未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

大学录取是否有性别歧视?

Are University Admissions Biased? | Simpson's Paradox Part 2

假设未来有一个叫猫托邦的地方
Imagine a future cat-topia where both
猫咪和人类一起申请
cats and people are applying to the physics and
物理系和天文系
astronomy departments.
在天文系 2只猫被录取 2只没有
In astronomy, 2 cats are accepted and 2 are rejected,
而1人被录取
while 1 human is accepted and 1
1人被拒绝
is rejected.
在物理系 1只猫咪被录取 2只被拒绝
In physics 1 cat gets in and 2 don’t,
而2人被录取 4人被拒绝
while 2 humans get in 4 don’t. So,
总的来说 在大学里
overall at the university,
3只猫被录取4只被拒绝 通过率为43%
3 cats are accepted and 4 rejected for a 43 % acceptance rate,
而3人被录取5人被拒绝
while 3 humans are accepted and 5 rejected
通过率为38%
for a 38 % acceptance rate.
那么大学是否会在录取时歧视人类呢
Is the university discriminating against humansin its application process?
也许不会
Possibly not.
这是因为每个系复查他们收到的申请书时
That’s because if each department reviews its own applications,
数据会显示出
then the numbers show
天文系招收了50%的猫和50%的人
that the astronomy department lets in 50 %
这看起来是公平的
of cats and 50 % of humans, which seems fair,
而物理系招收了33%的猫和33%的人
and the physics department lets in 33 %
这看起来似乎
of cats and 33 % of humans, which again seems
也是公平的
fair.
原因是
The reason, then,
大学录取率明显的不公平在于
for the apparent unfairness at the university level is the imbalance in
猫咪和人类申请每个系的人数是不均衡的
how many cats and humans apply to each department:
更多的猫咪申请天文系
more of the cats applied to the astronomy department,
使得猫咪的录取数偏高(忽略种族)
which happened to let in moreapplicants (regardless of species), while
而更多的人类申请物理系 使得录取率偏低
more of the humans applied to physics, which let in fewer applicants.
此现象是辛普森悖论统计的另一个例证
This situation is another illustration ofSimpson’s statistical paradox, and something
另一个例子 20世纪70年代发生在伯克利大学的事件
like it actually happened at Berkeley in the 1970s,
它招收了投递了申请书的44%的男生
which realized it was letting in 44 %
而只招收了35%的女生
of men applying to the graduate school, but only 35 % of women.
严谨的数据可以展现出
Careful analysis was able to show
女生更偏向于选择需要更少资金
that women tended to apply more to departments that had
以及空间的专业 例如英语
less funding and fewer places, like English,
而男生则会喜欢竞争力小一点的专业
and men tended to apply more to less competitive departments,
例如工程学
like engineering.
因此在每个系之间
Thus within each department ( which was the level
(在每一份被评估的申请书的水平上)
at which applications were evaluated ),
没有明显的证据
there wasn ’ t obvious evidence
表明大学在录取上有性别歧视 哪怕有
of gender discrimination among applicants – if anything,
女生也是被青睐的一方
women were favored.
然而 这种各系之间
And yet, the unequal distribution
男女分配不平衡的现象会导致
of women and men across departments resulted in an
大学里的男女数量不均衡
unequal distribution of women and men at theuniversity overall.
问题是
The question, then,
是什么在一开始就使男女不平衡分布
is what caused the unequal distribution of women and men to begin with?
当然 其中一个就是机构知道
One can of course imagine a sinister institution
辛普森的悖论是怎么运行的
knowing how Simpson’s paradox works, wanting
他们需要做的就是
to discriminate against a particular group,
将更小更有竞争力的院系
and thus advertising smaller, more competitive
向那一个群体宣传
departments more heavily to that group,
而对于他们想吸引的群体做相反的事情
and vice-versa for groups they want to promote .
更现实地
More realistically,
总有一些系和领域是不被女生欢迎和支持的
certain departments or fields may have reputations for being unwelcoming
即使他们公平地给她们机会
and unsupportive towards women even if they let them in fairly,
也有可能是
and it ’ s also possible
大学的某方面特点
that aspects of a university itself
吸引了那些想要追求
attract applicants who are more likely to follow gendered
有性别偏向的职业的女性
career stereotypes.
但是最终 正如伯克利所说 更大更社会的问题是
But ultimately, as the Berkeley study concluded,the problem is a bigger, societal, one: “Women
女生被其它的学科领域吸引了 这些学科通常更多在学者 更少的学位输出 更少的资金 而且往往就业前景较为不理想
are shunted towards fields of study that aregenerally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, less well funded, and that
frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects…
这种显而易见的分歧的缺失
The absence of a demonstrable bias
在录取系统中的不能得出结论
in the admissions system does not give grounds for
即在教育进程中
concluding that there must be no
一定不能有偏见
bias anywhere else in the educational
这句话出现在1975年的数据报告上
process.” Those words were written in a statistics paperin 1975.
更多新数据告诉我们 这种现象依然存在
And more recent statistics tell us that they still remain true today –
如果你真的认为
which is unfortunate
男女之间应该
if you think women and men should have
享有同等的机会或者拥有等量薪水
equal opportunities and/or be paid equally for equal
那就是一个不幸的事实
work.
所以此悖论在这些数据中不真实
So the paradox isn ’ t really in the statistics,
因为严谨的数据中显示
since after careful analysis, the statistics
我们容易甚至习惯地去观察它在哪里
tell us we’re biased and even hint at wherethose biases are (or aren’t) coming into
发挥或不发挥作用
play. No,
即使这些偏见就这么赤裸裸的
the paradox is that we ’ ve remained so reluctant to fight our biases,
展现在我们的面前
even when they ’ re
我们仍不情愿去改变他们
put in plain sight.
“技能分享”赞助此视频
This video is sponsored by Skillshare,
一个在线学习关于各种
the online learning site with courses on all sorts
创新 商业 技术技巧的网站
of creative, business and technology skills –
例如正确的刀法 或者怎样
like proper knife skills, or how to make
为视频制作动画 或怎样操作无人机
animated graphs for a video, or how to fly a drone,
以及怎样为它们
or how to design a logo for your
设计自己的商标等等
knife-carrying drone-flying animated-graphcompany, and so on.
你可以免费获得两个月的时间在“分钟物理”上学习技能
You can get two months free by going to skl.sh/MinutePhysics. Again,
再次提醒 是在“一分钟物理”
that’s skl.sh/MinutePhysics

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

大学录取是否存在性别歧视

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

Stacey

审核员

审核员YX

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ME4P9fQbo

相关推荐