A groundbreaking study recently published in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility sheds new light on the persistent gender pay gap that shadows highly educated professionals, particularly those holding PhDs. Contrary to widespread assumptions, this gap does not vanish once women exit academia; rather, it is present from the very moment they earn their doctorate and widens throughout their professional careers. Utilizing extensive longitudinal salary data from Statistics Netherlands (CBS), the research tracked more than 4,500 individuals who obtained doctoral degrees, offering an unprecedented view into the financial trajectories of male and female PhDs over a span of up to sixteen years.
From the outset, the data reveals a stark reality: women with freshly earned PhDs earn on average €171 less per month than their male counterparts. This initial wage disparity is not a mere blip confined to the academic sector but persists and exacerbates over time regardless of whether these scholars continue their careers within universities or venture into private industries. The findings challenge the prevalent narrative that women’s lower earnings are mainly a consequence of their academic choices or that transitioning out of academia necessarily leads to higher income prospects.
This research team, led in part by sociologist Anne Maaike Mulders at Radboud University, delved into what might account for this wage differential. Factors such as working hours, contract types, fields of study, and family responsibilities were rigorously considered. Despite these controls, no clear demarcation emerges that justifies the persistent salary gap. The results imply systemic and ingrained drivers of gendered income disparities that transcend common explanatory variables traditionally invoked in such debates.
A particularly intriguing revelation concerns the perceived financial benefits of leaving academia. While it is widely believed that leaving the university sector could herald better remuneration and career prospects, this advantage appears to be both marginal and short-lived. Mulders explicates that although women experience an initial salary boost upon departing academia, this steep growth plateaus sooner than it does for men. In the long term, academic employment offers higher cumulative earnings, predominantly benefiting women who remain within the university system. This nuanced insight counters the common supposition that private sector opportunities invariably offer superior financial rewards.
The study’s longitudinal design also highlights a troubling dynamic: women exit academia at a faster pace than men, a phenomenon that worsens wage inequality over time. The departure patterns amplify income disparities as women miss out on sustained salary growth typically observed within academic institutions. This finding is critical for understanding the broader landscape of gender inequality in professional trajectories, intertwining career stability with financial security.
Such data undermine superficial explanations that attribute wage discrepancies to personal choices or deficits in negotiating skills among women. Instead, they channel attention towards systemic structural inequities deeply embedded in labor markets and institutions. These inequality structures operate regardless of sector and background, demonstrating a pervasive and resilient gendered bias in salary levels and career progression.
The research further nuances the discourse around family responsibilities and career interruptions. While these aspects undeniably influence employment patterns and wages, they do not fully elucidate the wage gap observed. The persistence of salary inequities after controlling for family composition and working hours suggests broader societal and organizational practices that inherently disadvantage women, reflecting ingrained disparities in opportunity and valuation.
Moreover, the study interrogates the assumption prevailing in STEM fields that technical PhDs, for instance, might secure markedly higher compensation in industries such as pharmaceuticals or engineering. Contrary to these expectations, the data do not substantiate claims of substantially higher salaries for women upon transition to corporate roles. This insight calls for a reevaluation of career counseling and policy guidance that often promotes leaving academia as a straightforward upgrade in financial terms.
A critical implication of this research is the urgent need for systemic reforms to address deeply rooted inequalities in career structures and remuneration frameworks. Universities and industries alike must scrutinize their salary-setting mechanisms and promotional pathways to foster equitable conditions. Without such measures, the academic world risks not only losing talented female researchers but also perpetuating widening economic disparities that undermine broader social justice goals.
In sum, the findings of this rigorous, data-driven study underscore the complex interplay of gender, employment sector, and career dynamics. They reveal a persistent and growing gender pay gap immediately following the attainment of the highest academic qualifications, which is not simply resolved through sectoral mobility. Instead, this gap points to entrenched institutional biases that warrant attention from policymakers, educational leaders, and corporate decision-makers to ensure fair and equitable professional opportunities for all doctorate holders.
This research represents an important contribution to socio-economic studies on gender and labor market stratification. It situates wage inequality not as a static artifact but as a dynamic process sustained by structural factors that cut across industry boundaries. As societies aim to bridge gender divides, understanding these trajectories will be crucial for designing effective interventions that enable women to thrive financially in both academic and non-academic careers.
Further exploration of intersectional factors such as ethnicity, field specialization, and contract security would enrich the evolving discourse on postdoctoral careers. Meanwhile, transparency in remuneration and career development prospects remains a pivotal step to empower early-career researchers in negotiating equitable terms. This study sends a clear signal: narrowing the gender pay gap requires comprehensive, context-sensitive strategies that tackle root causes beyond simplistic individual-centered explanations.
Subject of Research: Gendered salary trajectories of PhD graduates within and outside academia.
Article Title: Leaving for more or settling for less: Gendered salary trajectories after leaving academia
News Publication Date: 12-Feb-2026
Web References: DOI 10.1016/j.rssm.2026.101132
References: Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
Keywords: Gender Pay Gap, PhD Graduates, Academic Salaries, Career Trajectories, Salary Inequality, Labor Market, Structural Inequality, Postdoctoral Careers, Gender Disparities
