Does this even surprise you...

<Comment removed by moderator>

According to this study, men do more research than women across all ranks and men also work more hours as assistant professors. Those that do more research tend to get bigger raises and early bigger raises would carry throughout a career and future raises based on % would be on these earlier raises too. Even if a man received the equilivalent of $1,000 of extra raise money the first year, this would translate into $30,000 over a career without even consider the raise % or future pay raises. The message here is that woman should do more research.

Goodeyes, we need to consider the average salary increase. Assuming average annual salary increases of 4%, that initial $1,000 raise difference amounts to $59,328.34 over 30 years.

Goodeyes, everything was kept at a constant for both men and women and they were still paid less. It doesn't matter if women do more research.

I am a male professor of engineering; I have a colleague who is female. We began with the same salary. We both believed we deserved more. So I took the time to research the data. I researched how I performed in comparison to my colleagues. I tried to summon up my courage - it was VERY stressful (must have taken a few months off my life). I WORRIED it it was wise, in this economy, to ask our Dean for an increase above and beyond what normally comes during promotion to full professor. I anguished over this. I sweated. I paced back and forth in front of his office. Finally, I went in. I spoke slowly and carefully (I must have lost a few more months off my life). I got the raise.

My female colleague did not do any of this.

So, tell me, if a man makes the effort to ask for the raise, why should he not get it? I would imagine that men do the asking, the worrying, the suffering, the engaging in self-introspection, a lot more. To the victor go the spoils. If you do not ask, you do not get.

So I am curious if this study took that personal grit into account.

Incidentally, this is the second time our paths paralleled. During the promotion to Associate, the same thing happened. But that time, I told her what I was doing. And after I got the extra raise, she went in and asked for the same - she rode on my pain.

So, this time, I kept my mouth shut - she does not know how much more I am making now.

Even if one asks for a raise, it doesn't guarantee that one will get it. It would be interesting to study if men who ask for a raise get the raise more frequently (and at a higher amount) than do women who ask for a raise. If "asking for a raise" was a factor considered in the study, would be helpful to have it reported. If it wasn't, would be interesting to see what, if any, difference it made. Finally, if women do not ask for raises as frequently as men do, it would be worth studying why that is the case and what could be done to remedy that.

I agree with you phikaw. These would be interesting questions, but such studies always stop short of the possibility that the difference in sslary is, pehaps, NOT sexism - just male self-confidence in asking for more money. I think this is actually a disservice to women. For if we knew that answer, perhaps more women would simply be more agressive in demanding higher salaries right from the start, instead of writing essays about sexism.

The research has been done, and can be found in Women Don't Ask, by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever (http://www.womendontask.com/)

"When Linda Babcock asked why so many male graduate students were teaching their own courses and most female students were assigned as assistants, her dean said: "More men ask. The women just don't ask." It turns out that whether they want higher salaries or more help at home, women often find it hard to ask. Sometimes they don't know that change is possible--they don't know that they can ask. Sometimes they fear that asking may damage a relationship. And sometimes they don't ask because they've learned that society can react badly to women asserting their own needs and desires.

By looking at the barriers holding women back and the social forces constraining them, Women Don't Ask shows women how to reframe their interactions and more accurately evaluate their opportunities. It teaches them how to ask for what they want in ways that feel comfortable and possible, taking into account the impact of asking on their relationships. And it teaches all of us how to recognize the ways in which our institutions, child-rearing practices, and unspoken assumptions perpetuate inequalities--inequalities that are not only fundamentally unfair but also inefficient and economically unsound."

ocram - was that a male or female dept. head you went to to ask for a raise? The whole point is that dept. chairs should be giving raises on merit, not on who makes the most noise. Until we get past the idea that men "deserve" more, there will always be a problem. I can still remember a male dept. chair telling a female faculty member that she didn't make as much money as a male because he had a family (this was in the 1970s and I'm not sure how much progress we've made).

Getting a raise that you have to pay using grant dollars that you need to spend on your staff's next merit raise is not fun. Women ask for fewer raises but also for fewer bailouts. The man who has the courage to go in and ask for the raise also goes in and asks for money for his graduate students, post docs, and techs instead of using his own salary money on his grants to cover those costs. I don't whine over making less than my male colleaugues but I do not like them getting bigger and bigger pieces of the universities money to underwrite their research efforts. I choose to take the least amount of raise I can so that I have the grant money to spend on my staff. I could try to get more grants like the guys do but I know what size lab I want to run and don't feel comfortable promising in grant applications more than I am willing to do. SO, I lose out. But it is a choice I am making with eyes open. I think more of the "guys" like the danger of knowing that they can't cover their costs and get a thrill of going for it...for additional grants...for asking the chair or the dean for more money...whatever..they use is as a kind of motivational tool. It doesn't work for me.

Actually, research has been conducted on women who use more aggressive negotiating strategies -- vignettes of new hire's strategies with everything changed except the gender of the name. Big surprise -- when women were aggressive, they were instantly and intensely disliked. Women receive social sanctions for self promotion and agency from childhood. Is it any wonder that we find it more difficult to push our supervisors for higher salaries? We have learned that such efforts are apt to come with very real negative consequences by the time we reach adulthood.

Slightly different work, but research in gender communication describes how important it is for women to be "likeable" in order to achieve influence in small group settings -- which describes most work places. Self promoting women are not well-liked, while the behavior has no effect whatsoever on whether men are liked.

I think your attitude toward your female colleage is interesting, phikaw. If she is doing comparable work and deserves the same income based on merit, why wouldn't you tell her that she SHOULD bolster her courage and ask for more? This type of support from male colleagues might be just what women need to change their negotiating strategies.

Perhaps few and far between, but there are a few MALE department heads that actually do look at empirical salary and productivity data to give raises. When a chair in veterinary medicine over a 8 year period ALL assistant to professor female faculty in the dept. I chaired were compensated equivalent to their male counterparts based on productivity, thus there were not differences in salary averages. The way to accomplish this is to attempt to be "name" neutral so the decision is not made according to who is doing the producing but what is being produced or done. This is really a no brainer; however, I do understand that their are some males in administrative positions that are threatened by intelligent, go-getter females. There really is no excuse for not compensating a female as you would a male, if the productivity is equivalent.

When I asked the question as an undergrad thirty years ago in a labor economics class, I was told that women took more time away from work to raise children. So I suggested a class vote then. We two women had not taken time away from the work force, the rest of the class, al male, had not taken time away from the work force. All the men made more than the two women.

When I asked at work why our department had never had any women residents, the program director answered, "Women cry." The next year though, the department accepted a few women.

These reasons for paying women less are excuses for administrators to save money. It is unfair to their wives, and their daughters, and their grandaughters. Also, it is illegal.

Some brave woman physician should bring a class action lawsuit asking for retroactive pay from when the disparity starting showing up in their careers. If there were any true reason for the difference in pay, it would be in those instances where only the men who had asked for raises were paid more.

Some women are agressive. Some men are not agressive. Why would academics fall back on stereotypes to make a judgement. All women are not dainty.

facultydiva: it was a male dean. But the fact is that I deserved the raise (not that I made more noise). The fact is that the female professor did NOT match my research, teaching or service. In reality, during the first raise period, it was SHE who made the most noise; this time, there was no noise. I simply asked.

ocram: when I was hired with multiple years previous faculty experience at my current medical institution, I did not know I was hired at a lower salary than a male colleague who had NO previous faculty experience. When I found out that I was hired at a lower salary than he was, I did exactly what you described - all my own research on pay scales and expectations, and I knew my teaching, research, and service obligations compared to my male colleague, as well as postdoc experience, in which case mine were more significant in all categories. Regardless when I approached the administration about this issue, it was put on the back burner for 9 months and when I continued to press the issue I was told that my previous experience didn't matter and they saw no issue with my pay. So it's not just a matter of how you present it, it's a matter that the 'old boys clubs' do still exist and will protect themselves at any and all costs.

what about aerospace medicine? Undersea medicine?

This is old news. And tired news.
Enough studies. Time for action.
How about linking medical school accreditation to gender equity? Start with salary equity.
Our lawful rights vs. their jobs.
The AAMC has been complicit in continuing this problem. Through the LCME, the AAMC owns accreditation (with the AMA) and they are representing those same medical schools they are supposed to be watching. Sounds like a major conflict of interests to me. And a major reason why the medical establishment will never yield their power or the money to promote and pay the most highly qualified and most productive, not just the men.
During my 10 year journey of litigation for gender equity, I learned a lot about how the system will beat down anyone who makes a peep to bring about fairness and equity. Go to www.lindabrodskymd.com if you are interested in the story.

physprof: I threatened to quit, because they initially refused me. Do we know if the male colleague who was hired with you threatened to quit? (The fact that he had no teaching experience, is, unforunantely (I will add) a fact of life in research-based academia)) Did YOU threaten to quit? Do we REALLY KNOW what goes on when each of us demands/requests the raise? How much do we really each put on the line? You say you "approached" administration. Well, I did not "approach"; I confronted. And I made demands that put me at risk.

<Comment removed by moderator>