Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Read the previous comments by that user. He wrote if wage gap exists, all companies will employ only females since they have 'market advantage', retain more profits. He was saying wage gap does not exist, and I find his argument super dramatic and unrealistic.

    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Ahahaha please tell me you don't think the wage gap is real? :lol:

    I'm going to enjoy this one
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    I am responding to your comment about failures, sir. not well suited (not fully equipped, failed to achieve at that stage),not good enough (clearly you are incapable?)

    Your wrote' It could just be the fact that someone you respect or trust has told you that you are not well suited, or worse not good enough, to pursue that career.
    '
    Or it could be that someone, whose judgement or opinion you trust, has told you the wrong information and that has stopped you from pursuing something.
    I meant that someone hasn't necessarily had to fail though - they might have never have started in the first place if they haven't had the right support/opportunity/encouragement to even try.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KnightCode)
    HUH? that both genders.

    My family forced me to study biology and chemistry and to become a doctor, but i disagreed with them, having a massive argument and doing computing now . It not like my friends didn't tell me i couldn't get an A or study computer science.


    DO you JUST like neglect the fact that both genders are given "crappy career advice" and are discouraged.
    I never said crappy careers advice was just a female issue. But it does significantly contribute to various types of under representation of groups in various industries, in the same way it probably leads to less men pursuing HR, teaching and social care work.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    A major contributor to women being over represented in universities is that they out perform their male counterparts in terms of academic achievement.

    But like the initiatives we are discussing, universities need to do more to ensure they recruit a diverse range of students and I agree that a lot of work needs to be done to improve that. Gender is just the tip of the iceberg though, ethnicity and social mobility are much bigger issues that universities need to tackle first (and that includes recruiting low SEB while males).
    Nothing needs to be changed.

    This is what people need to understand. It's never going to be equal, forcing it to be equal would be doing whatever you can to make it unequal. It should be left to the natural numbers. The best, and only the best, candidate should be chosen. A company should not be forced to pick a particular person due to a quota, they should be able to pick who they want. This problem with quotas is that the slightly out of favour academically that are part of a majority (i.e white) find it much harder to achieve.

    I find it no coincidence that in my local grammar school, only 1 person got an Oxbridge offer. This was a black female, who came 15th in her year in the course she applied for (maths and further maths). All of the 14 above her where white males and asian males. Try persuading me she was the best.

    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Studies have been carried out submitting CV's to UK top 100 companies that are identical with the exception of the name at the top. Apparently putting a female name results in you being significantly less likely to be invited to interview and if successful at interview you will on average be offered £5000 less than men for the same role. I believe similar studies have been carried out for minorities, but that isn't the topic at hand.

    I fail to believe this is a coincidence.

    I'd also note that these schemes probably make up a couple of % of the hiring policy for these companies at most.
    Okay 1) Show me the proof.

    2) Show me the proof.

    3) Show me the proof.

    You have just made up 3 ridiculous statements, that imply companies are breaking the law. So if you are able to prove it then you better notify an authority otherwise you're withholding evidence. (Which is also against the law).

    So you're either a liar or a criminal, your decision
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Then you should not use 'trusted person told you for not being suitable, not good enough.' if you meant they have never started?

    Honestly, if you have NEVER started, how does that trusted person know you are 'incapable'? If I heard such comment from a 'trusted' person, it will not even affect me at all because it is not convincing...


    Your point about support is very true though,explaining why woman in business schemes are launched.

    (Original post by J-SP)
    I meant that someone hasn't necessarily had to fail though - they might have never have started in the first place if they haven't had the right support/opportunity/encouragement to even try.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Studies have been carried out submitting CV's to UK top 100 companies that are identical with the exception of the name at the top. Apparently putting a female name results in you being significantly less likely to be invited to interview and if successful at interview you will on average be offered £5000 less than men for the same role. I believe similar studies have been carried out for minorities, but that isn't the topic at hand.

    I fail to believe this is a coincidence.

    I'd also note that these schemes probably make up a couple of % of the hiring policy for these companies at most.
    Do you thing the answer to not being invited or getting a job (because the employee is sexist) is to force company to hire females?
    I do believe that is it changing now, companies want more diversity and would hire female but we shouldn't force them
    There is another study on how "being an attractive male would hinder your career"
    there is also a study on how having a foreign name will decrease your chances.

    So what do we learn? Employees can be dicks and tend to stereotype gender or race. What we can do to prove wrong? Probably you prove them wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The company wants to pick females in the schemes and you cannot control either...so why bother?


    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Nothing needs to be changed.

    This is what people need to understand. It's never going to be equal, forcing it to be equal would be doing whatever you can to make it unequal. It should be left to the natural numbers. The best, and only the best, candidate should be chosen. A company should not be forced to pick a particular person due to a quota, they should be able to pick who they want. This problem with quotas is that the slightly out of favour academically that are part of a majority (i.e white) find it much harder to achieve.

    I find it no coincidence that in my local grammar school, only 1 person got an Oxbridge offer. This was a black female, who came 15th in her year in the course she applied for (maths and further maths). All of the 14 above her where white males and asian males. Try persuading me she was the best.



    Okay 1) Show me the proof.

    2) Show me the proof.

    3) Show me the proof.

    You have just made up 3 ridiculous statements, that imply companies are breaking the law. So if you are able to prove it then you better notify an authority otherwise you're withholding evidence. (Which is also against the law).

    So you're either a liar or a criminal, your decision
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    dicks= f__k boys ?

    (Original post by KnightCode)
    Do you thing the answer to not being invited or getting a job (because the employee is sexist) is to force company to hire females?
    I do believe that is it changing now, companies want more diversity and would hire female but we shouldn't force them
    There is another study on how "being an attractive male would hinder your career"
    there is also a study on how having a foreign name will decrease your chances.

    So what do we learn? Employees can be dicks and tend to stereotype gender or race. What we can do to prove wrong? Probably you prove them wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Nothing needs to be changed.

    This is what people need to understand. It's never going to be equal, forcing it to be equal would be doing whatever you can to make it unequal. It should be left to the natural numbers. The best, and only the best, candidate should be chosen. A company should not be forced to pick a particular person due to a quota, they should be able to pick who they want. This problem with quotas is that the slightly out of favour academically that are part of a majority (i.e white) find it much harder to achieve.

    I find it no coincidence that in my local grammar school, only 1 person got an Oxbridge offer. This was a black female, who came 15th in her year in the course she applied for (maths and further maths). All of the 14 above her where white males and asian males. Try persuading me she was the best.



    Okay 1) Show me the proof.

    2) Show me the proof.

    3) Show me the proof.

    You have just made up 3 ridiculous statements, that imply companies are breaking the law. So if you are able to prove it then you better notify an authority otherwise you're withholding evidence. (Which is also against the law).

    So you're either a liar or a criminal, your decision
    I hate to break it to you, but I didn't perform these studies, I simply had them presented to me at an equality lecture as part of my professional development (slotted among other technical lectures I might add). No doubt the study is in the public domain, so I suggest you try googling it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Then you should not use 'trusted person told you for not being suitable, not good enough.' if you meant they have never started?


    Your point about support is very true though,explaining why woman in business schemes are launched.
    Honestly, if you have NEVER started, how does that trusted person know you are 'incapable'? If I heard such comment from a 'trusted' person, it will not even affect me at all because it is not convincing...
    A trusted person could be a parent or teacher. If you are in your early teens with little insight into the world, and that trusted person tells you not to consider or pursue something, there is a decent chance you are going to listen to them. Parents and teachers are sometimes not the best placed person to inform people of their future career prospects - they sometimes have their own agenda or they are ill-informed.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by KRin)
    Why is under-representation a problem?
    Srs?

    Can you not step back for a momento and think about maybe just a 'few' reasons why?

    Especially in client facing organisations..

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Read the previous comments by that user. He wrote if wage gap exists, all companies will employ only females since they have 'market advantage', retain more profits. He was saying wage gap does not exist, and I find his argument super dramatic and unrealistic.
    Think about it logically.

    Imagine you had to employ someone. You have a £50,000 budget. That money not used on a persons salary, you get as profit.

    Would you a) Employ a male at £50,000 p/a or b) Employ a female (with the EXACT SAME credentials for the sake of the argument) at less than £40,000 p/a?

    Exactly. The theory and calculations that imply a wage gap ignore the current things:
    1) The amount of hours worked (yes, it just takes an annual figure. Ignores hours worked completely)
    2) Holidays taken (similar to hours worked, but this also considers maternity leave which is much larger for females)
    3) Qualifications (If two people have applied for the same job, it ignores how qualified they are, just how much they're paid. Which is evidently a factor in considering wages)
    4) It's an average of ALL JOBS. And if you think that there isn't a disparity between the jobs that men and women do then you cannot be helped.

    It's just a total salary of all women/men, divided by how many women/men are in work. It ignores so much that it's actually less accurate than saying all women are murderers because the vast majority of children murders in first world countries are done by women.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KnightCode)
    Do you thing the answer to not being invited or getting a job (because the employee is sexist) is to force company to hire females?
    I do believe that is it changing now, companies want more diversity and would hire female but we shouldn't force them
    There is another study on how "being an attractive male would hinder your career"
    there is also a study on how having a foreign name will decrease your chances.

    So what do we learn? Employees can be dicks and tend to stereotype gender or race. What we can do to prove wrong? Probably you prove them wrong.
    How is the company being "forced" to employ women? The company wants to employ the best people available. If the best people are not getting through due to discrimination then surely having a path that is free of aforementioned discrimination is a sound way of addressing the issue?

    You can look at it in several different ways.

    The ideal of course is that no discrimination would happen in the first place, but that isn't where we are, so we have things like this.

    As I said before, it's not like they recruit the majority of their workforce this way, so it really should make little to no difference to you as a man.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well, there is a difference between telling you 'you SHOULD NOT' and 'you ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH'.


    (Original post by J-SP)
    A trusted person could be a parent or teacher. If you are in your early teens with little insight into the world, and that trusted person tells you not to consider or pursue something, there is a decent chance you are going to listen to them. Parents and teachers are sometimes not the best placed person to inform people of their future career prospects - they sometimes have their own agenda or they are ill-informed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starwarsjedi123)
    Hi
    i'm a male and feel quite offended. I have been browsing sites of many of the major finance companies, such as JP Morgan or PwC , and have seen a recurring trend. I am truly disgusted. I have seen many 'women in business' schemes which allow women to apply for less competitive internships, as males are unable to attend. I will not stop campaigning for equality in the workspace until i see some 'male in business schemes'

    Honestly, i feel its quite despicable, that in the 21st century, i have been discriminated against. As a male i should be able to attend a 'male in business' internship.

    rant over!
    GG women blown the **** out
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont understand, whats the issue? Most people who go into finance are men, there's no harm in wanting greater diversity. Finance is still largely meritocratic and as long as you're a good candidate you're not going to lose out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The things you listed are applicable to men too,period.

    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Think about it logically.

    Imagine you had to employ someone. You have a £50,000 budget. That money not used on a persons salary, you get as profit.

    Would you a) Employ a male at £50,000 p/a or b) Employ a female (with the EXACT SAME credentials for the sake of the argument) at less than £40,000 p/a?

    Exactly. The theory and calculations that imply a wage gap ignore the current things:
    1) The amount of hours worked (yes, it just takes an annual figure. Ignores hours worked completely)
    2) Holidays taken (similar to hours worked, but this also considers maternity leave which is much larger for females)
    3) Qualifications (If two people have applied for the same job, it ignores how qualified they are, just how much they're paid. Which is evidently a factor in considering wages)
    4) It's an average of ALL JOBS. And if you think that there isn't a disparity between the jobs that men and women do then you cannot be helped.

    It's just a total salary of all women/men, divided by how many women/men are in work. It ignores so much that it's actually less accurate than saying all women are murderers because the vast majority of children murders in first world countries are done by women.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The wage gap has already been debunked.
    You get paid depending on how much money you make the money.
    btw
    did you just google search it and select ones that prove ur point?? biaseD?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People assume all females are weak when they don't apply for jobs.... and then they insist wage gap never exist, they never read any newspapers, I believe.


    (Original post by drogon)
    I dont understand, whats the issue? Most people who go into finance are men, there's no harm in wanting greater diversity. Finance is still largely meritocratic and as long as you're a good candidate you're not going to lose out.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Think about it logically.

    Imagine you had to employ someone. You have a £50,000 budget. That money not used on a persons salary, you get as profit.

    Would you a) Employ a male at £50,000 p/a or b) Employ a female (with the EXACT SAME credentials for the sake of the argument) at less than £40,000 p/a?

    Exactly. The theory and calculations that imply a wage gap ignore the current things:
    1) The amount of hours worked (yes, it just takes an annual figure. Ignores hours worked completely)
    2) Holidays taken (similar to hours worked, but this also considers maternity leave which is much larger for females)
    3) Qualifications (If two people have applied for the same job, it ignores how qualified they are, just how much they're paid. Which is evidently a factor in considering wages)
    4) It's an average of ALL JOBS. And if you think that there isn't a disparity between the jobs that men and women do then you cannot be helped.

    It's just a total salary of all women/men, divided by how many women/men are in work. It ignores so much that it's actually less accurate than saying all women are murderers because the vast majority of children murders in first world countries are done by women.
    If the wage gap is not an issue, why is there significant pressure from the government for individual companies to disclose salaries that would allow direct comparisons?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Articles and guides:

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A-Z of careers Advice on choosing a careerCV writing helpCovering letter helpInterview tips

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    CGI logo

    CGI is open for applications

    "Offering a range of apprentice and sponsored degree positions."

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    ICAEW logo

    Merck

    "Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

    Army logo

    The Army is recruiting now

    "With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Quick links:

    Unanswered career sector and employment threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.