Girls Get Better Grades Than Boys, But That Might Not Lead To Fair Pay

Expert comment provided by the European Institute for Gender Equality. 

A Cambridge study found that in the UK, boys typically perform worse than girls in exams, from early years through to university.

Some researchers, including those commissioned by parliament’s Education Committee, have sought to find out why that is, while headlines posit that schools might be “biased” against boys. 

We aren’t seeking to explain that difference here. Instead, we wanted to know whether the higher grades girls tend to get in school actually translate to better wages once they enter the workplace.

Here, we asked a spokesperson for the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) about the topic. 

“These stronger school outcomes do not automatically translate into equal outcomes later in life” 

An EIGE spokesperson said that girls’ academic achievements are a “long-standing achievement in the EU”. 

Women increasingly outnumber men in completing third-level education, they added. 

But “these stronger school outcomes do not automatically translate into equal outcomes later in life.

“Evidence consistently shows that structural inequalities in households, the labour market and public life continue to shape women’s opportunities, earnings, and career progression.” 

Indeed, the author of the Cambridge study we mentioned earlier said that “apparent advantages” suggested by girls’ academic successes “are not necessarily carried through to employment”.

At its current rate, the Trade Union Congress says, the UK’s gender pay gap is not expected to close for another 30 years.

Why don’t girls’ higher grades appear to lead to better pay?

The EIGE spokesperson said that one-third of young men aged 15-24 believe men are better leaders than women, compared to 15% of young women.

“These attitudes shape unequal outcomes over the life course, [and] contribute to a persistent divide in the labour market, where women are overrepresented in public sectors such as education, health, and care – roles that are essential but often undervalued and lower paid,” they added. 

Men, meanwhile, are likelier to work in higher-paying sectors.

Additionally, when women choose lucrative jobs, these tend to become lower-paid if others join them and the career is deemed “feminine”. The inverse appears to have happened in e.g. programming, when a formerly feminised role became male-dominated.

And “even when women enter the workforce with strong qualifications, they face barriers to career progression. Women remain underrepresented in senior and decision-making positions, which has a direct impact on earnings,” the spokesperson said.

For instance, in education, which is 76% female, men make an average of 17% more than women in the UK. As a percentage, men are significantly more likely than women to be headteachers (5.8% vs 3.9%).

“In addition, unequal sharing of care responsibilities means women are more likely to work part-time, take career breaks, or adjust their working patterns, all of which can slow career advancement and reduce lifetime earnings,” the EIGE spokesperson said.

“Women are also twice as likely as men to provide over 35 hours of childcare per week and, on average, receive only 75% of men’s pensions.” 

Ultimately, “the assumption that better school results lead to better professional outcomes does not hold in reality. Addressing these gaps requires tackling structural inequalities that continue to limit women’s economic equality.”