Success and satisfaction of women in financial planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been much discussion, research, and initiatives related to building the financial planning profession by attracting and retaining talented financial planners. Surveys have shown that many view financial planning as primarily a profession of white males. There is no evidence that women lack the skills or traits necessary to be successful financial planners, yet for more than a decade, gender diversity has been a challenge. Previous research has found evidence of sexism in financial planning, which includes significantly lower compensation for women and different treatment of women by their fellow planners and employers. We surveyed 224 experienced professional financial planners to analyze their feelings of satisfaction and success and how these feelings related to their gender, size of practice, education, personality traits, age, and years of experience. The women in our sample were equivalent or better than men with regard to education, experience, personality (the Big Five personality traits), and certified financial planner (CFP®) certification. However, we found that professional career satisfaction was surprisingly higher for women if they worked for a solo practice rather than for a large firm where they felt significantly more successful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".