Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Anthony Todd — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:38:19 GMT

Easy peasy, just measure what each vet does by output, surgery, prescription or whatever [dentals?? bloods?? X-rays?? etc] or fees generated and pay or discuss accordingly.

Easy now with PMSs, not so easy with record cards......

The differences between vets and/or between sexes were then obvious and were independent of gender, and staggering, like a factor of 500% in some cases.

Top, by far, was female as was the bottom.

Be careful of fees alone, as one vet let every dental go away with 14 days of Ceporex.......!!!

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 10:47:14 GMT

[quote user="Eilidh Corr"]

I just want to quietly make the point that I'm a million times more productive since having children.

I am more organised, and I'm now a better, quicker decision-maker, I'm a bolder surgeon, my communication skills and patience have come on leaps and bounds and my resilience has also improved with the inevitable change in perspective which comes with parenthood. The headspace away from work and focusing entirely on other matters alone gave me a much-needed rest. I'm a more mature and rounded person and a better vet.

[/quote]I don't think this change in mindset is due to any time away from work, more that you have assumed full responsibility of your life in parenthood, shown to yourself how important you are, seen how small problems at work are compared with the trials and tribulations of bringing up a family and put into perspective the relative value of human v animal life. When we're faced with a nightmare situation with a very sick child the spay you cocked up and died last week doesn't seem quite so important in comparison.

Re gender gaps in pay, if there was going to be one, then I'd be paying female vets more than men because in my experience they are more dedicated, conscientious and simply better all round.

I can't imagine my daughters accepting less pay than their male counterparts, they kick ass.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Iain Richards — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:26:15 GMT

The articel was incorrect and corrected on Twitter. The "half" gap was a comparison of UNiversities The SPVS survey does ask about and report on gender, the 2015 having an approx 16% difference, full or part time.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Nick Taylor — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:44:34 GMT

I've never met a woman in all my various roles who negotiates any less hard than a man. All people fight for what is important to them and I would expect them to in the line of their work too.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Braden Collins — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:53:38 GMT

Two of our female vets earn half what the others earn, but that's only because they do half the hours. Apart from that, our vets are paid what they're worth (turnover, contribution to the clinic, client bonding, helping with external activities, etc) without gender being considered. I'd hope in this day and age that this would be the norm, with differences based on gender alone being obsolete.

Of course, you could just look at the average earnings for males in our practice (both partners are male) and females (2/5 females are part time) and you'd get a pretty bad number if everything else wasn't included in the reporting.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

mariette asselbergs — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:58:58 GMT

I remember that a few years ago the SPVS survey showed that female vets were paid on average £3000 less right from their first job out of university. before any maternity and or child/parent care gaps. This was a Veterinary Times headline and in a Vet record editorial and yet, to my surprise, nobody seemed to take it up.

Apart from this, I think it is important to know that under the present circumstances female vegts have a very much lower earning potential over their lifetime.

The reason s for this must then be analysed. Maternity leave, gaps for bringing up children and/ or taking care of aging parents, and or part time working for these reasons are not excuses for lower pay, but clear impediments for a full earning career, and society/government would do well to analyse if these are good ways to loose money on highly and expensively trained individuals. It may also be important to find out if and why female vets progress less into highly paid specialisations and/or managerial jobs.

Mariette

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Eilidh Corr — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 22:28:31 GMT

I just want to quietly make the point that I'm a million times more productive since having children.

Those little blocks of leave gave me so much more than an extra six months spent vaccinating kittens and calving cows could ever have given me. The headspace away from work and focusing entirely on other matters alone gave me a much-needed rest. I'm a more mature and rounded person and a better vet.

It's a bit annoying to think that employers might believe me to be worth less because of the above.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Julian Earl — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:02:49 GMT

[quote user="Duncan Reavell"]The article suggests that one year after graduation the average salary for women in the profession is HALF that of men. I am rather shocked by this finding which would be a scandal if true- but is it as simple as the article would make it appear? I can believe that there are many factors that create a small gender pay gap (as an anglo saxon male employer I am very conscious of the risks of institutionalised discrimination) but to be half that of men seems astonishing.[/quote]

You post this like it's a bad thing??!

You do realise I'm joking of course??

In my defence, if I need it? I have often said that, particularly on farms, women are better vets, for one reason: They have to be. I started work at a time when females were not always believed to be strong or capable enough but they often ended up with a fantastic reputation. They demonstrated that calvings and the like require skill not brawn!

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Utlendigur — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:10:31 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]My point (with such articles) is they work out the average salary for a male and a female and don't take part time working, time away from work (maternity etc) into account. This will always make it look like they earn less money[/quote]

To some extent, but several years ago I queried the SPVS salary survey which listed a mind-boggling array of categories and combinations of categories - all except gender. I was told that the reason was that it showed a statistically significant difference in male and female salaries starting right from graduation, and they didn't want to appear to normalise salary differences, but it seemed to be sweeping the issue under the carpet. I agree there may be valid reasons for the difference, but is it also that employers know they can get away with it because women tend to be less pushy over salaries - and part of that may be because they don't realise how big the differential is.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

vs0u — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:04:40 GMT

The figures are provided in this link in the article

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-for-all-subjects-by-university

click on main tables then table 1

However it looks like the earnings are actually pretty similar (unless I am looking at it wrong).

It gives the median earnings for 1 yr qualified females as 27,400 and for males as 27,700 (averaged across all UK vet schools). For longer qualified, there is a slightly bigger gap up to about 2000 at the five year mark.

Even looking at individual vet schools with low numbers of males in the cohort, there don't seem to be any massive differences so I don't know where they've got the twice as much figure from.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 00:10:01 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Fleming"]I'm curious about this approach, Michael. At what point do you consider that the number of years graduated/ working are no longer relevant, or perhaps that the quality of experience becomes more important?

What about additional qualifications/ certificates? Or an interest in for example more complex surgeries?[/quote]

In truth I don't think I've ever had anyone apply for a job with us with more than about 6 years experience. I use the SPVS figures as a guide and would take other skills into account, further qualifications, support needed etc. My gut feeling is that would level out around the 10 year mark and the individual person would then have more effect on things. If you were 4 years qualified and couldn't spay a cat then you wouldn't survive your 3 month trial.

I wouldn't treat a man who'd had a year off to care for a sick relative any differently to a woman who'd had a year off for a reason - both vets have less experience than someone working continuously. That has to be reflected in pay.

My point (with such articles) is they work out the average salary for a male and a female and don't take part time working, time away from work (maternity etc) into account. This will always make it look like they earn less money. It's bad use of statistics. That's my point.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Bob Russell — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:03:49 GMT

Work half the hours, get half the pay! Total rubbish journalism. Both sexes get equally rubbish pay rates in most circumstances!

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Anthony Dennison — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:56:35 GMT

Experience counts for a lot. If a vet graduated 3 years ago but still can't do a cat spay on their own, they should be paid the same as a new grad.

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:48:53 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]If I had 2 equal applicants apply and one was male and one female I would offer exactly the same money. If I took on a part time vet (either male or female) then I'd pay them the same for the same hours. If I employed a vet who was 10 years qualified but had a couple of years out having children and had worked a couple of years part time then I'd pay them the same as a male or female with 7 years experience (because that's what they have).[/quote]

I'm curious about this approach, Michael. At what point do you consider that the number of years graduated/ working are no longer relevant, or perhaps that the quality of experience becomes more important? There could be a great deal of difference in the experiences both of those vets had had - what if one had been working sole charge, had some team management experience, had worked in a busy clinic covering their own OOH, but had fewer years of experience, and the other had been qualified a couple more years, no sole charge experience, not particularly busy/ not doing their own emergency cover etc. What about additional qualifications/ certificates? Or an interest in for example more complex surgeries?

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Nick Taylor — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:56:18 GMT

Very lazy journalism. Would be nice to see some data or assumptions. As an employer I cannot see why I would want to pay a man more than a woman because of their sex. That can only be a recipe for business failure!!

RE: Female graduates earn only half what their male counterparts do after one year- Guardian.

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 22:10:58 GMT

An article with no data. I call 'bollocks'. It's simply not true in vet medicine, look at SPVS data.

I think its fair to say that women are more likely to work part time. Has this been taken into account? If women are taking time out on maternity leave is that accounted for?

If I had 2 equal applicants apply and one was male and one female I would offer exactly the same money. If I took on a part time vet (either male or female) then I'd pay them the same for the same hours. If I employed a vet who was 10 years qualified but had a couple of years out having children and had worked a couple of years part time then I'd pay them the same as a male or female with 7 years experience (because that's what they have).

That's where I suspect these suggested pay differences come from.