Search Results

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Resulting in 2 citations.
1. Commission on Civil Rights
An Attempt to Measure Differences in the Quality of Education by Race, Region, and Educational Level
In: Economic Status of Black Women: An Exploratory Investigation. Washington DC: Staff Report, 1990
Cohort(s): NLSY79
Publisher: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Keyword(s): Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB); Educational Attainment; Geographical Variation; Racial Differences; Regions; Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)

Utilizing data from the NLSY, this special analysis supplements data from three other data sets, the 1940-1980 Censuses, the 1970-1987 CPS, and the 1984 Survey of Income and Program Participation which are used in the main body of the report, to study racial and regional differences among women in educational attainment as measured by AFQT score and educational level. It was found that, regardless of the number of years of schooling, black women scored lower than white women. Regression analyses indicated that: (1) women's test scores rise with education and are lower overall for black women and for women living in the south; and (2) black women score relatively worse at higher, not lower, educational levels. The report concludes that lower educational quality may explain some but not all of the overall black-white differences noted earlier in the report.
Bibliography Citation
Commission on Civil Rights. "An Attempt to Measure Differences in the Quality of Education by Race, Region, and Educational Level" In: Economic Status of Black Women: An Exploratory Investigation. Washington DC: Staff Report, 1990
2. Polachek, Solomon W.
Women in the Economy: Perspectives on Gender Inequality
In: Comparable Work Issues for the 80s, Volume 1. U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1984: pp. 34-53
Cohort(s): Mature Women, Young Women
Publisher: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Keyword(s): Affirmative Action; Behavior; Discrimination; Discrimination, Sex; Dual Economic Theory; Earnings; Government Regulation; Occupational Segregation; Sexual Division of Labor; Work Attachment

This paper provides a survey of current literature on gender differences in economic well-being. The conclusions are: (1) Gender occupational segregation exists in that differences are apparent in the occupational patterns of men and women. However, sex differences in occupational distribution are incapable of explaining gender wage differentials. In fact, occupational segregation explains only about 15 percent of gender wage differences, though most studies yield an even smaller explanatory power. (2) Human capital theory provides the most robust explanation of gender differences in economic well-being. Primitive versions of the human capital approach explain up to 60 percent of the wage gap. More comprehensive versions can explain the entire gap. (3) Human capital theory can also be used to explain occupational segregation. Results of on going empirical work seem to indicate that if women were to work continuously, the number of women in managerial jobs would double, and the number of women in menial service-type jobs would diminish by 25 percent. (4) Discrimination takes two forms: societal and market. Societal discrimination evolves through societal preconditioning as well as through existing legislation that creates implicit marriage taxes. Both cause a division of labor within the home, forcing husbands to specialize in market activities and wives to specialize in household activities. Market discrimination evolves not because the market cannot work, but because the market is often not permitted to work. Regulatory forces restricting market competition create incentives for inefficient behavior, one form of which is discrimination.
Bibliography Citation
Polachek, Solomon W. "Women in the Economy: Perspectives on Gender Inequality" In: Comparable Work Issues for the 80s, Volume 1. U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1984: pp. 34-53