Seventy-Fifth Year of Publication
(okftflw trojan
Volume Cll, Number 30
University of Southern California
1912 — 1986
Monday, October 13, 1986
Feature
Women said to be losing battle for sexual equality
By Linda Chong
Staff Writer
Bum the bras for equality, or bum the entire system? Frustrated women in the '80s job market may be asking that exact question, for a recent university study shows that despite a decade of struggle toward sexual equality in employment, top management jobs remain closed to women.
Mary Ann Von Glinow, associate professor of management and organization at the School of Business Administration, said that these women are not only losing out in the job market, but in the home-making area as well.
According to Von Glinow, recent research done by three students from Harvard and Yale universities has shown that single women over the age of 35 have virtually no chance of marrying, and that a majority of top female achievers in business do not have children.
Von Glinow said, "For the last 10 years, women have postponed marriage and childbearing in order to pursue success in their careers. And despite all the rhetoric about how women are making great strides and getting ahead, it just isn't happening. What is happening is a Catch-22: women are losing out in both areas."
The university study is the first of its kind to be done since 1976. For the project, Von Glinow and research assistant Anna Krzycz-kowska counted the number of women on boards of directors at America's designated Fortune 500 companies and the number of those actually holding corporate offices — typically from the vice presidential level on up.
The 1976 study, conducted by social scientist Jane Trahey, similarly evaluated the top 50 firms in the nation. Trahey found that only 2 percent of board members and 0.8 percent of corporate officers were women.
Ten years have passed since those findings, and Von Glinow has discovered the numbers to have not changed very significantly. The Fortune 500 companies now have 6.4 percent women board members and 1.3 percent women corporate officers.
"The small change in the number of women holding officer positions is particularly disheartening since these jobs are the proving ground for future board members," Von Glinow said.
Figures were compiled of women in managerial positions of 26 different career fields, including aerospace, transportation equipment, forestry products, beverages, foods, computer industries, and
(Continued on page 8)
Fiscal year ends with surplus
By Aaron Curtiss
Assistant City Editor
Despite a year of financial surprises, the university finished its fiscal year within $426,000 of the "precipice of deficit," said Dennis Dougherty, vice president of financial affairs.
After reviewing the university's financial statements, which were approved by the Board of Trustees on Wednesday, Dougherty said the university had a
0.7 percent surplus on its $550 million operating budget.
Dougherty said that managing last year's finances to bring them in on target caused "many sleepless nights." He attributed these to rising insurance costs, Gramm-Rudman budget cuts, and a diminishing federal stu-dent-aid fund.
He and other financial managers had to tighten the belts in other areas of the budget to compensate for the unexpected expenditures and loss of revenue. In particular, Dougherty said the university delayed filling positions left open by resignations and retirements.
Dougherty said financial services, administration and maintenance were affected by the hiring delays. Some faculty members did double duty to fill positions that were left vacant.
However, Dougherty praised faculty who, despite a shrinking pool of federal research grants, were able to obtain a 23 percent increase in direct government support from $101 million last
Contest voting process ousted
Electing Mr., Miss USC by pennies called discriminatory
By Denise Hendricks
Staff Writer
The proposed voting procedure for the upcoming Mr. and Miss USC contest caused quite a stir at the Program Board on Friday when the board's director discovered the contest was to be based on how much money each candidate could raise.
One penny equals one vote, and candidates' friends can contribute as many pennies as they like in the Mr. and Miss USC contest, said Chris Melendez, the director of Program Board Special Events, on Friday.
This was the proposed procedure for the contest which se-
lects the university's version of homecoming queen and king, until Friday, when Carol Silberman, executive director of the Program Board, became aware of it.
"As far as I'm concerned personally, it's discriminatory, and I don't back this voting procedure. I won't let it happen this way," Silberman said.
The ousted voting procedure was developed by Melendez.
The procedure would have involved placing containers in front of the candidates' pictures and the lists of their activities. In order to vote, students would
have had to drop money in the container.
"One penny will be recognized as one vote and there will be no limit on the number of votes per person," Melendez said.
When asked about whether he considered the process discriminatory, since candidates with wealthy friends could have had an unfair advantage, Melendez said, "Not necessarily, I don't think it caters to wealthy candidates at all."
Melendez said he'd received no complaints about the voting procedure and that it was approved by the Program Board's adviser.
But, Silberman, the director of the board, said she didn't know anything about the plan, nor did Student Senate President Wally Bobkiewicz.
Silberman said she had approved funding for the contest but did not realize how the winners would be selected.
"It will be fixed," Bobkiewicz said, after being informed of the proposal.
"It's not a way to handle voting — paying for someone to win," Silberman said.
"As executive director of the Program Board, I have decided to alter the election procedures," Silberman said after conferring with the board's advisers on Friday.
Silberman said that the voting
(Continued on page 9)
year to $122.8 million this year.
"The faculty did an extraordinary job. . .in outperforming any other faculty in a very hostile environment, financially speaking," Dougherty said.
Dougherty blamed Gramm-Rudman budget cuts for the increasing difficulty in receiving
JOEL ORDESKY / DAILY TROJAN
DENNIS DOUGHERTY
federal research grants.
The depleted federal student-aid budget forced the university to expend $30.6 million to sustain its commitment to meeting students' financial needs. Last year, the university spent $25.7 million on student aid.
Rising insurance costs squeezed an additional $1.3 million out of the budget.
"But given all these problems in 1986, it's a real credit to the management effort," Dougherty said.
Although the university finished with a slight surplus, Dougherty said that he likes to see it break even. In the past the university has had surpluses as low as $201,000.
Breaking even, Dougherty said, helps maintain the credit rating of the university.
Dougherty said the financial statement also outlined recent increases in donations, which he attributes to the vigorous fund-raising efforts of the Campaign for the University of Southern California. Architects of the campaign hope to raise $557 million by 1990.
Reagan’s approval of bill may affect GSL recipients
By Karen Martinez
Staff Writer
Students who currently qualify for the Guaranteed Student Loan may soon discover they no longer meet qualifications if President Reagan approves the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act later this month.
If approved, the act will place new restrictions on a student's ability to take out a GSL. It will also raise the borrowing limit on GSLs and auxiliary loans, while revamping the payback plan of auxiliary loans.
It will be difficult to measure the number of students who will no longer qualify for the loan, said Michael Halloran, special assistant to the senior vice president for administration.
In the past, students were able to apply directly for a GSL, but if the policy is enacted, students will be required to apply for need-based aid by filing a Student Aid Application for California or a Financial Aid Form.
However, this will not affect students who have filed for a GSL before the bill is enacted, Halloran said.
"If you're a student thinking about applying for the GSL, do it now under the old rules rather than the new rules," said Susan Monson, loan coordinator for financial aid.
If Reagan approves the bill, as expected, students may no longer qualify for a GSL, because need-based aid takes not only income into account, but the assets of the student's family as well. The family's assets can have a significant effect on the students qualification, Monson said.
"One category (of students) that I would expect to be affected would be ROTC. ROTC students were often able to qualify for the GSL in addition to their ROTC award because of the old rules. They may find they no longer qualify/' Monson said.
Students who meet the revised GSL qualifications will also find new guidelines for borrowing. Although fewer students may be eligible for GSLs, those who do qualify may be able to borrow more money.
Undergraduates can currently borrow a cumulative limit of $12,500. This is expected to increase to a cumulative limit of $17,250.
The borrowing limit for combined undergraduate and graduate studies would increase from its current level of $25,000 to $54,750 if the bill is approved by Reagan.
"We had hoped it would be enacted before the president left for Iceland," Halloran said.
At present, students can only wait for any "technical amendments which might change any effective dates/' Monson said.
Another change, as the result of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, would be an increase in the borrowing limits of auxiliary loans, such as the California Loans to Assist Students, Halloran said.
Cumulative limits would increase from $15,000 to $20,000. The interest on the loans would also be changed from 12 percent to a variable rate. The new rate would be 3.75 percent above the 90-day treasury bill rate, he said.
(Continued on page 6)