I think it probably arrises from our y-value system, which has evolved over the years to become a bit more nuanced and to recognize different kinds of experience and equivalent experience. Faculty members who came into the system earlier—20 or 30 years ago—were subject to a different system, which didn't have as broad a view on what valuable and creditable experience would be when calculating that y-value. I think that for our newer faculty, who are subject to a more nuanced system, we get their y-value right.
I think that in those earlier years we didn't get their y-value right, so their male comparators were seen as being higher and more expert, but that was probably not the case.