There is rather a lot of concern with this article and the studies cited. First, you present assumptions based on global data (eg women are paid less than men) but this is aggregated data that has little meaning unless you also specify the context. For example, in first world countries in the education sector (and every other sector that I know of) there is no pay disparity. To use this stat on pay disparity, that is so often bandied around, as though it represents everyone, everywhere, is meaningless (in a scientific sense as this article purports to be). Second, the methodology in the experiments need some scrutiny as, in the way they are presented here (albeit limited I know for editorial purposes) suggested some areas for concern. The most obvious one being how can students be reporting on their teacher evaluations if they don’t even know the gender of their teacher (I would assume that students would know wether the person teaching them is male or female. Based on this assumption I struggle to understand, “In two of the course sections, male instructors used female names, and female instructors used male names”. <— so were the participants reporting on their actual teachers (and therefore didn’t know their gender), or were they reporting on fictitious teachers, in which case the study is making claims (s reported here) that can’t be founded on anything close to academic rigour. If we really want to move to a more inclusive and fair world we need to actually start reporting on the facts as they are, without bias, so we may understand the true and accurate nature of any deficiencies in order that they may be addressed with the resources available. All this type of reporting does is muddy the waters and damage those really in need (as THEIR plight, not just generic aggregated nonsense) is reported and reacted on.