Skip to main content

Home/ XD3102 - Gender Studies/ Group items tagged Admission

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Weiye Loh

Too much paperwork, too little time for patients, Opinion News & Top Stories - The Stra... - 0 views

  •  
    "Charting a hospice admission usually takes between two and four hours, and requires filling out a seemingly endless number of data fields - some of them defying logic. I once had an oxygen-dependent centenarian patient in heart failure seeking admission to hospice. The hospice physician asked for further proof that the patient met the strict standards for hospice admission. It was a weekend and, during the time it took for me to collect that information, the patient died."
Weiye Loh

Making Every School an Accessible School - Singapore Policy Journal - 0 views

  • The MOE argues that alumni and community “help build up and strengthen the school’s tradition and ethos, and support its students” (Lim, 2009), but these policies are likely to further perpetuate inequality between schools: the minority of elite, brand-name institutions can benefit from these stakeholders in ways that the large majority of new, nondescript, ‘neighborhood’ primary schools cannot. Giving priority to special groups in Phase 2A (children of alumni, management, and staff, and siblings of alumni) and 2B (children of school volunteers, ‘active community leaders’, and members of affiliated churches and Chinese clans) is both unfair and anachronistic. It allows parents to directly transfer privilege and opportunity to their children.
  •  
    "Primary school admission policies come in different phases. The highest priority is given to applicants with blood ties to a school (Phases 1 and 2A). The remaining places go to other applicants in Phases 2B and 2C, with priority given to those who live closest to the school. Without alumni or blood tie connections, the only way to get into an elite school is by moving close to the school. Liang and Warrier found that in order to move within one kilometer of a school ranked 50 places higher, a typical family has to pay a premium of 131,000 Singapore Dollars. This premium costs about 30% more than the average household income, massively pricing out households hoping to send their children to higher-ranked schools. Not only does one have to pay more to get into a 'good' school, Liang and Warrier also discover massive inequalities in Phase 1 and 2A admissions. Grouping housing prices by Clusters, they find that these better schools in more expensive neighborhoods already have a higher Take-Up Rate (TUR, which is the spaces taken up by the end of 2A). In schools like Nanyang Primary School, children of alumni, management, and staff take up 90% of available seats, severely reducing the enrollment chances of people with no connections to the school. This accentuates the privilege of elites in propping up the futures of their children, undermining meritocracy while marching steadily towards 'parentocracy'."
Weiye Loh

JSTOR: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (August 2013), pp. 369-396 - 0 views

shared by Weiye Loh on 25 Aug 13 - No Cached
  •  
    "This study identifies a theoretical mechanism that could potentially affect public university admissions standards in a context of demographic change. I explore how demographic changes at a prestigious public university in the United States affect individuals' evaluations of college applications. Responding to a line graph that randomly displays a freshmen enrollment trend toward a white plurality or an Asian American plurality, white student evaluators lower their minimum class rank standard for admitting white applicants when exposed to an Asian American plurality trend. They also raise the minimum test percentile standard for admitting Asian American applicants. Notably, plurality trend does not affect Asian American student evaluators' minimum standards for recommending admission. Applications differed only by applicant race."
Weiye Loh

Asian Americans lack “good character” - The Unz Review - 0 views

  •  
    It strikes me as unlikely that Asian American applicants lack extracurricular activities. Though first generation immigrants may come from societies where academic achievement is the summum bonum, they know that in American admissions criteria that non-academic strengths matter. But, you can't manufacture leadership and charisma. Harvard's role is to educate and inculcate the leaders of the next generation of Americans. It is the training ground for our natural aristocracy. Can American society actually conceive of a situation where 40% of those leaders are Asian? I doubt it. Asian Americans are not seen as plausible leaders. Especially by the established oligarchs, who would prefer their own offspring to inherit the mantles of power. Asian males in particular exhibit a "penalty" in thedating game. White females perceive them to be sexually impotent (on average), and for better or worse the opinions of white females as to who is a plausible leader in our society is very telling. If American women won't want have to have sex with them, then why would the broader society see them as creditable leaders?
Weiye Loh

Former Yale admissions officer reveals secrets of who gets in - 0 views

  •  
    "It's very easy to throw the prize at the kids who finish the race first, but always look at the incline they faced. That will tell you much more."
Weiye Loh

Balderdash: The Casual Misandry of Advertising - 0 views

  • I was initially pleased and amused to learn about the Peranakan Museum's offer of free admission for men (from 26th May to 3rd July), with women who accompany them getting a 50% discount - a reversal of the usual Ladies' Night promotions.
  • However even here a contradiction suggests itself - if Women's don't get "It", how come they get a 50% discount on admission? This would suggest that while women may not partake of the full privileges of "It", they are not altogether left out in the cold.
  • The real problem comes when one reads the text of the promotion: "Ladies! Drag your man to the Peranakan Museum. Time to dump him if he can't be bothered to take you to your favourite Kebaya exhibition, especially when it's free for him"
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Despite the promotion's claim to be "tongue-in-cheek", just imagine the outcry if similar language were used about women. "Guys! Drag your woman to the football game. Time to dump her if she can't be bothered to take you to your favourite game, especially when it's free for her" For one, AWARE would be on their tails, given that they shriek and bitch over much less significant matters (even tongue-in-cheek ones, no less). It would be no surprise if they once again remained silent on this matter, as on other more important ones, given their revealed ideology that only men can do wrong. Again, we can profit by asking the sociological question: "Who Benefits?"
  • I am not against humour of this sort. Why, then, is this post titled "The Casual Misandry of Advertising"? This is because what I'm against is the double standards of Female Privilege - where in this case it's acceptable to use men as the targets of gentle mockery, but not women; if everyone were subject to the same standards, it would be non-discriminatory. To look at it another way - there is no discrimination if the police accosting and fining people who jaywalk. There is a problem of discrimination if the police accost and find only people of a certain race who jaywalk.
Weiye Loh

What Gender Is Science? » Contexts - 0 views

  • In labor markets, one well-known cause of sex segregation is discrimination, which can occur openly and directly or through more subtle, systemic processes
  • Sociologists and economists have documented this cognitive bias and “statistical discrimination” through diverse experiments. It turns out that people’s beliefs about men’s and women’s different natures lead them to assess task performance accordingly, even in the absence of any actual performance differences.
  • But discrimination isn’t the whole story. It’s well-established that girls and young women often avoid mathematically-intensive fields in favor of pursuits regarded as more human-centered. Analyses of gender-differentiated choices are controversial among scholars because this line of inquiry seems to divert attention away from structural and cultural causes of inequalities in pay and status.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • Acknowledging gender-differentiated educational and career preferences, though, doesn’t “blame the victim” unless preferences and choices are considered in isolation from the social contexts in which they emerge.
  • Female representation in science programs is weakest in the Netherlands and strongest in Iran, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, where science is disproportionately female. Although the Netherlands has long been considered a gender-traditional society in the European context, most people would still be intrigued to learn that women’s representation among science graduates is nearly 50 percentage points lower there than in many Muslim countries.
  • “Science” is a big, heterogeneous category, and life science, physical science, mathematics, and computing are fields with very different gender compositions. For example, women made up 60 percent of American biology graduates , but only about 19 percent of computing graduates, in 2008, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. But even when fields are defined more precisely, countries differ in some unexpected ways. A case in point is computer science in Malaysia and the U.S. While American computer scientists are depicted as male hackers and geeks, computer science in Malaysia is deemed well-suited for women because it’s seen as theoretical (not physical) and it takes place almost exclusively in offices (thought to be woman-friendly spaces).
  • Between 2005 and 2008, countries with the most male-dominated engineering programs include the world’s leading industrial democracies (Japan, Switzerland, Germany, and the U.S.) along with some of the same oil-rich Middle Eastern countries in which women are so well-represented among science graduates (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates).
  • While the vast majority of Americans today believe women should have equal social and legal rights, they also believe men and women are very different, and they believe innate differences cause them to freely choose distinctly masculine or feminine life paths. For instance, women and men are expected to choose careers that allow them to utilize their hard-wired interests in working with people and things, respectively.
  • Women’s relatively weak presence in STEM fields in the U.S. is partly attributable to some economic, institutional, and cultural features that are common to affluent Western democracies. One such feature is a great diversity of educational and occupational pathways.
  • In countries with developing and transitional economies, though, policies have been driven more by concerns about advancing economic development than by interests in accommodating women’s presumed affinities. Acute shortages of educated workers prompted early efforts by governments and development agencies to increase the supply of STEM workers.
  • Another reason for stronger sex segregation of STEM in affluent countries may be that more people (girls and women in particular) can afford to indulge tastes for less lucrative care and social service work in these contexts.
  • the argument that women’s preferences and choices are partly responsible for sex segregation doesn’t require that preferences are innate. Career aspirations are influenced by beliefs about ourselves (What am I good at and what will I enjoy doing?), beliefs about others (What will they think of me and how will they respond to my choices?), and beliefs about the purpose of educational and occupational activities (How do I decide what field to pursue?). And these beliefs are part of our cultural heritage. Sex segregation is an especially resilient form of inequality because people so ardently believe in, enact, and celebrate cultural stereotypes about gender difference.
  • One female student reported, “…In chemical engineering, most of the time you work in labs… So I think it’s quite suitable for females also. But for civil engineering… we have to go to the site and check out the constructions.”
  • Recent sociological research provides strong evidence that cultural stereotypes about gender difference shape individuals’ beliefs about their own competencies (“self-assessments”) and influence behavior in stereotype-consistent directions. Ubiquitous cultural depictions of STEM as intrinsically male reduce girls’ interest in technical fields by defining related tasks as beyond most women’s competency and as generally unenjoyable for them. STEM avoidance is a likely outcome.
  • Whatever one believes about innate gender difference, it’s difficult to deny that men and women often behave differently and make different choices. Partly, this reflects inculcation of gender-typed preferences and abilities during early childhood. This “gender socialization” occurs through direct observation of same-sex role models, through repeated positive or negative sanctioning of gender-conforming or nonconforming behavior, and through assimilation of diffuse cultural messages about what males and females like and are good at.
  • Sociologists who study the operation of gender in social interactions have argued that people expect to be judged according to prevailing standards of masculinity or femininity. This expectation often leads them to engage in behavior that reproduces the gender order. This “doing gender” framework goes beyond socialization because it doesn’t require that gender-conforming dispositions are internalized at an early age, just that people know others will likely hold them accountable to conventional beliefs about hard-wired gender differences.
  • Parents and educators exhort young people, perhaps girls in particular, to “follow their passions” and realize their “true selves.” Because gender is such a central axis of individual identity, American girls who aim to “study what they love” are unlikely to consider male-labeled science, engineering, or technical fields, despite the material security provided by such degrees.
  • Although the so-called “postmaterialist” values of individualism and self-expression are spreading globally, they are most prominent in affluent late-modern societies. Curricular and career choices become more than practical economic decisions in these contexts; they also represent acts of identity construction and self-affirmation
  • historical evidence pointing to long-term historical shifts in the gender-labeling of some STEM fields. In The Science Education of American Girls, Kim Tolley reports that it was girls who were overrepresented among students of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and natural science in 19th century American schools. Middle-class boys dominated the higher-status classical humanities programs thought to require top rational powers and required for university admission.
  • Science education was regarded as excellent preparation for motherhood, social work, and teaching. Sociologist Katharine Donato tells a similar story about the dawn of American computer programming. Considered functionally analogous to clerical work, it was performed mostly by college-educated women with science or math backgrounds. This changed starting in the 1950s, when the occupation became attractive to men as a growing, intellectually demanding, and potentially lucrative field. The sex segregation of American STEM fields—especially engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences—has shown remarkable stability since about 1980.
  • The gender (and racial) composition of fields is strongly influenced by the economic and social circumstances that prevail at the time of their initial emergence or expansion.
  • Tolley, for example, links men’s growing dominance of science education in the late 19th and early 20th century to changing university admissions requirements, the rapid growth and professionalization of science and technology occupations, and recurrent ideological backlashes against female employment.
  • When occupations or fields are segregated by sex, most people ­suspect it reflects fields’ inherently masculine or feminine task ­content. But this presumption is belied by substantial cross-national variability in the gender composition of fields, STEM in particular. Moreover, this variability follows surprising patterns. Whereas most people would expect to find many more female engineers in the U.S. and Sweden than in Columbia and Bulgaria, new data suggest that precisely the opposite is true.
  • Ironically, the freedom of choice that’s so celebrated in affluent Western democracies seems to help construct and give agency to stereotypically gendered “selves.” Self-segregation of careers may occur because some believe they’re naturally good at gender-conforming activities (attempting to build on their strengths), because they believe that certain fields will be seen as appropriate for people like them (“doing” gender), or because they believe they’ll enjoy gender-conforming fields more than gender-nonconforming ones (realizing their “true selves”). It’s just that, by encouraging individual self-expression in postmaterialist societies, we may also effectively promote the development and expression of culturally gendered selves.
  •  
    Science education was regarded as excellent preparation for motherhood, social work, and teaching.
Weiye Loh

Legacy Students Make Harvard's Finances Work - Bloomberg - 0 views

  •  
    "Of course, if the elite schools are going to grow, the new activities should be geared less in the direction of wealthy people. As it stands, some of the top U.S. schools (not Harvard) take in more students from the top 1 percent of the income distribution than the bottom 60 percent. More generally, most attendees at top schools come from well-off families, and only 3 percent come from the bottom economic quartile. To create momentum in the opposite direction, imagine a Harvard that admits more than 2,000 or so undergraduates, making further effort to identify individuals from lower-income or other backgrounds that do not describe the typical Harvard attendee. Or Harvard could open a branch for part-time study, and for Harvard certificates, but based in and serving one of the poorer neighborhoods of Boston. Alternatively, Harvard could do more internationally, focusing on the talent from poorer communities. If need be, those initiatives could be named after donors who ponied up large sums of money to help get their kids into Harvard. And some portion of the money could be spent on those newly admitted rich kids too, just to make sure everyone is on board."
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20 items per page