[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-266704-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-266704-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","when-are-undergraduate-admissions-sexist-the-case-of-stanford-university","When Are Undergraduate Admissions Sexist? - The Case of Stanford University","","Discussions focus on sexist undergraduate admissions and the ways such bias can be embedded in institutional processes. Three primary strategies are presented to reduce admissions sexism: altering the undergraduate structure to open more places for women, actively recruiting qualified women applicants, and changing undergraduate review procedures. Evidence and examples are based on policies and practices at Stanford University, examined through committee work in 1970–1972.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/when-are-undergraduate-admissions-sexist-the-case-of-stanford-university/266704/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/when-are-undergraduate-admissions-sexist-the-case-of-stanford-university/266704.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Rhys","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why is overt sexism in undergraduate admissions difficult to document at many universities?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Overt exclusions are often not demonstrated because women apply in roughly the same proportions as they are admitted, and few applicant pairs are equal across all factors reviewed by admissions officers.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What are the three strategies suggested to reduce sexism in admissions?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Change the undergraduate structure to open more places to women, actively recruit qualified women applicants, and modify undergraduate review procedures.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did Stanford’s admission policy historically affect the male-female enrollment ratio?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"After its founding, enrollment shifts and trustee reinterpretations maintained a higher number of men than women for decades, with limits on women’s enrollment that later were treated as ratio-based.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},266704,1789410893,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144},687207024643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","蓝D 095740  \nAUTHOR  \nTITLE  \nPUB DATE  \nNOTF  \nEDRS PRICE  \nDESCRIPTORS  \nI DENTIFIERS  \nABSTRACT  \nDOCUYENT RESUNE  \nLeifer,Aimee Dorr  \nWhen Are Undergraduate Admissions Sexist?The Case ofStanford University.  \n18 Apr 74  \n10p.;Paper presented at the Symposium on  \nAcademic/Professional Women in Communication a ndRelated Fields.International CommunicationAssociation(New Orleans,Louisiana,April 1974)  \nMF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGE  \n*Admission(School);*College Admission;Females;*Highe:Education;Recruitment;*Sex Discrimination;Speeches;*Undergraduate Study*Stanford University  \nThis document aiscusses sexist undergraduate  \nadmissions.Three primary strategies are presented to make admissionless sexist.These strategies suggest:(1)the undergraduatestructure can be changed so that more places are open to women;(2)undergraduate institutions can actively recruit qualified womena pplicants;and(3)undergraduate institutions can change theirreview procedures.(MJM)  \n0tLS603  \n20  \nR°C  \n# When Are Undergraduate Admissions Sexist?The Case of Stanford University\n\nAimee Dorr Leifer  \nCenter for Research in Children's TelevisionHarvard University  \nPresented at the Symposium on Academic/Professiona1 Women inCommunication and Related FieldsInternationa1 Communication AssociaticaNew Orleans,Apri118,1974  \nStendha1 once said:  \n\"Pedants have for two thousand years reiterated the notionthat women have a more lively spirit,men more solidity;that women have more delicacy in their ideas and men greaterpower of attention.\"  \nHe continued,however,that:  \n\"A Paris idler who once took a wa1k in the Versailles Gardensconcluded that,judging from a1l he saw,the trees growready trimmed.\"  \nI'm sure that a11 of us have at many times in our undergraduate,graduate,and professiona11ives a1so encountered this idea that thereare characteristics of men and women that--11ke trimmed trees --arenatura1.I'd 11ke today to ta1k about s ome of these 1deas as they relateto the admission of men and women to undergraduate educations.Many ofthe ideas have led to policies that are sexiat and discriminatory,though not in the most obvious ways.  \nMuch of what I say today wi11 be based upon the policles and prac-tices of Stanford University.This is not to single it 1t as an un-usua1 sinner.It isn't.In fact I think it's an evcellent undergradu-ate university for both men and 'women.  Rather the .cue on Stanfordcomes from my two years'intimate examination of undergraduate admissfonthere.This examination occurred during the academic years 70-71 and71-72 when I served on a university committee charged to examine a11 the1mplicatio of any change in admission policy.  \nWhen Stanford was founded,Senator Stanford charged Trus tees:\"To afford equal fac111ties and give equal advantages to both sexes.\"By the end of the nineteenth century,enro11ment had gone from threemen for every woman to two men for every woman.Senator Stanford wasdead and Mrs.Stanford feared that the Unfversity might wind up a women'sseminary.  So she placed a 1imit of 500 on the number of women who cou1dbe enrol1ed at aty one time at Stanford.  \n—2—  \nThis 1imit held unti1 the 1930's when the ratio was five to one.At this point the Trustees reinterpreted Mrs.Stanford's dictum asmeaning not 1\"500\"but a ratio 1ike that when she set the 5001imit.Thus for forty years --except during Wor1d War II--Stanford enrolledtwice as many undergraduate men as women.  \nIn 1970,the University realized that such a 1imitatlun might be1egally or politically impossible to maintain.It consequent1y setabout examining the potential effects of changes in the ratio.Myknowledge comes from participating in this examination.  \nThere are four principal points I want to make as I talk aboutthe issues we encountered in our work:  \n1.Sexism in undergraduate admissions in its most overt formis hard to document in most colleges and universities.  \n2,Sexism is very prevalent in the beliefs of students,facu1-ty,administrators,and trustees.  \n3.Sexism i","cbCaiaoqqDUTikrs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaoqqDUTikrs","pdf",243960,11,"English","# When Are Undergraduate Admissions Sexist?\n## The Case of Stanford University\n## Historical context of admission limits\n## Four principal points on sexism\n## How sexism can be hard to document","[{\"question\":\"Why is overt sexism in undergraduate admissions difficult to document at many universities?\",\"answer\":\"Overt exclusions are often not demonstrated because women apply in roughly the same proportions as they are admitted, and few applicant pairs are equal across all factors reviewed by admissions officers.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the three strategies suggested to reduce sexism in admissions?\",\"answer\":\"Change the undergraduate structure to open more places to women, actively recruit qualified women applicants, and modify undergraduate review procedures.\"},{\"question\":\"How did Stanford’s admission policy historically affect the male-female enrollment ratio?\",\"answer\":\"After its founding, enrollment shifts and trustee reinterpretations maintained a higher number of men than women for decades, with limits on women’s enrollment that later were treated as ratio-based.\"}]","When Are Undergraduate Admissions Sexist? - The Case of Stanford University | PDF",28]