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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starwarsjedi123)
    Hey guys. OP here
    Everyone seems to be talking about the wage gap. Does it exist? Has it been debunked? etc etc
    Now, when making reference to this 'wage gap', are we talking about the same job? Are we talking about a male doctor earning more than a female nurse, or a male doctor who out earns a female doctor? If referring to the latter, this could be caused to a multitude of factors, such as numbers of hour worked, specialty etc etc and it could be inferred causation that women earn less than men - a correlation exists yet the causation is simply not there

    What do you guys think?
    The latest push by the UK government is that companies with over 250 employees should report publically on any wage gaps. This would factor in job grade (so like-for-like jobs to some extent - you wouldn't compare a doctor against a nurse as they would be different grades), contracted hours worked etc. The idea is that it tries to eliminate some of the broader issues of women working less contracted hours or preferring less well paid careers, and would allow a fairer comparison.

    Evidence suggests it does it exists, but the current flaws in the current data makes people question the validity of this. If the mandatory reporting did happen, it would clear things up a lot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    PRSOM!

    I'm a woman myself and I simply couldn't agree more. I'm also a scientist and I can tell you, in science what sets people apart is how great their love for their field is. If you need encouragement then you're just going to sink because no scientist worth their salt is going to waste their time dealing with you. If you don't love what you do then you become a burden on everyone else and have no business being a scientist. The mark of a true scientist is that everything (including their own lives) comes second to their research. If giving you encouragement is going to hinder their research in even the slightest way then you can expect to be ignored. It sounds pretty harsh but that's just how it is. Put simply, science > you.

    You've got to be a special kind of person to be a scientist, so this whole "get more women in science" thing is actually really destructive. It could end up causing STEM subjects to be saturated with the wrong kinds of people and that would severely impact on research output and progress in general. In fact, things like the "feminist" method of research are direct consequences of this. If you're unaware of what that is, it's basically the scrapping of all quantitative methods in favor of qualitative methods, simply because qualitative methods have a more "feminine aspect" (or so I'm told by feminists). Qualitative methods are riddled with all sorts of bias and should only ever be used alongside quantitative methods as supporting evidence, never as your concrete stuff. The feminist research methodology completely undermines the scientific method. It's quite literally one of the most ridiculous and stupid research methodologies I've ever seen, heck I'd even say it's on a par with scholasticism!

    Science is hard and most women falter at the first sight of a decent challenge, whereas men tend not to. It's no surprise really that men dominate the sciences.
    Yeah it's absurd, they hate the scientific method because it's "masculinist". These are the people holding governments and the media to ransom to support their idiocy.

    btw don't compare schalisticism with feminism, feminism is much worse. Scholasticism did decent work with flawed Aristotelian logical system. Feminists don't use science or logic at all.

    btw, are there actually scientists using the "feminist methodology"?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    I think its only small businesses that see it as an issue. Given how many organisations provide enhanced maternity leave packages, they clearly value women as much as they do men and actively pursue financial remuneration packages that mean they might recruit and retain women (and men) whether they have children or not.
    yeah thats also very true, most bigger companies are 'well off' aka have good profit coming in, so it is the smaller companies which sometimes do this
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Lol what if someone says that they are a transgender? Would they get in?
    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!
    There's a reason for this you know, it's because the financial industry is dominated by men, about 70% or more workers are male.

    In Engineering that figure is closer to 90%

    What does this mean? There is a lack of women in these workplaces so employers want to balance it out and at least try to bring the ratio closer to 50-50

    If that means giving women an "unfair advantage" then so be it, at the end of the day it's up to the employer to hire whomever they wish and it's up to us (the applicants) to make the most out of any situation.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Lol what if someone says that they are a transgender? Would they get in?
    You'd be caught out with background checks

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Both females and males are involved in the normal selection process. It is not that Pwc/JP only has schemes for females. There are different duties and roles that they have to commit during the internship, read what the schemes are about before screaming here that every female you met in your life get better pay/better educated than you do. And if this only happens to you, I am sure there is no reason you should turn your guns to female as a population, do some self-reflection, work hard and study hard.
    It's not personal, in fact in my life the boys I know - after some initial wobbles - have generally done better than the girls, they have more resilience and drive.

    This is statistics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JavaScriptMaster)
    There's a reason for this you know, it's because the financial industry is dominated by men, about 70% or more workers are male.

    In Engineering that figure is closer to 90%

    What does this mean? There is a lack of women in these workplaces so employers want to balance it out and at least try to bring the ratio closer to 50-50

    If that means giving women an "unfair advantage" then so be it, at the end of the day it's up to the employer to hire whomever they wish and it's up to us (the applicants) to make the most out of any situation.
    No, you are not supposed to discriminate on essential characteristics. It's literally illegal.

    70% of finance workers probably are men but this goes for the whole workforce, some people have probably been knocking around since before even the Equal Pay Act - and, being older, they'll be better paid too.

    Among our generation, and new entrants, women outnumber men I would expect, and statistics says they are paid more per hour across all jobs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Yeah it's absurd, they hate the scientific method because it's "masculinist". These are the people holding governments and the media to ransom to support their idiocy.

    btw don't compare schalisticism with feminism, feminism is much worse. Scholasticism did decent work with flawed Aristotelian logical system. Feminists don't use science or logic at all.

    btw, are there actually scientists using the "feminist methodology"?
    Probably are loads, always follow the funding.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    You'd be caught out with background checks

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You probably wouldn't. If you identify yourself as female, then you would be eligible.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    No, you are not supposed to discriminate on essential characteristics. It's literally illegal.

    70% of finance workers probably are men but this goes for the whole workforce, some people have probably been knocking around since before even the Equal Pay Act - and, being older, they'll be better paid too.

    Among our generation, and new entrants, women outnumber men I would expect, and statistics says they are paid more per hour across all jobs.
    Not true that women outnumber men in these professions in your generation. The only professions it is true of is law and the civil service. Women are still under represented in graduate programmes - 42% of all graduate programmes, but make up 60% of the graduate population, so technically under represented by at least 8% although could argue that it's 18% of the eligible population.

    I'd like to see the statistics that say women are paid more per hour across all jobs. Have you got a link to this?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    You'd be caught out with background checks

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm curious to find out what kind of thing you think an employer does in their 'background checks' which would reveal whether or not a prospective employer is trans. Many trans people, certainly of ones I know and have met, still have their birth name on their passport etc but maybe that's just because of their age. I don't have statistics on hand, but I can't think of a reason for there to exist any kind of record (which employers would legally be able to see) detailing the gender identity of each applicant?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KnightCode)
    Why would a diversity quota be at 1%? that's like hiring one more black person to look diverse.
    If you don't believe there is a 40% quota on select Norway companies, then search it up.
    Even the EU has made a gender quota of 40%, but not every country agrees in a way like the UK
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uota-plan.html
    and
    Glad that our confident in your ability
    The quota isn't 1%, that is the amount of people who realistically enter the market via these restricted routes. Which is to say, very few.

    I believe Norway has the quota, however UK companies definitely don't, otherwise my company is definitely breaking the law. Actually I don't think we get enough female applicants to feasibly manage 40% even if we hired every woman who meets our base standards.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    Not true that women outnumber men in these professions in your generation. The only professions it is true of is law and the civil service. Women are still under represented in graduate programmes - 42% of all graduate programmes, but make up 60% of the graduate population, so technically under represented by at least 8% although could argue that it's 18% of the eligible population.

    I'd like to see the statistics that say women are paid more per hour across all jobs. Have you got a link to this?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Women 22-40 are. ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. Median hourly pay excluding overtime.

    After age 40 the pay gap reverses markedly. Either something happened in the early 1990s (first women who took coursework oriented GCSEs graduted uni, this is also when uni gender balance changed) or something happens to women aged 40 (they have babies and lose their labour market value).

    Feminist organisations such as rhe Fawcett Societt quote this data to produce their pay gap figures on the order of 10% - by a simple arithmetic mean across all age groups. Deliberate statistical misrepresentation.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    They're only paid more than men for the same hours, job and education

    They actually earn less overall, if you don't account for the above
    So, wait, women are discriminated against because you earn more as a woman than a man who is as qualified as you are?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KnightCode)
    Can we get an Amen?
    AMEN.
    **but why why is she voting to leave the EU** *sob*
    Sorry mate, I'm not a communist or a leftist hence why I'm voting leave.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Yeah it's absurd, they hate the scientific method because it's "masculinist". These are the people holding governments and the media to ransom to support their idiocy.

    btw don't compare schalisticism with feminism, feminism is much worse. Scholasticism did decent work with flawed Aristotelian logical system. Feminists don't use science or logic at all.

    btw, are there actually scientists using the "feminist methodology"?
    Unfortunately there is. The infection is currently situated in the floppy sciences (particularly psychology, sociology and philosophy) and pseudosciences but it's starting to spread to empirical sciences now as well.

    http://130.58.92.210/Students/phys29..._UL%20copy.pdf
    http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezus...theory-of-sci/
    :puke:

    "Gender issues in science? What gender issues? Just try to talk to your male peers about harassment and discrimination; they don’t “see” it, so it doesn’t exist. Everytime we discuss something on this blog, it’s not long before some male pipes up and says, “maybe it isn’t really about gender; maybe it’s just…” There’s always some guy ready to rush into the breach with his Theory of Why It Is Never About Gender."

    Maybe because it's all been fabricated in that deluded little head of yours? Feminists are so f*cking stupid I swear...

    http://wmbriggs.com/post/17683/
    ^This is the voice of reason on these matters.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Sorry mate, I'm not a communist or a leftist hence why I'm voting leave.
    Lol, why would you have to be a leftist or communist to be in the EU?

    That's like saying Texas should leave the USA because they're radically right wing..

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Lol, why would you have to be a leftist or communist to be in the EU?

    That's like saying Texas should leave the USA because they're radically right wing..

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In the EU we're subjected to absolutely ridiculous regulations (such as the shapes of bananas and the sizes of apples), have no control whatsoever over the governing of our own country and to make matters even worse, the whole thing is run by radical leftists who've quite literally ruined the entire continent by allowing the barbarian hoards in. The right wing has been warning people about these issues for years and because the EU is leftist-run we've all been silenced. It's time we started looking after our own people for a change instead of foreigners. Then there's the fact that the EU seeks to control the markets, a major constituent of communist ideologies.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Women 22-40 are. ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. Median hourly pay excluding overtime.

    After age 40 the pay gap reverses markedly. Either something happened in the early 1990s (first women who took coursework oriented GCSEs graduted uni, this is also when uni gender balance changed) or something happens to women aged 40 (they have babies and lose their labour market value).

    Feminist organisations such as rhe Fawcett Societt quote this data to produce their pay gap figures on the order of 10% - by a simple arithmetic mean across all age groups. Deliberate statistical misrepresentation.
    Trying to read through the mass of that report but as of yet haven't seen anything to suggest what you are saying. Could you direct me to where that is made clear?

    I just find this view very interesting when pretty much every graduate recruiter (and the industry as a whole) still has an issue with recruiting women. Pretty much any major graduate recruiter outside of the law and some civil service departments (DoE, CSFS) are struggling to attract and then recruit enough women.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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.