{"id":4924,"date":"2026-10-29T10:13:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T10:13:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/?p=4924"},"modified":"2026-10-29T10:28:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T10:28:51","slug":"nar-100-poang-inte-racker-kvinnorna-som-valdes-bort-av-systemet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/2026\/10\/29\/nar-100-poang-inte-racker-kvinnorna-som-valdes-bort-av-systemet\/","title":{"rendered":"N\u00e4r 100 po\u00e4ng inte r\u00e4cker: Kvinnorna som valdes bort av systemet"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4927\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-1024x576-1.png 1024w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-650x366.png 650w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-5.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Hur en universitetsskandal i Japan avsl\u00f6jade skillnaden mellan j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet p\u00e5 papper och j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet i praktiken.&nbsp;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>N\u00e4r k\u00f6n v\u00e4ger tyngre \u00e4n kompetens&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00c5r 2018 avsl\u00f6jades att elitskolan Tokyo Medical University i Japan under mer \u00e4n ett decennium systematiskt manipulerat antagningsresultat f\u00f6r att missgynna kvinnliga s\u00f6kande. Samma \u00e5r klarade endast 2,9 procent av de kvinnliga s\u00f6kande universitetets antagningsprocess, j\u00e4mf\u00f6rt med 8,8 procent av m\u00e4nnen. M\u00e4n hade d\u00e4rmed ungef\u00e4r tre g\u00e5nger s\u00e5 h\u00f6g antagningsandel som kvinnor (Wheeler, 2018).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bakom siffrorna dolde sig inte bara oj\u00e4mlika resultat, utan en medveten process av diskriminering. Kvinnornas akademiska prestationer bed\u00f6mdes utifr\u00e5n andra villkor \u00e4n m\u00e4nnens.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Skandalen v\u00e4cker en grundl\u00e4ggande m\u00e4nniskor\u00e4ttsfr\u00e5ga: Kan processen kallas j\u00e4mst\u00e4lld n\u00e4r kvinnor formellt har samma r\u00e4tt till utbildning som m\u00e4n, men institutionerna som ska bed\u00f6ma deras kompetens systematiskt begr\u00e4nsar deras m\u00f6jligheter?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Diskriminering inbyggd i en matematisk formel&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Universitetets diskriminering var ett uttryck f\u00f6r k\u00f6nsstereotypa f\u00f6rdomar som hade byggts in i sj\u00e4lva antagningssystemet.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Enligt den interna utredning som offentliggjordes 2018 manipulerades framf\u00f6r allt uppsatsdelen i antagningsprocessens andra steg. Uppsatsen bed\u00f6mdes ursprungligen p\u00e5 en skala mellan 0 och 100 po\u00e4ng. Samtliga s\u00f6kandes po\u00e4ng multiplicerades d\u00e4refter med 0,8, vilket reducerade den h\u00f6gsta m\u00f6jliga po\u00e4ngen till 80 (Wheeler, 2019).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">D\u00e4refter tilldelades utvalda manliga s\u00f6kande bonuspo\u00e4ng. M\u00e4n som s\u00f6kte f\u00f6r f\u00f6rsta, andra eller tredje g\u00e5ngen fick 20 extra po\u00e4ng. M\u00e4n som s\u00f6kte f\u00f6r fj\u00e4rde g\u00e5ngen fick 10 po\u00e4ng, medan m\u00e4n som s\u00f6kte f\u00f6r femte g\u00e5ngen eller senare inte fick n\u00e5gra extra po\u00e4ng. Kvinnor fick d\u00e4remot inga bonuspo\u00e4ng, oavsett hur m\u00e5nga g\u00e5nger de hade s\u00f6kt.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Konsekvenserna blir tydliga i ett enkelt r\u00e4kneexempel. Om en kvinna och en man som s\u00f6kte f\u00f6r f\u00f6rsta g\u00e5ngen b\u00e5da fick 90 av 100 po\u00e4ng p\u00e5 uppsatsen, multiplicerades b\u00e5das resultat med 0,8 och blev 72 po\u00e4ng. Mannen tilldelades d\u00e4refter 20 bonuspo\u00e4ng, medan kvinnan inte fick n\u00e5gra. Trots identiska prestationer fick mannen d\u00e4rmed 92 po\u00e4ng och kvinnan 72, enbart p\u00e5 grund av det k\u00f6nsdiskriminerande po\u00e4ngsystemet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Tv\u00e5 s\u00f6kande. Samma prestation. En skillnad p\u00e5 20 po\u00e4ng d\u00e4r deras k\u00f6n avgjorde vem som fick f\u00f6rdelen.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En kvinna som fick full po\u00e4ng p\u00e5 uppsatsen kunde d\u00e4rmed f\u00e5 h\u00f6gst 80 justerade po\u00e4ng, medan en man som omfattades av den h\u00f6gsta bonusen kunde f\u00e5 100. Systemet missgynnade \u00e4ven m\u00e4n som s\u00f6kt m\u00e5nga g\u00e5nger, men den systematiska avsaknaden av bonus f\u00f6r kvinnor innebar en tydlig k\u00f6nsbaserad nackdel.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Universitetets f\u00f6rfarande motiverades delvis av oro f\u00f6r framtida personalbrist. Ledningen utgick fr\u00e5n f\u00f6rest\u00e4llningen att kvinnliga l\u00e4kare oftare skulle l\u00e4mna yrket eller minska sin arbetstid efter gifterm\u00e5l och barnaf\u00f6dande (Wheeler, 2018).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bemanningsproblem inom sjukv\u00e5rden \u00e4r en verklig organisationsfr\u00e5ga, men kan k\u00f6n anv\u00e4ndas f\u00f6r att f\u00f6ruts\u00e4ga en enskild m\u00e4nniskas framtida yrkesengagemang?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En kvinnlig s\u00f6kande kunde missgynnas p\u00e5 grund av framtida beslut hon m\u00f6jligen aldrig skulle fatta, samtidigt som en man fick en f\u00f6rdel utan n\u00e5gon garanti f\u00f6r att han skulle arbeta l\u00e4ngre. I st\u00e4llet f\u00f6r att f\u00f6r\u00e4ndra arbetsvillkoren \u00f6verf\u00f6rdes konsekvenserna av institutionens bemanningsproblem till kvinnorna redan innan de p\u00e5b\u00f6rjat sin utbildning.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Detta \u00e4r skillnaden mellan att ha tillg\u00e5ng till en m\u00f6jlighet i teorin och att faktiskt f\u00e5 en r\u00e4ttvis chans att anv\u00e4nda den.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Reformernas effekt&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Efter avsl\u00f6jandet 2018 reformerade universitetet sin antagningsprocess. \u00c5ret d\u00e4rp\u00e5 klarade 20,2 procent av de kvinnliga s\u00f6kande processen, j\u00e4mf\u00f6rt med 19,8 procent av m\u00e4nnen (Tanaka, 2019).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Kontrasten mot f\u00f6reg\u00e5ende \u00e5r var betydande. Men siffrorna kr\u00e4ver f\u00f6rsiktighet: antalet s\u00f6kande minskade fr\u00e5n 3 669 \u00e5r 2018 till 1 241 \u00e5r 2019, samtidigt som flera f\u00f6r\u00e4ndringar genomf\u00f6rdes (Nihon Iji Shinp\u014d, 2019). Det g\u00e5r d\u00e4rf\u00f6r inte att fastst\u00e4lla hur stor del av f\u00f6r\u00e4ndringen som orsakades av att den k\u00f6nsdiskriminerande po\u00e4ngber\u00e4kningen avskaffades.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00c4nd\u00e5 visar j\u00e4mf\u00f6relsen att antagningsutfallet f\u00f6r\u00e4ndrades kraftigt efter reformerna.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Problemet visade sig inte heller vara begr\u00e4nsat till ett universitet. En nationell granskning identifierade k\u00f6nsdiskriminerande antagningsf\u00f6rfaranden vid sammanlagt fyra japanska l\u00e4karutbildningar. En vetenskaplig studie fr\u00e5n 2022 fann dessutom att m\u00e4nnens antagningsandel till medicinska utbildningar under perioden 2015\u20132020 var statistiskt signifikant h\u00f6gre \u00e4n kvinnornas, medan motsvarande skillnad inte observerades inom de andra unders\u00f6kta utbildningsomr\u00e5dena (Fukami, Okoshi och Tomizawa, 2022).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Forskarna betonar samtidigt att skillnader i antagningsandelar inte ensamma bevisar diskriminering och att b\u00e4ttre tillg\u00e5ng till ursprungliga provresultat beh\u00f6vs.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En senare studie av Watari m. fl. (2024) visade att skillnaden mellan kvinnors och m\u00e4ns antagningsandelar minskade efter avsl\u00f6jandet 2018. F\u00f6rb\u00e4ttringen var s\u00e4rskilt tydlig vid de fyra l\u00e4karutbildningar d\u00e4r k\u00f6nsdiskriminering tidigare hade dokumenterats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Det inneb\u00e4r att utvecklingen inte enbart \u00e4r en ber\u00e4ttelse om diskriminering, utan \u00e4ven om granskning, reformer och f\u00f6r\u00e4ndring.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Japan som fallstudie av ett internationellt problem&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Universitetsskandalen \u00e4r ett konkret exempel p\u00e5 en bredare fr\u00e5ga: skillnaden mellan formella r\u00e4ttigheter och faktiska r\u00e4ttigheter.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Enligt Japans regerings j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhetsrapport fr\u00e5n 2026 utgjorde kvinnor 45,8 procent av landets sysselsatta under 2025, men endast 14,4 procent av dem som hade chefsyrken (Cabinet Office, 2026). Statistiken visar en tydlig underrepresentation av kvinnor i ledande positioner, trots deras omfattande deltagande p\u00e5 arbetsmarknaden.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OECD:s ekonomiska granskning fr\u00e5n 2024 visar dessutom att kvinnors \u00f6kande utbildningsniv\u00e5er inte har lett till motsvarande representation i ledande positioner. Arbetslivets karri\u00e4rstruktur, l\u00e5nga arbetsdagar och oj\u00e4mnt f\u00f6rdelade omsorgsansvar bidrar till att begr\u00e4nsa kvinnors m\u00f6jligheter till karri\u00e4rutveckling (OECD, 2024).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dessa siffror speglar andra samh\u00e4llsf\u00f6rh\u00e5llanden \u00e4n universitetets antagningsresultat och kan inte i sig bevisa att samma diskriminerande mekanismer ligger bakom samtliga k\u00f6nsskillnader. D\u00e4remot synligg\u00f6r de hur oj\u00e4mlika f\u00f6ruts\u00e4ttningar kan best\u00e5 \u00e4ven n\u00e4r kvinnor och m\u00e4n formellt har samma r\u00e4ttigheter.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Strukturella hinder kan ta sig uttryck genom rekryteringssystem, befordringsprocesser och samh\u00e4lleliga f\u00f6rv\u00e4ntningar p\u00e5 kvinnors respektive m\u00e4ns familjeansvar. Att kvinnor har r\u00e4tt till utbildning och arbete inneb\u00e4r d\u00e4rf\u00f6r inte automatiskt att de ges samma m\u00f6jligheter att avancera och n\u00e5 inflytelserika positioner.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Japan blir d\u00e4rmed en fallstudie av en bredare internationell problematik: skillnaden mellan j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet i lagstiftningen och j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet i praktiken. Fr\u00e5gan \u00e4r inte enbart vilka r\u00e4ttigheter kvinnor formellt har, utan i vilken utstr\u00e4ckning samh\u00e4llets institutioner m\u00f6jligg\u00f6r f\u00f6r dem att ut\u00f6va dessa r\u00e4ttigheter p\u00e5 lika villkor.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>FN:s roll &#8211; fr\u00e5n r\u00e4ttigheter p\u00e5 papper till j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet i praktiken&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">FN:s konvention om avskaffande av all slags diskriminering av kvinnor, CEDAW, antogs 1979 och f\u00f6rpliktar anslutna stater att motverka diskriminering inom bland annat utbildning och arbetsliv.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Japan har ratificerat konventionen och granskas regelbundet av FN:s kommitt\u00e9 f\u00f6r avskaffande av diskriminering av kvinnor.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I oktober 2024 v\u00e4lkomnade kommitt\u00e9n att Japan hade \u00e4ndrat sina riktlinjer f\u00f6r universitetsantagning f\u00f6r att f\u00f6rbjuda k\u00f6nsdiskriminerande urval. Samtidigt uttryckte kommitt\u00e9n fortsatt oro \u00f6ver k\u00f6nsskillnader vid h\u00f6gt rankade universitet, kvinnors underrepresentation inom naturvetenskap och teknik samt deras begr\u00e4nsade n\u00e4rvaro i akademiska ledningspositioner (CEDAW, 2024). Kommitt\u00e9n rekommenderade \u00e5tg\u00e4rder f\u00f6r att st\u00e4rka kvinnors m\u00f6jligheter inom dessa utbildningsomr\u00e5den och \u00f6ka deras representation p\u00e5 ledande akademiska positioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Granskningen visar att lagstiftning och reformer \u00e4r viktiga, men att j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet ocks\u00e5 beh\u00f6ver f\u00f6ljas upp genom faktiska resultat. FN:s arbete bidrar till att synligg\u00f6ra avst\u00e5ndet mellan att ha r\u00e4ttigheter och att f\u00e5 ut\u00f6va dem.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>J\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet \u00e4ven p\u00e5 strukturell niv\u00e5&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Skandalen vid Tokyo Medical University visade hur en institution kunde v\u00e4rdera m\u00e4nniskors prestationer olika utifr\u00e5n k\u00f6n och f\u00f6rest\u00e4llningar om deras framtida familjeliv.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">De diskriminerande reglerna f\u00f6r\u00e4ndrades, men fr\u00e5gorna som avsl\u00f6jandet v\u00e4ckte \u00e4r fortfarande relevanta.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hur m\u00e5nga m\u00e4nniskor riskerar att uppfatta ett avslag som ett personligt misslyckande, utan att veta att villkoren varit oj\u00e4mlika? Hur s\u00e4kerst\u00e4ller vi att ett system som p\u00e5st\u00e5r sig bel\u00f6na prestation faktiskt g\u00f6r det?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Strukturell diskriminering inneb\u00e4r inte alltid att kvinnor uttryckligen nekas r\u00e4tten att delta. Ibland f\u00e5r de delta i samma konkurrens som m\u00e4n, men under regler som fr\u00e5n b\u00f6rjan ger dem s\u00e4mre f\u00f6ruts\u00e4ttningar.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">J\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet kr\u00e4ver d\u00e4rf\u00f6r mer \u00e4n r\u00e4tten att s\u00f6ka samma utbildningar, arbeten och positioner. Den kr\u00e4ver att m\u00e4nniskor bed\u00f6ms p\u00e5 r\u00e4ttvisa och likv\u00e4rdiga villkor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Referenser:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2026). <em>White Paper on Gender Equality 2026<\/em>, Chapter 1, Section 4: Economic Field. Gender Equality Bureau.&nbsp;https:\/\/www.gender.go.jp\/about_danjo\/whitepaper\/r08\/zentai\/html\/honpen\/b1_s01_04.html (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (2024). <em>Concluding observations on the ninth periodic report of Japan<\/em>. CEDAW\/C\/JPN\/CO\/9. United Nations. https:\/\/www.gender.go.jp\/international\/int_kaigi\/int_teppai\/pdf\/report_241030_e.pdf (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nihon Iji Shinp\u014d (2019). \u201d\u6771\u4eac\u533b\u5927\u306e2019\u5e74\u5ea6\u7537\u5973\u5225\u5408\u683c\u7387\u304c\u307b\u307c\u540c\u7387\u306b\u201d [Antagningsandelarna f\u00f6r m\u00e4n och kvinnor vid Tokyo Medical University n\u00e4stan lika 2019], 23 maj. https:\/\/www.jmedj.co.jp\/blogs\/product\/product_12387 (H\u00e4mtad: 26 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OECD (2024). <em>OECD Economic Surveys: Japan 2024<\/em>. Paris: OECD Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/41e807f9-en (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Tanaka, C. (2019). \u201dWomen pass scandal-hit Tokyo Medical University&#8217;s entrance exam at higher rate than men\u201d, <em>The Japan Times<\/em>, 21 maj. https:\/\/www.japantimes.co.jp\/news\/2019\/05\/21\/national\/women-pass-scandal-hit-tokyo-medi cal-universitys-entrance-exam-higher-rate-men\/ (H\u00e4mtad 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Watari, T. et al. (2024). \u201dGender Inequality Improvement in Medical School Admissions in Japan\u201d, <em>Journal of Women&#8217;s Health<\/em>, 33(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/jwh.2023.0291 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Wheeler, G. (2018). \u201dThe Tokyo Medical University entrance exam scandal: lessons learned\u201d, <em>International Journal for Educational Integrity<\/em>, 14, artikel 14. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40979-018-0039-4 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Wheeler, G. (2019). \u201dCorrection to: The Tokyo Medical University entrance exam scandal: lessons learned\u201d, <em>International Journal for Educational Integrity<\/em>, 15, artikel 2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40979-019-0040-6 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">F\u00f6rfattare: Katarina Norlund Larsson<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Publiceringsdatum: 2026-10-29<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When 100 Points Are Not Enough: The Women Rejected by the System&nbsp;<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4928\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-1024x576-1.png 1024w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-650x366.png 650w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/32\/2026\/10\/NAR-100-POANG-INTE-RACKER-6.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>How a university scandal in Japan exposed the gap between gender equality on paper and equality in practice.&nbsp;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>When Gender Outweighs Competence&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2018, it was revealed that Tokyo Medical University, a prestigious medical school in Japan, had systematically manipulated admissions results for more than a decade to disadvantage female applicants. That same year, only 2.9 percent of female applicants successfully passed the university&#8217;s admissions process, compared with 8.8 percent of male applicants. The admission rate for men was therefore approximately three times that of women (Wheeler, 2018).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Behind these figures lay not only unequal outcomes, but a deliberate process of discrimination. Women&#8217;s academic achievements were assessed under different conditions than men&#8217;s.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The scandal raises a fundamental human rights question: Can an admissions process be considered equal when women formally have the same right to education as men, yet the institutions responsible for assessing their abilities systematically restrict their opportunities?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Discrimination Embedded in a Mathematical Formula&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The university&#8217;s discriminatory practices reflected gender stereotypes and prejudices that had become embedded in the admissions system itself.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the internal investigation made public in 2018, the manipulation primarily concerned the essay component of the second stage of the admissions process. Essays were originally graded on a scale of 0 to 100 points. All applicants&#8217; scores were then multiplied by 0.8, reducing the maximum possible score to 80 points (Wheeler, 2019).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Selected male applicants were subsequently awarded bonus points. Men applying for the first, second or third time received an additional 20 points. Men applying for the fourth time received 10 points, while those applying for the fifth time or later received no additional points. Female applicants, however, received no bonus points, regardless of how many times they had applied.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The consequences become clear through a simple example. If a woman and a man, both applying for the first time, each scored 90 out of 100 points on the essay, both scores would initially be multiplied by 0.8, resulting in 72 points each. The man would then receive 20 bonus points, while the woman would receive none. Despite identical performances, the man would therefore receive 92 points and the woman 72, solely because of the gender-discriminatory scoring system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two applicants. The same performance. A 20-point difference in which their gender determined who received the advantage.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A woman achieving a perfect score on the essay could therefore receive a maximum of 80 adjusted points, while a man eligible for the highest bonus could receive 100. The system also disadvantaged men who had applied multiple times, but the systematic exclusion of women from receiving bonus points created a clear gender-based disadvantage.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The university&#8217;s practices were partly justified by concerns about future staffing shortages. The administration operated under the assumption that female doctors were more likely to leave the profession or reduce their working hours after marriage or childbirth (Wheeler, 2018).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Staffing shortages in healthcare are a genuine organisational challenge, but can gender be used to predict an individual&#8217;s future professional commitment?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A female applicant could be disadvantaged because of future decisions she might never make, while a man received an advantage without any guarantee that he would remain in the profession longer. Rather than improving working conditions, the institution shifted the consequences of its staffing problems onto women before they had even begun their education.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This illustrates the difference between theoretically having access to an opportunity and actually being given a fair chance to pursue it.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>The Impact of the Reforms&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following the revelations in 2018, the university reformed its admissions process. The following year, 20.2 percent of female applicants passed the admissions process, compared with 19.8 percent of male applicants (Tanaka, 2019).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The contrast with the previous year was substantial. However, these figures must be interpreted with caution: the number of applicants fell from 3,669 in 2018 to 1,241 in 2019, while several changes were introduced simultaneously (Nihon Iji Shinp\u014d, 2019). It is therefore not possible to determine precisely how much of the change resulted from the removal of the discriminatory scoring system.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nevertheless, the comparison demonstrates that admission outcomes changed considerably following the reforms.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The problem was not limited to a single university. A nationwide investigation identified gender-discriminatory admissions practices at a total of four Japanese medical schools. A scientific study published in 2022 also found that male applicants had statistically significantly higher admission rates to medical programmes between 2015 and 2020, while comparable differences were not observed across the other academic disciplines examined (Fukami, Okoshi and Tomizawa, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The researchers also emphasise that differences in admission rates do not, on their own, prove discrimination and that greater access to applicants&#8217; original examination scores is needed.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A subsequent study by Watari et al. (2024) found that the gap between female and male admission rates narrowed following the revelations in 2018. The improvement was particularly pronounced at the four medical schools where gender discrimination had previously been documented.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These developments demonstrate that the story is not solely one of discrimination, but also of scrutiny, institutional reform and change.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Japan as a Case Study of an International Problem&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The university scandal provides a concrete example of a broader issue: the difference between formal rights and rights in practice.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Japanese government&#8217;s 2026 White Paper on Gender Equality, women accounted for 45.8 percent of the country&#8217;s employed population in 2025, yet held only 14.4 percent of managerial positions (Cabinet Office, 2026). These figures reveal a clear underrepresentation of women in leadership positions despite their substantial participation in the workforce.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The OECD&#8217;s 2024 Economic Survey of Japan also shows that women&#8217;s increasing educational attainment has not translated into equivalent representation in senior positions. Career structures, long working hours and the unequal distribution of caregiving responsibilities contribute to restricting women&#8217;s opportunities for career advancement (OECD, 2024).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These statistics reflect different societal circumstances than the university&#8217;s admissions results and cannot, in themselves, establish that the same discriminatory mechanisms are responsible for all gender disparities. However, they highlight how unequal conditions can persist even when women and men formally possess the same rights.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Structural barriers may emerge through recruitment systems, promotion processes and societal expectations concerning women&#8217;s and men&#8217;s family responsibilities. Having the right to education and employment does not automatically mean that women are given equal opportunities to advance professionally and reach positions of influence.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Japan therefore serves as a case study of a broader international issue: the gap between gender equality in legislation and gender equality in practice. The question is not simply which rights women formally possess, but to what extent society&#8217;s institutions actually enable them to exercise those rights on equal terms.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>The UN&#8217;s Role: From Rights on Paper to Equality in Practice&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 and obliges States Parties to combat discrimination in areas including education and employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Japan has ratified the Convention and is regularly reviewed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In October 2024, the Committee welcomed Japan&#8217;s revision of its university admissions guidelines to prohibit gender-discriminatory selection practices. At the same time, it expressed continued concern about gender gaps at highly ranked universities, women&#8217;s underrepresentation in science and technology, and their limited presence in senior academic leadership positions (CEDAW, 2024). The Committee recommended measures to strengthen women&#8217;s opportunities in these fields and increase their representation in senior academic positions.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The review demonstrates that legislation and reforms are important, but that progress towards gender equality must also be assessed through actual outcomes. The UN&#8217;s work helps highlight the gap between possessing rights and being able to exercise them.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Gender Equality at the Structural Level&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Tokyo Medical University scandal demonstrated how an institution could evaluate people&#8217;s achievements differently based on gender and assumptions about their future family lives.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The discriminatory rules were changed, but the questions raised by the revelations remain relevant.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How many people risk interpreting rejection as a personal failure without knowing that the conditions were unequal? How can we ensure that a system claiming to reward merit actually does so?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Structural discrimination does not always mean that women are explicitly denied the right to participate. Sometimes they are allowed to compete alongside men, but under rules that place them at a disadvantage from the outset.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Gender equality therefore requires more than the right to apply for the same educational programmes, jobs and positions. It requires that people be assessed fairly and on equal terms.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>References<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2026). <em>White Paper on Gender Equality 2026<\/em>, Chapter 1, Section 4: Economic Field. Gender Equality Bureau.&nbsp;https:\/\/www.gender.go.jp\/about_danjo\/whitepaper\/r08\/zentai\/html\/honpen\/b1_s01_04.html (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (2024). <em>Concluding observations on the ninth periodic report of Japan<\/em>. CEDAW\/C\/JPN\/CO\/9. United Nations. https:\/\/www.gender.go.jp\/international\/int_kaigi\/int_teppai\/pdf\/report_241030_e.pdf (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nihon Iji Shinp\u014d (2019). \u201d\u6771\u4eac\u533b\u5927\u306e2019\u5e74\u5ea6\u7537\u5973\u5225\u5408\u683c\u7387\u304c\u307b\u307c\u540c\u7387\u306b\u201d [Antagningsandelarna f\u00f6r m\u00e4n och kvinnor vid Tokyo Medical University n\u00e4stan lika 2019], 23 maj. https:\/\/www.jmedj.co.jp\/blogs\/product\/product_12387 (H\u00e4mtad: 26 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OECD (2024). <em>OECD Economic Surveys: Japan 2024<\/em>. Paris: OECD Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/41e807f9-en (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Tanaka, C. (2019). \u201dWomen pass scandal-hit Tokyo Medical University&#8217;s entrance exam at higher rate than men\u201d, <em>The Japan Times<\/em>, 21 maj. https:\/\/www.japantimes.co.jp\/news\/2019\/05\/21\/national\/women-pass-scandal-hit-tokyo-medi cal-universitys-entrance-exam-higher-rate-men\/ (H\u00e4mtad 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Watari, T. et al. (2024). \u201dGender Inequality Improvement in Medical School Admissions in Japan\u201d, <em>Journal of Women&#8217;s Health<\/em>, 33(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/jwh.2023.0291 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Wheeler, G. (2018). \u201dThe Tokyo Medical University entrance exam scandal: lessons learned\u201d, <em>International Journal for Educational Integrity<\/em>, 14, artikel 14. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40979-018-0039-4 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Wheeler, G. (2019). \u201dCorrection to: The Tokyo Medical University entrance exam scandal: lessons learned\u201d, <em>International Journal for Educational Integrity<\/em>, 15, artikel 2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40979-019-0040-6 (H\u00e4mtad: 19 oktober 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Author<\/strong>: Katarina Norlund Larsson<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Publication date<\/strong>: 2026-10-29<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hur en universitetsskandal i Japan avsl\u00f6jade skillnaden mellan j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet p\u00e5 papper och j\u00e4mst\u00e4lldhet i praktiken.&nbsp; N\u00e4r k\u00f6n v\u00e4ger tyngre \u00e4n&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-stockholms-fn-forening"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4924"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4929,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4924\/revisions\/4929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fn.se\/stockholm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}