Male Professionals with Higher Ethical Standards Earn Less

formatting link

MAY 14, 2012
Male Professionals with Higher Ethical Standards Earn Less
Although companies have focused greater attention on the need for
ethical practices over the past few decades, male business
professionals who self-report high ethical character earn, on average,
3.4% less than their peers who don't report having such standards,
according to an analysis of data on thousands of students by Andrew
Hussey of the University of Memphis. Moreover, men who reported that
their MBA programs enhanced their ethical standards received 6.5%
lower wages than men who reported no such gain. For women, the
situation is different: Female professionals who self-report high
ethical standards receive no pay penalty, and women who said that
their schooling had raised their standards received a premium
averaging 5.5%.
Source: The effect of ethics on labor market success: Evidence from MBAs
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
That jumped out at me as well. It'd be interesting to know how the study controlled for the obvious problem. Reminds me of the old riddle about the liar and the truth-teller.
formatting link
Reply to
Ned Simmons
Reports in the press of studies like that never seem to mention such self- selection.
And they certainly never seem to take into account the people who just don't answer the survey at all -- they just blithely assume that all the folks who look at the survey, say "pfffft!!" and toss it in the round file are exactly like all the folks with interest and time enough to actually answer the thing.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
Most studies you read nowadays are the product of desperate PhDs tryna keep dey useless jobs -- the proverbial publish or perish. It was ALWAYS publish or perish, except previously "quality" -- heh, and honesty -- was implicit. Now, it's any goddammthing, incl, I think, confabulation.
Science stopped being science shortly after Watson&Crick -- partic Watson -- stole Linus Pauling's THIRD nobel prize. And Roslyn Franck's, and a bunch of others.
Pauling was LITERALLY minutes away from solving the structure. He had ALREADY solved the triple helix of alpha keratin, and had deduced the double helix structure of DNA, except with an inverted backbone. A cupla more minutes with the data Watson had hijacked, and bang......
And there's always the Bogdanoff Bros.:
formatting link
And their chins:
formatting link
Science hasn't been the same since. And in the last 20 years, since Big Pharma has infiltrated the University system, just forget it, you cain't hardly believe *textbooks* any more.
Reply to
Existential Angst
Geez, and we needed to pay somebody several hundred K $ to figure this out??????
Umm, you leave out lawyers, politicians "investment consultants" and you already have skewed the curve.
Reply to
Jon Elson
YUP!!!!!! More, if you factor in university pensions.
Don't forget the 10,000 or so scientists who can't agree on how to read an effing thermometer.... They should hire my wife... She can accurately read a thermometer -- of all types -- clear up to 450 F!!!
And, of course, don't forget Cold Fusion.....
Here, "ethical" without the preceding "Un-" would indeed be a confabulation.
Reply to
Existential Angst
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Not confused at all...just sayin that oftentimes, envy underlies = contempt.
Reply to

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.