UK tech: gender and skills gap

[dawei]

Data Reveals Women Overwhelmingly Choose Lower-Paying College Majors

 

According to Perry’s research, American women received 57% of all bachelor degrees granted in 2014, which equated to nearly 200,000 more degrees granted to females than to males. Despite this disparity, the degrees granted to women came overwhelmingly in lower-paying majors, such as Nursing, Journalism, and English.

 

Perry concludes that the much-discussed pay gap is not a result of gender discrimination by employers, but rather the result of the choices of females entering the labor force.

 

For example, in 8 out of the 10 highest-paying college majors — various Engineering fields, Computer Science and MIS — men represented more than 80% of the college graduates in those fields. The only college major of the top ten where women are over-represented is Nursing, a field where 84.4% of the bachelor’s degrees in 2014 were awarded to women.

 

For the top ten highest-paying college majors as a group, men earn an average of 72% of the bachelor’s degrees in those fields. For the top 20 college majors, men earn an average of nearly two-thirds of those degrees; for the top 30, the male average is 60.5% and for the top 50 (actually only 40 majors are considered), the average for men is 53.7% of degrees.

 

The raw gender wage gap doesn’t exist because employers discriminate against women in the labor market as much as it reflects voluntary and personal choices of both men and women in terms of college majors, careers, the number of hours worked, and family roles and responsibilities.

[Karl]

It's also a result of women choosing to have children during their careers. Unlike men, they interrupt their employment which reduces chances of promotion and will often set them back at more junior levels due to the rapidity of change within their industries. They play catch up in experience and skill, which necessitates playing catch up in wages. Yet, young women now earn proportionately more than young men and the number of top earning women CEOs as grown enormously.

 

There is no problem except education of the millennials that have been convinced by their snowflake upbringing to believe cultural historical ties has reduced their opportunities. It's the same blame culture that has permeated later generations leading to irresponsible action and irrational thought.

[dust]

There is no problem except education of the millennials that have been convinced by their snowflake upbringing to believe cultural historical ties has reduced their opportunities. It's the same blame culture that has permeated later generations leading to irresponsible action and irrational thought.

 

Hehe. I'm Gen X, rather than Millennial, but am well aware of and grateful for the immense opportunity I've had in my life; I know a few Millennials, and they are as aware and grateful as I.

 

Not sure what you mean by "later generations" but If any generation has, in or around my lifetime, committed irresponsible action, the Baby Boomers are the worst culprits by far.

 

(..oops.. should I have opened this can of worms?)

Edited October 24, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

Hehe. I'm Gen X, rather than Millennial, but am well aware of and grateful for the immense opportunity I've had in my life; I know a few Millennials, and they are as aware and grateful as I.

 

Not sure what you mean by "later generations" but If any generation has, in or around my lifetime, committed irresponsible action, the Baby Boomers are the worst culprits by far.

 

(..oops.. should I have opened this can of worms?)

Its a generalisation.

[dawei]

I work with data and don't want to even touch this issue... it's way too complicated with global differences beyond the gender ones.  I think there are strong indicators mentioned so far, like the basic fact of what genders simply like or choose to follow, and whether you look at their lower or higher education, you see it.  The question remains whether there are other inbred influences that steer such decision making that some other countries seem to have overcome on some level. 

[dust]

Its a generalisation.

 

I know. And it's not true -- every generation has its culprits -- I just felt like being provocative.

[Karl]

I know. And it's not true -- every generation has its culprits -- I just felt like being provocative.

There is a trend though.

[dust]

There is a trend though.

 

Irresponsible Boomers?

[Karl]

Irresponsible Boomers?

We could begin around 1860 in the West. There has been a gradual dumbing down of the population starting around that time. Objectivism holds that this dumbing down was through the adoption of Kantian philosophy, first through Prussia, then spreading out to the rest of the West.

 

Some of the clearest examples were in the 60s hippy culture where turn on, tune in, drop out was the mantra and drugs the lubricant.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

We could begin around 1860 in the West. There has been a gradual dumbing down of the population starting around that time. Objectivism holds that this dumbing down was through the adoption of Kantian philosophy, first through Prussia, then spreading out to the rest of the West.

 

Some of the clearest examples were in the 60s hippy culture where turn on, tune in, drop out was the mantra and drugs the lubricant.

 

 

I'm quite sure actual intelligence hasn't changed since the 1860s, and undoubtedly the education/knowledge of the average person is greater now than it was then. I might agree that there's been a change from a well-educated "upper class" in charge to a moderately-educated population (supposedly) in charge. (The result is probably much the same, though I certainly don't think we'd be better off going back to the times when women couldn't vote and most men had little opportunity.)

 

In the 1860s there were a lot of people who had no education other than a hereditary "Father's a farmer, I'm a farmer" type -- a caste system, really. It was a rare few who actually knew much more than their labour, let alone anything about philosophy or science or the workings of the government, or had any power to change their circumstance. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Now, thanks to a few (mostly educated and powerful people) who worked very hard to change things, everyone has a better education and some power, and thanks to technology everyone in the West has access to knowledge if they want it.

 

 

 

I can't speak on the '60s with any authority. But though the original Leary album "turn on tune in drop out" refers to playing said album and taking drugs, the phrase is applicable to television and radio and a few other things, including the internet.

 

Having recently watched HyperNormalisation I have been struck by the notion that all our modern access to knowledge is something of an illusion: as now we have so much choice, such ease of access, we daily tune in to our "recommendations" and "liked content" and favourite websites, and tune the rest out, which eventually funnels many into a world where their preferences are continually fed back to them and they rarely encounter anything that challenges their worldview.

 

So, yes, I'd agree that we're getting dumber, though I'd not like to claim any particular starting point for it.

Edited October 24, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

I'm quite sure actual intelligence hasn't changed since the 1860s, and undoubtedly the education/knowledge of the average person is greater now than it was then. I might agree that there's been a change from a well-educated "upper class" in charge to a moderately-educated population (supposedly) in charge. (The result is probably much the same, though I certainly don't think we'd be better off going back to the times when women couldn't vote and most men had little opportunity.)

 

In the 1860s there were a lot of people who had no education other than a hereditary "Father's a farmer, I'm a farmer" type -- a caste system, really. It was a rare few who actually knew much more than their labour, let alone anything about philosophy or science or the workings of the government, or had any power to change their circumstance. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Now, thanks to a few (mostly educated and powerful people) who worked very hard to change things, everyone has a better education and some power, and thanks to technology everyone in the West has access to knowledge if they want it.

 

 

 

I can't speak on the '60s with any authority. But though the original Leary album "turn on tune in drop out" refers to playing said album and taking drugs, the phrase is applicable to television and radio and a few other things, including the internet.

 

Having recently watched HyperNormalisation I have been struck by the notion that all our modern access to knowledge is something of an illusion: as now we have so much choice, such ease of access, we daily tune in to our "recommendations" and "liked content" and favourite websites, and tune the rest out, which eventually funnels many into a world where their preferences are continually fed back to them and they rarely encounter anything that challenges their worldview.

 

So, yes, I'd agree that we're getting dumber, though I'd not like to claim any particular starting point for it.

Actually it isn't true that people were not educated in 1860, far from it. It was the fear by the state that the newly educated people would be a threat to the established elite. They began to find ways to implement state schools in areas where there were supposedly 'gaps'. The schools were not attended and considered to be inferior to private schooling. In order to make the schools popular they made them free, which naturally attracted more people. Just as today 'free stuff' is the pull.

[dust]

Another instance of me having no clue what you're talking about....I fear another 3-page disagreement.

 

Let me put it this way:

 

Literacy in England, 1580-1920 – Clark (2008)

 

 

 

 

 

Literacy isn't the only way to gauge education, but it's a pretty good indicator.

Edited October 24, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

Did you think literacy would just fall off after 1860 ? That is not what I'm saying. We also must judge functional literacy over absolute illiteracy. Today, in the UK, despite the massive financial burden of education, the numbers suggest a functional illiteracy rate of 16%.

 

Note that the graph shows until 1900 when private schools remained plentiful.

 

I would prefer we didn't go down this route, because I haven't the time to dig out the data and research. The 16% figure can be found easily enough.

 

It's also something else. It is not reading that we should judge, but critical reading and I see no signs that this is improving.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

As an addendum, this US report is worth a look.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf

[dust]

Indeed, functional literacy is an issue. I'm often struck by it online.

 

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england

 

But that is not to say that it's worse now than it was before. If functional literacy is measured against general literacy, it must always be lower (only literate people can be functionally illiterate). When literacy levels were 20% lower than they are now (roughly 80% in 1860 by eyeing the graph above), functional literacy levels must have been within this 80%, which most likely means more than 20% functional illiteracy. Well, I'd guess a good deal more.

[Karl]

Indeed, functional literacy is an issue. I'm often struck by it online.

 

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england

 

But that is not to say that it's worse now than it was before. If functional literacy is measured against general literacy, it must always be lower (only literate people can be functionally illiterate). When literacy levels were 20% lower than they are now (roughly 80% in 1860 by eyeing the graph above), functional literacy levels must have been within this 80%, which most likely means more than 20% functional illiteracy. Well, I'd guess a good deal more.

It is generally thought that functional literacy is decreasing. Anecdotally this is true of employers who find candidates do not have a high level of basic literacy. We are not so much seeing a skills gap, but an educational gap.