Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED053673: A Report on the Status of Women at the University of Washington; Part II, Undergraduate and Graduate Students."

See other formats


DOCOHEHT BBSDHE 



ED 053 673 



HE 002 429 



TITLE 



INSTITUTION 
PUB DATE 
NOTE 



A Report on the Status of Women at the University of 
Washington; Part II, Undergraduate and Graduate 
Students. 

Washington Univ. , Seattle. 

May 71 
29p. 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 
Academic Performance, ♦College Students, 
♦Discriminatory Attitudes (Social), Enrollment, 
♦Females, Financial Support, ♦Graduate Students, 
Higher Education, *Social Discrimination 
♦Washington University (Seattle) 



ABSTRACT 



This report on the status of undergraduate and 
graduate women at the University of Washington presents information 
on: (1) admissions 1970, including undergraduate and graduate 

admissions procedures, summaries and analyses of undergraduate and 
graduate admissions data, admissions at the schools of dentistry, 
law, and medicine, and minority student enrollment and differential 
admission requirements; (2) women’s academic performance in terms of 
their undergraduate grade-point average, undergraduate honors, and 
graduate achievements; (3) attrition, including attrition rates, the 
attitudes bearing on attrition, and the paucity of role models and 
counseling; (4) financial aids, including the distribution of grants, 
loans, and scholarships by sex, the number of scholarships, 
fellowships, and traineeships awarded for the academic year 1969-70 
and the percentage received by women, women in subfacuity positions, 
and pay in work-study jobs; and (5) student employment and student 
housing. (AF) 



A REPORT 



ON, THE 

STATUS OF WOMEN 
AT THE 

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 
PART II 

UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STUDENTS 








U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 
EDUCATION & WELFARE 
OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- 
DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM 
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- 
INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- 
IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY 
REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- 
'CATION. POSITION OR POLICY. 



CONTENTS 



PllfiC 

I. INTRODUCTION “ 

A. Purpose 7 

B. Sources “ 

('. Acknowledgements - 



II. ADMISSIONS 1970 

A. Undergmduule Admissions 

1 . Admissions Procedure 

2. Summary of Undergraduate Admissions Data 

3. Analysis of Undergraduate Admissions Data . 

B. Graduate Admissions . 

1 . Admissions Procedure 

2. Summary of Graduate Admissions Data . . . 

3. Analysis of Graduate Admissions Data ... 

C. Professional Schools 

1 . School of Dentistry 

2. School of Law 

3. School of Medicine 

D. Minority Student Admission 

1 . Distribution of Minority Student Enrollment 

2. Differential Admission Requirements .... 



7 

7 

7 

7 

8 
8 
8 
9 
9 

10 

10 



13 

13 

13 



III. PERFORMANCE 

A. Undergraduate Grade Point Average 

B. Undergraduate Honors 

C. Graduate School Low Scholarship . 



IV. ATTRITION 

A. Rates 

B. Attitudes Bearing on Attrition: Sell-Fulfilling Prophesy 

C. Role Models and Counseling 



V. FINANCIAL AIDS 

A. Grants, Loans, and Scholarships 

1. Distribution of Awards 

2. Financial Aids Policy Change 

B. Scholarships, Fellowships, and Traineeships 

C. Subfaculty Positions 

D. Work Study 

E. Student Employment 

1 . Employment Distribution 

2. Library Page Jobs 

3. Redress of Grievance 

F. Student Employment Office 

G. Student Housing 



21 

21 

21 

22 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

26 
26 

27 

28 



h 



VI. CONCLUSION . 



28 



I. INTRODUCTION 



A. Puq>ose 

The Associalcd Students of tlie University of Wasliington Women's Commission initiated rescardi toward this report 
out of concern about sex discrimination at tlie University of Wasliington. Specific institutions arc often microcosms of a 
larger order, and follow patterns of prejudice and inequality which characteri/e society as a whole; hence (o begin a( the 
University ofWashington is a constructive measure toward altering the whole. 

Our concern was further based upon the troubling recognition that the status of women in American academic 
institutions has actually deteriorated in the last four decades: percentages of women faculty arc smaller, especially in the 
higher ranks; salary differentials between men and women arc greater. Women's groups and i.iiiversity committees are 
preparing or have prepared studies of women at the Universities of Maryland, Chicago, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Pitt.sburgh, and at Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford; we wished .similarly to investigate the status of women at UW in hopes of 
identifying problems and facilitating change. We hope also that this report will offer faculty, staff, and student women 
indicators that the frustrations we feel separately arc caused by conditions we have in common, conditions wc can unite to 
alter. 

B. Source.s 

1. University Documents Consulted: 

a. University of ;xs,h\ug\on S fa f isfical Report 1969-70. 

b. University ofWashington Bulletin 19 70-72. 

c. University of Wasir’ngton Admissions Statistical Reports, anonjmious computer runs of undergraduate and 
graduate admissions including applications, acceptances, denials, and reasons for denial broken down by school, 
department, and sex. 

d. New Student Report, Autumn 1970 (non-matriculated excluded). 

e. Pivgram of Exercises, Ninety-Fifth Commencement (Revised), June 13, 1970. 

f. Anonymous computer run of faculty and subfaculty salaries as of May 29, 1970; breakdown by school, 
department, rank, and sex. 

g. Graduate Smdy and Research Bulletin 1969. 

2. University Offices and Agencies which provided information; 

a. Office of Admissions 

b. Office of the Registrar 

c. Graduations Office 

d. Office of Institutional Educational Research 

e. Career Planning and Placement 

f. Graduate School 

g. Graduate School Admissions 

h. School of Law 

i. School of Medicine 

j. School of Dentistry 

k. Office of Minority Affairs 

l. Financial Aids 

m. Student Placement Center 

n. Personnel and Communications Services 

o. Office of Equal Opportunity for Minorities 

C. Ad^uiowledgements 

We take full responsibility for interpretations of data in this report. We wish, however, to express gratitude to those 
persons who gave us encouragement, advice, and assistance in compiling Part 11: Graduate School Admissions, Elizabeth 
Beach; Office of Institutional Education Research, Jim Morishima; Graduations, June Becker; University Library, Phyllis E, 
Hulen; Hall Health Center, Dr. Elaine Henley; Financial Aids, Donald Noble and William Baker; Office of Equal Opportunity 
for Minorities, Carver Gay ton; Graduate School, Dr. Thelma Kennedy, Jean Hill, Nancy Marilley, Sharon Gilmore and James 
Linse; Print Plant, Jim Goll; Anne Schwieshow, Director, University YWCA; Julie Coryell, Instructor, Women's Studies; 
Barbara Garner; Judie Solie; Shelly Crites; Student Employment Office, Joe Hollinsworth; and Randy Lee. 

Funding for this report was provided by the Associated Students of the University ofWashington and the University of 
Washington Graduate and Professional Student Senate. 

ASUW Women’s Commission 
May, 1971 

^Dr. Edwin C. Lewis, Developing Women's Potential (Iowa State University, 1968). Also Richard E. Parson, “The Rage of Women.” Look 
December 16, 1969, and Patricia Albjerg Graham, “Women in Academe,” Vol. 169 No. 3952 (September 25, 1970), pp. 1284-1290. 

2 



00 ^ o 00 



5 



0 

+ 

+ 


o 


CO 


: m 


o o o 


! CO ! 1 




in 


CO 


! CM 


CM 


1 CO : ! 



o o o : 



5 



O O O O 1 



^ (N ! CO ! ^ CM CM ! CM 



^OOOO !00 1 CDCD 

^ C CM 



^ o CD rr 
§ 



(D 00 O -r 

cj) Ln S 

^ s 



° I 
0) 

p 

•3 D 
on 
o ^ 
■o o 
_ c 

35 

c 3 

c o 

»U o 



13 

C 



5 - 



^ CO 
CO 



o o o 



C3) 



^CO^OO !00 ! CD 



Ill j CO + ^ 1 


1 1 X o ^ X 


1 m »- 


CM 


+ 1 


I CM 








CO 




! CM 












: ^ 



q> 1 



CO CM 
CO 



o ^ 00 o 

CM CM 



O O CO o 
O O CD 



! O 


0 

3 

0 


0 

0 

5 

0 


! in o 




+ ! ! ! 


I 


CO 


CM 


! 


(D 


in ! 1 ; 



CO CM 



CO 

< 

2 



43 

c 



3 

13 



13 

C 



^ o 






2 ^ 
a 



H 



? 5 



a 

a> 

Q 



a> 



o 

m 



CD 

00 

co' 



CO 

LD 



^ o 



00 CO CM CM 
^ CM 



r*' CM CD o 
00 00 



O O CM »- 
LD 



»- 0 »- 000’-0 



CO o ^ 
00 



^CMCM»-CMC0CM 1^00 0) 
^ 00 



CM CM »- »- O O 



00000^0^^00 ; CM CM 

CJ^CJ^0)0)C3)OO J C3)C3) 



O) 


CO 


LD 




O) 


CM 




CO 


o 


J 






T— 


CO 


in 




CM 


in 


in 




2 


o 


in 








CM 


CM 








j 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


O) 


CM 




X 


o 


o 


O) 


in 




in 


CO 


in 


CM 


LD 


CO 


y— 


CO 


CO 


CM 




co^ 


CM 


»— 


CO 


in 




»— 


— 


in 
























cm" 




CO 


r> 


CM 




CM 


r< 


in 


CO 


CO 


CM 



CM T- ^ T- 

I- «- CM CM 

CM 



CM CO 

O) ^ 



LD CO ^ 

^ C. CO 00 



O 

O 



00 CM CD 

cn »- o 

*- CM 



CM LD O) 00 
CD CO 



^ CM ^ LD 
CM CO CM 



OCDCMCDLDOOCMOr^OCO^ 



O ^ 

CM 



o 00 O) CO 
O LD CD CD 00 



O ^ O CO ^ 

o 00 00 O) 



O) 



CDOCM^^OlDLDr- CD 
C0 »-CMt-t-CMC0»-CD CO 



CO CM ^ ^ 

CO CO ^ ^ 

CO CO CO 



“E 
^ g 



CM 


CM 


c- 


in 


,— 


CO 


CO 


CO 


O) 






CO 




CM 


in 


CM 




o 


CM 


CO 




0) 


CM 


in 


o 


in 








CO 


y- 


y- 




CM 


CO 


LD 




O) 


CO 


CO 


CO 


in 


CM 


CM 


in 


in 




1— 


CM 


CO 


X 


O 




o 


CO 


'd- 


CO 




T— 




in 


y— 


CO 


y— 


T— 


CM 




y— 




CM 






LD 




T— 


LD 


in 


CO 






CM 


CM 








C3) 






CM 






CM 




CO 




























X 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CM 


o 


CM 


CM 






in 


o 


o 


CO CO 


CJ) 


CO 






o 


CO 


LD 




CM 


o 


CO 


CM 




CO 




CO 


o 


in 


o 




in 


CO 


CO 




CD 


0) 


o 


CO 




in 






















CO 


CM 




O) 


CO 


in 


CM 






CM 


CD 


CO 


CM 






CM 


CM 






LD 


LD 


CM 








CM 



LD 

o 

cd" 



o ^ 
o 



1 ; o ! 


! CM 1 1 


i i ; o I ! 


1 ! O) 


CO ! : 


: ! 




i ! ^ CM 1 


J ^ 1 1 


1 1 ; o ! 1 


; 1 CM 


O 1 ! 


; i LD 


— 


! ! X CO ! 


• 1 1 


! ! ! »~ ! ! 




^ 1 i 


1 j co^ 


t 












• ■ o’ 


o 



1 } cn *- 1 


i X ; ; 


1 1 X ; 1 


; 1 ^ j 


1 o 


o ! ; ; : 


! ; 0) ^ ! 
! : 1 


! X : ; 

1 1 ! 


I 1 X 1 I 

II 1 i 


i j 


X 


X 1 1 1 I 



^C0»-^C0lD^^ LD 

«- T- T- If) 



o 

CO CO 

00 *- 



X 


X 


O) 


CO 


G) CO 


G) 


X 


X 




CO 


CO 


X 


X ! ; 


! *- X ! 


! X ! 1 


! : ! r>* ! ! 


; . X 


o 


O ! ! ! : 


O) 


X 


O) 


G) 


G) G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 


G) 1 J 

I i 


1 ^ 1 


1 ^ M 


i 1 ; ^ 1 i 

III II 

III 1 1 


: ; X 

i i 1 


X 


X 1 : 1 2 

• ill 

lilt 



o 
z 
cc 

LU 
LU 

s < 

o3 

2 <OUuj 552 

LU 



LU LU 

C LU ^ ^ 



o 

c0 QJ LU 



o 



CD 
LU CD 



X 

CD 

2 

< 



X 

LU 

X 

CD 



_ < 
^ CC C5 
OC 5 ^ 

X 
X 



Q 

< 

X 

o 

5 

< 



w 

LU 

o 

2 

U 

CJ 

CD 

X 

H 



^ S H E ^ 

: — ' I tn 



> o 

; P a ^ CD 



gwE>-ogo. 5 '£ra 

3 ™ n O^U^XmCOScufffQl 

2 f CD m 5 



O 'O P 
.= 0) ro 

Cp 5 

-- tn - 

> > 



(U 



CJ 

W 

a.* 

O 

CJ 



LU 

2 

y 

Q 

LU 

2 



>- 

X 

l— 

CD 

I- 

2 

LU 

Q 



: ! c:^ ! ! 


! ; ! X ! 5 


i i 


X ! ! 


! ! 




1 1^1 i 


1 : : X 1 1 




X 1 1 


! ! X 


cn 










i i 


ID 








• ■ 


■ * G) 





X 




in 


in 


y- 


o 


X 


X 


X 


X 






* I S 


; o ♦ ! 


! X ! ; 


! } J r>* ; 1 


: : X 


X I : 


J J o 


fa 


X 






in 


X 




X 


o 


X 


X 






^ ! 1 


; *- o 1 


1 1 ! 


i 1 1 ^ 1 1 


1 i ^ 


X ! i 


! ! 






C3) 


X 


y— 


X 


X 




y— 


y— 


X 


X 


y— 


X : 


; G) ! 


i 1 ! 






X ! ! 


1 1 ^ 


> 






















x" 




X 1 1 


! »- ! 


; ; 1 




1 1 i 




• • y-^ 


fa 



o 

z 



< 

I- 

O 

I- 



c a 
o o 

TO-q 

^ ra 

<0 ^ 

5o 



O 


X 








O 




ID o 






*o 


O' C 




x' 




(L) 






_w 


o " 


O 


X 


o 


§ 


O 












s 










4_> O) 



O 

Q. 

Ctf 

tt; 



iS 

0)5 

eo 

<0 *- 
<u 

?5 

o*^ 

T3 -I 

irt 

el 

DUU 

(U> 

. T) 
t2 ^ 
o'^ 

0.9 



“•D 



O CO 



(0 (U 

oO 

u. 

O c 

o — <u 

^ 2e 

C 2r 

— fa 

■*-> (U D 
O HO) 
Z HO 



4 5 



o 

ERIC 



are here presented in parentheses. 



TABLE B 

Numbers and percentages of women and men undergraduate students, graduate students, and degree recipients in each department of the College of Arts and 
Sciences for the academic year 1969-70. (Men's and Women's Physical Education omitted. Sources: Yearly Statistical Report 1969-70, Program of Exercises, 
Ninety -Fifth Commencement (Revised), June 13, 1970.) 

Department Undergraduate Majors Grad^jate Students MA/S Cand. Cert. PhD 



! ° 


1 O O 


O CM CM ^ CD 00 


; CM o O LD ^ 1 


i CO i 1 






1 


! ! 

i 1 


i i I 



m ^ 

CO 



O CM o o + o o 



i o 


^ o 


^ LD 00 F' 00 


CM 


; CM CO ^ T- CM ! 


i LD ^ 1 j 






T- CD 


00 


j 1 


i ! 1 



^ O) CD 
CM CD 



^ CO LD (N' ^ 00 
CO 



COOOO^tDO 00 CD 



O CD ! ^ 00 ^ 



CM ^ O CM in ^ ^ 
CO CO 



OCMCMCO^O + 0’- 



O) CD 



1 r>. ^ CO ^ CM 








! ^ CM CM ; 


1 CD ^ ^ O o 


I CM r- CM 

i 


CD 


00 




! CO 1 





O) 

CD 



COCMDCDCDID+LDt- 



C3)CDOO^CM»-rMCO»-0) CJ) CO 
1— 'iT CO 



r^cMLnooco^r^’-cocDCM^LD^ ^ 

CM ^ CM CM CM LD 



OOCM'tTCMCO + 00^ 



»-OOC3)LDC3)CD»-OOOCOrM g 



CMCO^O^LDOOOOLnr^CM^lD^ CD 
^ CM ^ O ^ 



(N 00 CD c:) ^ + 



CO O) 
CM ^ 



rM^^LDlDC0Or»[^»-00 
CMC0C3) ^OO'^tl^OOrM’- 



cD'-c:icMrMO)co^cocDc:)r^co ^ 
C31CD^CD’-OOLD*-COCO»-^CO O 
^ ^ ^ ^ CO 



LDOO^oocor^or^o 

^CO^OOCOCDCOOt- 



r>.corMrMr^»-LD»-cocDCD co 

LD»-»- iD»-»-»-rM^COOO 
CM 



rM^r^CO^^COCDLD»-OCDCOOO o 

^t-^-CNO^LDLD LDO)’-CMr^gLD 



OCOlDCDOOCD^r^LD 
^ CO CO ^ 



LD^-CMCOCOrMlDCD^LDCM CO CO 
CDCMOO LDr»CMCD^(^0OCDr» 
1— 



^r^cMc^^ooLDococoLDc:)*-©^ o 

LD^C0C0*-C0 CMCD^LD 

CM tD 



LDinCDCMLn’-OIOLD 

t-COCMLDCMCDCMCDO) 



CO 


00 


LD 


CD 


1^ 




! CD 


T— 


O 






00 




0) 




o 


O 


i ^ 


CO 


CD 


8 


00 


CM 


LD 


CM 




CD 




j 


CD 




co' 



rM^oocooLDOLn^Ln»-cooo oo 

T-^C0LDLDC:)C0*-OCMrMP«-00 
O CM O CO CM CO ID^ 

co‘ 



CD 00 O) LD 

r: to 

CO 



O) 
ID LD 



00 O CM o CD C3^ 
LD CM CO CD LD CM 
CM CM 



! CM 




CO 


CM 


0^ 


o 


LD 


o 


O 


r- 


CD 


*- CD CD 


»- CO 


CD CM *- 


CO 


00 


1 *- CO *- »- 00 1 


1 CO 


CO 


o 


00 


O 




T— 


CM 


CM 


CD 


'd' 


CD CM 


T- 


^ CD 


r» 




j CM LD j 






CM 


CO 


LD^ 










T— 


CD 


CO 


«- CM 


















T-' 




















cm' 







00 CO 
LD 



LD 00 CO CD *- 00 

CM C3^ CD 00 LD 

CM CM CO 



I ^ 






CM 


00 


O 






O *- CD 


^ CD CO 


CM ID »- 


CM 


ID 


CM 


} 00 


ID 


00 


o 1 


! O 


CD 


LD 


CM 




CD 


Oi 


CM 


^ Oi (D 


CO 01 


ID CO 


CM 




ID 


! 


CM 


CD 


D j 






CM 


CM 


CM^ 




CM 




















CM 












cm' 





























O) »- 
CD CM 
CO LD 



3 

oc 



— o 
O '' 
CD 



p 

a 

__ o 

< *1 
o 
o 

CD 



c ■ 

3 

E 
E 

t o 

< O I 



Q 

[ > ro .!2 

' 2 5 ^ 
i S £ 

X o -I 



> o > 

£ CD cn 
Q- m 2 

g S o 
° :e o 

£ o w 
D. D. D- 



CD 

H 

z 

< 



00 b 



o ° “ 
.E O 
c HI ro 



00 
-I -> 
00 C 



Qi 



c ■- c .2 

^ w? F ::: 

^ ^ ‘S £ 2 g 

D < < U D HI 
X 



i E 



HI 



c .E £ 
ro T3 o O 
E c 0) 
«Oa>3ogpQ. 
OXZSXcDCDCD 



;6 



o 

ERIC 



CD 

HI 

o 

2 -d 

o 

CD 



II 

o a 
c ^ 

gi 



CD 

*ro 



> 

in .c 

u a 



> W O 

sil 

-- O X <U 

< 00 U O 



■- > I 
0^1 
O o 
0 ) 0 ) ra 
0 0 2 



Department Undergraduate Majors Graduate Students MA/S Cand. Cert. PhD 



F' 

N| 



o CN in in 



Oi O) 



00 00 CD 



CD 

CN ^ CN 



CO I 
CN 



CD ^ 
05 00 



& CN CD CO 
^ CO CN 



^ LD 
CN CD »- 



^ ID ^ 
ON O 



05 ID 
CD CD •i5 
^ 05 



5 ID CO C35 CD 
CN ^ 



ON 05 05 O 
CO CO ON O 



ON CD CD ^ 
CD ^ O 00 
— 00 



O 05 ON 
CM 05 ON 
CM CO CM 



5 ON 05 CD O 

^ ^ CN 



O CO 
^ CO CM 



00 O CD O 
O 00 00 

CM ON 



£ 

3 

I 



o 

O 



o 

I/) 









o 


t/i 

0) 

o 


u 

c 








H 


C v> 


(U 




> 




H- 


0) 0) 


’o 




O) 




o 


’o ’D 


CO 


u 

> 

X 


o 

o 

o 




c 

0) 

o 


CO E 


To 

3 


0- 


N 




0) 


o 3 


(D 








0. 


CO X 


2 





II. ADMISSIONS 1970 



A. Undergraduate Admissions 
1 . Admissions Procedure 

The admissions procedure described here was instiluled in Fall 1069 at tlie time the University established an 
enrollment limitation to reduce the growth of the University. This procedure was in operation for the Fall 1070 admissions, 
which arc described in the next part ot‘ this report (2. Summary of Undergraduate Admissions). 

Freshman Admissions. The University required a high school GPA of 2.50 for Washington residents am! (lie children 
of UW alumni; oul-oFslatc applicants were required to have at least a 3.20 to be eligible for admission. Assuming that these 
minimum .scholastic reqiiircmciils were met, applicants were not given any special preference lor higher grade point averages. 
Among those eligible applicants admis.sion was based solely on date of application, on a firsFcomc-first-.servcd basis. 

Transfer Admissions. The minimum GPA for translcr students was 2.00; 3.00 for out-of-state applicants. (A higher 
GPA was sometimes required for students with a deficiency in some subject.) Among those who met the academic 
requirement, preference was given students who had completed a .substantial number of credits beyond the minimum number 
.set by the college to which they were applying. 

Admission by Petition. Applicants who did not meet the GPA requirements could petition for special consideration by 
the Admissions Committee. 

Exceptions to the above. A few special categories of people were considered separately: those eligible for FOP 
(Educational Opportunities Program), applicants for athletic scholarships, foreign students, and applicants to a few 
departments with special requirements. Some of these categories emanate from programs which had a certain number of 
admissions allotted to them for Fall 1970. These programs include: 



EOF 


600 


Honors Prog.ram 


180 


Education (4 special programs) 


37 


Critical Language Program 


5 


Study Abroad Program 


50 


Intercollegiate Athletics 


160 


Drama 


14 


Upward Bound 


19 



TOTAL: 1 ,065 student spaces allotted 

2. Summary of Undergraduate Admissions Data 

There are four possible outcomes to an application for admission to the University: (1) acceptance, (2) denial on the 
basis of the applicant’s GPA (scholastic denial), (3) denial of applicants who met the academic requirement but applied after 
the publicized application deadline and after the enrollment limit had been reached^ (space denial), and (4) applications 
which were not completed and therefore not acted upon. 

For Fall 1970, 1 2,526 applications were received. Of these 80.3% were accepted, 18.5% were rejected because academic 
standards weren’t met, 0.2% were denied admission because of space limitation, and 1 .0% were not completed. Table I 
shows the application action by sex of applicant for all undergraduate applications (both high school and transfer). 



TABLE 1 



Admission 


Male 




Female 




Total 


% Female of Total 


Action 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 






Accept 


5,417 


76 


4,649 


86 


10,066 


46 


Scholastic Denial 


1,619 


23 


705 


13 


2,324 


30 


Space Denial 


5 


— 


3 




8 


38 


Incomplete 


91 


1 


37 


1 


128 


29 


TOTAL 


7,132 




5,394 




12,526 


43 



^!t was necessary to deny admission to almost no students. Despite the existence of the enrollment limitation, there were only 8 space denials 
out of some 12,000 applications. 

^All data for this and for the section on Graduate Admissions were compiled from examination of an anonymous computer Tun^Admmions 
Statistical Reports, provided by the Registrar's Office. 



7 



8 



F 



The last column of the Table presents the proportion of women in each of the admission categories. Tims, while women 
represent 439r of all apjMicants, they make up 46''/ of all acceptances, ?>07f of all scholastic denials, and 3S''/ of the few space 
denials, 297r of the incomplete applications. These findings ,siiggest that while women are less likely to apply for admission to 
the University of Washington than men, having applied they are more likely to meet the academic rerjuirements of the 
University than are male applicants (86% females accepted vs. 767 males). They are also more likely to complete an 
application than arc male applicants. This summary table docs not suggest the existence of sex discrimination in the * 

admissions procedure once an applicant initiates that procedure by filing an application. 

When applications arc broken down into two catcgorics-high school applicants and transfer applicants- the findings are 
similar. Women represent 44. 77- of the 7,713 applications from high school and 44.7%' of the total number of high school 
applications which arc accepted for admission. Again, they arc slightly less likely to apply for admission but having applied 
arc more likely to meet the academic requirements for acceptance (79.77* of male applicants were accepted, 88.57 of the 
female applicants were accepted.) 

Of the 4,813 applications for admission from transfer students, 407r were from females. Women, however, made up 
447 of those 3,613 applications which were acceptable by the academic standards. Among transfer applications, women i 

applied again less frequently than men, but among those applications received, a larger prtiportion of those from women were 
accepted (827^ vs. 7 07). 

3. Analysis of Undergraduate Admission.s Data 

Channeling. The above findings indicate that there is no evidence of any sex discrimination in the admissions process. 

However, they do suggest the existence of channeling during the educational experience prior to application for admission to 
the University of Washington. The lower proportion of female applicants suggests that women are discouraged from aspiring 
to higher education at the University level. Given the greater likelihood of those women who apply to have met the academic 
standards for admission, it is possible that qualified or perhaps some marginally-qualified women are refraining from making 
application or arc not encouraged to make application in the numbers that marginally-qualified men do. 

The existence of channeling becomes even more obvious when the proportions applying for admission are examined by 
college. In our society, women are typically channeled into professions that are extensions of the home-role (home 
economics, nursing, teaching, social service) and channeled away from fields which are scientific, technical, or involve 
out-of-door work. Of the eleven colleges to which undergraduates applied in Fall 1970,"^ women represented 67^ of the 
applications to Architecture and Urban Planning, 4% of the applications to Business Administration, 2% of the applications to 
' Engineering, 2% of the applications to Fisheries, and 9% of the applications to Forest Resources. On the other hand, 987^ of 

the College of Nursing applicants were women. This is clear evidence for the existence of widespread sex-channeling and 
suggests the need for anti-channeling programs in high schools. Such anti-channeling efforts by the University, which 
emphasized both encouragement of women to apply foj- admLssion as well as recruitment of high school women into “male” 
fields, would represent a sincere attempt at affirmative action by the University to counter sex discrimination both in the 
University community and in the larger society. ^ 

Athletic Scholarships. Ten percent of the undergraduates admitted to the University in Fall 1970 were admitted 
through one of the eight special programs listed on page 2. Students admitted dirough these programs were frequently 
recruited by the University and were exempt from application deadlines and not subject to the minimum scholastic 
requirement. Fifteen percent of these positions in the special programs were allotted to Intercollegiate Athletics. This is the 
only special piogram which is limited to members of one sex only, and it involves 160 spaces—1.6% of the applications which 
were accepted. Although in relative terms 160 is not a large number, the existence of this program for male applicants only is 
an indicator of the continued lack of complete univcrsalism in the University’s attitude toward those seeking admission. 

B. Graduate Admissions 
1 . Admissions Procedure 

Ail applications to the Graduate School are forwarded to the appropriate- academic department for evaluation. U is' 
these academic departments which recommend to the Graduate School admission action on each application. Although there 
is a general requirement for admission to graduate studies at the University of B (3.00) level performance or better during the 
last two years of undergraduate work, through 1970-71 when departments wished to admit applicants who did not meet this 
scholastic requirement, they could petition the Graduate School for waiver of the GPA requirement. This petition process 
had to be initiated by the department and could not be initiated by the applicants themselves. It is reported that the 
|- Graduate School granted virtually all petitions.^ Thus, the departments were constrained in their admission decisions only by 

[ the quotas limiting the number of applicants they could admit. 



"*Tbe eleven colleges are Architecture and Urban Planning, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, 
Fisheries, Forest Resources, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. 



^The Graduate School has discontinued this petition procedure for Pall 1971 admissions. 





1( should be noted (Iki( miiny departments assign tlie responsibility for ovalualing applieations to a eommittce ot the 
faculty, whose composition changes yearly. 

2 . Summary of Graduate Admissions Data 

While (he two general outcomes of an application for graduate admission at the University of Washington arc simply 
acceptance and denial, the Graduate School has provided data which break down the reason for denial into several categories, 
each coded for computer processing. The denial categories are: insiifricicnt preparation, limited facilities, scholastic 
deficiency, limited staff, limited classroom space, insufficient curriculum, space denial, ''other, " no reason given, and "no 
cod( Space denials arc denials of applications which were otherwise cjualilied lor acceptance but which arrived alter the 
department cpiota was filled. As in the case of undergraduate applications, space denials were rare. 

Of the 9,588 applications to graduate study at the UW, 447r were accepted. These applications were dispersed over 
eleven colleges and 72 departments. Analysis included examination of the sex distribution of action on all applications for 
each of thc.se colleges and departments, controlling for denial code. Space and budget do not permit the publication ol tables 
in this report; they arc on file in the Women's Commission Office and arc available for examination. 

3. Analysis of Graduate Admissions Data 

In the case o the graduate admissions procedure, it is difficult to demonstrate either the presence or absence of sex 
discrimination. Bccau.se liiC locus of admis.sion decision is the individual department, it is of no utility to examine the totals 
for all applications for evidence of the presence or absence of bias. Since the total number of applications received were 
dispensed over 89 admission granting units (colleges or departments), acts of discrimination could occur and never be 
apparent at the aggregate level. 

On the other hand, examination of (he data for individual departments is hampered by the fact that the number of 
applications for many departments is often so small diat percentages computed on the proportion (by sex) of those 
applicants admitted or denied do not make reliable comparisons possible. Moreover, with results from a large number of 
colleges and departments, there is to be expected (and there exists) wide variation in the proportion of female applicants who 
have been accepted. Thus, some departments have accepted greater proportions of women than men, and some have accepted 
more of the men who applied than the women. In interpreting these results it is therefore impossible to differentiate whether 
(he cause of a low proportion of women accepted is simply random variation or is systematic discrimination. 

One thing which is clear upon examining these data by sex and departmental action is that departments have a great 
deal of latitude in “explaining” their action on applications, given the eight-denial code system. Codes such as "limited 
facilities,” "no reason given” and “other” are suff/ciently vague that they can be used in instances where the denial reason is 
difficult to code-one such instance being the conscious or uncon: cious desire on the part of a department to keep down the 
number of v»^omen graduate students. While the code “no reason given” was rarely used, the codes “limited facilities” and 
“other” were often used; in some departments 80-100% of the students denied admission were coded one of these two 
categories. Moreover, there are departments where tliese particular codes are much more likely to be used to account for the 
denials of one sex than the other. 

Channeling. The data for graduate school admissions provide strong evidence of the existence of sex-channeling in 
secondary and undergraduate education. For example, only 9 of 490 applications to the College of Engineering were from 
women; of those 9, 8 were accepted. Technical and science departments do not need to practice discrimination, if they are so 
inclined; sex channeling does the job so efficiently almost no women apply. Table 2 suggests the effectiveness of channeling 
in many of the physical science and rigorous social science disciplines. The departments listed are all in the College of Arts 
and Sciences. 



TABLE 2 



Department 

Astronomy 

Atmos. Science 

Chemistry 

Economics 

Geography 

Geo. Science 

Mathematics 

Oceanography 

Physics 

Political Science 



Male Applicants 
37 
29 
65 
179 
89 
118 
220 
237 
160 
214 



Female Applicants 

5 

6 

13 
19 

14 
16 
47 
28 
14 
38 



9IO 



s 



Affirmative Action. AlTirmativc aclion involves more than the cessation of discrimination ; it invt)lves an alTirniativc 
program to promote equality of opportunity for groups which have been subject to discrimination in the past. The University 
has a unique opportunity to engage in affirmative action in respect to sex. Because of its educative function and because of its 
interdependence on other educational institutions in the state-particularly secondary schools-the University can both seek 
out and encourage women to enter scientific and technical fields, and also serve as an example to secondary and 
undergraduate educators as well. The only realistic response to the examples of channeling we encounter in this report is such 
affirmative action. 

Affirmative action, however, need not be limited to recruitment. Qualified women applicants are being turned down by 
graduate departments in this University as a result of insufficient classroom space, academic staff, general facilities, and 
departmental quotas on size of graduate program. These women are being turned down in departments where women make 
up less than 50^% of the graduate enrollment. Affirmative action at the Graduate School or departmental level can be taken by 
striving for sex balance, and not turning down qualified women until that balance is reached. Chemical engineering, for 
example, turned down the single female applicant to that department for “lack of space,” admitting 43 of the men who 
applied. If there is space for 43 men, there is space for one woman. Biochemistry accepted two of the ten women who 
applied for admission, while accepting nine men. Of those eight women denied admission, seven were denied for “limited 
facilities." Examples like these are easy to find. There may be explanations for the action of individual departments, but the 
pattern across departments is clear: male-channeled fields frequently don't seem to have room for all of the relatively few 
qualified women who apply. This is clearly an area which is in need of affirmative action. 



C. Professional Schools: Admission® 

1 . School of Dentistry 

Since the first entering class in 1946, the School of Dentistry has graduated one woman. The virtual nonexistence of 
women in the School in the last 24 years has fostered the belief that women are systematically excluded from that division of 
the University as a matter of policy. The School of Dentistry denies this, and explains that for the most part no qualified 
women apply. The following data were requested from its Committee on Admissions, to clarify admission procedures as 
regards the entering classes of 1969 and 1970: 



TABLE 3 



Class Applicants 

M W T 

1969 530 4 534 

1970 463 1 464 



Accepted 
M W T 
78 2 80 

83 0 83 



% of % of 

class W school W 



0 0 
0 0 



Of the four female applicants in 1969, 2 were accepted and did not choose the University of Washington, 1 was rejected 
because of grades, and one did not complete her application. The -one woman who was denied admission had qualifications 
which compared with those of men accepted as follows: 



TABLE 4 



Predental Overall 

GPA GPA 





Lowest 


1.78 


1.99 


A3 M3 


men 


Highest 


4.00 


3.95 


A7 M8 




Average 


2.88 


2.90 


A5 M5 




woman 


2.17 


2.90 


A5 M5 



Dental Admission 
Test (scored 1 to 9) 
(A=academic 
M=manual dexterity) 



g 

Admissions information about the professional schools was difficult to obtain; the data and conclusions published here may properly be 
suggestions towards further research by women’s caucascs within the separate schools. 



ill 

o 

ERIC 



It is dear that the woman denied admission in 1969 had academie qiialifieations above those of the lowest man 
aeeepted. The Dental Sehool rceoids that her quarter credit was 138 units while the average aeeepted man's quarter eredit 
was 187; since the Sehool did not indicate what the credits earned by the lowest man accepted were, no eoneliisions can he 
drawn Trom the figure. 

According to an official on the Committee on Admissions, the lone woman who applied in 1970 was denied admission 
because she was from California. He further explained that ‘'We haven't accepted anyone from California in 56 years." 
Washington State residents have first priority in admissions (80%), then applicants from surrounding states without dental 
schools, and finally applicants from Oregon and California. 

The rejected woman's credentials compared with accepted men's as follows: 



TABLE 5 







Predental 


Overall 


Dental Admission 






GPA 


GPA 


Test (scored 1 to 9) 




Lowest 


1.83 


2.13 


A3 M3 (A=academic 


men 


Highest 


3.91 


3.84 


A8 M7 M=manual dexterity) 




Average 


2.87 


2.93 


A5 M5 




woman 


2.52 


2.61 


A3 M5 



Again the woman’s qualifications are clearly above those of the lowest man accepted. If the Dental School is sincerely 
interested in educating women, it would seem that a residence handicap could be lifted as part of an affirmative action policy. 

The School of Dentistry has earned the reputation among women of being discriminatory, and the information 
recorded above does not dispel doubt. Women interested in dentistry have in the past decided not to apply to the University 
of Washington because of its negative reputation, and unless the School takes strong and obvious steps toward providing 
examples of equal opportunity, women will continue to believe they are not welcome. 

2. School of Law 

The School of Law provided the following information about its admissions for the academic years 1969-70 and 
1970-71: 



TABLE 6 

















Wait. 


% 


of 


%of 


Class 


Applicants 


Accepted 


Inc. 


List 


app. 


acc. 


acc. W 




M 


W 


M 


W 


M 


W 


M W 


M 


W 




1969 


785 


56 


278 


30 


97 


7 


34 1 


35 


54 


10 


1970 


942 


84 


259 


26 


32 


5 


20 2 


27 


31 


10 



It appears that women are less likely to apply to the School of Law, but once they have applied they are more likely 
than men to meet the entrance requirements. According to the Office of the Dean of the Law School, “The Admissions 
Council, as stated in its ‘Guide for Applicants,’ ‘gave no preference to, but did not discriminate against, women in making its 
determination.’ Thus the women applicants, like the men applicants, who did not meet the Admissions Council’s 
qualifications were denied admission.” 

Of all the numbers printed above, those in the last column deserve closest attention: where proportions of women in a 
school remain the same year to year (especially considering the wide fluctuation in column 6 of Table 6) there is some reason 
to suspect a quota system. This indicator has led to exposure of quotas in other universities; further inquiry into admissions 
for years preceding 1969 would be necessary to determine whether such a policy exists at the University of Washington 
School of Law. 

The Law School also supplied comparative data on men’s and women’s qualifications, both for those accepted and 
those denied admission. In considering an applicant, the LSAT (Law School Aptitude Test) score and the cumulative GPA for 
the last two years of undergraduate work are weighted equally, and a combination of the two yields a number used in 
determining admission. 

12 



ERIC 



TABLE 7 



GPA LSAT 







Median 


Range 


Median 


Range 


Entering Class: 


'69 










Accepted; 


M 


3.19 


4.00-1.77 


617 


791-355 




W 


3.47 


3.90-2.00 


.S88 


756-3 18 


Denied; 


M 


2.77 


3.86-1.22 


532 


767-239 




W 


2.87 


3.36-2.0.S 


476 


594-358 


Entering Cla.ss: 


'70 










Accepted: 


M 


3.37 


4.00-2.07 


637 


800-346 




W 


3.43 


3.88-2.31 


614 


745-333 


Denied; 


M 


2.88 


3.79-1.81 


541 


759-221 




W 


3.08 


3.98-2.01 


544 


632-243 



Accnrding to tlic Law School, in the last five years women liavc applied with higher Gl’As than men applicants; men 
have had higher LSAT scores than women in that same period. Only a comparison of the numbers derived for individuals 
from the combination of their scores would clearly establish the presence of discrimination. 



3. School of Medicine 

Information supplied by the School of Medicine provides the following patterns for admission in 1969 and 1970: 



TABLE 8 













% 


of 


%of 


%of 


%of 


Class 


Applicants 


Accepted 


app. 


acc. 


Class W 


acc. 


sell. 




M 


W 


M 


w 


M 


W 








1969 


6 1 6 


37 


81 


3 


13 


8 


4 


3 


6 


1970 


709 


95 


89 


15* 


13 


16 


12 


14 


7 



I *2 were accepted and did not choose the University of Washington. 

! 

Distribution of women in classes: 1970 



’69-70 

’70-71 

♦♦Increase in numbers due to transfers 



1st year 
M W %W 
813 4 

89 13 12 



2nd year 
M W %W 

79 5 6 

80 4 5 



3rd year 
M W %W M 

18 8 9 89 

lOp:^^ 5 5 90** 



4lh year 
W %W 



Distribution of students in entering class ’70 by sex and GPA: 





W 


% of W 


M 


%of M 




3.754.00 




s 




17 


19' 






3.50-3.74 


9 


69 




33 


26 






3.25-3.49 


3 


23 


■ 100% 


29 


33 


> 87% 


Minimum 


3.00-3.24 


1 


sj 




8 


9} 




GPA 


2.75-2.99 








5 


6^ 




Requirement 


2.50-2.74 








3 


3 




3.0 


2.25-2.49 








1 


1 


. 13% 




2.00-2.24 








2 


2 






1.75-1.99 








1 


1 J 







89 



ERIC 



ii3 



13 



The School of Medicine admitted 12 more women in 1^)70 tliati iti 1^)6^). or ati increase iti that lime o!’4()0/^. This 
mimher represents a substantial increase in the yearly proportion of women since the school's I'irsl entering class in 1^50. 
This may be due to an increase in the number of qiialiried women applying for study in medicitie, or it may be the result of a 
relaxation of previous quotas agaitisl women. In either case, it is clear that the Medical Scliool adhered strictly to its 
recjuirement of a 3.0 GPA in the admission of women, while relaxing that mitiimutn statidard I'or 137-^ ot' tlie men accepted. A 
larger tiumber of women eoiild study medicitie at the University if the apparent special privileges were extended cijually. 

D. Minority Student Admission 

1 . Distribution of Minority Student Enrollment 

A study was conducted to ascertain the degree to which minority students are represented on the University of 
Washington Campus. Table represents a breakdown of the population by race and/or national group in both the state of 
Washington and King County, and Table !0 indicates numbers and percentages of minority students at all levels of study in 
the University. It should be noted that in other sections of this Report, no distinction is made between minority and 
non-minority students. Thus where contrasts exist, or comparisons arc made, the distinguishing factor is sex alone. ^ 

As can be seen in Table 10, the highest percentage of undergraduate minority students is to be found at the freshman 
level. The percentage of representation drops off as the levels advance, however, and at the graduate level the percentage of 
minority student representation is barely half the percentage of minority representation in the State, and considerably less 
than half that of King County (See Table 9). There arc several ways in which this occurrence might be explained. On the 
undergraduate level, normal attrition could account for some of the decrease in representation, although it is possible that 
transfers from two-year and four-year institutions could balance out attrition. Another explanation might be that since the 
Office of Minority Affairs (whose task it is to recruit minority students) has only been in operation for a short time, the 
efforts of that office are noticeable only at the freshman and sophomore levels. On the graduate level, it may be that the 
Graduate School and the several graduate departments have not put sufficient effort into the recruitment, active 
encouragement, and retention of minority students or that the curriculum and methods arc hostile to the aspirations and 
unique cultural attitudes of minorities. Wliatcver the explanation, the fact remains that at the graduate level, minority 
students arc severely under-represented— a situation which is not in keeping with the University’s commitment to affirmative 
action, and one for which immediate remedy is necessary. 

The area of study which has the highest percentage of minority representation (7.09%) is that of the professional 
schools. Yet of the total enrollment (1,040) only 0.48% are minority women, meaning that of the 7.09% minority 
enrollment, 6.61% are male. As indicated in Subsection C above, where the general pattern of admission of women to 
professional schools is discussed, there is a tremendous need for the recruitment of women into these areas. In view of the 
findings indicated by Table 10, it would seem that particular emphasis should be placed upon the recruitment of minority 
women. 

2. Differential Admission Requirements 

Subsection C above also discusses the fact that women who aic admitted to the professional schools have on the average 
a higher GPA than men, and that in some cases, women are denied admittance who have a higher GPA than some of the men 
who are accepted. While this does not in itself prove that a quota on female enrollment is in operation, it is very similar to a 
situation which, until recently, existed within the Educational Opportunities Program (EOP), where a quota system did in 
fact exist. In that program, admission requirements were categorized into three groups, each group having a different GPA 
assignment and each taking into consideration special educational deficiencies or proficiencies. Within two of the three 
groups, however, (groups 2 and 3) the GPA cutoff for women was 2.20 while the GPA cutoff for men was 2.00. 

When this situation was questioned in August of 1970, the Vice President for Minority Affairs requested of the Dean of 
Arts and Sciences that the requirements be made the same for both men and women. The Dean of Arts and Sciences was 
reluctant to make the change, stating that the differential requirements in the EOP groups was necessary in order that the 
enrollment in that area (which has predominantly minority student enrollment)® should be the same as the enrollment 
pattern in the total University, vis avis female/male distribution. In effect, then, it was necessary to restrict the enrollment of 
minority women in EOP so that their relative representation remained in keeping with the existing patterns of predominantly 
non-minority female enrollment in the total University. 

Through continued effort on the part of the Vice President for Minority Affairs and other interested groups, the 
situation was finally corrected in March, 1971. Tliis change is viewed by the Acting Dean of Arts and Sciences as only 
tentative or temporary in nature, however, and unless he comes to understand that such discrimination is not only 

"^Data obtained from sources other than the Office of Minority Affairs and the Office of Equal Opportunity for Minorities made no 
distinction on the basis of race. Such data includes regular University Publications, all computer runs, and all Student Employment and 
Financial Aid information. 

®It should be noted that not all minority students are enrolled in the University through the Educational Opportunities Program and that not 
all students enrolled through EOP are minority students. 



' M3l4. 



nnbocoming In an insliliilinn of higher learning, but is also illegal, he may require that the dilTerential requirements be 
reestablished after the l^)72-7,3 academic year. 

TABLE 9 

STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY 







% of 




% of 




Number 


Total 


Number 


Total 


Total Population 


3,409,169 


100 


1,156,633 


100 


All Minorit .cs^ 


218,045 


6.40 


81,898 


7.08 


Anglo 


3.191,124 


93.60 


1.074,735 


92.92 


Chicana/Chica no 


59,931 


1.75 


9,230 


0.80 


Black 


71,308 


2.09 


40,597 


3.50 


Oriental^ 


44,060 


1.29 






Indian 


33,060 


0.97 


7,391 


0.64 


Others^ 


9,360 


0.27 


24,680“^ 


2.14 



^Figures in this table obtained from the University of Washington Office of Equal Opportunity for Minorities. 

^Includes Japanese ai. ■ Chinese only. 

^Includes Filipino, Hawaiian and Korean, 

^Includes Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian and Korean. 

TABLZ 10' 

FRESHMAN SOPHOMORE JUNIOR 









Total 


%of 






Total 


% of 






Total 


%of 




Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Total Univ. Population 


3.475 


3,767 


7,242 


100 


3,031 


3,936 


6,967 


100 


2,669 


3,946 


6,615 


100 


All Minorities 


336 


466 


802 


1 1.05 


238 


248 


486 


6.94 


177 


239 


416 


6.09 


Anglo 


3,139 


3,301 


6,440 


88.95 


2,793 


3,688 


6,481 


93.06 


2,492 


3,707 


6,199 


93.91 


Chicana/Chicano 


33 


72 


105 


1.45 


10 


30 


40 


0.57 


16 


26 


42 


0.63 


Black 


135 


186 


321 


4.43 


82 


92 


174 


2.49 


44 


81 


125 


1.88 


Oriental 


148 


176 


324 


4.47 


131 


105 


236 


3.38 


95 


116 


211 


3.01 


Indian 


20 


32 


52 


0.70 


15 


21 


36 


0.50 


22 


16 


38 


0.57 






SENIOR 






UNCL.5 






NON. MATRIC. 










Total 


%of 






Total 


%of 






Total 


% of 




Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Total Univ. Population 


2,297 


3,697 


5,994 


100 


1,196 


822 


2,018 


100 


267 


292 


559 


100 


All Minorities 


132 


238 


370 


6.40 


26 


19 


45 


2.21 


6 


10 


16 


2.84 


Anglo 


2,165 


3,459 


5,624 


93.60 


1,170 


803 


1,973 


97.79 


261 


282 


543 


97.16 


Chicana/Chicano 


7 


13 


20 


0.57 


1 


1 


2 


0.09 


1 


1 


2 


0.35 


Black 


20 


52 


72 


1.20 


1 1 


4 


15 


0.74 


3 


4 


7 


1.25 


Oriental 


93 


146 


239 


3.98 


13 


14 


27 


1.33 


2 


1 


3 


0.53 


Indian 


12 


27 


39 


0.65 


1 


0 


1 


0.05 


0 


4 


4 


0.71 






GRADUATE 






PROFESSIONAL 




TOTAL UNIV. 


POPULATION 








Total 


%of 






Total 


%of 






% of Total 




Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 


Women 


Men 


No. 


Total 




Number 




Number 


Total Univ. Population 


2,364 


5,092 


7,456 


100 


54 


986 


1,040 


100 




37,891 




100 


All Minorities 


86 


189 


275 


3.67 


5 


69 


74 


7.09 




2,484 




6.54 


Anglo 


2,278 


4,903 


7,181 


96.33 


49 


917 


966 


92.91 




35,409 




93.46 


Chicana/Chicano 


2 


19 


21 


0.28 


0 


4 


4 


0.38 




236 




0.62 


Black 


40 


72 


1 12 


1.50 


0 


29 


29 


2.78 




855 




2.25 


Oriental 


38 


82 


120 


1.60 


5 


22 


27 


2.59 




1,187 




3.13 


Indian 


6 


16 


22 


0.29 


0 


14 


14 


1.34 




CD 

a 

f 




0.54 



iTotal registration figures taken from University of Washington Yearly Statistical Report 1969-70; Minority Student registration figures taken 
from Autumn 1970 census cards as prepared by the Office of Minority Affairs. 



III. PERFORMANCE 



A. Undergraduate Grade Point Average 

111 every ciilciing category, women enter llic University of Wasliington willi a liiglicr GPA than do men. Whether they 
enter directly from high school or transfer from another college or junior college, whether they enter a,s freshmen or as 
upperclassmen, women have higher GPA qualifications. (Sec Table 1 1 .) 

According to data so far available, women as a group also graduate with a higher GPA than that of men students as a 
group. The UW Office of Institutional Educational Research reports that the mean graduating GPA for the class of 19(>5 (the 
most recent class for which they have formally summarized data) was 2.8 for women, 2.7 for men; predicted findings for 
R)70 arc 3.0 for women, 2.9 for men. In addition, the Office found that in every entering GPA category, 2-37flewer women 
than men are required to leave the University because of academic failure. 

It is recognized that GPA is not the sole indicator of academic ability: however, the continued performance of women 
on this measurable scale indicates (hat other areas should be considered fully before individuals and departments continue to 
make generalizations about womeiTs ability or inability to excel or to compete equally with men. It is not probable that 
women students will be found consistently higher in GPA and consistently lower in all other areas. A common 
criticism-defense, “Women make higher grades because they're grinds, not because they're original thinkers" would probably 
not be made against men, were the findings reversed. 

B. Undergraduate Honors 

In light of the above data, it is not surprising to find that women students earn undergraduate honors in a higher 
proportion to their numbers than do their male counterparts. (See Table 12.) 

C. Graduate School Low Scholarship 

There is no body of similar data to assess women's performance in the Graduate School, but an examination of the Low 
Scholarship Lists provides an interesting pattern: whether or not women excel in equal numbers with men, as they do in 
undergraduate studies, fewer graduate women than men do poorly. In 1969-70, women constituted 32% of the graduate 
students at UW; but they received only 20% of the Low Scholarship Notices (GPA below 3.0) and were only 22% of the 
students involved in low scholarship action (warning, probation, final probation, and drop). (See Table 13.) 



According to the Office of Institutional Educational Research, attrition rates for women undergraduates are similar to 
those for undergraduate men, information which contradicts the accepted myth that women students drop out of college in 
substantially larger proportions than do their male counterparts. In addition, men take one quarter longer on the average to 
complete the B.A. than do women. 

Data collected on the classes entering Fall 1960 and Fall 1961 indicate that after four years a lower percentage of men 
than women have graduated, with an average difference of 6%; after five years the percentages have reversed, with an average 
difference of 4.75%. Only one group has been studied six years after entering; in the entering class of 1960, more men than 
women had completed their degrees by 1966, and the difference in percentages was 7.9%. Generalizations about attrition 
after sbe years or more must await further information. (See Table 14.) 

The absolute numbers of men and women in each undergraduate class appear, when graphed, to show higher attrition 
proportions for women than these percentages demonstrate. This is in large part due to the fact that 75% of community 
college transfers are men. 

Official attrition data has not been compiled on any class since that graduating in 1966; unofficially, however, it is 
interesting to note that women constituted 38% of the senior class in 1970 (2,071 to 3,324) but earned 41% of the Bachelor's 
degrees for that class (2,023 to 2,977). 

Attrition figures for the Law School are complicw ed by the fact that some students accelerated their programs rather 
than dropping out; since these are not shown in graduating vs. entering figures, the Law School has suggested no figures be 
printed. An official in the Medical School reported that attrition data there is not broken down by sex, that patterns are 
complicated by transfers, early graduations, and some slower programs. In addition, attrition rates in the Medical School are 
so low as not to be valid statistically. In the opinion of the spokesperson, women do as well as men. 

The Graduate School has not compiled attrition data, but it supplied a list of students “Not Registered or On Leave" as 
of Spring 1970, As with undergraduates, the difference between men and women is small. (See Table 15.) 



IV. ATTRITION 



A. Rates 




G 

uu 

G 

2 

UJ 

H 

H 

< 



UJ 

CQ 

< 



O 

0 

1 

o 

c/j 



c/j 

< 



G 

2 

< 

< 

Q. 

(D 

> 



O 

CT) 



cc 

uu 

H 

cc 

< 

D 

O 



0 

1 

5 

t/> 

H 

Z 

UU 

G 

D 

H 

CQ 

uu 

H 

< 

D 

G 

< 

CC 

(D 

CC 

UU 

G 

Z 

D 



UU 

S 

I 

00 

uu 

CC 

LL 




LU 

^ ° Pi 

CQ to 


n LO 


r- CN 




t- CO 


17 

6 




CD 


n CN 




r~ r- 


CO CN 


r“ 


r~ 



< 



LU 
> 
^ o 

03 


q 


CN CO 




CN 


LD 




0 ^ o 




CD 


CO 


CD 




0) 


CO 


CD 




CO 




CO 


CD CD 




CN 




CO 




CN 



< 





QC 

LU 

> 

< 


CD 

CN 

CO 


3.11 


LLZ 


2.71 


2.90 


LLZ 


3.22 


3.10 






2.93 


q 

CN 


2.92 


q 

CN 


2.93 


q 

CN 






LD 


LD 




00 


y^ 


q 


q 


y— 






q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 






00* 


CD 


LD* 


LD 




CO 


00 










CO 


csi 










































LD 










































00 


LD 


P" 


LD 


LD 




o 






CO 


y— 


CO 


00 


CD 


0) 


CO 


z 


CO 


LD 




















y— 


r— 




CN 








CN 












CN 


























O 


o 


00 


y- 




q 


q 






q 


q 




q 




q 




Np 


00 


CD 




LD* 


CD* 


CD 


p^* 








CN 




d 


CD* 


»— 


LD 


CO 
































r- 




6 




































LD 




CD 




CO 


P** 


CD 


P^ 


LD 


V— 






CD 


CO 


LD 


o 


y— 


CO 


CO* 


z 


O 


C3) 










f— 


f— 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CN 




LD 






CO 


CN 










CO 


CO 
























q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 






q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 




vP 


C3) 


00 


C3) 


0C3 


CO 


00 


00 


p^’ 






y-^ 


LD 


CN 


d 


y-^ 


r^* 


ro 




r- 


»“ 






























LD 




































CN 




Oi 


y— 




o 


CO 


C3) 


0) 


o 






CO 


y— 


T— 


y— 




CN 


CO 


z 




LD 






y— 




CO 








CO 






CO 










CO 


CO 










CO 


CO 


C/) 






















q 






% 




q 




CC 




q 


q 




q 


q 


q 


S 


sP 


00* 


C3) 


CD 


CN 


o’ 


p^’ 


d 


d 


o 




p^* 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CD 












CN 




CN 
























co’ 




















z 
















6 

q 




CO 


LD 


o 


LD 


o 


o 


CO 


O) 


UJ 




o 


CN 


LD 


O) 


LD 


y^ 


CO 


z 


o 


CD 


CN 


»— 


CN 






ay 


C/D 




LD 


0) 


LD 




o 








CO 


CO 










CO 


CO 






































C/D 




















q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 




QC 




q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


''p 


LD 


CD 




CT> 


CO 


LD* 


LD* 


CD 


n 




CD* 


CO* 


LD 




LD* 


CO* 






































CN 




































LD 




















z 
















r>> 




00 


CO 


y— 


CN 


CO 




CN 


CN 


3 






LD 


<— 




00 


0) 


CN 


z 






y— 


y— 


y— 


y— 












0) 


LD 


CO 


0) 


CN 






CN 


CO 










CN 


CO 






















q 


y^ 


q 




q 


q 


q 


q 


c/T 


q 




c:^ 


T- 


q 




q 




sp 


00 


^* 


CT> 


CN 


LD 


y-^ 


d 


CO 


UJ 


o* 


CO 


CD 


d 


rs’ 


CD 


d 


CN 






»“ 




»“ 


r- 


«— 




«— 


QC 


o 


*- 


CN 


T- 




r- 


CN 


6 




















O 
















q 






y— 




LD 


LD 


CO 


CD 


O) 




y— 


00 


LD 




CO 


CN 


c:^ 


CN 


z 




CD 




y— 


y— 




CD 


00 






CO 




CD 


LD 


O 


c:^ 








CN 












CN 


o 
















0) 




q 


q 


q 


q 


q 




q 


q 


X 

0. 




CD 


q 


O') 


q 




q 




sp 




»— 


o> 


LD* 


CT) 




y— 


CN 






T— 


d 


tr- 






P^ 


























f“ 




r*“ 








CN 




















CO 
















LD 




































CN 






r- 




CD 


CJi 


n 


o 


CD 






CO 


CO 


a? 


CO 


r- 


CD 


CN 


z 




CN 










CO 








CO 


CO 


cy 
















































y— 


q 


q 


q 


CN 




CO 


q 




q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


S 


sp 


y-1 


y-1 


CD 


y-1 


d 


CD 


yJ 


CN 




o* 


00 


CD* 


CD* 




p^* 


LD* 


CN 












»- 










LD 














6 




































q 




00 


y— 


LD 




o 




CO 


CN 




«— 


LD 


LD 


CN 


CN 


00 




CN 


z 




CO 










CO 


LD 






CN 


y— 


CN 






LD 










































q 


q 


q 




q 


q 


q 








y- 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


CO Z o 


Sp 




CN 


CD 


r-' 


CN 






CO* 






CN 


CO 




CO 




CO 


w < § 




































lillcN 




CD 


r- 


LD 




CN 


CO 


CO 








CD 




LD 


y^ 


y^ 


CN 




z 




CO 




CN 




»- 


CN 










CN 








CO 







q q 


q 


q 






q 


o 




q 


q 




q 


1- d 


sp 




CD* 




LD* LD* 






d 

LD 




CO 


CO* 


CN 




O < 




























Z > 




LD r- 


LD 




LD CD 


LD 


r- 




CO 1^ 




01 


LD 


CD 




z 


y— y— 








CN 


CO 





















-1 




















-1 




LU 

O 


















O 

o 


o 


Q 


O 

o 






LU 

O 














o 

o 




















X 


LU 


CN 


X 


z 




LU 

1 


z 




LU 


z 




z 


X 


z 


LU 


z 




LU 


z 






z 




o 


o 


5 


o 


LU 




_j 


LU 




o 


LU 




LU 


u 


LU 




LU 




O 


LU 






LU 




c/3 


z 


o 


CO 




z 


Q 




z 


LU 


5 z 


-1 


2 z 


CO 


2 z 


o 




z 


LU 




z 


-J 




z 


I— 


LU 


0) 

CQ 


X 


o 


LU 


CJ 


o 


LU 


-1 


O LU 


< 


O LU 


X 


O LU 


o 


o 


LU 


-1 


O 


LU 


< 


o 


LU 


C/3 

< 


1- 

H 


o 


5 


2 


QC* 




2 


o 


5 5 


h- 

O 


5 5 


o 


5 5 


QC 


5 


2 


-J 

o 


5 


2 


h- 

O 


5 


2 


-1 


< 




X 






“3 






u 




1- 




X 




“3 






o 






1- 







1 




Source: New Student Report Autumn 1970. 



TABLE 12 



SOURCE: REGISTRAR'S OFFICE 
;i. Annual Undcrguiduate Honors 



undergraduate students 



1967-68 

l%8-69 

1969-70 



M 


% 


W 


% 


M 


% 


W 


% 


786 


53 


706 


47 


13.405 


56 


10,578 


44 


885 


5 2 


820 


48 


14,768 


56 


1 1 ,466 


44 


1,044 


55 


830 


45 


15,346 


57 


11,472 


43 



b. Quarterly Higli Scliolarsliip 1969-70 



Autumn 

Winter 

Spring 



undergraduate students 



M 


% 


W 




M 


% 


W 


% 


,386 


55 


1,1 16 


45 


13,551 


57 


10,067 


43 


,530 


56 


1,200 


44 


13,341 


58 


9,704 


42 


,238 


55 


858 


45 


12,891 


58 


9,360 


42 



c. Certificates for High Scholarship 

honors recipients 



undergraduate students 





M 


% 


w 


% 


M 


% 


1967-68 


100 


51 


94 


49 


13,405 


56 : 


1968-69 


131 


58 


93 


42 


14,768 


56 


1969-70 


188- 


52 


171 


48 


15,346 


57 


d. Honors at Graduation- 1 


969-70 (Source: Graduations 


Office)® 






honors recipients 


unuergraduate students 




M 


% 


W 


% 


M 


% 


Sunima 


9 


64 


5 


36 


2,977 


60 


Magna 


90 


56 


71 


44 






Cum 


153 


46 


172 


54 






TOTAL 


252 


50 


248 


50 






^Numbers of honors recipients from 


Froi^rani of h'xcrmcs, 


Ninety-Fifth Coinntcnveincnt (Revised^ 


1; number,' 


from Annual Report to the Department of Health, Hducation, and Welfare, received trom Graduations Ultice 



W 

0,578 

1,466 

1,472 



W 

2,023 



% 

44 

44 

43 



% 

40 



o 

ERIC 



1718 



TABLE 13 



SOURCE: GRADUATE SCHOOL 



a. Low Scholarship 


Notices 


1969-70 






M 


W 


%W 


Aulumn 


327 


95 


22 


Winter 


330 


88 


21 


Spring 


244 


48 


16 


TOTAL 


901 


231 


20 



b. Tola] cases ui which action was taken; 398 





No. Ave. GPA 


% 


Women 


90 


2.63 


22 


Men 


310 


2.58 


78 



c. Action Taken: 


(percent of 


women in 


Graduate School: 32) 








W 


%W 


M 


%M 


T 


%/T W 


Warn 


51 


57 


208 


67 


259 


20 


Prob. 


27 


30 


71 


23 


98 


28 


F/P 


9 


10 


23 


7 


122 


29 


Drop 


3 


3 


8 


3 


1 1 


27 


T: 


90 




310 









%/TM 

80 

72 
71 

73 



TABLE 14 



% w/B.A. 



Class entering: 


after 4 yrs 


Fall 1960 


M 20.5 




W 26.1 


Fall 1961 


M 22.4 




W31.6 


Fall 1962 


M 25.3 




W 28.6 



after 5 yrs. 


after 6 yrs 


M 39 


M45.7 


W 35.6 


W37.8 


M46.8 




W40.7 





Median quarters to graduation: 



M 14 M 17 

M 13 W 16 





TABLE 15 



NOT REGISTERED OR ON LEAVE 





No. 


% of Grad School 


% of List 


Women 


259 


32 


35 


Men 


474 


68 


65 



Of the students on the list, 39% were married; of these, 71% (209) were men, 29% (84) were women. Of the men on 
the list, 32% were married, and 44% of the women on the list were married. As a reason for withdrawal, marital status does 
not appear to be a significant variable. Incomplete as these data are, they warn against the easy conclusion that marriage is a 
significantly more important factor in affecting the academic progress of a woman than of a man. While factors operating in 
individual cases are often complex, it is clear that women as a group should be taken as seriously as men and that financial aid 
and other forms of encouragement should be equally forthcoming. 

B. Attitudes Bearing on Attrition: Self-Fulfilling Prophesy 

“1 know you’re competent and your thesis advisor knows you’re competent. The question in our minds is are you 
really serious about what you’re doing?” 

“You really shouldn’t worry. If you don’t finish your thesis you’ll already have done more than anyone expects 
you to do.” 

“The admissions committee didn’t do their job. There is not one good-looking girl in the entering class.” 

“Have you ever thought about journalism? (to a student planning to gel a PhD in political science) 1 know a lot of 
women journalists who do very well.” 

“No pretty girls ever come talk to me.” 

“1 don’t know why I bother to go into this for you-you’re just going to get married anyway.” (teacher 
complaining to student questioner in class) 

“A pretty girl like you will certainly get married; why don’t you stop with an MA?” 

Professor to student looking for a job: “You’ve no business looking for work with a child that age.” 

Advisor to returning woman student: “You can go ahead and apply for graduate school if you want to, but 1 
must warn you that women are not readily accepted in the area you are interested in, and your age is against you 
too.” 

“We expect women who come here to be competent, good students, but don’t expect them to be brilliant or 
original.” 

“Girls get good grades because they work hard, not because they’re good thinkers.” 

“Women are intrinsically inferior.” 

“There are already too many women in this department.” 

“How old are you, anyway? Do you think that a girl like you could handle a job like this? You don’t look like 
the academic type.” 

“Why don’t you find a rich husband and give all this up?” 

To a young divorcee with a five-year-old child who needed a fellowship to continue at graduate school: “You’re 
very attractive. You’ll get married again. We have to give fellowships to people who really need them.” 

“Somehow 1 can never take women in this field seriously.” 

That women’s attrition rates at the University of Washington are similar to men’s is a tribute to determination in the 
face of obstacles. Once they are admitted, women undergraduate or graduate students may find that professors and 
counselors have different expectations about their performance than they do about the performance of male students. These 
expectations are based not on individual ability but upon membership in a category, upon the fact that they are women. 
Remarks such as the ones quoted above can hardly be taken as encouragement; they indicate that women are expected t » be 
decorative objects, that they are not likely to finish degrees (especially advanced degrees), or if they do they are somehow 




20 



“abiUM-mal/' They indicate the expectation that single women will many and drop out, married women will hav' children 
and drop out, cu' that they ought to drop out. 

iTxpectations have a substantial elTect on perrormance. Recent research in educational psychology has shown that when 
teacliers expected certain randomly selected students to “bloom" during (he year, those students' IQs increased signillcantly 
above the IQs of a control group. Researchers Rosenthal .nd Jacobson also discovered that the expe ctation of experimenters 
made significant difrercnccs in the performance of subjects; even when textually identical instructions were read to the 
groups and teachers or experimenters were not aware of treating one group differently, they were actually giving btuh verbal 
and nonverbal cues about what was (o be the appropriate response. 

Ann Sutherland Harris spoke to this before a House Subcommittee: 

if male scholars believe that women are intellectually inferior to men- less likely to have tiriginal 
contributions to make, less likely to be logical, and so on -will tliey not also find in (lie work of the women 
students in their classes the evidence to support their beliefs . . . ? 

. . . Rosenthal and Jacobson's experiments are extremely important to all scliojars of human subjectivity 
and prejudice, for they show that it works both ways. Not only will those people who believe a certain human 
being ... to be less intelligent innately find the evidence to support that belief in the behavior of the human 
being . . . but they will respond (o human beings that they believe arc good or intelligent in different ways from 
those they use when responding to human beings that they believe are bad or less intelligent. Their behavior will 
be subconscious. Indeed, they will firmly believe that their judgment is rational and objective.^ 

The study prepared by the University of Chicago's Committee on University Women confirmed in a quantitative, 
empirical way what individual women have kn }wn from experien-^''" that women receive significantly less perceived support 
for career plans than men do, that a large number of women had suffered or had heard of discriminatory practices against 
women, and ‘hat most women students felt that men were often preferred by the faculty.^ 



“You’re too strong for a woman." 

Matn professor to female graduate student: “Women shouldn't go into math; it's too masculine." 

“Any woman who has got th ;S fa: has got to be a kook.” 

Another barrier to a woiuan's academic achievement is what psychologist Matina Horner has isolated as the “motive to 
avoid success." Faced with the conventional Freudian belief that competitive, aggressive behavior is not feminine, a woman 
may consciously or unconsciously equate intellectual achievemem with loss of femininity and her own achievement 
motivation will be inhibited by fears of social rejection, doubts about normality, or defensive denials that women are capable 
of success. “A bright woman is caught in a double bind." 

In testing and other richievement-oriented situations she worried not only about failure, but also about success. If 
she fails, she is not living up to her own standards of performance; if she succeeds, she is not living up to societal 
expectations about the female role. Men in our cociety do not experience this kind of ambivalence, because they 
are not only permitted but actively encouraged to do well.^^ 

Given equal or even lesser abilities, a man has a better chance at success because he knows that society will reward him, 
whereas a woman feels it will punish her. 



C. Role Models and Counseling 

Women comprise only 13.7% of the basic teaching faculty at the University of Washington; it is possible for a student 
to complete four years of academic work without ever having taken a course taught by a woman. The paucity of w'Oirien on 
the faculty, especially in areas where large numbers of women study creates a lack of what sociologists refer to as “visible 

Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and PupiVs Intellectual Development, New York, 1968. 

^^Testimony Before the Special House Subcommittee on Education With Respect to Section 805 of HR J6098, June 1 6, 1970, page 8. 

^^Women in the University of Chicago: Report of the Committee on University Women, May 1, 1970, po. 4346, C9-1 12. 

Bright Woman is Caught in a Double Bind,” Psychology Today, November 1969, pp. 36-38, 62. Horner's research included lest-anxiety 
scores. Thematic Apperception Tests (TAT), and reactions to competitive situations. 

^"^Departments in which over 33% of the graduate students are women but under 20% of the faculty is female are; Anthropology 14%, Art 
14%, Asian L&L 11%, Botany 0%, Classics 0%, Communications 5%, English 10%, Far Eastern 0%, German L&L 19%, History 5%, Music 
1 9%, Near Eastern 7%, Psychology 11%, Romance L&L 1 9%, Scandinavian L&L 0%, Sociology 0%», Zoology 1 7%. All figures are according 
to the Provosts’ List, Autumn Quarter 1969. 




20 



21 



life models.** Women at UW do not see enough successful women, women in high ranks, or even women treated as equals by 
their male colleagues to experience support for their own endeavors, or to believe that fields other than traditional women s 
fields arc open to tlicrn. l*hey may also find that, in order to succeed in a professional career, a woman must be not only as 
good, but better than a man. The limited number of women on the graduate faculties acclimatizes women students to their 
professional expectations: low rank, low status, a slower rate of promotion than their male colleagues, and a more difficult 
tenure hurdle. 

In addition, small numbers of women on the faculty mean few women among the program advisors, especially lor 
graduate students: 



TABLE 16 

Advisors = 71 men, 6 women = 7.79% 
Alternates = 65 men, 7 women = 9.727o 
TOTAL = 136 men, 13 women = 8.73% 



Minus i-Inmc Bcononiics, Women’s Physical Education, and Nursing, the percentage of female advisors is lower: 



TABLE 17 

Advisors = 71 men, 3 women = 4.05% 
Allernales = 65 men, 4 women = 5.87% 
TOTAL = 1 36 men, 7 women = 4.89%^ ^ 



As David Riesman concludes. 

Even very gifted and creative young women are satisfied to assume that on graduation they will get 
underpaid ancillary positions . . . where they are seldom likely to advance to real opportunity. A certain 
throttling down occurs, therefore, both in college and later on, which then, in the usual vicious circle, allows men 
so mindful to depreciate women as incapable of the higher achievement.^® 

Women at tlie University of Washington are accused overtly or covertly of lack of seriousness, of being intellectually 
inferior. As a result, many women are more anxious than men students about their work and future. It is not surprising that 
some women decide they are inadequate; rather, considering the lack of encouragement and the actual discouragement 
experienced by women students, it is surprising that their attrition rates are not higher. 



V. FINANCIAL AIDS 



A. Grants, Loans, and Scholarships^ ^ 

1 . Distribution of Awards 

The primary criterion used by the Office of Financial Aids in awarding grants, loans and scholarships, is that of 
financial need. Financial need can be established in a fairly objective way, and is, therefore, less subject to bias in the 
distribution process. It is interesting to note in Table 18, however, that while women receive 47% of all awards in this area, 
they receive only 45.4% of the total monetary allocation. By contrast, men receive 53%of all awards, and 54.6% of the total 
allocation. This means that the average amount awarded to males is slightly greater than the amount awarded to females. 

Table 18 illustrates the number and amount of grants, loans and scholarships awarded during 1969-70. Awards were 
made to ?.,034 women, (16% of all women enrolled), while the number granted to men was 2,290, or 11% of all those 
enrolled. Tliis would seem to indicate a greater incidence of need on the part of women, a situation which may result in part 
from the fact that women receive a lower percentage of the other forms of financial assistance. 



^^Graduate Study and Research Bulletin 1969. 

^®Quoted in Kathleen Shortridge, “Woman as University Nigger,” The Daily Magazine, University of Michigan, April 12, 1970, p. 21. 
1 7 

Includes only those scholarships and loans which are administered directly through the Office of Financial Aid. 



o 



2>22 



TABLE 18 



AMOUNT AND 


NUMBER OF 


AWARDS BY 


sex’® 




GRANTS, 


LOANS, AND 


SCHOLARSHIPS 






MEN 




WOMEN 






Number 


Amount 


Number 


Amount 


Institutional 










Scholarships 


300 


95,113 


300 


98,809 


Health Professions 










Scholars!! ips—Dcn tist ry 


97 


02,150 






Health Professions 










S ch 0 1 a rsh i ps — P h a rm a cy 


30 


21,000 


20 


1 2,577 


Nursing 










Scholarships 






49 


19,121 


Educational 










Opportunity Grants 


533 


265,073 


453 


218,757 


National Defense 










Student Loans 


1,271 


770,500 


1,122 


646,300 


Nursing 










Student Loans 






90 


60,700 


Health Professions 










Loans— Dentistry 


59 


76,292 








TOTAL 


2,290 


1,271,228 


2,034 


1,056,264 


%Total Recipients 










and Amount Awarded 


53% 


54.6% 


47% 


45.4% 



2. Financial Aids Policy Change 

During the Summer of 1970, it was brought to the attention of the Women’s Commission that a policy existed in the 
Financial Aids Department whereby application for financial assistance was restricted to only one member of a family unit. 
Since only the husband or the wife could then apply, and since society places a higher value upon male education than upon 
female education, this generally meant that if a choice was to be made within a family unit between the husband or the wife 
attending college (where money was available for only one), the wife’s education was usually postponed or abandoned 
entirely in favor of the husband. While it is true that in some cases the wife was the one to apply and subsequently to receive 
the financial aid award, the reverse situation occurred most often. 

The policy was discussed with financial aids administrators who agreed to remove the restriction and allow each 
individual, whether married or not, to apply as an individual, and on the basis of individual need. A revised policy is presently 
in effect. 



B. Scholarships, Fellowships, and Traineeships 

Table 19 shows the number of scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships which were awarded for academic year 
1969-70, and the percentage received by women. The figures in Table 19 include only those scholarships, fellowships and 
traineeships which are administered through the Graduate School, and the nominations for which are submitted by the 
various departments. For those awards designated as “Type A,” money is allocated to the department, then the department 
decides who will receive the award. Type B indicates those awards for which there is individual competition with some 
department pre-screening or approval influence. Individual competition-type awards where students apply independently and 
directly to an outside agency are omitted here (NSF, Woodrow Wilson Fellowships, Woodrow Wilson Dissertation 
Fellowships, Public Health Service, HUD, Fulbright-Hays, AFGRAD, Sarah Denny and AEG Fellowships). 



18 



Figures contamed in Table 18 were obtained from the Office of Financial Aids. 



TABLE 19 



SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS, AND TRAINEESHIPS 



TYPE “A’’ 

National Science 
Foundation Traineeship 
National Science Foundation 
Summer Traineeship or TA's 
NDEA Title IV 
NDEA Title VI Fellowships 
NDEA Title VI 

Summer Intensive Fellowships 
EPDA V Fellowships 
AEG Traineeships 
NASA Traineeships 
Graduate School RA’s 
Graduate School Fellowships 

TYPE “B” 

Social Rehabilitation 
(Child) Traineeship 
Social Rehabilitation 
(Adult) Traineeship 
USOE Audio-Speech Fellowship 
American Foundation for 
Pharm. Educ. Fellowships 
U.S. Steel Found. Fellowships 
Bureau of Commercial 
Fisheries Fellowship 
IBM Fellowship 
TOTALS 



% 



Women 


Men 


Women 


12 


75 


14 


0 


1 1 


0 


45 


147 


23 


12 


38 


24 


26 


34 


43 


1 


9 


10 


0 


1 


0 


0 


10 


0 


10 


17 


37 


0 


2 


0 


(106) 


(344) 


(21%) 



3 


2 


60 


3 


7 


30 


6 


2 


75 


1 


2 


33 


0 


1 


0 


0 


1 


0 


0 


1 


0 


119 


360 


25% 



C. Subfaculty Positions 

It is not entirely clear how the various departments go about selecting candidates for their subfaculty 
positions-whether selections are made on the basis of experience and other objective criteria such as GPA which could be 
together termed as “qualifications”; whether such positions are used as a kind of bribe to attract certain graduate students; or 
whether they are used as a means of providing financial assistance to students on the basis of need. It is clear, however, that 
to those graduate students who have little or no other means of support, subfaculty positions are, in effect, a form of 
financial aid. 

To many women graduate students, the question of financial assistance— or subsidy— is very crucial, and in some 
departments the issue of subsidy has been used in such a way as to prevent w men students from entering. Cases have been 
reported wherein a department will not grant admission to a woman until she huS secured financial support, and then will not 
grant financial support until she has been accepted. Under the present system where each department has autonomous power 
in the processing of scholarships, fellowships, traineeships and subfaculty positions, it is not unlikely that such situations 
could occur. 

Table 20 documents the number of women and men holding subfaculty positions, and the salary for each within each 
category. As can be seen, women receive only 25.4% of departmental subsidy in the form of subfaculty positions. 



2s24 



TABLE 20 





Amount 


Number 


Amount 


Number 


7r Women 
of Total 


Lecturer (Post-Doc) 


S9.^7 


24 


S 1 ,026 




1 l.l 1 


Instructor (Post-Doc) 


952 


17 


908 


3 


15.00 


Associate 


845 


28 


838 


23 


45.09 


Teaching Assoc. ! 1 


850 


5 2 


850 


8 


13.33 


Teaching Assoc. 1 


780 


142 


780 


43 


23.24 


Teaching Asst. 


720 


540 


720 


2 1 2 


28.19 


Staff Assoc. 


720 


7 







0 


Clin. Assoc. 


655 


65 


703 


23 


26. 1 3 


Staff Asst. 


670 


1 


670 


2 


67.00 


Research Asst. 


670 


5 


670 


4 


44.44 


Grad. Student Asst. 


670 


4 






0 


Language Asst. 


516 


1 


660 


4 


67.00 


I^esearch Assoc. 


985 


4 


638 


1 


20.00 


Student Asst. 


600 


9 


600 


6 


40.00 


Clin. Asst. 


575 


1.56 


570 


18 


1 1 .68 


Intern 


542 


3 


375 


2 


40.00 






1,034 




352 


25.40% 



With regard to salaries, there is not the glaring differential in pay for women and men in the same ranks in the 
subfaculty positions as exists within the permanent faculty (see Part 1 of this Report). In fact, in some categories women have 
a higher average salary than men. Yet overall, women earn slightly less than men. Table 21 shows that the highest 
concentration of women is in the salary range of from S700 to S800 (78.97%), as compared with 66.15% of the menrand 
while I 2.08% men receive salaries in excess of S800, only 10.50% of the women do so.^® 



TABLE 21 



% 



SALARY RANGE 


No. 


of Men 


900 & Above 


45 


4.35 


800-900 


80 


7.73 


700 - 800 


684 


66.15 


600 - 700 


84 


8.12 


500 - 600 


141 


13.63 


400 - 500 


0 


0 


300 - 400 


0 

1,034 


0 



% Men of 




% of 


% Women 


Total 


No. 


Women 


of Total 


88.24 


6 


1.70 


1 1 .76 


72.08 


31 


8.80 


27.92 


71.1 1 


278 


78.97 


28.89 


79.76 


17 


4.82 


20.24 


88.68 


18 


5.1 1 


1 1.32 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


2 


5.68 


100.00 




352 







D. Work Study 

Work study jobs are coordinated through the Financial Aids Office and the Student Employment Office. They are 
subsidized in part by the employer (which is sometimes the University and sometimes an outside agency), and in part by the 
federal government, and are normally part of a financial aids package. By accepting a work study job, the student can then 
make up the deficit between the amount received from other forms of financial aid and the amount needed to attend the 
University. 

A brief survey of work study jobs showed that men earned 19 cents more per hour than women in 1969, and 21 cents 
per hour more in 1970 (see Table 22). From the data available, it is impossible to determine the source of the wage 
difference, though there are two possible explanations; (I) Wage differentials within the same job categories, and (2) the 
existence of a large number of jobs which are usually filled by men (“men’s work”) and which usually pay more. Research 
conducted into other areas of student employment would seem to indicate that the latter explanation is applicable in the case 
of work study jobs. 



^^Note that all salary figures arc controlled for 100% time. 




.24 



25 



'1 he prciblcni cif job dcriiiitinn iliat is. wlicic ccriaiii work has iraditionally been considered ‘hiicn's work'* or 
“woiiien's work" is basic to sex discrimination in employment. Tlie employer helps to peipetnatc these definitions beitig 
rchictanl to hire, or milright refusing to hire, one or the other sex for a particular job. Thus in the case of work study jobs, 
the responsibility lor wage equity rests in part with the Office of lonancial Aids, and in part with the employer. But since it is 
the Ollice ol binancial Aids which has contact with students, and which accepts employers for the work study program, we 
o( the University must look to that office to refuse to accept employers who perpetuate unfair labor practices and who 
discriminate on the basis of sex or race. 



TABLE 22 





Number 


Year 


Gross 
Earnings^ ° 


Average 
Hourly Rate 


WOMliN 


334 


1 %9 


$108,879 


S2.26 


MI£N 


271 


1969 


96,243 


2.45 


WOMBN 


177 


1970 


20.177 


2.22 


MI£N 


200 


1970 


24.157 


2.43 



E. Student Employment 
1 , Employment Distribution 

There are tliree major job sources to wliich University of Washington students have access. Those arc: 

a. Student Helper and Assistant Jobs: These are available in various departments and units of the University, Anyone 
holding such a job is employed by the University and the money from which salaries are paid comes directly from 
the University’s operating budget. Subfaculty jobs are also available at the University, and are considered in 
Subsection C above. 

b. Work Study Jobs: These jobs are usually included as part of a financial aid package, and are subsidized partially by 
the federal government and partially by the employer. See Subsection D above. 

c. Outside Employment: Jobs may also be secured with local agencies. Such employment is independent of the 
University, except that r-vferral service and continuous job listings are made available through the Student 
Employment Office in Schmitz Hall. Tliis service is fully discussed in Subsection E to follow. 

In Part 1 of this Report, an attempt was made to determine the opportunity available to women in the faculty and staff 
areas of employment at the University as compared with those of men. Similarly, a study was made to determine the 
opportunity available to women students within the overall area of student employment. Several problems were discovered in 
all three of the major job source areas indicated above and are discussed in the pertinent subsections. Particular attention will 
be directed here toward the Student Helper and Assistant categories. 

According to the University’s Student Employee Pay Schedule and Classification Guideline, dated September 24, 1970, 
both the Student Helper and the Student Assistant categories are broken down into five grades. Each grade includes certain 
types of jobs, the placement of which is determined by the presumed “degree of work difficulty and responsibility." A 
specified hourly wage rate is assigned to each grade, the lowest rate being $ 1 .70 per hour in grade 1, and the highest rate being 
$3.40 in grade V. The range of pay within each group is 20 cents, except for grade V. 

Research was conducted, using job referral sheets which reflect the number of student employees and the positions held 
as of Fall Quarter, 1970. This information was obtained through the Student Employment Office. 

Table 23 shows distribution of women and men over the five salary grades within the Student Helper and Assistant 
categories, as well as the average hourly salary received. Unlike the situation in Staff Employment where substantial salary 
differentials exist (see Part I of this Report), the average pay for men and women in the Student Helper and Assistant 
categories is quite consistent, except in grade IV, where men earn an average of 15 cents per hour more than women. This 
would not be significant were it not that the total range for that grade amounts to only 20 cents. 

The most significant information indicated by Table 23 is the distribution of women over the five grades. It can be seen 
that women are concentrated in grade I (58%), having an average hourly pay rate of $1.73, while only 38% of the men 
employed are in that grade. And while 1 5% of all male students employed are found in grade V (which has a salary range of 
$2.50 to $3.40) only 8% of the female students employed are to be found in that grade. 



20 , 



Figures contained in Table 22 were obtained from the Office of Financial Aids. Note: Total number of men on the work study program for 
fiscal year 1969-70 was 615. Total number of women for fiscal year 1969-70 was 552. 



' 2526 



TABLE 23 





Salary 


No. 


WOMEN 
% Total 


Average S 


No. 


MEN 
% Total 


Average $ 


Grade 


Range 


Employed 


Employed 


Per Hour 


Employed 


Employed 


Per Hour 


1 


170-190 


905 


58 


1.73 


691 


38 


1.73 


II 


190-210 


365 


24 


1.95 


513 


29 


1 .95 


III 


2.10-2.30 


97 


06 


2.13 


189 


1 1 


2.1 1 


IV 


2.30-2.50 


57 


04 


2.21 


129 


07 


2.36 


V 


2.50-3.40 


129 


08 


2.83 


275 


15 


2.81 




TOTAL 


1,553 






1,797 







This distribution pattern is in keeping with the general pattern of employment here in the University and in the nation 
as a whole. Throughout, women tend to be concentrated in the lower paying, menial jobs-and for women students in grade U 
this is more than a generalization. To illustrate, following are examples of the type of jobs included in grade 1: Bus boy /girl, 
kitchen helper, usher, ticket taker, dishwasher, and library page. 

2. Library Page Jobs 

This category of student employment is deserving of particular attention, for it is an area where several serious 
problems exist. 

In the Summer of 1970, the Library Page category as then listed on the Student Employee Pay Schedule was rated 
under grade 1, with a starting salary of $1.60 per hour (the state minimum wage at the time^. The distinguishing factor of 
grade 1, according to the Schedule, is that “no previous knowledge or experience” is required. There are approximately 250 
library page positions in the library, more than half of which are filled by women. 

The attention of the Women’s Commission was drawn to this area when investigations into student employment 
showed that there were several areas which hired predominantly males or females. For example, the areas of grounds 
maintenance, custodial, and parking hired men exclusively, and the library hired women predominantly. Contact with 
supervisors in all four areas showed that students were hired who had no “previous knowledge or experience,” and that the 
grounds maintenance, custodial, and parking jobs were rated as grade 11, and being paid a starting salary of $2.20 which was 
actually grade III scale. The Library Page jobs, however, were being paid a starting salary of $ 1 .60. 

At the time this discovery was made, the Women’s Commission recommended that the Library Page job be reclassified 
as grade 11. This recommendation was rejected by the administration. 

It was later brought to our attention that-simultaneous with our investigations-students employed in the library were 
also attempting to have the Library Page category reclassified as grade 11. Their argument was based on the fact that the 
Library Page category had been classified as grade 11 until 1966, and in that year had been reclassified as grade 1. This 
reclassification had come about not as the result of a change in duties or responsibilities, but rather as the result of an 
economic “crisis” in the library. In 1966 the minimum wage for the state of Washington was raised to $ 1 .40 per hour, which 
meant a 5-cent increase for all library student employees. In order to absorb the cost of an across-the-board minimum wage 
increase, the library decided to lower the classification of the Library Page jobs. Documents from the period prove that this 
change was viewed as temporary in nature, and that it was expected that the grade II classification would be reinstated. Such 
a reinstatement has not occurred. 

3. Redress of Grievance 

Discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal, and there are now several ways in which any woman who has experienced 
such discrimination may take action against an offending employer, whether on the University of Washington Campus or 
elsewhere. Following is a list of federal and state agencies which handle sex discrimination complaints, and a brief description 
of their authority and jurisiction. 

^^It should be noted here that the “experience” requirement has come under severe question in cases where women have been previously 
excluded from a particular job and could, therefore, never have gained such experience. Additionally the “experience” requirement -by 
admission of the University administration-is somewhat arbitrary and is used on the Student Pay Schedule merely as an indicator, or a 
guide, and is not meant to be absolute. 

^^The library student employee count as of April 1970 was 147 women, 132 men: Total- 279. Information obtained from Library Personnel 
Office. 

^^At the present time, the library administration agrees that the Library Page jobs should bf^ classified as Grade II, but until recently were 
unable to secure the concurrence of Personnel Services. Permission for reclassification has now been granted, but no funds have been 
allocated for that purpose. 

2?’7 




WASHINGTON STATE BOARD AGAINST DISCRIMINATION: In May, 1971, as this report was being 
prepared, tlie State Legislature passed House Bill 594, wliicli amended tlie Washington State Law against 
Discrimination (RCW 49.60.120) to include sex. Amendments were made only to those sections dealing with 
employment (public accommodations and newspaper classified ads are specifically excluded). With this new 
revision, any woman in the slate of Washington may file a complaint with the Stale Board Against Discrimination 
against any employer, union, or employment agency which practices discrimination on the basis of sex. 

CONTRACT COMPLIANCE: Any agency or institution which receives grants or contracts from the federal 
government in excess of $50,000 is subject to Contract Compliance guidelines which (by reason of Executive 
Order 1 1246 as amended by 1 1375) prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. In November 1970, a class action 
complaint was filed against the University of Washington by the WomeiTs Commission. Regardless of this fact, 
individual women may at any lime file a complaint against the University for specific discrimination encountered. 
Such- complaints should be filed with the local branch of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Office for Civil Rights. 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: This federal agency is responsible for administering 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which includes a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in 
employment. Certain conditions are imposed under Title VII: Only employers employing over 25 persons, or 
unions or employment agencies serving over 25 persons are covered, and federal employees and stale employees 
are specifically excluded. Complaints may be filed with the EEOC which has a district office in Seattle. 
Jurisdiction can be determined at the time a complaint is filed. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD: Employed women or minorities who are members of a union, 
and who experience discrimination in their conditions of employment by virtue of the union’s contractual 
agreement with the employer may file a complaint with the NLRB (which has comparatively strong enforcement 
powers). University employees are exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. Specifically (and unfortunately) all 
employees of the following types are exempt: Agricultural laborers, domestic servants, any individual employed 
by her parent or spouse, independent contractors, supervisors, individuals employed by an employer subject to 
the Railway Labor Act, Government employees, including those employed by the U.S. Government, any 
Government corporation or Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision such as a city, town, or 
school district. 

WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION — DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: This division administers the Equal Pay 
portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and has jurisdiction in instances where women are being paid less than 
other employees who perform substantially the same work. The word “substantially” is important for it is often 
the case that job titles or codes may be different but the work performed very similar. Similarity in jobs is 
determined by factors of skill, effort, and responsibility (mental effort can be equated to physical effort). 
Information pertinent to filing under this act may be obtained from the Seattle branch of the Wage and Hour 
Division. 

HIGHER EDUCATION PERSONNEL BOARD: The Higher Education Personnel Board, with offices in 
Olympia is the state agency charged with providing overall policy direction to all aspects of classified staff 
personnel administration at the state’s four-year institutions of higher education and the community colleges. The 
Board has adopted a variety of rules which are administered on each campus through each school’s staff personnel 
office. These rules cover all aspects of such matters as appointments, reclassifications, salary administration, 
disciplinary actions, separations including terminations for cause, and layoffs. 

In the event a classified staff membe’^ feels aggrieved concerning a decision in any of the matters covered by the 
Board’s rules, such a grievance should be referred to the campus director of staff personnel for review and 
possible resolution. 

However, inasmuch as all personnel actions may be ultimately appealed to the Higher Education Personnel Board, 
individuals should be aware of their legal opportunity to file an appeal with the Board for an additional review, 
the results of which are binding upon the school. 

F. Student Employment Office 

Next to employment with the University as Student Helpers and Assistants, the largest number of jobs held by students 
are those located in the surrounding community. These outside jobs are obtained through listings which are administered by 
the Student Employment Office. During the 1969-70 academic year, the Student Employment Office listed 2,900 jobs, of 
which 2,350 were filled. This compares with 3,450 Student Helper and Assistant jobs, and 1,167 Work Study. 

' 2'28 



Until llic Spring of 1^)70. it liad been tlie praeiiee oftlie Student binploymcnt OlTice to list jobs separately for women 
and men. in accordance with the wishes of the employer. Such practice was in violation ofTitle Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 
R)(>4. as interpreted by the LliOC'. and to which the University is subject by virtue of its obligations under 1-ederal Contract 
Compliance regulations. This change was made voluntarily by Student btnployment administrators, with some urging from 
the Women's Commi.ssion. Under the new procedure, the Student Hmployment Office will no longer list jobs for employers 
who specify one or the other sex. 

After the change was made, the Commission prepared a handout which details action to he taken by students against 
employers who practice discrimination on the basis of sex. This information is presently made available to every student who 
uses the Student Employment facilities. 

A similar change was instituted in the University Daily, whose advertising department had listed help wanted ads in 
segregated ‘‘male." “female" columns. This function of a newspaper is considered by the EEOC to be the same as that of an 
employment agency, and is therefore subject to Title Vll. 

G. Student Housing 

In May of 1971, a new Student Housing Policy will officially be in operation. Under the old policy, married student 
housing and single student housing was available only to graduate students. Within that category, priorities were granted to 
those graduate students having TA’s or RA's- Investigations showed that according to the policy a married female graduate 
student could not apply for married student housing if her husband were not a student. It was possible, of course, tor a 
married male graduate student whose wife was not a student to make application. This procedure (which was based on the 
assumption that married women are “kept" women) was changed early in 1970, with some urging from the Women s 
Commission. 

While involved in the change described above, the Women’s Comnhssit ^ame to believe that student housing should be 
open to all students, and should be considered a form of financial aid. This belief was based on the tact that student housing, 
which is owned and operated by the University, is low in cost when compared with surrounding housing. Thus when a 
student is accepted into student housing, her or his income is, in effect, being subsidized by the University. 

The Women’s Commission helped in designing the new policy which will soon go into effect. We supported the idea of 
eligibility based on income, and argued for low income brackets which would reflccl the income ol the most needy students. 
We also supported a three-point priority system which allowed for first priority to students enrolled through the EOP 
program, a second priority for single women with children, and a third for any student with a special need. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

In view of the findings indicated in this Report, and in order to take affirmative action to correct the inequities which 
exist and to broaden the opportunities for women students at the University of Washington, the Women’s Commission makes 
the following recommendations. 

In an effort to counteract the effects of channeling, it is recommended that an extensive recruiting program 
be instituted which would seek out and actively encourage women to enter scientific and professional fields and 
all areas of study in which they are presently under-represented. 

It is recommended that the professional schools, the Graduate Schoo.l, and the various graduate 
departments strive for a sex balance, and that they not turn down qualified women until such balance is reached. 

In areas where women predominate, such as the School of Social Work or Nursing, efforts should eventually be 
made to reemit men. This should not be done, however, until it is clear that all departments are sincerely striving 
for a sex balance, for it is often the case that, in the name of sex equality, men are recruited into traditionally 
“women’s fields" where a siniultaneous effort is not made in male dominated fields to provide openings ior 
women. 

It is recommended that all departments be required to conduct a review of their curriculum in order to 
isolate and eliminate those attitudes and dogmas which perpetuate a patriarchal bias and which teach the inherent 
inferiority of women. 

It is recommended that steps be taken to assure that women have the opportunity to compete for 
subfaculty positions and all forms of financial aid on an equal basis with men, and as an affirmative action step, it 
is urged that in departments or areas of study where few women are enrolled, particular emphasis be placed on 
assuring that women students receive the amount of financial subsidy necessary for the continuation of their 
study. 

In the area of student employment it is recommended that vigorous steps be taken to identify those areas 
which have favored the hiring of men, and that such areas be required to begin active recruitment of women. 

28 29