Institutional Sexism In Veterinary Medicine

[Trausti]

This graph shows that we've got a lot of work to do to eradicate the systemic and pernicious gender inequality in veterinary medicine. So problematic.

One may speculate that the reason for the disparity is that men and women have different interests; in countries with greater gender equality this natural difference will become more pronounced. But this cannot be correct. Acceptable contemporary thinking commands that any gender disparity - especially if it results in less representation of women - can only be the consequence of sexism and institutional bias. So, do we need male affirmative action in the veterinary schools?

 

[untermensche]

It's ALL about IQ.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dogs prefer women, so more women become vets.

 

[ZiprHead]

What makes this "institutional"? By saying it's institutional implies it's by design of the veterinary schools.

 

[Toni]

The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

The fact is that it is much more lucrative to become an MD than it is to become a vet.

The fact is that it is much more prestigious to be an MD than it is to be a vet.

The fact is that there is still more pressure on men than women to earn a large income and more pressure within relationships for the male partner to earn more than the female partner.

In my very small observation, vet clinics tend to be more flexible with their work schedules and more accommodating to child care leave and child rearing than are medical clinics.

That is what is at work here, folks. As a society, we expect men to earn more money than women. It is more acceptable for a woman to earn less than a man than the other way around.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That is what is at work here, folks. As a society, we expect men to earn more money than women. It is more acceptable for a woman to earn less than a man than the other way around.

You echo Jordan Peterson. He says women "marry up the heirarchy" and are unhappy the other way around, and as more women get better educated than men and earn more, they have a harder time finding "suitable" husband's. I don't buy it.

My sister is the breadwinner in her family. Her husband is a stay at home dad and auto mechanic. They have a happy marriage. Or is she just special?

 

[thebeave]

Well, looks like once again the Matriarchy is keeping us down. Time for us men to rise up! I suggest we create a Men's March with lots of signs containing clever rhymes, trendy slogans, and vague goals & demands. We could all wear cute hats too... I suggest blue baseball style hats with penises on top. Whose with me?!

 

[lpetrich]

The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf

Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

 

[Toni]

The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf

Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

It's what we were always told. For one thing, there are far fewer schools of veterinary medicine than there are medical schools.

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

Your point about work being devalued when there is an influx of women is spot on, and something I've noticed for quite some time. Look at how much a physician earns now that there are more women who are physicians. At the same time, the pay for nurses has gone up, as more men have entered the field.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

 

[Toni]

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

No it’s not.

Anecdote but true: I’ve known people who went to med school because they didn’t get into vet school.

 

[Derec]

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

Comparing acceptance rates is not really a good metric, as the two types of schools might have very different applicant pools.
What are average GPAs of applicants? How does required coursework compare between MD and veterinary schools? Is there something similar to MCAT for veterinary schools. If there isn't, how many veterinary school applicants have taken MCAT? How do their scores compare to MCAT scores of MD school applicants (505-506 for applicants, 510-512 for those who actually get in).

Your point about work being devalued when there is an influx of women is spot on, and something I've noticed for quite some time. Look at how much a physician earns now that there are more women who are physicians. At the same time, the pay for nurses has gone up, as more men have entered the field.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[laughing dog]

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

Comparing acceptance rates is not really a good metric, as the two types of schools might have very different applicant pools.

Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.

 

[Derec]

Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.

It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.

 

[Toni]

Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.

It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.

Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

 

[ruby sparks]

The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf

Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

Excellent and interesting material there. I have to say that whilst I can see the two phemonena (devaluation and queuing) as plausible, and would not be surprised if they were the case, I'm not convinced that they were demonstrated, in that material.

Veterinary medicine would seem like a very good candidate for study on that basis though, given the graph presented in the thread.

 

[J842P]

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

In my experience there is very little intersection bewteen people who are interested in being vets and people interested in being doctors.

 

[ruby sparks]

The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf

Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

Googling around, I found quite a lot of material about this, much of which I think fits into what is called 'gender devaluation theory'.

This paper, for example, seems to support the conclusions of the one you cited:

The feminization of occupations and change in wages: a panel analysis of Britain, Germany and Switzerland
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/107004/1/817839763.pdf

Here is an illustrative graph for Britain, measured over a range of occupations:



Similar conclusions are reached in the paper below (which I cannot access in full):

UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE
Women's Upward Mobility and the Wage Penalty for Occupational Feminization, 1970-2007
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/91/4/1183/2235777?redirectedFrom=PDF

This next paper introduces issues of race into devaluation theory, suggesting that it is relevant to both gender and race:

MAN UP, MAN DOWN
Race-ethnicity and the Hierarchy of Men in Female-dominated Work
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/74fhn/

The paper below on the other hand, claims that evidence for gender devaluation theory is scant and that differences can be explained by other theories (in particular gender role theory):

"Our findings are thus at odds with devaluation theory but consonant with sociological gender role theory which argues that men internalize a breadwinner role during adolescence to a higher degree than women which they then act upon when entering college and choosing their fields of study. Consequently, men disproportionately self-select into fields of study such as engineering which primarily provide economic resources and thus pay high wages, whereas women disproportionately self-select into fields like Philology and Pedagogy which are better compatible with the traditionally female identity derived from the housewife role where making money is much more peripheral than in the male breadwinner role. "

Why do women’s fields of study pay less?
(A test of devaluation, human capital, and gender role theory).
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/30/4/536/2763463?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Among the interesting metaphors I came across were the 'glass elevator' which suggests that one advantage for men entering female-dominated professions is that they are more likely to be promoted to senior positions, on account of such roles being seen as 'more masculine'. Another was 'tipping point' which suggests that men will 'flee' (or be less likely to enter) professions as they become more feminized (have increasing proportions of women). This seems not dissimilar to the phenomenon of 'white flight' in the housing market, for which I imagine there is a version of devaluation theory also.

This paper also claims that gender devaluation theory does not seem to apply to prestige:

Gender, Occupational Prestige, and Wages: A Test of Devaluation Theory
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:184926&dswid=-8298

As far as I can see from googling around, there does seem to be general agreement on one thing, that such effects, whatever causes or caused them, are in decline, and that gender is playing a decreasing role in relation to discrepancies and inequalities in employment generally. If true, that would be the underlying upside, I guess.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Anecdote but true: I’ve known people who went to med school because they didn’t get into vet school.

Actually... so do I.

 

[laughing dog]

Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.

It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.

The acceptance rate shows the proportion of applicants who are accepted divided by the number of applicants. A lower acceptance rate indicates that a smaller proportion of people who wish to be accepted into the school are accepted. It clearer measures the hard difficult it is to be accepted into the institution(s) relative to the pools of applicants. To claim otherwise is to deny both fact and reason.