She wrote a paper on blind auditions, this gained a lot of media attention, but as a lot of her work it was quite exaggerated see e.g [0]<p>[0] <a href="https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-orchestra-auditions-really-benefit-women/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...</a>
Mandatory "not a real Nobel Prize"<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econ...</a>
> During the twentieth century, women’s education levels continuously increased, and in most high-income countries they are now substantially higher than for men.<p>> However, Goldin has shown that the bulk of this earnings difference is now between [sic] and women in the same occupation, and that it largely arises with the birth of the first child.<p>Interesting situation developing if the main effort is in educating women who then leave the workforce. I assume one of these is going to have to give - presumably who takes primary caregiver responsbilities.
> the bulk of this earnings difference is now between and women in the same occupation<p>Ironic/refreshing/funny to see that "men" are literally absent from the narrative here. How do I make a PR to correct a mistake in their copy?
> Goldin showed that female participation in the labour market did not have an upward trend over this entire period, but instead forms a U-shaped curve. The participation of married women decreased with the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society in the early nineteenth century, but then started to increase with the growth of the service sector in the early twentieth century. Goldin explained this pattern as the result of structural change and evolving social norms regarding women’s responsibilities for home and family.<p>Seems fairly intuitive, no?