Are the pay scales/salaries in most pathology departments adjusted to reflect these sorts of variations in "full time" though (I imagine this could vary a lot depending on the practice structure)? Presumably no one would think that someone who takes 65 hours to do the same amount of work that someone else can accomplish in 45 hours should get paid more. But if the person who works 65 hours does more with their time (more research, teaching, glass-pushing, whatever), would that cause their group to give them a relatively higher salary vs the other "full time" staff?
I appreciate and agree with the point yaah and icpshootyz made, i.e. more women than men tend to work less than full time. However, the data in the survey is limited to full time workers and I feel less confident that there is a significant difference between hours worked/duties performed by men and women who are both "full time." So, I, like BlondeDocteur, am also curious about whether the difference in average compensation between male and female pathologists is due to relative differences in hours worked at "full time," due to under-representation of female pathologists among the ranks of the most senior/highest earning, discrimination, some combination of factors, etc.