In contrast, a 2018 audit study substituted common names of black men, white men, black women and white women on grant proposals and found no evidence of bias by scientific reviewers. A 2019 study found that even when blinded to the gender of the applicant, applications written by males were more likely to be funded. According to the American Association of University Professors 2018-19 faculty compensation survey, women full-time faculty were paid on average 81.6% of men and these differences are primarily due to men being in disproportionately at higher paying institutions and having higher ranks. A study by Wendy M. Williams, professor of human development at Cornell University, and Stephen Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology at Cornell, found that female applicants were strongly favored over men in an experiment designed to assess bias in hiring for professors in biology, engineering, economics and psychology. However, this studies results have been met with skepticism from other researchers, since it contradicts other studies on the issue. Joan C. Williams, a distinguished professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law, raised issues with its methodology, pointing out that the fictional female candidates it used were unusually well-qualified. In contrast, Ernesto Reuben, an assistant professor of management at Columbia University said Williams' and Ceci's study is methodologically sound and Wendy Williams noted that faculty short lists are always made up of superb candidates. Studies using more moderately-qualified graduate students have found that male students are much more likely to be hired, offered better salaries, and offered mentorship. Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women. Organizational research that investigates biases in perceptions of equivalent male and female competence has confirmed that women who enter high-status, male-dominated work settings often are evaluated more harshly and met with more hostility than equally qualified men. The "think manager – think male" phenomenon reflects gender stereotypes and status beliefs that associate greater status worthiness and competence with men than women. Gender status beliefs shape men's and women's assertiveness, the attention and evaluation their performances receive, and the ability attributed to them on the basis of performance. They also "evoke a gender-differentiated double standard for attributing performance to ability, which differentially biases the way men and women assess their own competence at tasks that are career relevant, controlling for actual ability." Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau (2002) argue that "perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to two forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman.