Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap

Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap

Extending research findings by R. Sabot and J. Wakeman-Linn (1991), this article presents a theoretical analysis showing that relatively low grading quantitative fields and high grading verbal fields create a disincentive for college women to invest in quantitative study. Pressures on grading practi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Alicia C. Dowd
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Arizona State University 2000-01-01
Series:Education Policy Analysis Archives
Online Access:http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/401
id doaj-6d3b4de6e27a466b8eab84eda611c4c9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6d3b4de6e27a466b8eab84eda611c4c92020-11-25T03:25:17ZengArizona State UniversityEducation Policy Analysis Archives1068-23412000-01-01810Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay GapAlicia C. DowdExtending research findings by R. Sabot and J. Wakeman-Linn (1991), this article presents a theoretical analysis showing that relatively low grading quantitative fields and high grading verbal fields create a disincentive for college women to invest in quantitative study. Pressures on grading practices are modeled using higher education production functions. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/401
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Alicia C. Dowd
spellingShingle Alicia C. Dowd
Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
Education Policy Analysis Archives
author_facet Alicia C. Dowd
author_sort Alicia C. Dowd
title Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
title_short Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
title_full Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
title_fullStr Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
title_full_unstemmed Collegiate Grading Practices and the Gender Pay Gap
title_sort collegiate grading practices and the gender pay gap
publisher Arizona State University
series Education Policy Analysis Archives
issn 1068-2341
publishDate 2000-01-01
description Extending research findings by R. Sabot and J. Wakeman-Linn (1991), this article presents a theoretical analysis showing that relatively low grading quantitative fields and high grading verbal fields create a disincentive for college women to invest in quantitative study. Pressures on grading practices are modeled using higher education production functions.
url http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/401
work_keys_str_mv AT aliciacdowd collegiategradingpracticesandthegenderpaygap
_version_ 1724597890513371136

Similar Items