Gender segregation in the employment of higher education graduates

Abstract

This article examines the employment and placement in the working life of Finnish higher education graduates (i.e. graduates from universities and polytechnics), focusing on gender equality. It reports a study on gender segregation in higher education and working life, considered in relation to Nordic gender equality policies. The data were gathered via a questionnaire administered to graduates in business and administration (n = 1067) and in technology (n = 1087), three years after their graduation. The results showed that men were able to secure permanent and full-time employment more often than women, and men achieved better correspondence between their degree and their employment. However, gender divergence manifested differently in polytechnics and universities; thus a higher (Master’s) university degree seemed to have a compensating influence on the effect of gender. Despite Nordic equality policies, female and male graduates were placed in the labour market according to tendences of gender segregation.

Keywords:

• gender segregation
• higher education graduates
• employment
• employment success

Notes

1. Finland has a dual higher education system. A polytechnic is also called a University of Applied Sciences (which is the name used by the institutions themselves). In this article the term ‘polytechnic’ is used because it is the official name used by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. In addition, it is convenient for the sake of brevity.

2. It is worth noting here that conservative (e.g. in Southern European countries) as well as liberal regimes can have high proportions of women in paid employment and education, without there being any direct connection to gender equality as a policy pursued by the state (Esping-Andersen 1990; Walther 2006). In the Nordic countries, universalistic welfare policies also include labour market policy (labour market regime) that gives many kinds of protection to employees (e.g. to promote gender equality). (see Anxo, Bosch, and Rubery 2010).

3. The phrases female-to-male domination and feminization refers only to the numerical majority of females to males in the field of the study in question, or in the higher education sector.

4. In general, gender inequality in the labour market is a complex and multidimensional problem. In the theoretical literature it has been explained via various approaches, including labour market structures (segregation and segmentation), the gender contract, and the practices and discourses by which the positions of men and women are produced and reproduced in working life and elsewhere (e.g. Beechey 1987; Bradley 1989; Hirdman 1988; Walby 1988; West and Zimmerman 1991) However, it is not possible to include all these approaches in one article.

5. These same indicators and similar operational definitions are used in Vuorinen-Lampila and Stenström (2012).

6. The concept of ‘expert’ is commonly used in Finnish higher education. It was not defined in the questionnaire, since it was assumed to be a familiar term to graduates. Only 5% of the respondents chose the answer ‘Don’t know’. Being able to achieve an expert job is considered to be one qualitative indicator of a graduate’s labour market success. In Finland the concept ‘expert’ is used especially in relation to a polytechnic degree. As defined by legislation, polytechnics should provide students with the practical competences needed to perform expert tasks in their field; see Stenström 2006.

7. In 2007 the percentage of Swedish-speakers in Finland was 5.5% (Statistics Finland 2008; http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2007/vaerak_2007_2008-03-28_tie_001_en.html).

8. Støren and Arnesen (2007) define male-dominated fields as those fields of study in which men comprise at least 65% of the total, with female-dominated fields being those in which women comprise at least 65% of the total. The remainder are viewed as gender-balanced.

9. They have mostly placed in the public sector. The proportion of respondents working in the third sector was marginal (= 0–6% depending on degree).