X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:23:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

Tim writes:

>Why not have an admissions policy that is blind
>to group but accounts for individual differences, such as being
>raised in a different culture, and directs its funding strictly
>according to the need of the student?  Those admitted will reflect
>the proportions of people who
>are qualified.

        Can I ask HOW one can have an admissions policy that is
"blind to group" but that "accounts for individual differences, such
as being raised in a different culture?"  I don't get it.

>Group-blind admissions are quite easy, particularly at the
>undergraduate level.

        I don't get this, either.  You mean, you can't tell by
looking at my name on this message that I'm a woman?  "Kathy" is a
woman's name,in this culture.  You can't tell by looking at the name
Shiawase Yakamoto that this student has an ethnic background other
than American melting pot?  How do you propose such a "group-blind"
admissions policy?  Or hiring policy?  Consider this:

        Fidell (1970).  Identical vitas of eight mythical new
Ph.D.'s were circulated to the chairpersons of 228 departments of
psychology.  Half of them had a male name on them (like James Ross),
and half a female name (like Janet Ross).  The chairs were asked to
report their willingness to hire this person, and if so, the level
at which they would be willing to hire the person (assistant,
associate, etc.) Six out of eight vitas received more favorable
ratings when they had a male name on them.  Also, vitas with men's
names on them were assigned a higher starting rank.  Even with an
identical vita, the rank of associate was more often granted to a
vita with a man's name on it, and the rank of assistant to a vita
with a woman's name on it.  Arvey (1979) has a meta analysis of
access discrimination studies, if you're interested.  In it, seven
of nine studies showed males receiving more favorable treatment than
females, even when qualifications were held equal.

        As for this idea of going back to the source--well, where do
you want to start?

        Here are some data to stir in the pot:

        High-school guidance counselors evaluating the same short
student case study recommended different occupations depending on
whether or not the case student had a traditionally masculine or
feminine name (Donahue and Costar, 1977).

        High-school guidance counselors were more likely to rate
their female students as more in need of counselling if those
students had chosed traditionally masculine careers as opposed to
traditionally feminine careers (Thomas and Stewart, 1971).

        High school guidance counselors judged female students who
wanted to go to medical school as more maladjusted than their male
counterparts (Abramowitz, Weitz, Schwartz, Amira, Gomes, and
Abramowitz, 1975).

        More recent studies corroborate these.  Are these enough
statistics for you, Tim?  I can give you more if you like.  On
differences in equal pay for equal work, too.  It is NOT just a
bunch of uppity women yelping and bitching on this board.  The data
are there, sir.  Read 'em and weep, folks.  Read 'em and weep.....

--Kathy Morgan
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU