Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This article critically evaluates the legal doctrine of "comparable worth," including recent federal court decisions related to it. The doctrine mandates equal pay for jobs requiring comparable--but not equal--skill, effort and responsibility. As a standard for determining whether sex discrimination in pay has occurred, comparable worth is an economically defective concept and inappropriate to the task.The comparable worth standard is based solely on job content, measured in terms of the internal characteristics of the work performed and conditions of work. This standard completely ignores external market forces which affect the supply of labor and the pay that employers must offer to attract and retain their workers. For example, although female workers receive only about 60 percent of the pay earned by their male counterparts, between two-thirds and three-quarters of this male-female differential in pay is associated with gender differences in the nature and availability of labor. The importance of external market forces in establishing the "value" of jobs is best demonstrated in higher education by comparing the labor markets for and salaries of various academic disciplines. The observed differences in academic salaries by discipline are not the result of job discrimination but, rather, reflect differences in the opportunity costs facing faculty in terms of the employment alternatives outside of higher education. Even though significant differences in salary levels exist between disciplines, higher education is still plagued by chronic and substantial labor market imbalances. These imbalances are an indication that salary levels have not varied sufficiently to fully reflect external market forces.
This article critically evaluates the legal doctrine of "comparable worth," including recent federal court decisions related to it. The doctrine mandates equal pay for jobs requiring comparable--but not equal--skill, effort and responsibility. As a standard for determining whether sex discrimination in pay has occurred, comparable worth is an economically defective concept and inappropriate to the task.The comparable worth standard is based solely on job content, measured in terms of the internal characteristics of the work performed and conditions of work. This standard completely ignores external market forces which affect the supply of labor and the pay that employers must offer to attract and retain their workers. For example, although female workers receive only about 60 percent of the pay earned by their male counterparts, between two-thirds and three-quarters of this male-female differential in pay is associated with gender differences in the nature and availability of labor. The importance of external market forces in establishing the "value" of jobs is best demonstrated in higher education by comparing the labor markets for and salaries of various academic disciplines. The observed differences in academic salaries by discipline are not the result of job discrimination but, rather, reflect differences in the opportunity costs facing faculty in terms of the employment alternatives outside of higher education. Even though significant differences in salary levels exist between disciplines, higher education is still plagued by chronic and substantial labor market imbalances. These imbalances are an indication that salary levels have not varied sufficiently to fully reflect external market forces.
Education Standards. xiv+ 178 pp., $24.95; $14.95 (paper).The United States has far more colleges and universities than any othernation in the world, and they vary immensely in quality. Its best institutions are about as good as those anywhere; its worst schools, even its worst fully accredited ones, are extremely bad. Also, 0018-1560/85/$03.30 9 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 102 even within the same institution, departments and programs often vary widely in quality. According to the recent, authoritative rankings published by the National Academy of Sciences (1982), almost all of America's most highly-regarded universities have some doctorate programs which are ranked far worse than the university as a whole would be if its programs' rankings were aggregated. These programs include, concerning the faculty's reputation for "scholarly competence and achievement," the French doctorate program at Harvard, 17th among such programs in U.S. universities; physiology at the University of California at Berkeley, ranked 31st; chemistry at the University of Michigan, 32nd; physiology at Stanford, 33rd; chemical engineering at Yale, 34th; anthropology at Princeton, 40th; botany at the University of Chicago, tied for 43rd; and chemical engineering at Columbia, tied for 51st.In addition, again according to the NAS' findings, a great many universities have one or more doctorate programs ranked far higher than their "average" doctorate program. These include statistics at Iowa State University, tied for the seventh best such program in the United States; chemical engineering at the University of Delaware, sixth; anthropology at the University of Arizona, fifth; English at the University of Virginia and philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, both third; geography at Pennsylvania State University, second; and art history at New York University and chemical engineering at the University of Minnesota, both first.For these reasons, academic quality rankings of colleges, universities, and individual departments and professional fields of study at them have flourished in the United States as nowhere else in the world [I]. They have many uses here. Corporations consult them to decide at which campuses to recruit employees. Faculty members, in times of more mobility than at present, use them in deciding among job offers. Administrators use them in deciding how to allocate resources among departments and programs. Funding agencies, both private and public, use them in deciding where to award grants. And, of course, prospective students, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, use them to find good institutions and departments.While most academic quality rankings rate departments in only a single discipline or professional field, the few multi-disciplinary ones have become especially well-known and widely used. These include the two ratings of Ph.D. programs published by the American Council on Education (Cartter, 1966;Roose and Andersen, 1970). These rankings were based on faculty members' research reputation and gradu...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.