DOCSLIB.ORG

The Poverty and Inequality Report.” Special Issue, Glenn Loury, Brown University Pathways Magazine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Poverty and Inequality Report.” Special Issue, Glenn Loury, Brown University Pathways Magazine Pathwaysa magazine on poverty, inequality, and social policy Special Issue 2018 STATE OF THE UNION 2018 presents Studies in Social Inequality Series editors: David B. Grusky, Stanford University; Paula England, New York University Now Available STANFORD CENTER ON POVERTY Now Available AND INEQUALITY The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is a nonpartisan research center dedicated to monitoring trends in poverty and inequality, explaining what’s driving those trends, and developing science-based policy on poverty and inequality. The Center, a program of the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences at Stanford University, supports research by new and established scholars, trains the next generation of scholars and policy analysts, and disseminates the very best research on poverty and inequality. SUBSCRIBE NOW! Would you like to continue receiving a free copy of The Studies in Social Inequality Series offers cutting-edge scholarship on poverty and Pathways? Sign up for hard copy delivery or PDF inequality in its many forms. Submissions may take one of two forms: empirical or theoretical works of sustained exploration; or shorter essay-length books oriented toward notification at inequality.stanford.edu. a broad readership. We seek proposals based on quantitative analysis, mixed methods, or qualitative analysis. To submit manuscripts for consideration, please contact editor Marcela Maxfield at [email protected]. inequality.stanford.edu See our proposal submission guidelines: http://www.sup.org/authors/ gender inequality 3 Executive Summary David Grusky, Charles Varner, Marybeth Mattingly, and Stephanie Garlow 5 Gender Identification Aliya Saperstein 9 Education Erin M. Fahle and Sean F. Reardon 13 Health Mark Duggan and Valerie Scimeca 17 Employment Melissa S. Kearney and Katharine G. Abraham 20 Earnings Emmanuel Saez 23 Poverty H. Luke Shaefer, Marybeth Mattingly, and Kathryn Edin 26 Safety Net Linda M. Burton, Marybeth Mattingly, Juan Pedroza, and Whitney Welsh 30 Occupational Segregation Kim A. Weeden, Mary Newhart, and Dafna Gelbgiser 34 Discrimination David S. Pedulla 38 Workplace Sexual Harassment Amy Blackstone, Heather McLaughlin, and Christopher Uggen 42 Social Networks Adina D. Sterling 45 Policy Marianne Cooper and Shelley J. Correll EDITORIAL BOARD Sean Reardon, Stanford University Michelle Wilde Anderson, Stanford University Trudi Renwick, U.S. Census Bureau Pathways Linda Burton, Duke University Emmanuel Saez, University of California, Berkeley a magazine on poverty, inequality, and social policy David Card, University of California, Berkeley Richard Saller, Stanford University Dalton Conley, Princeton University Mario Luis Small, Harvard University Special Issue 2018 Shelley Correll, Stanford University C. Matthew Snipp, Stanford University Matthew Desmond, Princeton University Florencia Torche, Stanford University Mark Duggan, Stanford University SENIOR EDITORS Kim Weeden, Cornell University David Grusky Greg Duncan, University of California, Irvine William Julius Wilson, Harvard University Charles Varner Kathryn Edin, Johns Hopkins University Marybeth Mattingly Paula England, New York University Stephanie Garlow STANFORD CENTER ON POVERTY AND INEQUALITY Robert Frank, Cornell University Building 370, 450 Serra Mall RESEARCH SCHOLARS Janet Gornick, The Graduate Center, Stanford University Jonathan Fisher Nathaniel Johnson City University of New York Stanford, CA 94305-2029 Mark Granovetter, Stanford University Tel: 650-724-6912 ART DIRECTOR Robin Weiss Robert Hauser, National Research Council Email: [email protected] Michael Hout, New York University Website: inequality.stanford.edu COPY EDITOR Hilary Hoynes, University of California, Berkeley Elissa Rabellino Tomás Jiménez, Stanford University SUGGESTED CITATION FORMAT PROGRAM COORDINATOR Jon Krosnick, Stanford University Francesca Vescia Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, ed. 2018. “State of Michèle Lamont, Harvard University the Union: The Poverty and Inequality Report.” Special issue, Glenn Loury, Brown University Pathways Magazine. Hazel Markus, Stanford University Douglas Massey, Princeton University Saperstein, Aliya. 2018. “Gender Identification.” In “State of Katherine Newman, University of Massachusetts the Union: The Poverty and Inequality Report,” ed. Stanford Joan Petersilia, Stanford University Center on Poverty and Inequality, special issue, Pathways Becky Pettit, University of Texas at Austin Magazine. Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics Sonya Rastogi Porter, U.S. Census Bureau © Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, 2018. Woody Powell, Stanford University All rights reserved. the poverty and inequality report The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality DAVID GRUSKY, CHARLES VARNER, MARYBETH MATTINGLY, AND STEPHANIE GARLOW he Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is pleased • gaps that have long favored men, continue to favor men Tto present its fifth annual report examining the state of now, but are slowly declining in size (e.g., the growing the union. In this year’s report, we provide a comprehen- share of women in the top 1 percent of the earnings dis- sive assessment of gender inequality in eleven domains tribution), ranging from education to health, employment, earnings, • gaps that have long favored men, began to decline in size poverty, sexual harassment, networks, and more. The report many decades ago, with the rate of decline then gradu- concludes with a discussion of the most promising science- ally slowing or completely “stalling out” (e.g., the slowing based policies for reducing gender inequality at home and in rate of decline in the gender gap in labor earnings), the labor market. • gaps that have long favored men but have now come to There are of course all manner of excellent studies that favor women (e.g., the recent crossover in college gradu- address each of these eleven domains separately. We aim, by ation rates), contrast, to provide an integrated analysis that assembles evi- • gaps that have long favored women, continue to favor dence across domains and thus allows for a comprehensive women now, but are slowly declining in size (e.g., the assessment of where the country stands. Without this inte- declining female advantage in life expectancy), and grated analysis, it’s all too easy to default to a hodgepodge of piecemeal policies, each oriented to a single narrow-gauge • gaps that have long favored women, continue to favor problem in a single domain. By assembling a comprehensive women now, and show no signs of declining in size (e.g., report, we can identify generic problems that cut across many the consistent female advantage in fourth-grade reading types of inequality, thus making it possible—at least in prin- tests). ciple—to fashion a more coordinated policy response. This is a complicated constellation of results. If nothing else, It might at first blush seem unlikely that any cross-cutting it should dissuade us from treating gender inequality as a uni- conclusions could be reached on the basis of this report. The dimensional problem in which all gaps favor men or all gaps chapters instead reveal a rather complicated story in which are eroding. the speed, pattern, and even direction of change in the key “gender gaps” are all varying. The following types of gaps (and What accounts for such complications? It’s partly that gender trends therein) show up in the various chapters of this report: gaps are affected by social, cultural, and economic processes that don’t always operate uniformly on women and men. The • gaps that have long favored men, continue to favor men rise of industrial robots, for example, is a seemingly gender- now, and show no signs of declining much in size (e.g., neutral technological force that may nonetheless reduce the consistently lower poverty rates for men), PATHWAYS • The Poverty and Inequality Report • Gender 4 executive summary gender gap in employment insofar as male-dominated jobs occupations and other roles in accord with such stereotypical happen to be more susceptible to roboticization (pp. 17–19). views (i.e., the “discrimination mechanism”). The world is rife with such seemingly gender-neutral forces that nonetheless can have a gender-biased effect. It’s unlikely, The essentialist form is pernicious no matter which of these then, that the key gender gaps will move in lockstep when a two mechanisms, socialization or discrimination, is in play. different constellation of forces is affecting each of them. When gender inequality is rooted in gender-specific tastes or choices, we treat those choices as freely made, not as a Although these “gender-neutral” forces thus have a compli- product of socialization or an adaptation to a world in which cating effect on trends, it’s still possible to find traces among gender-atypical decisions (e.g., a woman deciding to become our results of a more directly gendered logic. The most obvi- a plumber) are discouraged or met with hostility. When inequal- ous example of such a logic rests on the distinction between ity is instead rooted in discrimination, we tend not to properly two forms of gender inequality, a “vertical form” pertaining to code it as discrimination, instead attributing the outcome to the gender gap in the amount of resources, and a “horizontal the operation of gender-specific tastes or choices. The upshot form” pertaining to the gender gap in the types of resources. is that horizontal forms of inequality persist because we see We can distinguish, for example, between (a) the vertical gap
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Revival of Economic Sociology
    Chapter 1 The Revival of Economic Sociology MAURO F. G UILLEN´ , RANDALL COLLINS, PAULA ENGLAND, AND MARSHALL MEYER conomic sociology is staging a comeback after decades of rela- tive obscurity. Many of the issues explored by scholars today E mirror the original concerns of the discipline: sociology emerged in the first place as a science geared toward providing an institutionally informed and culturally rich understanding of eco- nomic life. Confronted with the profound social transformations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the founders of so- ciological thought—Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel—explored the relationship between the economy and the larger society (Swedberg and Granovetter 1992). They examined the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services through the lenses of domination and power, solidarity and inequal- ity, structure and agency, and ideology and culture. The classics thus planted the seeds for the systematic study of social classes, gender, race, complex organizations, work and occupations, economic devel- opment, and culture as part of a unified sociological approach to eco- nomic life. Subsequent theoretical developments led scholars away from this originally unified approach. In the 1930s, Talcott Parsons rein- terpreted the classical heritage of economic sociology, clearly distin- guishing between economics (focused on the means of economic ac- tion, or what he called “the adaptive subsystem”) and sociology (focused on the value orientations underpinning economic action). Thus, sociologists were theoretically discouraged from participating 1 2 The New Economic Sociology in the economics-sociology dialogue—an exchange that, in any case, was not sought by economists. It was only when Parsons’s theory was challenged by the reality of the contentious 1960s (specifically, its emphasis on value consensus and system equilibration; see Granovet- ter 1990, and Zelizer, ch.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 STATE of the UNION 2018 Presents Studies in Social Inequality Series Editors: David B
    Pathwaysa magazine on poverty, inequality, and social policy Special Issue 2018 STATE OF THE UNION 2018 presents Studies in Social Inequality Series editors: David B. Grusky, Stanford University; Paula England, New York University Now Available STANFORD CENTER ON POVERTY Now Available AND INEQUALITY The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is a nonpartisan research center dedicated to monitoring trends in poverty and inequality, explaining what’s driving those trends, and developing science-based policy on poverty and inequality. The Center, a program of the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences at Stanford University, supports research by new and established scholars, trains the next generation of scholars and policy analysts, and disseminates the very best research on poverty and inequality. SUBSCRIBE NOW! Would you like to continue receiving a free copy of The Studies in Social Inequality Series offers cutting-edge scholarship on poverty and Pathways? Sign up for hard copy delivery or PDF inequality in its many forms. Submissions may take one of two forms: empirical or theoretical works of sustained exploration; or shorter essay-length books oriented toward notification at inequality.stanford.edu. a broad readership. We seek proposals based on quantitative analysis, mixed methods, or qualitative analysis. To submit manuscripts for consideration, please contact editor Marcela Maxfield at [email protected]. inequality.stanford.edu See our proposal submission guidelines: http://www.sup.org/authors/ gender inequality 3 Executive Summary David Grusky, Charles Varner, Marybeth Mattingly, and Stephanie Garlow 5 Gender Identification Aliya Saperstein 9 Education Erin M. Fahle and Sean F. Reardon 13 Health Mark Duggan and Valerie Scimeca 17 Employment Melissa S.
    [Show full text]
  • Recipients of Asa Awards
    APPENDIX 133 APPENDIX 11: RECIPIENTS OF ASA AWARDS MacIver Award 1956 E. Franklin Frazier, The Black Bourgeoisie (Free Press, 1957) 1957 no award given 1958 Reinhard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry (Wiley, 1956) 1959 August B. Hollingshead and Frederick C. Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study (Wiley, 1958) 1960 no award given 1961 Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Doubleday, 1959) 1962 Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Doubleday, 1960) 1963 Wilbert E. Moore, The Conduct of the Corporation (Random House, 1962) 1964 Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires (Free Press of Glencoe, 1963) 1965 William J. Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns (Glencoe, 1963) 1966 John Porter, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada (University of Toronto, 1965) 1967 Kai T. Erikson, Wayward Puritans (Wiley, 1966) 1968 Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Beacon, 1966) Sorokin Award 1968 Peter M. Blau, Otis Dudley Duncan, and Andrea Tyree, The American Occupational Structure (Wiley, 1967) 1969 William A. Gamson, Power and Discontent (Dorsey, 1968) 1970 Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories (Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1968) 1971 Robert W. Friedrichs, A Sociology of Sociology; and Harrison C. White, Chains of Opportunity: Systems Models of Mobility in Organization (Free Press, 1970) 1972 Eliot Freidson, Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge (Dodd, Mead, 1970) 1973 no award given 1974 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic, 1973); and Christopher Jencks, Inequality (Basic, 1972) 1975 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System (Academic Press, 1974) 1976 Jeffrey Paige, Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (Free Press, 1975); and Robert Bellah, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial (Seabury Press, 1975) 1977 Kai T.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Sciences $€ £ ¥
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM Sarah Thébaud and Maria Charles * Department of Sociology, University of California—Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 10 May 2018; Accepted: 4 July 2018; Published: 9 July 2018 Abstract: Scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations are strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. While many Americans regard this segregation as natural and inevitable, closer examination reveals a great deal of variability in the gendering of STEM fields across time, space, and demographic groups. This article assesses how different theoretical accounts accord with the available evidence on the gender composition of scientific and technical fields. We find most support for accounts that allow for a dynamic interplay between individual-level traits and the broader sociocultural environments in which they develop. The existing evidence suggests, in particular, that Western cultural stereotypes about the nature of STEM work and STEM workers and about the intrinsic qualities of men and women can be powerful drivers of individual aptitudes, aspirations, and affinities. We offer an illustrative catalog of stereotypes that support women’s STEM-avoidance and men’s STEM-affinity, and we conclude with some thoughts on policy implications. Keywords: gender; STEM; segregation; stereotypes; culture; work; occupations; science; inequality For more than three decades, American educators, policy makers, activists, and business leaders have engaged in research and policy initiatives to increase the presence of women and other underrepresented groups in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations and fields of study. These efforts have been motivated by interests in broadening opportunities in lucrative, high-status occupations and in ameliorating acute STEM labor shortages that are believed to threaten national prosperity, private profits and the public welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Economic Sociology Chapter Author(S): Mauro F
    Russell Sage Foundation Chapter Title: The Revival of Economic Sociology Chapter Author(s): Mauro F. Guillén, Randall Collins, Paula England and Marshall Meyer Book Title: New Economic Sociology, The Book Subtitle: Developments in an Emerging Field Book Editor(s): Mauro F. Guillén, Randall Collins, Paula England, Marshall Meyer Published by: Russell Sage Foundation. (2002) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610442602.5 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Russell Sage Foundation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Economic Sociology, The This content downloaded from 68.8.44.142 on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:04:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Chapter 1 The Revival of Economic Sociology MAURO F. G UILLEN´ , RANDALL COLLINS, PAULA ENGLAND, AND MARSHALL MEYER conomic sociology is staging a comeback after decades of rela- tive obscurity. Many of the issues explored by scholars today E mirror the original concerns of the discipline: sociology emerged in the first place as a science geared toward providing an institutionally informed and culturally rich understanding of eco- nomic life. Confronted with the profound social transformations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the founders of so- ciological thought—Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel—explored the relationship between the economy and the larger society (Swedberg and Granovetter 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • American Economic Association
    American Economic Association A Sociological Perspective on Gender and Career Outcomes Author(s): Barbara F. Reskin and Denise D. Bielby Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 71-86 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134993 Accessed: 10/01/2009 17:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aea. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks
    Chapter 8 Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks Paula England s the significance of gender declining in America? Are men's and women's lives and rewards becoming more similar? To answer this question, I examine trends in market work and unpaid household work, including child care. I consider whether men's and women's employment and hours in paid work are converging, and examine trends in occupational sex segregation and the sex gap in pay. I also consider trends in men's and women's hours of paid work and household work. The emergent picture is one Iof convergence within each of the two areas of paid and unpaid work. Yet progress is not continuous and has stalled recently. Sometimes it continues on one front and stops on another. Gender change is also asymmetric in two ways: things have changed in paid work more than in the household, and women have dramatically increased their participation in formerly "male" activities, but men's inroads into traditionally female occupations or household tasks is very limited by comparison. I consider what these trends portend for the future of gender inequality. Robert Max Jackson argues (see chapter 7, this volume) that continued progress toward gender inequality is inevitable. I agree with him that many forces push in the direction of treating similarly situated men and women equally in bureaucratic organizations. Nonetheless, I conclude that the two related asymmetries in gender change—the sluggish change in the household and in men taking on traditionally female activities in any sphere- create bottlenecks that can dampen if not reverse egalitarian trends.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theoretical Agenda for Economic Sociology
    A Theoretical Agenda for Economic Sociology To appear in Economic Sociology at the Millenium, edited by Mauro F. Guillen, Randall Collins, Paula England, and Marshall Meyer (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001). Mark Granovetter Department of Sociology Stanford University June 1, 20001 1 For their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper, I am indebted to Randall Collins, my discussant at the second annual Penn Economic Sociology Conference, the other conference participants, and to Richard Swedberg, Kiyoteru Tsutsui and Valery Yakubovich. A Theoretical Agenda for Economic Sociology. Mark Granovetter. 6/1/00 1 INTRODUCTION Economic sociology is no longer a novelty. Born in the late 19th century and reborn in the 1970s, it has produced a long run of exciting studies and promising leads.2 As the century turns, it is timely to look beyond our accumulation of important empirical studies and reassess what theoretical agenda a structural economic sociology might pursue, and where this agenda fits with the main concerns of sociology and economics. In doing so, we should keep in mind that the production and distribution of goods and services is just one institutional complex of activities, and that the arguments appropriate to them should have some generic similarity to arguments we might develop to explain political action, science and knowledge, family and kinship, and other persistent social patterns. Thinking about how the sociology of the economy is similar to and different from that of other institutions helps us see what kinds of arguments will work best. INCENTIVES, INDIVIDUALS, CONTEXT AND HISTORY We may begin by asking what is distinctive about economic sociology as a way to explain the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Highly Paid, Highly Skilled Women Experience the Largest
    ASRXXX10.1177/0003122416673598American Sociological ReviewEngland et al. 6735982016 American Sociological Review 2016, Vol. 81(6) 1161 –1189 Do Highly Paid, Highly Skilled © American Sociological Association 2016 DOI: 10.1177/0003122416673598 Women Experience the Largest http://asr.sagepub.com Motherhood Penalty? Paula England,a Jonathan Bearak,b Michelle J. Budig,c and Melissa J. Hodgesd Abstract Motherhood reduces women’s wages. But does the size of this penalty differ between more and less advantaged women? To answer this, we use unconditional quantile regression models with person-fixed effects, and panel data from the 1979 to 2010 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79). We find that among white women, the most privileged—women with high skills and high wages—experience the highest total penalties, estimated to include effects mediated through lost experience. Although highly skilled, highly paid women have fairly continuous experience, their high returns to experience make even the small amounts of time some of them take out of employment for childrearing costly. By contrast, penalties net of experience, which may represent employer discrimination or effects of motherhood on job performance, are not distinctive for highly skilled women with high wages. Keywords motherhood, gender, labor markets, wage trajectories Being a mother lowers women’s hourly earn- unjust—that the work of mothering is not ings. The mechanisms proposed to explain only unpaid, but also reduces one’s pay when this wage penalty for motherhood include one holds a job. Moreover, given that there is employers’ discrimination against mothers no parallel fatherhood wage penalty, the (Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007), reduced job motherhood penalty contributes to the overall performance due to the demands of mother- gender gap in pay (Waldfogel 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Cornell University · 323 Uris Hall · Ithaca, NY 14853 Kw74 @Cornell.Edu · March 2016
    KIM A. WEEDEN Department of Sociology · Cornell University · 323 Uris Hall · Ithaca, NY 14853 kw74 @cornell.edu ·www.kimweeden.com March 2016 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT Cornell University, 2001-present: Jan Rock Zubrow ’77 Professor of the Social Sciences (2015-present) Chair, Department of Sociology (Jan 2007-June 2010, July 2015-present). Faculty Fellow, Keeton House (2015-present) Professor of Sociology (2012-present) Director, Center for the Study of Inequality (July 2013-present; acting director Jan-June 2013). Graduate Field Member: Sociology (2001-present); Policy and Management (2014-present) Robert S. Harrison Director of the Institute for the Social Sciences (Jan 2013-July2015). Co-Director and co-PI, CU-ADVANCE (2008-2013). Associate Professor (2005-2012). Assistant Professor (2001-2005). Faculty Affiliate, Cornell Population Center (2008-present). Faculty Affiliate, Center for the Study of Economy and Society (2010-present). Research Fellow, Institute for Compensation Studies (2009-present). University of Chicago, 1999-2001. Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and the College. Research Affiliate, Alfred P. Sloan Center on Parents, Children, and Work. Research Affiliate, Population Research Center. EDUCATION Ph.D. in Sociology, 1999. (Stanford University) Dissertation: “From Borders to Barriers: Strategies of Occupational Closure and the Structure of Occupational Rewards” Committee: David Grusky (Chair), Mike Hannan, Matt Snipp, Nancy Tuma Qualifying examinations: Organizations, Social Stratification M.A. in Sociology, 1993 (Stanford University) B.A. in Sociology and B.S. in Psychology, 1989. (Willamette University; Summa Cum Laude) GRANTS NSF (NRT-IGE, Under Review): Co-PI with Avery August (PI; Vet Med), Chris Schaffer (Biomed Engineering) of “Graduate Student Opportunities for Advancing Leadership in STEM (GOALS).” $495,248.
    [Show full text]
  • Kim Weeden, Sandy Tomlin, and Trish Blanchard
    KIM A. WEEDEN Department of Sociology · Cornell University · 323 Uris Hall · Ithaca, NY 14853 Phone: (607) 254-4904 · Fax: (607) 255-8473 · Electronic: kw74 @cornell.edu February 2013 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT: Cornell University, 2001-present. Professor (2012-present). Robert S. Harrison Director of the Institute for the Social Sciences (Jan 2013-present). Interim Director, Center for the Study of Inequality (Jan 2013-present). Chair, Department of Sociology (Jan 2007-July 2010). Co-Director and co-PI, CU-ADVANCE (2008-present). Associate Professor (2005-2012). Assistant Professor (2001-2005). Faculty Affiliate, Cornell Population Center (2008-present). Executive Committee Member, Center for the Study of Inequality (2001-2012). Faculty Affiliate, Center for the Study of Economy and Society (2010-present). Research Fellow, Institute for Compensation Studies (2009-present). University of Chicago, 1999-2001. Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and the College. Research Affiliate, Alfred P. Sloan Center on Parents, Children, and Work. Research Affiliate, Population Research Center. EDUCATION: Stanford University Ph.D. in Sociology, 1999. Prospectus defended with distinction. June, 1997. Qualifying examination in Organizations. Sept., 1995. Qualifying examination in Social Stratification with distinction. July, 1994. M.A. in Sociology, 1993. Willamette University B.A. in Sociology and B.S. in Psychology (Summa Cum Laude), 1989. GRANTS: Institute for the Social Sciences Faculty Fellowship and Research Grant. Fall 2012. In-residence fellowship and $10,000 research grant. NSF (SES-1023798): Principal Investigator (with Stephen L. Morgan) of “Feeding the Pipeline: Preparing and Planning for STEM Careers.” Sept. 1, 2010-Aug. 31, 2011, with no- cost extension to Aug. 31, 2012. $137,360. Weeden, Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Kim Weeden, Sandy Tomlin, and Trish Blanchard
    KIM A. WEEDEN Department of Sociology · Cornell University · 323 Uris Hall · Ithaca, NY 14853 kw74 @cornell.edu ·www.kimweeden.com January 2016 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT Cornell University, 2001-present: Jan Rock Zubrow ’77 Professor of the Social Sciences (2015-present) Chair, Department of Sociology (Jan 2007-June 2010, July 2015-present). Faculty Fellow, Keeton House (2015-present) Professor of Sociology (2012-present) Director, Center for the Study of Inequality (July 2013-present; acting director Jan-June 2013). Graduate Field Member: Sociology (2001-present); Policy and Management (2014-present) Robert S. Harrison Director of the Institute for the Social Sciences (Jan 2013-July2015). Co-Director and co-PI, CU-ADVANCE (2008-2013). Associate Professor (2005-2012). Assistant Professor (2001-2005). Faculty Affiliate, Cornell Population Center (2008-present). Faculty Affiliate, Center for the Study of Economy and Society (2010-present). Research Fellow, Institute for Compensation Studies (2009-present). University of Chicago, 1999-2001. Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and the College. Research Affiliate, Alfred P. Sloan Center on Parents, Children, and Work. Research Affiliate, Population Research Center. EDUCATION Ph.D. in Sociology, 1999. (Stanford University) Dissertation: “From Borders to Barriers: Strategies of Occupational Closure and the Structure of Occupational Rewards” Committee: David Grusky (Chair), Mike Hannan, Matt Snipp, Nancy Tuma Qualifying examinations: Organizations, Social Stratification M.A. in Sociology, 1993 (Stanford University) B.A. in Sociology and B.S. in Psychology, 1989. (Willamette University; Summa Cum Laude) GRANTS Kauffman Foundation (pending). Inequality, Market Failure, and the Returns to Education Weeden, January 2016, Page 2 Institute for the Social Sciences Faculty Fellowship and Research Grant.
    [Show full text]