Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Comparing women’s skills and contributions against men’s skills and contributions in any competitive industry is always entering controversial and dangerous waters.
Simple explanations are easy, but are often wrong. Complex explanations likely improve the odds of a meaningful answer. On the top of that decision pyramid, informed simple solutions are most likely to provide the best odds and the why insights. Here is my attempt at an informed simple explanation.
Women are an underrepresented population in the financial advisory industry because of 3 interactive reasons: (1) they lacked motivation and opportunity in the past, (2) they lacked the requisite education, and (3) industry adjustment time lags.
This is an informed simple explanation based on a single set of curves that summarized women’s education participation and levels over the last 5 decades. Here is the Link to the data sets that I referenced:
These data sets are quite revealing. Young women have historically done better in High School than young men. Yet, those with advanced degrees, that would make them attractive to the finance advisory industries, have only arrived in sufficient numbers in the last several decades.
The financial industries are tradition bound. They make tons of money with little capital investment, and are reluctant to change this profitable equation. But it is changing slowly, ever so slowly, as more and more women are entering the business, are demonstrating their dedication and skill sets, and are moving up the corporate ladders. Inertia is a powerful drag. It just takes time.
Today, women only compose roughly 10% of the financial wizards in the USA; in some European countries, that percentage approaches 20%. In 2 decades, I predict those percentages will increase to 50% worldwide. I don’t fear long range predictions because nobody worries, nobody cares, and nobody remembers anyway.
As an aside, I was not surprised that girls outscore boys at the High School level. That’s been a truism forever. But I was surprised by the increase in overall grades over the last 50 years. Are we getting smarter? My answer to that question is a sharp “No”. The timeframe is too short. My answer is that the grading system has become softer. That’s not an especially good motivator; a more demanding score keeper will provide stronger incentives.
"Have got"? I am not familiar with this conjugative form. Is this conventional now? It used to be "have gotten." And I suppose, if it is you (plural), then it should now be YOUs GOTS/YOUs HAVE GOTS, or..... geesh.....
The English language is dynamic. I would be careful about what is and what is not acceptable usage today or even tomorrow. English in the USA is different from English in England. I sure am not an expert in this field, but some experts might take exception to your conclusion. Here is a Link to one such source:
I suggest that a reasonable observer expects a difference between an entertainer who may use (or misuse) language as part of their performance and the author of a supposedly serious article. There is a significant distinction between the dynamic ongoing evolution and the careless bastardization of a language.
I'm pretty sure that Colin Dexter (Detective Chief Inspector Endeavour Morse) would agree.
Comments
Comparing women’s skills and contributions against men’s skills and contributions in any competitive industry is always entering controversial and dangerous waters.
Simple explanations are easy, but are often wrong. Complex explanations likely improve the odds of a meaningful answer. On the top of that decision pyramid, informed simple solutions are most likely to provide the best odds and the why insights. Here is my attempt at an informed simple explanation.
Women are an underrepresented population in the financial advisory industry because of 3 interactive reasons: (1) they lacked motivation and opportunity in the past, (2) they lacked the requisite education, and (3) industry adjustment time lags.
This is an informed simple explanation based on a single set of curves that summarized women’s education participation and levels over the last 5 decades. Here is the Link to the data sets that I referenced:
http://www.russellsage.org/blog/rise-women-seven-charts-showing-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement
These data sets are quite revealing. Young women have historically done better in High School than young men. Yet, those with advanced degrees, that would make them attractive to the finance advisory industries, have only arrived in sufficient numbers in the last several decades.
The financial industries are tradition bound. They make tons of money with little capital investment, and are reluctant to change this profitable equation. But it is changing slowly, ever so slowly, as more and more women are entering the business, are demonstrating their dedication and skill sets, and are moving up the corporate ladders. Inertia is a powerful drag. It just takes time.
Today, women only compose roughly 10% of the financial wizards in the USA; in some European countries, that percentage approaches 20%. In 2 decades, I predict those percentages will increase to 50% worldwide. I don’t fear long range predictions because nobody worries, nobody cares, and nobody remembers anyway.
As an aside, I was not surprised that girls outscore boys at the High School level. That’s been a truism forever. But I was surprised by the increase in overall grades over the last 50 years. Are we getting smarter? My answer to that question is a sharp “No”. The timeframe is too short. My answer is that the grading system has become softer. That’s not an especially good motivator; a more demanding score keeper will provide stronger incentives.
What do you think? Your comments are encouraged.
Best Wishes.
I gots to go now...
The English language is dynamic. I would be careful about what is and what is not acceptable usage today or even tomorrow. English in the USA is different from English in England. I sure am not an expert in this field, but some experts might take exception to your conclusion. Here is a Link to one such source:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-have-got-acceptable-english?page=1
From my unworthy and uninformed perspective, it doesn't matter. What did you think about my simplistic assessment of the subject?
Spike Lee has made a zillion dollars playing loose with the English language in this and a number of other movie sequels:
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=spike+lee+he+got+game&oq=spike+lee+he+got+game&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..0l2j0i22i30.13996.25350.0.27498.21.9.0.12.12.0.62.360.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.21.454...0i131.jIydINizNAY#imgrc=ammZQWBqnrcM9M:
Edit: I have got to repost the Spike Lee reference. Sorry for my earlier error.
Best Wishes
I'm pretty sure that Colin Dexter (Detective Chief Inspector Endeavour Morse) would agree.