Motivated by evidence that the largest gender differences in career outcomes arise within occupations, we examine a single occupation. With the support of the American Finance Association (AFA), we surveyed AFA members on the professional culture within finance. Individual experiences vary substantially, especially across men and women. Contrary to conventional narratives, differences in preferences play little role in explaining why women experience worse outcomes. Bias and discrimination have the largest effect. The consequences of noninclusiveness extend beyond the personal to the entire field. Our findings suggest that institutions potentially could do more than they recognize to improve both diversity and science.

While the percentage of mature firms with classified boards or dual class shares has declined by more than 40% since 1990, the percentage of IPO firms with these structures has doubled over this period. We test whether IPO firms implement these structures optimally or whether they are utilized to allow managers to protect their private benefits of control. Both shareholder voting patterns and changes in firm types going public suggest that the Agency Hypothesis best explains IPO firm's use of dual class, particularly when there is a large voting-cash flow wedge. In contrast, among firms with high information asymmetry, classified board structures are better explained by the Optimal Governance hypothesis.