In Kata Alvidrez’ column, “Sex differences are no excuse for inequality,” Ms. Alvidrez states that she was earning around $40,000, but her advancement was hindered by the fact that she had a child. All the while, men were earning 25 percent more in similar positions.

What interests me is the implied suggestion that her employer should have ignored her work performance when evaluating her.

If there is someone who is willing to provide “24-hour job availability,” shouldn’t he or she make more money? Shouldn’t the promotion go to the person who most effectively performs his or her job?

I agree that children are a hindrance to a career, but is it really fair to tell an employer that appraisals of employees should be influenced by outside commitments?

I think a resum‚ would look pretty ridiculous if it contained the lines “must work in same city as spouse, must be allowed 30 hours per week for children, must not be required to work weekends or evenings, expect salary equal to my peers.”

Any employer would laugh at that, and yet it seems that this is exactly what Ms. Alvidrez is suggesting we all do.

Someday, I hope to own a business, and I will make as much allowance as I can for employees who are parents because I have a family.

But when it comes time for promotions and raises, I will look at work output and not family portraits to make my decisions.

Levi Sauerbrei

Sophomore

Computer science