Stereotype threat, assignment help

Anonymous
timer Asked: Apr 6th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $40

Question Description

Part I: Who is Steele? What’s he talking about? Why should readers care? What’s your point? For Part I, which can be one or more paragraphs in length, you will - • Hook the reader with an interesting opening observation or anecdote related to stereotype threat perhaps pulled from one of our readings or from your own experience. • Briefly introduce Claude Steele who studies the concept of stereotype threat. Indicate what gives him the qualifications to write on this subject. For example, you might write: “According to social psychologist known for his work in stereotype threat, …. [and then go on to paraphrase, summarize, or quote Steele]” (10). This way, we know he’s an authority on the subject. • Define Steele’s concept of stereotype threat in your own words. • Indicate why this concept is important to understand or should be disregarded. • State your claim (which doesn’t have to be in the first paragraph as long as you’re making a deliberate choice about where you put it). o Your claim should respond to this question: Is stereotype threat likely to be a significant reason for the lesser success of people who are underrepresented in given fields (for example, women in the sciences)? Or, as others suggest, are these disparities more likely Essay Two: Essay Assignment Sheet/ENGL 124-5364 Spring 2017 3 to relate to differences in aptitude, intelligence, and natural ability or desires? Note: You can find that both may be true, but to make a strong stand, you must also give you reader guidance in your claim as to where to strike the balance. Under what circumstances or for what purposes is stereotype threat probably relevant to success? When isn’t it relevant? Your readers need something that they can use to frame their thinking out there in the world. This is a harder approach to this assignment.

Part II Who is Summers? What is he arguing? How might stereotype threat account for the differences Summers sees in women’s success? Whose account is more likely to be true, Steele’s or Summers’? (This should agree with your main claim.) • For each paragraph in this section, create a logical transition to include a subclaim that supports your main claim. • Briefly introduce Lawrence Summers, as you did Steele. In contrast to Steele, what does Summers think accounts for the success differences in women and men in the sciences and engineering? • Summarize Summers’ position with at least two of his key points. • If you’re not considering women in the sciences, explain how Summers’ position might relate to beliefs about other stereotyped groups (yours or someone that you have strong knowledge of). • Explain how the concept of stereotype threat might account for OR probably doesn’t account for the disparities Summers sees between men and women’s success (and that might also relate to the success of other stereotyped groups if you’re looking at another group). • Use at least one quotation introduced by a signal phrase, that is properly cited, explained, and connected logically to the topic sentence. • Logically link this paragraph back to your main claim or position.

Part III What major stereotype threat have you or someone close to you experienced? How has it affected you or them? Does Steele get it right? Is stereotype threat a real thing? Or does Summers have the better explanation? • For each paragraph in this section, create a logical transition to include a subclaim that supports your main claim. • Identify a key stereotype threat you or someone you know well experiences. • Describe how this affects you or them. • Evaluate how Steele’s concept of stereotype threat supports your or their experiences, or how Steele’s interpretation contradict those experiences. o Question to think about: In your experience and judgment (having considered the evidence in the essays), does Steele, Summers, or some combination of both best describe the reasons for the challenges you’ve faced or that someone close to you has faced? • Use at least one quotation from any of our sources, to be introduced by a signal phrase, properly cited, explained, and connected logically to the topic sentence. • Logically link this paragraph back to your main claim or position.

Part IV What can you and/or we do with this information? • For each paragraph in this section, create a logical transition to include a subclaim that supports the main claim. • Explain how this new knowledge could benefit (or harm) you and/or others. Essay Two: Essay Assignment Sheet/ENGL 124-5364 Spring 2017 4 o For example: How does it help you or the culture as it wrestles with stereotypical thinking in a very divided way (regarding race, religion, economic status, size, ability, etc.,)? (Or, how does it lead us in the wrong direction?) • Explain how might you and/or others begin to overcome stereotype threat based on what you’ve learned. – or – What should we be thinking about instead (if you don’t find that stereotype threat is a relevant problem).

Unformatted Attachment Preview

This is a famous (or infamous) talk in which the president of Harvard argued that biological differences may be a key contributing factor to women’s relative lack of success in the sciences and math. Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce Lawrence H. Summers Cambridge, Mass. January 14, 2005 I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially and not using this as an occasion to lay out the many things we're doing at Harvard to promote the crucial objective of diversity. There are many aspects of the problems you're discussing and it seems to me they're all very important from a national point of view. I'm going to confine myself to addressing one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we're discussing, which is the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions, not because that's necessarily the most important problem or the most interesting problem, but because it's the only one of these problems that I've made an effort to think in a very serious way about. The other prefatory comment that I would make is that I am going to, until most of the way through, attempt to adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation. There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described. Maybe it would be helpful to just, for a moment, broaden the problem, or the issue, beyond science and engineering. I've had the opportunity to discuss questions like this with chief executive officers at major corporations, the managing partners of large law firms, the directors of prominent teaching hospitals, and with the leaders of other prominent professional service organizations, as well as with colleagues in higher education. In all of those groups, the story is fundamentally the same. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, we started to see very substantial increases in the number of women who were in graduate school in this field. Now the people who went to graduate school when that started are forty, forty-five, fifty years old. If you look at the top cohort in our activity, it is not only nothing like fifty-fifty, it is nothing like what we thought it was when we started having a third of the 1 women, a third of the law school class being female, twenty or twenty-five years ago. And the relatively few women who are in the highest ranking places are disproportionately either unmarried or without children, with the emphasis differing depending on just who you talk to. And that is a reality that is present and that one has exactly the same conversation in almost any high-powered profession. What does one make of that? I think it is hard-and again, I am speaking completely descriptively and non-normatively-to say that there are many professions and many activities, and the most prestigious activities in our society expect of people who are going to rise to leadership positions in their forties near total commitments to their work. They expect a large number of hours in the office, they expect a flexibility of schedules to respond to contingency, they expect a continuity of effort through the life cycle, and they expect-and this is harder to measure-but they expect that the mind is always working on the problems that are in the job, even when the job is not taking place. And it is a fact about our society that that is a level of commitment that a much higher fraction of married men have been historically prepared to make than of married women. That's not a judgment about how it should be, not a judgment about what they should expect. But it seems to me that it is very hard to look at the data and escape the conclusion that that expectation is meeting with the choices that people make and is contributing substantially to the outcomes that we observe. One can put it differently. Of a class, and the work that Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz are doing will, I'm sure, over time, contribute greatly to our understanding of these issues and for all I know may prove my conjectures completely wrong. Another way to put the point is to say, what fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week. What fraction of young men make a decision that they're unwilling to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week, and to observe what the difference is. And that has got to be a large part of what is observed. Now that begs entirely the normative questions-which I'll get to a little later-of, is our society right to expect that level of effort from people who hold the most prominent jobs? Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men? Is our society right to ask of anybody to have a prominent job at this level of intensity, and I think those are all questions that I want to come back to. But it seems to me that it is impossible to look at this pattern and look at its pervasiveness and not conclude that something of the sort that I am describing has to be of significant importance. To buttress conviction and theory with anecdote, a young woman who worked very closely with me at the Treasury and who has subsequently gone on to work at Google highly successfully, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Business School. She reports that of her first year section, there were twenty-two women, of whom three are working full time at this point. That may, the dean of the Business School reports to me, that that is not an implausible observation given their experience with their alumnae. So I think in terms of positive understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call the, who wants to do high-powered intense work? The second thing that I think one has to recognize is present is what I would call the combination of, and here, I'm focusing on something that would seek to answer the question of why is the pattern different in science and engineering, and why is the representation even lower and more problematic in science and engineering than it is in other fields. And here, you can get a fair distance, it seems to me, looking at a relatively simple hypothesis. It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true 2 with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paperlooked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem. There may also be elements, by the way, of differing, there is some, particularly in some attributes, that bear on engineering, there is reasonably strong evidence of taste differences between little girls and little boys that are not easy to attribute to socialization. I just returned from Israel, where we had the opportunity to visit a kibbutz, and to spend some time talking about the history of the kibbutz movement, and it is really very striking to hear how the movement started with an absolute commitment, of a kind one doesn't encounter in other places, that everybody was going to do the same jobs. Sometimes the women were going to fix the tractors, and the men were going to work in the nurseries, sometimes the men were going to fix the tractors and the women were going to work in the nurseries, and just under the pressure of what everyone wanted, in a hundred different kibbutzes, each one of which evolved, it all moved in the same direction. So, I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something. And I think it's just something that you probably have to recognize. There are two other hypotheses that are all over. One is socialization. Somehow little girls are all socialized towards nursing and little boys are socialized towards building bridges. No doubt there is some truth in that. I would be hesitant about assigning too much weight to that hypothesis for two reasons. First, most of what we've learned from empirical psychology in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that 3 were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and it often turns out not to be true. The second empirical problem is that girls are persisting longer and longer. When there were no girls majoring in chemistry, when there were no girls majoring in biology, it was much easier to blame parental socialization. Then, as we are increasingly finding today, the problem is what's happening when people are twenty, or when people are twenty-five, in terms of their patterns, with which they drop out. Again, to the extent it can be addressed, it's a terrific thing to address. The most controversial in a way, question, and the most difficult question to judge, is what is the role of discrimination? To what extent is there overt discrimination? Surely there is some. Much more tellingly, to what extent are there pervasive patterns of passive discrimination and stereotyping in which people like to choose people like themselves, and the people in the previous group are disproportionately white male, and so they choose people who are like themselves, who are disproportionately white male. No one who's been in a university department or who has been involved in personnel processes can deny that this kind of taste does go on, and it is something that happens, and it is something that absolutely, vigorously needs to be combated. On the other hand, I think before regarding it as pervasive, and as the dominant explanation of the patterns we observe, there are two points that should make one hesitate. The first is the fallacy of composition. No doubt it is true that if any one institution makes a major effort to focus on reducing stereotyping, on achieving diversity, on hiring more people, no doubt it can succeed in hiring more. But each person it hires will come from a different institution, and so everyone observes that when an institution works very hard at this, to some extent they are able to produce better results. If I stand up at a football game and everybody else is sitting down, I can see much better, but if everybody stands up, the views may get a little better, but they don't get a lot better. And there's a real question as to how plausible it is to believe that there is anything like half as many people who are qualified to be scientists at top ten schools and who are now not at top ten schools, and that's the argument that one has to make in thinking about this as a national problem rather than an individual institutional problem. The second problem is the one that Gary Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available. And there are certainly examples of institutions that have focused on increasing their diversity to their substantial benefit, but if there was really a pervasive pattern of discrimination that was leaving an extraordinary number of highquality potential candidates behind, one suspects that in the highly competitive academic marketplace, there would be more examples of institutions that succeeded substantially by working to fill the gap. And I think one sees relatively little evidence of that. So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them. 4 What's to be done? And what further questions should one know the answers to? Let me take a second, first to just remark on a few questions that it seems to me are ripe for research, and for all I know, some of them have been researched. First, it would be very useful to know, with hard data, what the quality of marginal hires are when major diversity efforts are mounted. When major diversity efforts are mounted, and consciousness is raised, and special efforts are made, and you look five years later at the quality of the people who have been hired during that period, how many are there who have turned out to be much better than the institutional norm who wouldn't have been found without a greater search. And how many of them are plausible compromises that aren't unreasonable, and how many of them are what the right-wing critics of all of this suppose represent clear abandonments of quality standards. I don't know the answer, but I think if people want to move the world on this question, they have to be willing to ask the question in ways that could face any possible answer that came out. Second, and by the way, I think a more systematic effort to look at citation records of male and female scholars in disciplines where citations are relatively well-correlated with academic rank and with people's judgments of quality would be very valuable. Of course, most of the critiques of citations go to reasons why they should not be useful in judging an individual scholar. Most of them are not reasons why they would not be useful in comparing two large groups of scholars and so there is significant potential, it seems to me, for citation analysis in this regard. Second, what about objective versus subjective factors in hiring? I've been exposed, by those who want to see the university hiring practices changed to favor women more and to assure more diversity, to two very different views. One group has urged that we make the processes consistently more clearcut and objective, based on papers, numbers of papers published, numbers of articles cited, objectivity, measurement of performance, no judgments of potential, no reference to other things, because if it's made more objective, the subjectivity that is associated with discrimination and which invariably works to the disadvantage of minority groups will not be present. I've also been exposed to exactly the opposite view, that those criteria and those objective criteria systematically bias the comparisons away from many attributes that those who contribute to the diversity have: a greater sense of collegiality, a greater sense of institutional r ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Lessermaster
School: University of Maryland

Attached.

Running Head: STEREOTYPE THREAT

1

Stereotype Threat
Name
Tutor
Course
Date

STEREOTYPE THREAT

2

PART I
Steele is currently an executive chancellor and provost at the University of California.
Before becoming an administrator, he taught at several universities. He is also a social
psychologist and thus this gives him qualifications to write on stereotype threat. His research
mainly focuses on the ways in which other people influence us. According to Steele’s research,
these people can be those we know or imagine with their influences shaping what we think, what
we feel, or even how we behave. Steele thinks the way people influence us is contributed by
fears about how we think other people will respond to what we do or say. As he is best known
for his work on what is called the stereotype threat, he directs us to a topic where he is not just
writing in a psychological way but for a good audience understanding. Steele uses an example of
himself to let us understand how stereotypes affect us. He had one day realized that the black
kids couldn’t swim at the area park pool unless on Wednesday afternoon. Besides having the
opportunity to swim on Wednesday, they still had no full privilege to the pool and could be
concentrated toward the hallowed pool. From this case, I would identify racial discrimination as
a stereotype. Steele and the other black kids had fear that was contributed by imagination about
how the other kids who were not black could treat them or mingle with them. Their behavior is
shaped by the fact that they feel white kids have more privileges than the black kids in the
neighborhood. It was not according to schedule that the black kids could only go to the pool on
Wednesday afternoons but their imagination on how the white kids could respond contributed
towards this.
It was a racial order with a massive impact as it turned out to be a portent of things that
were yet to come. Steele says that the segregations became too much that it could not be ignored
because it also later led to having another day on Thursdays for the black kids to go to the roller

STEREOTYPE THREAT

3

rink. The black kids were tied to a condition of life based on their race for being black in that
time and place. Basing on the stereotype threat, such situations would lead to lesser success of
people who are underrepresented in given fields. The theory behind stereotype threat according
to steel is that a person’s social identity has a significance when rooted in concrete situations.
The situations may be referred to us identity contingencies where a person is treated according to
a specific social identity. When a person is under the circumstances of a stereotype threat, that
person is likely to unsuccessfully perform because the person behaves in a manner consistent
with the stereotype. These may be contributed by anxiety that leads to distraction and thus a
diminished performance level.
PART II
Summers is the president of Harvard University who argues that biological difference
may be a key contributing factor to women’s relative lack of success in the sciences and math.
According to Summers, women have been a group that is significantly underrepresented in
science and this underrepresentation has contributed to a shortage of role models for others who
are considering being in that group. There is a very substantial disparities with respect to the
presence of women in high-end scientific professionals. The argument of this problem according
to Summers can be broaden beyond science and engineering in order to understand the reason for
this stereotype threat among the women. This stereotype might have been contributed by soci...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors