阅读理解 Female applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences were nearly half as likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, compared with their male counterparts. Christopher Intagliata reports.
As in many other fields, gender bias is widespread in the sciences. Men score higher starting salaries, have more mentoring, and have better odds of being hired. Studies show they're also perceived as more competent than women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. And new research reveals that men are more likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, too.
"Say, you know, this is the best student I've ever had," says Kuheli Dutt, a social scientist and diversity officer at Columbia University's Lamont campus. "Compare those excellent letters with a merely good letter: ‘ The candidate was productive, or intelligent, or a solid scientist or something that's clearly solid praise, ’ but nothing that singles out the candidate as exceptional or one of a kind. "
Dutt and her colleagues studied more than 1,200 letters of recommendation for postdoctoral positions in geoscience. They were all edited for gender and other identifying information, so Dutt and her team could assign them a score without knowing the gender of the student. They found that female applicants were only half as likely to get outstanding letters, compared with their male counterparts. That includes letters of recommendation from all over the world, and written by, yes, men and women. The findings are in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Dutt says they were not able to evaluate the actual scientific qualifications of the applicants using the data in the files. But she says the results still suggest women in geoscience are at a potential disadvantage from the very beginning of their careers starting with those less than outstanding letters of recommendation.
"We're not trying to assign blame or criticize anyone or call anyone consciously sexist. Rather, the point is to use the results of this study to open up meaningful dialogues on implicit gender bias, be it at a departmental level or an institutional level or even a discipline level. " Which may lead to some recommendations for the letter writers themselves.
单选题 29.What do we learn about applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】考查细节理解题。根据第一段第一句,和男性申请者相比,女性在申请地球科学博士后时获得优秀推荐信的几率大概是他们是一半。也就是说,男性比女性更有可能获得优秀的推荐信。故本题选C。
单选题 30.What do studies find about men and women in scientific research show?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】考查推理判断题。由第二段第二、三句可知,男性的起薪较高,能得到更多的指导,也有更大的受聘机率。研究表明,在STEM领域,他们也被认为比女性更有能力。由此可见,研究表明,在科研方面男性更擅长STEM学科。C项中的be better able to excel是对more competent的同义转述。故本题选C。
单选题 31.What do the studies find about the recommendation letters for women applicants?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】考查推理判断题。文章第三段提到了优秀的推荐信与“还不错”的推荐信。“还不错”的推荐信并没有让申请者从众多申请者中脱颖而出。结合首段提到的女性获得优秀推荐信的机率大概是男性的一半这个研究结果,可以推断女性收到的往往不是优秀的推荐信,而是“还不错”的推荐信,这些推荐信没有包含使她们脱颖而出的内容。故本题选B。
单选题 32.What did Dutt and her colleagues do with the more than 1,200 letters of recommendation?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】考查细节理解题。根据文章第四段首句,达特和同事们研究了1,200多封申请地球科学博士后的推荐信。接下来一句指出,这些推荐信中有关性别和其他的识别信息被编辑,这样达特和她的团队在不知道学生性别的情况下为推荐信打分。由此可见,达特和同事们删除了所有关于性别的信息。故本题选D。
单选题 33.What does Dutt aim to do with her study?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】考查细节理解题。根据最后一段,达特的研究目的是利用研究结果对隐含的性别偏见开启有意义的对话,无论是在部门层面,还是在制度层面,甚至是在学科层面。这可以给写推荐信的人提供一些建议。由此可见,达特的研究是为了让写推荐信的人意识到他们在信中的性别偏见。故本题选A。