Compass 2016

and to not advocate for themselves, so it further reinforces women’s inability to be hired in academia (Dinella

et al., 2014, p. 497-498).

Human Capital Theory and the Choices of Women.

Human capital theory and the choices of women go hand-in-hand with differences in personality. Marschke,

Laursen, Nielson, and Dunn-Rankin (2007) state that the human capital theory focuses on the characteristics

of the job applicant, including but not limited to his or her knowledge, skills, experience, and education (p.

2). When evaluating a female’s hirability, she is required to prove her worth in this human capital more than a

male applicant has to (Steinpreis et al., 2011). Based on the human capital theory, employers prefer men, not

only for the reason that they have lower standards for male applicants, but also because they are less likely to

lose human capital when men start a family (Marschke et al., 2007, p. 2). Women are influenced by this as well,

choosing to pursue jobs in fields that require less commitment, or less human capital (Marschke et al., 2007,

p. 2). This choice causes people to blame women themselves for their lack of presence in certain fields rather

than blaming the situation or institution responsible for forcing them to choose in the first place (Curtis, 2011,

p. 6). One cannot blame the choices of women for this kind of inequality mainly because it is grounded in

stereotypes and pressures to conform. Women might have some choice, in part, but their choices are already so

limited that one cannot equate their lack of presence on campuses as faculty to simply their choices, especially

because of the pressures imposed upon them and the lack of support from the system itself (Curtis, 2011, p. 7).

Explaining Away, Hiring Practices, and Male Privilege.

The final grouping of reasons that there is an inequity of professors by gender starts with researchers at-

tempting to “explain away” the differences between the number of males and females present in faculty. Even

after analyzing all the differences between males and females in terms of variables like involvement, education,

hours, classes taught, and research projects, there is still a 5% unexplained difference (Curtis, 2011, p. 6). Even

with all of those differences accounted for, researchers fail to study why those differences exist in the first place,

instead just attempting to ignore the problem by explaining away the discrepancies (Curtis, 2011, p. 6). Rather,

people should examine the male privilege located in hiring practices and promotions, like gender-biased

evaluations and hostility towards pregnancy (Marschke et al., 2007, p. 3). New hires are only more likely to be

women if there is already a high percentage of women faculty present on the campus, which creates a slippery

slope at universities where women are not established (Marschke et al., 2007, p. 3). The differences between the

amount of male and female faculty cannot be explained away, but can be equated in part to the male privilege

behind hiring practices.

Why This Matters

The gender differences in higher education employment matter for many reasons, namely because of the

difference in the number of female candidates and the number of females actually present in positions on cam-

puses. Marschke et al. (2007), West and Curtis (2006), Steinpreis et al. (1999), and Curtis (2011) all mention

this alarming disparity. If there was not an adequate number of female candidates to reach equality in employ-

ment, there would be no problem with the difference; however, since there are enough candidates to reach

equity, the inequality is unjust and therefore of utmost importance. Without adequate numbers of females on

the faculty of universities, female students do not have sufficient role models to look up to, furthering the in-

equality (Curtis, 2011, p. 1). These female students do not see women succeeding as professors on campuses, so

they pursue alternate “pink collar” careers. Not only that, but the pay gap is also affected by the lack of females

in higher positions, like full-time and senior faculty (West & Curtis, 2006, p. 12). As long as women hold lower

positions, they will be paid less than men. In 2005-06, females on campuses earned 88% of what males earned,

which was actually a drop from previous years (West & Curtis, 2006, p. 11).

The final reason this issue is worth caring about is that it will not fix itself, meaning that the inequity will

be around indefinitely unless drastic measures are taken. Even with intervention, Curtis (2011) states that it

could still take over fifty years to reach equity (p. 10). According to Marschke et al. (2007), if there were equal

hires and equal rates of leaving between genders for the next 57 years, then academia would be comprised of

equal numbers of males and females (p. 19). As equal hires and equal exits are not currently happening, it is

unknown whether equity will ever be reached.

Even though more women are enrolling in and obtaining degrees from institutions of every level than are

men, women remain underrepresented on college campuses as faculty. There are a multitude of reasons behind

this disparity, like the “mommy track” and “pink collar” work as well as personality differences, hiring practic-

es, and many others. Regardless of the specific reasons behind the phenomenon, it is clear that the issue cannot

be fixed, at least in a timely manner, without serious intervention. This demonstration is just one of the many

ways that women are still being discriminated against, although it is more subtle than the discrimination of the

past. Equality is possible, though, with time and substantial effort.

References

Curtis, J. (2011, April 11). Persistent Inequity: Gender and Academic Employment. Retrieved November 15,

2015.