984	$ 5,000
>    	1986	$ 6,900
>    	1987	$ 8,310
>    	1988	$ 9,400
>    	1989	$10,900
    
    Kath, doesn't it bother you that this is an *increasing* trend
    over *six years*?!  Presumably, the "experience" gap which you
    mention as a factor is getting *smaller*, not *larger*, because
    the women in the 1984 survey have 6 more years experience in
    engineering in 1989.  At the same time, the salary gap is
    *increasing*!
    
    I think there's a problem with the premise that women have less
    experience in engineering than men do.  That of course, is probably
    still true, but since it's getting smaller that doesn't do anything
    to explain the increasing gap.  If anything, it should explain
    a *narrowing* gap!

    

>	 (BTW...I read this article about a week ago....and didn't
>	 agree with their findings then either)

    
    What don't you agree with?  You don't think that the facts are
    correct?  You think the authors lied?  Or that you don't agree
    that these figures means that much (which the authors of the
    article sort of admitted themselves).

    

RE: .6
    
    
>    Kath, doesn't it bother you that this is an *increasing* trend
>    over *six years*?!  Presumably, the "experience" gap which you
>    mention as a factor is getting *smaller*, not *larger*, because
>    the women in the 1984 survey have 6 more years experience in
>    engineering in 1989.  At the same time, the salary gap is
>    *increasing*!

	 Of COURSE it bothers me!!!  But I can't base an entire
	 campaign against the engineering pay scale based on some very
	 simplistic statistics!  What if the women surveyed in 1984
	 are no longer even WORKING as engineers by 1989???  Most of
	 the women I know in engineering have completely changed
	 fields in the course of six years!  A big percentage of the
	 women I know in engineering have gone to or shortly will be
	 going to MANAGEMENT positions....and most of the MEN I know
	 stay technical!

	 Are the salaries of the women that have moved to management
	 positions been taken into account?  Not at all...

	 There are SOOO many other factors that this study does not
	 even begin to take into account that I feel I have no BASIS
	 for being able to get all hot under the collar and wage war
	 against the engineering pay scale!

	 Personally, 6 years down the road from now, I DON'T intend on
	 still being a software engineer.
	 
>    What don't you agree with?  You don't think that the facts are
>    correct?  You think the authors lied?  Or that you don't agree
>    that these figures means that much (which the authors of the
>    article sort of admitted themselves).

	 I've already stated in a couple notes in here exactly what I
	 mean by "not agreeing with the findings" and I just stated it
	 in the above paragraph again!

	 Perhaps it would have been a much better study if they had
	 taken the SAME study group and examined it over a period of
	 six years...but they did not....

	 kath    

    Hope I don't get fire-bombed for this.  I agree with Kat
    on this issue.  Don't take the stats at face value.  They likely
    can be made to support any conclusion you want.  There is some
    underlying truth here.....but its VERY hard to get it from
    the stats only.

    about the argument that the split is widening...perhaps this
    is because there has been a big increase in the number of women
    who have recently graduated and become engineers.  This would pull
    down the average (any way you want to calculate it).  I joined DEC
    1970, and in my class at MIT there were only about 50 women.  Now
    I think its about 40%.

    Lotta factors involved here.  Women are probably getting shafted
    like they've always been....but I won't believe its getting worse
    from these numbers.  Sure seems to me its getting better.
    bob

    Anybody know if DEC did some research on this topic as part
    of the JEC/JIS (whatever the acronym is this week) program?
    I'd be interested in finding out what any results are, if
    such a study was done.
    
    Beth

    
    
    I agree that there can be good and bad statistics and that they
    can be interpreted fairly or unfairly, but does anyone really doubt
    the trend that the figures reported here suggest?  Almost every
    woman I know knows women who are or is herself paid less than her
    male peers.  To my mind this is such a well known phenomenon that
    almost no one I talk with even finds it shocking.  I just want to
    understand if folks here are questioning this particular survey
    or if they really doubt that women TEND TO BE paid less than men even
    when the experience levels are equal/comparable, and the work is
    equal/comparable.
          
    Justine

.10>I just want to
.10>understand if folks here are questioning this particular survey

	 I am, yes.
	 
.10>or if they really doubt that women TEND TO BE paid less than men even
.10>when the experience levels are equal/comparable, and the work is
.10>equal/comparable.

	 I'm in no position to answer this.....everyone woman I know
	 gets paided equal to their male counterparts, as do I....but
	 the women I surveyed have 8 or less years in the company they
	 are currently in.

	 I neutral in my beliefs.....I would need to see better
	 statistics in order to be sure.

	 kath

RE: .9

    According to  our (former) personnel rep, they look very carefully
    at men's vs. women's salaries to check for inequities.

--David

    I can confirm that... several years ago, during a salary planning
    session, Personnel came to me to point out an apparent disparity
    in the group between people with the same job code, same time in job,
    and same job rating.  We put through an exception.  They are on top of
    it!
    
    Marge