The other day I was annoyed that the Chronicle of Higher Education doesn't understand basic statistics. In the face of the Chronicle's "study", Jokerst called for "a deeper dive into the data, and Merlise is the right person to lead that." This statement shows a similar lack of understanding that the original Duke study already delved as deeply as the available data would allow.
A proper deeper dive into the issue of salary equity would require more historical data, with an eye toward determining whether salaries in departments that became "feminized"** kept pace with salaries in departments that remained mostly male; however, it's not clear there's anything to find. See, for example, salary concerns in psychology.
** that is, saw larger proportions of women join as faculty, relative to other departments.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
"We took an average, j'accuse!" (Chronicle of Higher Education edition)
LinkedIn helpfully reported that one of my contacts was "in the news!" and pointed to this article that is mostly about Duke's Academic Council chair; it's the section on salary equity that has the person of interest.
In short, Duke admins are worried because the Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting a gender salary discrepancy that is at odds with the University's own study, and Merlise Clyde will investigate.
The problem with the Chronicle study is pretty simple to understand. It simply took the average of male salaries and the average of female salaries and compared them, despite the fact that salaries vary greatly from discipline to discipline. If you account for department-to-department variation in salary, as in the Duke study performed by the University's own Statistics department, there isn't a measurable difference in salary.
The reasons behind this apparent paradox are taught in the first weeks of Stats 101 at Duke**. Perhaps the writers at the Chronicle would do well to attend.
** Statistics, or at least the 2nd edition, by Freedman, Pisani, Purves, and Adhikari that was used in some Stat 101 courses in the mid-90s, specifically mentions the famous UC Berkeley study in the 70's where, overall, about 44% of the men and 35% of the women applicants to grad school were admitted. It looks like a clear case of gender bias until you break down the admission rate by department, and find that the admission rates by department were roughly equal, but more women were applying to departments that had lower admission rates.
In short, Duke admins are worried because the Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting a gender salary discrepancy that is at odds with the University's own study, and Merlise Clyde will investigate.
The problem with the Chronicle study is pretty simple to understand. It simply took the average of male salaries and the average of female salaries and compared them, despite the fact that salaries vary greatly from discipline to discipline. If you account for department-to-department variation in salary, as in the Duke study performed by the University's own Statistics department, there isn't a measurable difference in salary.
The reasons behind this apparent paradox are taught in the first weeks of Stats 101 at Duke**. Perhaps the writers at the Chronicle would do well to attend.
** Statistics, or at least the 2nd edition, by Freedman, Pisani, Purves, and Adhikari that was used in some Stat 101 courses in the mid-90s, specifically mentions the famous UC Berkeley study in the 70's where, overall, about 44% of the men and 35% of the women applicants to grad school were admitted. It looks like a clear case of gender bias until you break down the admission rate by department, and find that the admission rates by department were roughly equal, but more women were applying to departments that had lower admission rates.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Irresponsible acts of arachnophobia (U.S. Midwest edition)
Within days of each other, an Indiana woman jumped out of a moving vehicle in which her child was a passenger and a Michigan man set a gas station pump on fire when faced with a live spider.
Is Vegas laying odds on Cleveland, Chicago, Madison, or Minneapolis being next? (I think I know where the Onion would lay its bet)
Is Vegas laying odds on Cleveland, Chicago, Madison, or Minneapolis being next? (I think I know where the Onion would lay its bet)
Monday, September 21, 2015
Another alias; or, the desperation of AAA
My credit report is full of "aliases" that I have never gone by, but are the result of confused corporate entities in search of new customers. This will be a new one when TransExperFax do their next refresh...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)