
Tokyo medical school admits changing results to exclude women - prawn
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/tokyo-medical-school-admits-changing-results-to-exclude-women
======
neya
Not saying this is right, but the opposite is also more common than you'd
think. For example, this is no different than:

1\. Oxford University - extends exam times for women's benefit -
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/01/oxford-
univ...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/01/oxford-university-
extends-exam-times-womens-benefit/)

2\. Prof Bumps Female Students’ STEM Grades (Because They’re Women) -
[https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/23/prof-bumps-female-
stu...](https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/23/prof-bumps-female-students-
stem-grades-b)

~~~
eeeuo
Yes, #1 "is different" than the OP. It would only be equivalent if women were
allowed more time than men to complete the exam.*

#2 is a completely misleading headline. It ... never happened. An article in
which the 2nd paragraph contradicts the headline isn't written in good faith.

[*] I would also argue that extending exams so that each student has a
reasonable amount of time to finish is not a bad practice. A student that
gives a correct answer in the extra 15 minutes is no less knowledgeable than a
student that gives the correct answer in the original allocated time. We are
selecting for breadth and depth of knowledge, not speed of recitation or
ability to perform under pressure. In a CS exam, you either know the answer or
you do not. Extra time is not going to allow you to falsify your level of
knowledge. It will, however, give slower workers the ability to fully complete
the exam.

Students that work quickly but are less knowledgeable than their peers are the
only ones that would be penalized by this change. Those students have inflated
scores relative to their knowledge, therefore this penalization should be
encouraged. In an untimed test, the most knowledgeable student will always get
the highest test score, therefore knowledgeable students should not be opposed
to increasing test times, they should encourage them.

~~~
skate22
> "In a CS exam, you either know the answer or you do not."

This is simply not true. Consider an algorithm proof, with enough time you
might be able to derive a proof that you should have known cold.

The real world does have deadlines & performance matters, and the women who
spent the time studying should get the better grade

~~~
eeeuo
You believe that a student that derives a proof from scratch is less
knowledgeable than a student that rote memorizes it out of a textbook?

My argument comes from the perspective of the real world. It is, in effect,
the same type of argument that drives the "interview questions on a
whiteboard" discussion -- which qualities are actually important in an
employee? As someone involved with hiring for a company that consistently
produces high quality, critical code used in important systems, my experience
is that "working under pressure" is pretty far down the list of important
qualities.

~~~
skate22
Grades are relative though.

I'm not saying the person that came to the proof with 30 mins extra is not
smart, but they were not able to meet the same expectation as the other
students.

If everyone gets a 50, the grades will scale, and your final grade will depend
on how you performed compared to the rest

I've brute forced a few proofs, and if i had done so in overtime, i would 100%
stand by my viewpoint that i deserve less points than the student next to me
who met the expectation.

In an interview it's different too, because you have not been preparing for a
clearly defined expectation for 3 months.

Now on the other hand, if you were to argue for completely untimed exams, i
can get behind that. I really enjoyed some of my take home CS finals, and it
really let me perfect my solution to the best of my ability.

It really depends on what expectation is set (imo)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
What does it matter if students meet the expectation that is set if the
expectation has no bearing on anything useful? Surely the university's goal
should be to produce capable graduates, not to simply have a contest of who is
better at taking pointless exams. If they want to adjust the expectations set
for students to put less emphasis on rapid recitation of rote memorization,
that is a good thing.

~~~
skate22
So first: most jobs require you to do a lot of stuff that you may not agree
with or feel is useful. I don't want to work with the person who is going to
only do what they want when they want. At the end of the day the work needs to
get done.

Secondly: any school that has GPA is essentially holding a contest. Many job
postings consider GPA and may use it as a tiebreaker between 2 canidates from
school X. It's not a perfect metric by any means, but it is relevant in the
world today for new hires.

Work in the real world is largely the ability to deliver on expectations.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Okay, but why that particular set of hoops to jump through rather than some
other set of hoops to jump through? Why should the university have to stick
with one set of hoops to jump through just because it's the one they happened
to pick decades ago?

------
mc32
With a low reproduction / declining pop rate, this was the wrong thing to do
from a socio-economic perspective, not to mention morality.

But really Japan has to seriously put an effort to positively utilize the
other half of their able worker pool. If they engaged and got similar
participation rates as men, that could go a long way in expanding their
economy.

~~~
whatshisface
It is way more expensive for households with two working parents to raise
children than it is for households with one working parent, and as a result it
is possible that _even fewer_ Japanese people would elect to have children.

~~~
tecleandor
You're implying that: \- only women will take care of kids \- daycare is as
expensive as in your place of origin. (in Tokyo there are public daycare
schools, and you have preference for entering if both parents work)

~~~
w00kie
And yet hundreds of families are on waiting lists. If you don't get a spot,
you have to go to a private facility which can easily cost more than one
parent's monthly salary, or drop out of work until you get a spot, but then
you're relegated even further down the waiting list.

Also, once you're in, you'll have to pick the kid before 6pm in most daycares
which means you must leave the office at 5pm and since a lot of companies do
not have flex time, that single hour will push you to a part-time position.
Then the daycare will refuse to take your child if they have a _fever_ of
36.8℃ and do regular temperature checks during the day and force you to drop
your work and come pick the child straight away if they go above 36.8℃.

Unless you work close to home and have a very flexible and comprehending
employer (or have grand parents close by and ready to help), even with a lucky
spot in daycare it is extremely complicated to continue working.

Let's not even talk about elementary school where mandatory partake in time-
consuming useless PTA activities basically assumes one of the parent does not
work.

~~~
topmonk
36.8 C is less than normal human body temperature.

~~~
jacobolus
Probably a typo for 37.8°C, which is about the usual standard for child fever.
Usually not worth calling the doctor until it’s like 39° or above, but sending
a kid home with a mild fever might keep the rest of the class from catching a
cold.

~~~
w00kie
Not a typo and it's oral or armpit temperature. Japan is weird with their
concept of "fever". When I get a flu shot, they ask me to take my temperature
and I have to lie every time because they won't give me the shot if I tell
them I read 37.4 C

------
ironjunkie
I said this here before, but this is exactly what is going all over the world
whenever "affirmative actions" are used.

The only difference is that in this specific case, they decided to use a clear
different required test score in order to apply the unfair advantage at
selection.

In most other places, specifically in the US they use soft, improvable
information (such as an "essay") to cover their base and make it non-obvious
that the selection process is unfair. The most famous case would be the Asian
discrimination case at Harvard, weirdly everyone is mostly ok with that one

~~~
cbolton
A more important difference is that affirmative action is generally used to
favor under-represented demographics (or equivalently, to disfavor over-
represented demographics). In this case it looks like they disfavored women
while they were already under-represented! I'm not quite sure of this but
that's what another article [1] suggests:

 _In 2010, before the measure was allegedly introduced, female student
participation was about 40%._

 _The newspaper reported that after the two-round application process earlier
this year, only 30 female applicants were accepted to study, versus 141 men._

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-45108272](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45108272)

~~~
PurpleBoxDragon
>A more important difference is that affirmative action is generally used to
favor under-represented demographics

That may be the intent, but in practice it also hurts certain underrepresented
groups. For example, among all Asians, if you break down the demographic
further by nationality, you'll find some groups strongly over represented and
other groups strongly underrepresented. Affirmative actions applied to Asians
as a whole hurts the groups which are already underrepresented, and while it
hurts Asians in general compared to all other demographics, it helps over
represented Asians compared to underrepresented Asians.

------
tristanj
Discussion from 5 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675807](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675807)

------
tompccs
I'm still waiting for a "smoking gun" such as this to come out of hiring or
admission practices for tech firms and STEM courses. In much of the Western
world the majority of people starting their careers in medicine and law are
women (this is the case in my own country), but these fields are not, as far
as I can tell, any less prejudiced or discriminatory against women than fields
which men have a large male majority. Even with actual systematic
discrimination in place in Japan, the rate of female doctors (30% according to
the article) is still higher than the percentage of women studying CS in the
UK (19%, according to [0]).

[0] [https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-
educati...](https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-
student-statistics/subjects)

------
aravindet
"We won't do it again" is incredibly inadequate. I'm not familiar with the
Japanese legal system, but punitive fines for the university plus the criminal
charges on the individuals involved seem warranted here.

~~~
deepsun
Japanese legal system is not. Their society is based on shame and status.

~~~
throw2016
Every society is based on shame and status. Legal systems are based on
codified rule of law, social systems are based on culture, and all cultures
use shame to varying degrees to control behavior ie slut shaming, jobs loss,
deviant behavior, low status jobs.

This forum itself never fails to remind MacDonald and Wallmart workers of
their status. Status has always been a central facet of every society. Even a
cursory scratch beneath the surface will reveal the rigid class consciousness
and status hierarchies in every society.

------
known
Doctors who are female, 2015. Spain: 51.6% Sweden: 47% UK: 45.8% Germany:
45.2% France: 44.3% Ireland: 43.2% Italy: 40.3% Turkey: 40% Switzerland: 39.7%
Australia: 39.4% US: 34.1% South Korea: 22.3% Japan: 20.3% (OECD)

------
AIX2ESXI
Who are we to question Japanese society? They have their reasons.

~~~
genericid
Do you also never question other individuals because they have their reasons?

------
supernova87a
Kind of reminds you of the score changing going on at universities here in the
US (in the news lately) for the goal of favoring some applicants over others?

~~~
muricula
Did scores actually get changed, or were they judging by different metrics?

~~~
dingo_bat
Is there a difference?

~~~
KirinDave
Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a
difference?

"We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more
difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to
succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about
passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards."

Biasing entry standards is a thing that may or may not make sense. For public
and public-funded institutions, transparency and honesty are absolutely
essential.

~~~
hnaccy
>We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more
difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to
succeed

This seems like a generous description of affirmative action given it punishes
asian students and examples of demographics that benefit underperforming once
accepted.

~~~
intended
How?

One of the key criteria for performance today is "grit", which is an evolution
over the previous performance indicators such as education/SAT scores (which
had poor long term correlation).

The assumption that they will underperform is unsubstantiated.

Especially considering - all/most Asian American/SE Asian kids go through the
ringer to prepare them from the word go, to get into a prestigious school. (Do
note - that if they dont get into their first choice college, they will get
into their equally good backup schools.)

As the dean of Harvard said - he could fill his class with Valedictorians (and
probably have many more to spare).

Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in
an american system it shouldn't be.

\----

Living in a world where Academics decide everything, you can easily see the
kind of damage it does to daily life.

Societal worth, marriage prospects depend on what is said on that Degree -
even if you are terrible at solving real world problems or have 0 motivation
to actually work in your field.

~~~
hnaccy
>Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least
in an american system it shouldn't be.

Instead it should be the color of your skin?

That they will underperform is not unsubstantiated in cases like black law
students.

~~~
KirinDave
The entire thesis is that they're starting from harder place, without
necessarily having a superior talent distribution. Therefore, it's not
unexpected they'd have a longer mean time to peak performance (which is what
studies show).

The same is true, by the way, of folks with extremely religious anti-science
backgrounds (like me!).

Either way, graduation standards don't change.

~~~
hnaccy
So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian
americans?

>which is what studies show

Which studies? Graduation standards have changed for all races, in
undergraduate institutions grade inflation is rampant and hard curves or class
ranks are relics. The performance of the student body and specific
demographics is increasingly muddled. In premier law schools affirmative
action demographics continue to underperform, as well as have lower LSAT
scores which strongly predicts probability of passing the bar.

~~~
KirinDave
> So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian
> americans?

No. And this, "If anything I am an asian supremcist" angle is so dated, so
boring, and so tedious I'm not going to entertain you further. Everyone can
see what you're doing. Go debate a 6 year old youtube video rather than waste
an instant more of 2018's time.

Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed
extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently, and
that economic disparity is clearly reflected in many social scales. We're also
acutely aware of many eugenicists using "well asian people are just
genetically and culturally better" as a blind in America for their racial
oppression for years. That history is well-documented.

~~~
hnaccy
It's the logical conclusion of your stated thesis and affirmative action as it
exists today.

>Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed
extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently

18th century Chinese laborers are rich and overqualified? Why say "no", whites
don't have it harder than asians, then 180 and state that asian americans are
all drawn from some privileged group. I'm not a eugenicist I'm just surprised
by how easily affirmative actions proponents cast aside asian american
concerns and commonly stereotype them as soulless grade grinders with "Tiger
Moms" etc.

~~~
KirinDave
Your argument is wrong and ignores reality. You should feel ashamed of
yourself for presenting such a disingenuous and widely debunked argument. This
venue demands better.

For folks who don't know (hnaccy almost certainly does because this is the
standard rebuttal to this lousy argument): Because the Chinese Exclusion Act
was a real thing, the total combined Asian American population between the 8th
census and the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act never exceeded 500,000
nationally, and that's adding a healthy margin of error. The recruited labor
force was minuscule and not a significant contributor to today's booming
population of over 20m.

It wasn't until after substantial immigration changes (oh, and federally
guaranteeing non-whites could own property) that more folks were allowed in,
and so we've had a relatively tiny fraction of US history where immigration
was possible and desirable (who's gonna immigrate if you're legally forbidden
to own a business or a home because of your skin color?). Folks moving in
initially were folks who were rich and capable of going to a country with only
minimal resources and support structures. The first year after the I&NA came
about, the Asian population in America surged by over 200% and has grown at a
healthy clip since then, dramatically skewing the characteristics of the
population's wealth distribution.

So yeah, there's a substantial bias in Asian immigration, which has had a lot
less time to give people with less means (a reliable predictor of maximum
academic performance). We'd expect to see this in the data if economic
resources enable academic performance, which we can point to multiple obvious
mechanisms of. hnaccy's argument only makes sense if you believe there is some
essential quality to Asian and White genetics that, in isolation of every
other factor, reliably makes them "smarter" than black or brown people. Even a
casual knowledge of genetics and epigenetics suggests that this is at best
radically implausible at worst an outright lie dating back to 1930s propaganda
trying to co-opt science for political gain.

~~~
hnaccy
Someone can disagree with the concept and/or implementation of race based
admission policies without being a racist eugenicist.

I believe my confusion stems from you answering no to my question

>So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian
americans?

When it sounds like you do believe asian Americans start in a better place due
to historical immigration policies and trends.

~~~
KirinDave
> Someone can disagree with the concept and/or implementation of race based
> admission policies without being a racist eugenicist.

I agree. However, you went a step further and started suggesting a biological
essentialism and history erasure. If you simply didn't know you were doing
that then admit your opinion is ahistorical and go research the subject.

I think you're are now walking this statement back because it was such a weak
point. I'm going to take screenshots in case you attempt to abuse editing.

> When it sounds like you do believe asian Americans start in a better place
> due to historical immigration policies and trends.

Please see Dr. Eugenia Cheng's 2017 talk "Category Theory in the Real World"
for a primer in how to interpret this. There are multiple axis of privilege.
Interestingly enough, admissions standards often address these axis by also
considering family income and other historical details like presence or loss
of family members.

The existence of affirmative action for specific groups does _not_ create a
zero sum exercise for white Americans, who also have access to a larger number
of economic and social criterion for admissions and financial aid.

~~~
hnaccy
>started suggesting a biological essentialism

Where?

The existence of affirmative action for specific groups necessarily
disadvantages other groups based on their race.

~~~
KirinDave
> The existence of affirmative action for specific groups necessarily
> disadvantages other groups based on their race.

Why?

~~~
hnaccy
If the number of applicants exceeds the number of spots and some are assigned
a higher value due to their race then applicants of other races are
disadvantaged.

~~~
KirinDave
Actually: I don't see how either of us could make a meaningful case on if this
does or does not happen without access to more data and transparency from orgs
on their admissions process and criterion. This article exposing the bias is
_great_ because it's a step forward towards transparency there, and we see
that in fact qualified women were being actively turned down strictly because
men were preferred via bias.

Ultimately we're asking for what proportion of applicants WERE qualified but
denied because they didn't have a "spot", the total admissions volumes, and
what that intersection is. What's more, most students apply to multiple
colleges and only a few have specific environments that are specifically
necessary (you might argue, for example Stanford's connection with the startup
world makes it especially desirable, but look at what a untalented failure
Lucas Duplan is... maybe not...), it simply changes outcomes in a way that
isn't particularly disadvantaging.

Personally and in an unsubstantiated musing: I believe that the actual case
where a student "doesn't get in to college because of their race" is
astonishingly rare. The US has a large enough population that the law of large
numbers surely makes a few, and that's one of many reasons I've dedicated my
career to providing education for as long as I stay in the field.

But your argument seems to carry this unspoken corollary that there aren't
resources for white folks or men, but that's something that seems to follow
from what evidence I've found. I've found a few sources that suggest white
people get about 60% of the private scholarship funding in the US.

~~~
hnaccy
From the current Harvard case:

>For example, Dr. Card’s simulations show that if Harvard had not considered
race, the proportion of African-American students in the Class of 2019 would
have dropped from 14% to 6%, and the proportion of Hispanic or Other students
would have dropped from 14% to 9%.

It follows that there was a group of applications numbering 13% of the Class
of 2019 who were disadvantaged due to their race.

Yes it's probably quite rare that a student is rejected at say HYP and does
not get into any other college but I don't see why that matters? We accept
that there is a benefit to attending certain schools over others why should it
depend on your race whether or not you "deserve" your first choice or should
be happy with second or third choice college?

>But your argument seems to carry this unspoken corollary that there aren't
resources for white folks or men

You're inferring that.

~~~
KirinDave
> Yes it's probably quite rare that a student is rejected at say HYP and does
> not get into any other college but I don't see why that matters?

Because the opposite case, where the economic destiny of folks from previously
disadvantaged-in-America ethnic minorities is real and more common. If you're
looking for a justification, more good than harm.

