|
|
Pub Date: |
2003-11-06 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Environment; Females; Gender Issues; Higher Education; Sex Differences; Sex Discrimination; Teacher Expectations of Students; Teacher Student Relationship; Womens Education
Abstract:
Since Hall and Sandler's original work on the chilly classroom climate for women, which was published in 1982 by the Project on the Status and Education of Women of the Association of American Colleges, there has been much controversy and debate about its existence. Critics point out that the original work was nothing more than a literature review, no data were collected, and much of the information presented was anecdotal in nature. Proponents of the existence of the chilly climate maintain that women are, in fact, treated differently from men both in and out of the classroom, and this differential treatment negatively impacts their performance in college. Over the past 20 years, empirical research on the chilly climate for women has yielded conflicting results. While some authors have focused exclusively on the classroom environment, others have included the campus environment as well. This review of literature on the chilly climate for women includes a historical overview of the major reports and studies that substantiate its existence as well as data that refute it, and the various tools that have been used for measuring chilly climate. (Contains 20 references.) (Author/SM)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (433K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2003-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Armed Forces; Athletes; Educational Environment; Ethnic Discrimination; Military Schools; Military Training; Quality of Life; Racial Discrimination; Sex Discrimination; Standards; Student Attitudes; Student Recruitment; Student Surveys; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Surveys
Abstract:
The General Accounting Office (GAO) surveyed students and faculty at the academies operated by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to educate and train young men and women to become leaders and effective junior officers in the military services. A web-based survey of 12,264 students and 2,065 faculty members at the 3 service academies on questions related to such student life issues as academic and military programs; gender- and race/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment; and preferential treatment. Results from students included the following: 59-71% reported that quality-of-life problems are openly confronted and/or solved to some, little, or no extent; over 90% rated their academic programs as good or excellent; a quarter to a third rated their academy's performance standards for developing military officers as too low; and over 80% of students not recruited as athletes reported that athletes receive preferential treatment during the admissions process. Results from faculty were similar, but they were less likely to say that quality-of-life programs are seldom openly confronted and/or solved; a quarter to a third agreed that their academy's performance standards for developing military officers were too low; and 72-90% responded that recruited athletes receive preferential treatment during the admissions process. (Contains 4 appendices, 16 tables, and 30 figures.) (MO)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1360K)
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
N/A |
|
Pub Date: |
2003-09-22 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Students; Higher Education; Military Schools; Military Training; Sex Discrimination; Sexual Abuse
Abstract:
This report is the result of the first investigation by an independent body of a problem that has plagued the U.S. Air Force Academy for at least a decade, and possibly since the admission of women in 1976. At the direction of Congress, the Secretary of Defense appointed seven U.S. citizens with expertise in the military academies, behavioral and psychological sciences, and standards and practices related to proper treatment of sexual assault victims. It is clear from the review of nearly a decade of efforts to solve the problem of sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy that the common failure in each of the efforts was the absence of sustained attention to the problem and follow-up on the effectiveness of the solution. Between 1993 and 2002, there were 142 allegations of sexual assault at the Academy, an average of more than 14 allegations each year. In addition, a survey in May 2003 showed that 80.8% of females who said that they had been victims of sexual assault did not report the incident. Information from a variety of sources shows that the responses of Academy and Air Force leadership have been inconsistent and have lacked a long-term plan to address the institutional culture that does not condemn sexual harassment or assault sufficiently. Another recent indicator of the problem is that one in five male cadets responding to a survey did not believe that women belong at the Academy. A new leadership team that took office in April 2003 has begun implementing changes in the Academy's institutional culture, military training, living environment, and sexual assault reporting processes. Sections of the report are: (1) "Executive Summary"; (2) "Introduction"; (3) "Awareness and Accountability"; (4) "Command Supervision and Oversight of the Academy"; (5) "Organizational Culture and Character Development"; (6) "Intervention and Response to Sexual Assault"; (7) "Recommendations"; (8) "Conclusion"; and (9) "Appendixes." The report contains 10 appendixes with supplemental information, including survey responses. (SLD)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (2006K)
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
N/A |
|
Pub Date: |
2003-07-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Books |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Disabilities; Employment Level; Engineering; Ethnic Groups; Females; Higher Education; Minority Groups; Participation; Science Education; Sciences; Sex Differences; Sex Discrimination; Status
Abstract:
This report is the 11th in a series of biennial reports on the status of women and minorities in science and engineering. The reports are mandated by the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (Public Law 96-5 16) which was amended in 1998 to include persons with disabilities. The primary purpose of this report is to serve as an information resource on the participation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Like its predecessors, this report found differences between men and women and among racial/ethnic groups in high school completion rates, college enrollment rates, field choice, employment, rank and tenure status, salaries, and work activities. In addition to the trends and issues that have persisted over time, several new concerns have been raised in the last few years which include: (1) the "digital divide"--differences in access to computer technology by sex, race/ethnicity, and disability status; (2) international differences in participation of women in S&E; (3) the decline in male enrollment; (4) changing demographics--growth and diversity in the Asian population; and (5) defining disability-- changes over time and differences among sources. Chapters include: (1) "Precollege Education"; (2) "Undergraduate Enrollment"; (3) "Undergraduate Degrees"; (4) "Graduate Enrollment"; (5) "Graduate Degrees"; and (6) "Employment". (Author/SOE)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (6018K)
|
|
