Highlighting the Importance of Intersectionality in the Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap is again receiving much-needed publicity in recent years as a topic of debate between US presidential hopefuls for 2016 and information uncovered from Sony’s email hack this time last year. While the phrase “women get paid 78% of what men are paid” is touted frequently in discussion, the 78% figure is static in dimension. Do all women get paid 78% of what men are paid, or is it just a subset of the female working population?

There is a lot more to the 78% figure than meets the eye, and the intersection of race and gender is important to telling the fuller story behind the 78%, and the wider issue of gender parity in earnings.

Using DASIL’s Pay by Race & Gender visualization, we can see that race plays a significant role in the pay of a full-time working woman and reveals the nuances to the widely-cited 78% figure. Asian women working full-time in the US are (and have been) the subset of women getting paid closest to what all men are getting paid throughout history, at 86% that of men in 2013. However, Asian women were only paid 75% that of Asian men in 2013. On the other end of the spectrum, Hispanic women were disproportionately getting paid only 60% of men’s wages in 2013, the lowest of all recorded races. Hispanic males also earn the lowest in comparison to all men, at 64% of what all men earn (not shown) in 2013. As the graph indicates, the asymmetric trends for Hispanic and Black women have remained relatively constant for the past twenty years.

fulltimewomen

With regard to part-time labor, however, there is virtually complete gender parity in 2013 when focusing on average figures, with “all women” receiving 99% of what a man earns. When filtering by race, part-time working White and Asian women even get paid more than that of average men; white women receive 106% of what a man earns, and Asian women 101% in 2013. However, racial disparity still persists: both Black and Hispanic women in part-time labor received 85% of what part-time men were paid in 2013, and the closest Black and Hispanic women have been in achieving pay parity with the average man was in 1994.

As this infographic suggests, one reason for full-time and part-time pay disparity can be due to industry: black women are more likely to work in less-lucrative jobs (e.g. service, healthcare) than high-lucrative jobs (e.g. STEM, management). Relatedly, education can be a contributing factor: Hispanic and Black women are less likely to graduate than whites. Yet, even if women of color have the same education levels as their white peers, they are still paid less; there is more contributing to pay disparity than the educational attainment of women of color.

parttimewomen

While there is clear cause for more work to be done in bridging the pay gap between men and women, recognizing the multiple dimensions of the issue will be key to creating meaningful and effective policy changes.

Explore more trends with our Pay by Gender and Race visualization here.

Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new blog posts.
You can leave the list at any time. Removal instructions are included in each message.

Powered by WPNewsman

 

Please like & share:

Egypt Trade Chord Graph

The data are information about exports and imports into Egypt.

  • Click on an exterior ring to expand.
  • Hover to get information about specific chord segments.

The data from this can be seen here. If you would like to generate your own Chord Graph using our code, it can be found here and requires your data to be in a JSON. If you find yourself having any issues with the code or need assistance, please email [barattat17] at grinnell dot edu, or comment on our GitHub repository here.

Please like & share:

Map of Majors Declared at Grinnell College from 1985 -2015

Explore the geographic trends associated with declaring a major at Grinnell College!

For the map:

    • The Contents button(contentsbutton) will display all layers. Unclick the checkbox next to the layer name to hide the layer. To view the legend, click on the “Show Legend” icon (contentsbutton) below the layer name.
    • To examine other majors, find the “Change Style” button (contentsbutton) below the layer name you wish to view, then select the desired major from the “Choose an attribute to show” drop-down menu.  You may alter the map with colors, symbols or size.
    • Click on an individual country or US state to see available data on all majors.


Please like & share:

Investigating the Spatial & Temporal Trends of Declaring a Major

The start of the school year is a time many students start putting thought into what disciplines to study for the remainder of their collegiate careers. Many on-campus resources such as the Center for Careers, Life, and Service are already in the full swing of advising students, such as the “Choosing Your Major” info session on Sept 21st from noon to 1 in the Joe Rosenfield Center. Here in DASIL, we thought it would be fun to investigate what Grinnell College students majored in over the years to illustrate the transformation of student academic patterns. Using data from the Office of Academic Affairs, Office of the Registrar, and the Office of Analytic Support and Institutional Research, we created two interactive graphics. One is a line graph presenting the number of declared majors over time from 1991 to 2015 by major and rank compared to other majors. Our second visualization is a geographic map with two layers: the US layer breaks down the proportion of students by state and major from 1985 to 2015, while the world layer illustrates the proportion of international students by country and major.

Click on the Details button below to find out more about the data for each visualization.

For the map:

    • The Contents button(contentsbutton) will display all layers. Unclick the checkbox next to the layer name to hide the layer. To view the legend, click on the “Show Legend” icon (contentsbutton) below the layer name.
    • To examine other majors, find the “Change Style” button (contentsbutton) below the layer name you wish to view, then select the desired major from the “Choose an attribute to show” drop-down menu.  You may alter the map with colors, symbols or size.
    • Click on an individual country or US state to see available data on all majors.

For the line graph:

  • Choose your major(s) of interest in the “Select a major to display” field.
  • Hover over each point to display information on a major’s rank by class year and the number of students declared. Hover over a line to view the path of a major over time.


 

 

The Biology major holds the record for most students declared within this time frame, at 53 students for the Class of 1995. Since its creation, the number of students who major in Biological Chemistry increased leaps and bounds, ranking as the second most-declared major in the Class of 2015, tied with Psychology. Economics shows a general increasing trend over time, while majors like English and Sociology show erratic variability throughout.

American Studies majors appears to be representing the South and Southwest regions of the US, while Sociology is prominent in states located in the Midwest and, similarly, the South. A large proportion of students hailing from California study the hard sciences, especially Biological Chemistry. Surprisingly, there is a significant proportion of biology majors represented in most of the states.

Scoping out, the social sciences and hard sciences are popular disciplines among international students. Economics, Biological Chemistry, and Math are popular, especially in countries like China and India. Several humanities majors are not well-represented by international students, such as Theatre and Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies.

Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new blog posts.
You can leave the list at any time. Removal instructions are included in each message.

Powered by WPNewsman

Please like & share:

School-to-Prison Pipeline: School Funding

As you may know, education spending in the United States is chronically low, totaling six percent of the total federal funding per year.

 

chart (2)

 

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the primary source of funding in the U.S. is intended to be from states and localities (approximately 83 cents per dollar, as of the 2004-2005 school year). The issue with this is the high rate of income inequality in the United States, particularly by location (rural, suburban, or urban). As such, those who live in poorer areas are able to contribute less to students’ education, and school funding, as well as educational quality, suffer. Lack of funding in schools and school districts often coincides with low rates of educational attainment and high rates of school closures (leading to overcrowding and high dropout rates). These issues correlate with higher rates of imprisonment, lending to the “school-to-prison pipeline” that academics and activists have become aware of.

Since funding of schools is intended to be mostly by locality, it is valuable to assess how poverty rates in different localities might indicate a link between school resource allocation and the school-to-prison pipeline.

Without accounting for locality, the average elementary and secondary education funding by local sources is approximately 44% (as of 2011).

 

chart

 

When taking locality and poverty rates into account using the same data set, there is a clear trend in the allocation of local funding versus total funding (which includes federal, state, and local funding).

 

funding-chart

 

In areas of low poverty, all localities are able to contribute more to schooling, High poverty rates in all localities produce the opposite effect, as one might expect. Interestingly, suburbs and cities with high poverty rates are able to contribute roughly the same percentage to funding, while rural localities are able to contribute a lower percentage to school funding.

Schools that are funded less by the community receive less funding overall and also enjoy less community engagement with the schools and student education. Student educational attainment is lessened by these factors and research shows higher rates of arrest and incarceration among those with lower educational attainment.

These findings suggest that school resource allocation does not consist of a single number across the board, or a certain number of cents out of a dollar. One must take into account locality and poverty rate in determining school funding and understanding how the method of funding schools in the United States privileges certain students over others, creating educational opportunities for some and all but ensuring criminal records for others.

Additionally, funding for prisoners is increasing at a much higher rate than funding for students — nearly three times as quickly. Coupled with the chronic rise in America’s prison population, funding priority at federal and state levels seems to be given to prisons rather than schools. This results in resource-strapped schools, particularly in areas that are already limited in funding (i.e. poor locations, cities, and rural areas). Through this funding structure, students continue to be shuttled through the school-to-prison pipeline from schools to prisons, perpetuating the funding cycle and the pipeline.

 

spending-per-prisoner

 

The issues of the school-to-prison pipeline in relation to school funding is two-pronged then; the methods through which the majority of school funding is received work against high-need, high-risk areas that already have limited community resources, and the allocation of funding to rapidly growing prisons instead of schools. A re-examination of funding priorities and methods may go a long way in alleviating one aspect of the school-to-prison pipeline and resource inequality for students from kindergarten onward.

Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new blog posts.
You can leave the list at any time. Removal instructions are included in each message.

Powered by WPNewsman

 

Please like & share: