Spence’s signaling model (Spence, 1973) suggests that education can signal workers’ unobserved ability to employers thereby mitigating discrimination. There have been several studies concerning education’s impact on labor market discrimination against minority or disadvantaged groups. Our approach in this inquiry is unique in that we utilize the data of PhD recipients, a group of people with the highest education attainment, to test Spence’s theory. Another novelty of this paper is that in addition to examining possible discrimination against women and foreign-born, as has been done in previous studies, we further explore possible discrimination against the physically challenged individuals. Our baseline results show conflicting results that Ph.D. education can reduce discrimination against disability and foreign-born but not against gender. Further analysis by the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition shows that the wage gaps of gender and disability come more from the unobserved part than the explained part, while the foreign-born wage gap come more from the observable human capital differences. Since prejudice is an unobserved factor and we know that the disadvantaged groups are likely to suffer from prejudice (Oaxaca, 1973; Blinder, 1973; Montes-Rojas et al., 2017; Deshpande and Khanna, 2018), we conjecture that prejudice might be attributable to the unexplained part of the wage gaps. Furthermore, prejudice might be deeply rooted in one’s mind, thus difficult to remove even with the influence of education. Hence, our results reveal that it would be hard for Ph.D. education to eradicate the discrimination against gender and disability, but not against foreign-born.

To investigate successful technology transfer, the potential path of innovations from the university research bench to the knowledge recipient is modelled. Universities exist in highly regulated environments and the initial path of decision-making is a hierarchical model and where decisions flow upward from manager to manager until a small number of candidate innovations for commercialization remain. These are then routed for further processing to the link connecting to the knowledge recipient, the Technology Transfer Office (TTO). In the TTO, a hierarchical decision-making model can be acceptable in terms of outcomes, but ambidextrous co-operative team structures are much superior in cases where staff have good insight and decision-making abilities. This report represents the first Structured Equation Model investigation of the management architecture of a TTO.