Job standing: Jev vs Canadians in 1965

For 102 occupations from the Pineo-Porter Canadian prestige survey, does Jev order jobs by standing the way Canadians did, and which jobs has it promoted or demoted?

result99 questions

Rating the standing of 99 occupations from a 1965 Canadian survey, Jev orders them fairly closely like the public did (rank correlation 0.75). It promotes firefighters, electrical linemen and longshoremen and demotes real estate salesmen, computer operators and government administrators. Its ladder follows pay more than schooling (0.74 vs 0.49); the 1965 public's followed schooling more (0.81 vs 0.77).

How to read this: Each dot is an occupation. Across: its rank in the 1965 survey. Up: its rank for Jev. Dots above the diagonal are jobs Jev ranks higher than Canadians did; the labeled ones moved most.

99 occupations; 90% interval on the rank correlation 0.68 to 0.81; share of women: Jev -0.36, Canadians -0.07. The screen hid 2 of the 101 occupation questions.

In short

Jev ranks 99 jobs from a 1965 Canadian prestige survey much as that public did, with a rank correlation of 0.75.
It lifts hands-on and protective work such as firefighters and longshoremen, and drops desk jobs such as real estate salesmen and typists.
Its demotions fall mostly on jobs then held by women, but those clerical jobs may simply have lost standing since 1965.

What the data shows

damn got hands meme: Jev ranking longshoremen above government administrators — Jev ranking longshoremen above government administrators

Fairly close overall (0.75; 90% interval 0.68 to 0.81).
Promoted by Jev: firefighters (from the middle of the 1965 list to near the top), electrical linemen, longshoremen, carpenters and sheet metal workers.
Demoted by Jev: real estate salesmen, computer operators, government administrators, draughtsmen and typists.
Money over schooling. Jev's ranking follows income (0.74) much more than education (0.49); the 1965 public's followed education (0.81) a little more than income (0.77).
A lean against women's jobs (see Caveats): -0.36 for Jev against -0.07 for the public.

What it means, and what it doesn't

Jev respects hands-on, physical and protective work more than the 1965 public, and desk jobs less. Its ladder tracks pay closely and schooling loosely, unlike the 1965 public, which followed both about equally.

It doesn't say whether Jev matches Canadians today, and the lean against jobs then held mostly by women can't be separated here from those jobs simply being outdated. Both would be worth testing with a modern survey.

Caveats

A 1965 public, a 1971 census. The prestige scores are from a Canadian survey in 1965 and the pay, schooling and gender figures from the 1971 census. Several of the jobs have changed beyond recognition since: a 1965 "computer operator" ran machines, a typist typed for a living. A gap can be Jev being modern.
The jobs Jev demotes are mostly women's jobs. Jev's ranking leans against occupations that were mostly held by women in 1971 (correlation -0.36, against -0.07 for the 1965 public): typists and computer operators are among its biggest demotions. That could be a lean against women's work or simply that those clerical jobs have lost standing since; this data can't separate the two.
Averages only. The survey published a mean prestige score per job, not full answers, so the comparison is of rankings. Jev was asked with five described levels of "general standing", the wording of the older American survey.
Some jobs hidden. A content filter hid 2 of the 101 occupations from the site.

Jev on this experiment

Would a person find it interesting to read?: Yes75%
Does it describe you?: No55%
Would you have predicted it?: No58%
How fair is the comparison?: The comparison is reasonable
How much should a reader rely on it?: Moderately
Which caveat matters most?: A 1965 public, a 1971 census45%

Why ask this

The second classic study of job prestige, after an American one in 1947, asked Canadians in 1965 to rate the standing of about a hundred occupations. Paired with census records of each job's pay, schooling and share of women, it shows what a mid-century public's ladder of respectable work was built on.

Comparing Jev with it shows two things: which jobs Jev has promoted or demoted relative to that public, and whether its sense of standing rests on money, on education, or on something else.

How this was done

The people and the data

Pineo and Porter's national survey of Canadian adults (1965, published 1967) gave each of 102 occupations a mean prestige score. The version used here, John Fox's Prestige data for the R statistics language, adds 1971 census figures for each occupation: average income, average years of education, and the share of women. One duplicate title was dropped, leaving 101 occupations to ask about, and a content filter hid 2 of them: 99 are shown here.

What Jev was asked

How would you rate the general standing of firefighters as a job?
Poor standing: most people look down on this job · Somewhat below average standing · Average standing: an ordinary, respectable job · Good standing: people think well of someone who does it · Excellent standing: one of the most respected jobs there is

Each occupation was asked as written, for "most people", and with the levels reversed; the two orders are averaged.

How it was measured

Whether Jev ranks the occupations in the same order as the 1965 scores (rank correlation: 1 means the same order), the occupations whose rank moves most, and how closely each side's ranking follows the jobs' income, education and share of women.

Where these questions live

99 questions across 1 topic of the map. Each opens on the map with every question in it.

Careers & the Workplace

Job Prestige99

Every question

All 99 questions behind this result, the telling ones first: the examples the analysis points to, then the ones where Jev misses, biggest gap first.

Jev’s own answer

Showing 0 of 99