Gender Discrimination in Employment: Wage Inequity for Professional and Doctoral Degree Holders in the United States and Possible Remedies.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Gender discrimination and wage inequity remain problems worldwide. In the United States and Canada, where equal rights and protective legislation have been in place for nearly 40 years, glaring disparities in salaries and job opportunities remain. Similar problems have been studied in the United Kingdom, leading to enactment of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act1 and the Equal Pay Act.2 Paradoxically, data from the 2000 U.S. Census show that the more education women achieve, the worse the salary gap becomes, especially for women with advanced degrees. Legislation that has increased educational opportunity, funding, and access for women such as Title IX3 is coming under attack as being biased against males. This attack is occurring even though Title IX has not yet accomplished the equitable treatment it was intended to achieve. Strategies to address pay equity include support of new legislation, such as comparable worth measures like those that have been implemented in the United Kingdom, and support and strengthening of existing legislation (Title IX, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963).4 Tools Karen M. Wolford is a professor in the Psychology Department of the State University of New York College at Oswego. This article was presented at the Oxford Roundtable, Oxford, England, August 2003. 1. 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. The UK Equal Opportunities Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2003, fromhttp://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/legislation/the_sex_discrimination_act_an_overview.asp. 2. Equal Pay Act of United Kingdom. The UK Equal Opportunities Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCs/News/press_releases_i999_2i.asp. 3. Title IX of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1972, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from http://www.ed.g0v/pubs/TitleIX/part3.html. 4. Title IX of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1972; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/facts/ qanda.htm; The Equal Pay Act of 1963, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/facts/qanda.htm. 82 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE | 3IH SUMMER 2005 82-100 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.212 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 05:58:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender Discrimination in Employment 83 that empower women to address these problems and urge employers to correct inequities in employment from points of first access, preparation for pursuit of merit awards, to pursuit of promotion, and internal and external networking are highlighted in this article.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».