Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Quaid-e-Azam addressed golden lines on the importance of education:
You know the importance of education and the right type of education cannot be over emphasized. Under foreign rule for over a century sufficient attention has not been paid to the education of our own people and if we are to make real, speedy and substantial progress, we must earnestly take this question and bring our education policy and programmed on lines suited to the genius of our people, consonant with our education, history and culture and having regard to the modern conditions and vast developments that have taken place all over the world.

National Education Policy 1979 in its National aims of Education and their realization states: Aims of education are guide posts which provide purpose and direction to the educational system. Obviously they should be consistent with our faith, national ideology and aspiration. Since aims have to provide clear-cut framework, selection of the same need to be made bold and with clarity of thought in order to provide a sound and meaningful base to the educational efforts in the country. Education seems to be the main business of the 21st century to meet the needs of individuals in global economy and the knowledge society. In 21st century competitive environments all individuals (male or female) of society should play their role for productive lives and

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector successful survival is likely to be part of Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" in the world at present (AIOU, 2005). The developed countries are making huge investment in developing countries. Education plays a vital role in the formation of human capital. It increases the productivity and effectiveness of individuals and thus produces skilled workforce that is able to steer the economy to a path of sustainable economic development. Like many other developing countries, the situation of education in Pakistan is not very encouraging. Developing countries like Pakistan are based on multiple problems and issues (Memon, 2007). The priority and aim of any country is to boost up the education activities in its education sector. Keeping in view that all of the opportunities should be provided on equitable basis. There should be no direct or indirect bias in the provision of quality education. In this regard Discrimination is defines as: Any unfair or disadvantageous treatment or consideration can be taken as discrimination. (Ozkara, Ozkan, Kizildag, 2011) Discrimination can also be defined as treating people badly or unfairly because they are different (Lynette, 2008) 1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Discrimination represents a significant social problem in Pakistan. There is a large gender, class, disability and sexual orientation disparity in the higher education sector
2

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector in Pakistan. When we talk about the education system, it reflects the inequality found outside the classroom in any organization. On the 11th of August 1947 Jinnah succinctly said: Religion, cast or creed have nothing to do with the business of the state. Age discrimination: (Henry & Jennings, 2004) Discrimination against the elderly or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotypes based on a person's age. It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values that have been used to justify discrimination and / or dependency on the basis of age for someone often directed towards discrimination against older seniors, or teens and children. (Rabl, 2010) Caste discrimination: According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide. In Pakistan people are discriminated more according to social class and it include some of the upper layers of the master, Khwaja, Rajput, judge, Kashmiri, Pathan, den, Sheikh, etc. Disability Discrimination: (Cunninghum & James, 1998) the so-called discrimination against persons with disabilities in favor of people who are not ableism or disablism. Discrimination on the basis of disability, and who treats individuals who are not disabled as a standard of "normal life", and the results in public and private services, education and social work that has been created to serve the people 'standard', and therefore the exclusion of those who suffer from different disabilities.
3

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Language discrimination: The existence of discrimination if there is a cure prejudice against a person or group of persons who speak a language or a certain tone. Language Discrimination in education institutes of Pakistan is very common. Especially people who belong to the northern regions face disparity due to dialect. They are usually made fun of by other students which lead them to lower productivity and deviant behaviors. Discrimination on the basis of nationality: (Chima & Wharton) it is sometimes referred to as
linking them with racial discrimination, even though they can be separate. On the basis of nationality they may differ from the laws that stop the rejection of the contract on the basis of nationality, asking questions regarding the origin, to the prohibition of fire, forced retirement, compensation, wages, etc.

Discrimination against people ethnically mixed has turned the idea that people can be divided into the categories of the race to clean the assumption unchallenged and discussion. People can also ethnically mixed experience of the "other" - the feeling of not belonging to or accepted by one group you are part of another. For example, not white enough to be white, not black enough to be black. Religious Discrimination: (Fox, 2000) Religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied the equal protection of the law, equality under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, services and public facilities, and public housing because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom.

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Religious inequality in Pakistan is common. Non-Muslim minorities are treated unequally and there are far less opportunities for them do a job or to get a good attitude education. Extremism can be found with regard to religious matters. Media has highlighted countless incidents of religious issues that remain in evidence for several days. Sex, gender (Pratten & Lovett, 2003) and gender-identity discrimination: Although gender discrimination and sexual discrimination refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the sex of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are social in nature and not, usually, lead to legal consequences. Sex Discrimination, on the other hand, can have legal consequences. Although what constitutes sex discrimination varies from country to country, the substance is that it is an adverse action taken by a person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature is considered a form of prejudice and, in certain circumstances enumerated is illegal in many countries. In the context of education in Pakistan there are indications that a student has been excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship because of her sex. Especially women are still discriminated against and avoided. (Farooq, 1996) Sexual orientation discrimination: (Dipboyle & Collela, 2007)
Sexual orientation is a

"predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality." Like most minority groups, gay and bisexual men are not immune to prejudice and discrimination by the majority group. They may

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
experience hatred from others because of their sexual preference a term for such hatred based on their sexual orientation is often called homophobia. (Sargeant, 2009) Pakistan is an Islamic country and in Islam homosexuality, bisexuality is strictly condemned. So, there is no civil law for gay, lesbian, bisexual, homosexuals in Pakistan. People of this type of sexual orientation are considered as second-rate citizens. They are ignored and avoid being seen as a taboo.

Why I choose the higher education sector for study is based on several important reasons. One reason is that there are a number of studies to monitor discrimination in other sectors of Pakistan, such as spinning and weaving, the health care industry, banking and finance, manufacturing, etc. fewer researches have been conducted in the higher education sector in Pakistan. This study will be conducted to fill this gap. The other reason is that discrimination is a phenomenon that takes place in a diverse environment and Pakistani society comprises people belonging to different cultures, religions and ethnic backgrounds. (Naz, 2012) so, its educational institutes are very diverse in nature. Therefore, different types of disparities are prevailing in the educational enterprise environment. This research includes types of perceived discrimination in higher education institutions and will take into account the position of the student to study the effect of these differences. As in previous discriminatory practices studies students are not focused too much. Therefore, this study will be done on students and specifically to rule on their attitudes and the prevailing discriminatory practices in higher education institutions. Private and public education
6

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector institutes will be taken under consideration to explore relevant research. Discriminatory practices will be considered such as sex, language, disability, religious, ideological and physical appearance differences. In addition, the student conduct will positioned according to their communication skills, presentation skills, grades, confidence level, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities.

1.2

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Discrimination is a serious issue all over the world. Pakistan is a democratic and multicultural country trying to provide equal rights to everyone residing in Pakistan. With discriminatory focal point education system in Pakistan is in its depriving state. Discrimination is now a common factor prevailing in Higher education Institutes of Pakistan. Especially inappropriate and biased funding in scholarships is common. Gender, language, religious, caste and disability discrimination is worse in education environment. Including common disparities, this study will unveil the existence of other types of

discriminations/disparities like ideology and physical appearance disparity in higher educational institutes by taking responses from students and observing its effect on students academic performance. 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Major objective is to investigate discrimination behaviors prevailing in higher education institutes and their effect on students attitudes. 1.4 Understand the effect of disparities on students attitudes. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

This study is important to observe the different biases in Higher education Institutes. It will provide an insight to the readers about some of the prominent disparities of youth in higher education institutions. Especially students will get aware about discriminatory behaviors in educational environment. This study will also help other people who are a part of such institutions in getting well aware about different discriminatory practices in surroundings. After completion of this study, research will give a comprehensive view of the discriminatory practices and its impact on students attitude. In the study Students attitude will explore different sub dimensions of attitudes for other beginner researchers who want to pursue their research in Human Resource management. The study will also benefit those readers who take interest in social problems like discrimination. Research will also open new doors for all those who have acute interest in pursuing their thesis relevant to this issue. 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What type of discriminatory practices existed in higher education sector? Is there any significant relationship between students conduct and discriminatory practices?

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector What impact do students have on their behavior and conduct by facing discriminatory practices? 1.6 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and gender discrimination. Hypothesis 1A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and gender discrimination Hypothesis 1B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and sex discrimination Hypothesis 1C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and gender discrimination. Hypothesis 1D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and gender discrimination. Hypothesis 1E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and gender discrimination. Hypothesis 1F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and gender discrimination. Hypothesis 1H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and gender discrimination.
9

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between students conducts and language discrimination. Hypothesis 2A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and language discrimination Hypothesis 2B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and language discrimination Hypothesis 2C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and language discrimination. Hypothesis 2D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and language discrimination. Hypothesis 2E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and language discrimination. Hypothesis 2F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and language discrimination. Hypothesis 2H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and language discrimination. Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and disability discrimination.

10

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 3A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and disability discrimination Hypothesis 3B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and disability discrimination Hypothesis 3C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and disability discrimination. Hypothesis 3D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and disability discrimination. Hypothesis 3E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and disability discrimination. Hypothesis 3F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and disability discrimination. Hypothesis 3H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and disability discrimination. Hypothesis 4: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 4A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and religious discrimination

11

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 4B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and religious discrimination Hypothesis 4C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 4D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 4E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 4F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 4H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and religious discrimination. Hypothesis 5: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 5A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and ideology discrimination Hypothesis 5B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and ideology discrimination

12

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 5C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 5D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 5E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 5F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 5H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and ideology discrimination. Hypothesis 6: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and caste discrimination. Hypothesis 6A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and caste discrimination Hypothesis 6B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and caste discrimination Hypothesis 6C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and caste discrimination.

13

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 6D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and caste discrimination. Hypothesis 6E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and caste discrimination. Hypothesis 6F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and caste discrimination. Hypothesis 6H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and caste discrimination. Hypothesis 7: There is a significant relationship between students conduct and physical appearance discrimination. Hypothesis 7A: There is a significant relationship between students communication skills and physical appearance discrimination Hypothesis 7B: There is a significant relationship between students presentation skills and physical appearance discrimination Hypothesis 7C: There is a significant relationship between students grades and physical appearance discrimination. Hypothesis 7D: There is a significant relationship between students student level and physical appearance discrimination.

14

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Hypothesis 7E: There is a significant relationship between students responsiveness and physical appearance discrimination. Hypothesis 7F: There is a significant relationship between students interest in studies and physical appearance discrimination. Hypothesis 7H: There is a significant relationship between students participation in extracurricular activities and physical appearance discrimination.

15

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 LITERATURE:

Higher education is crucial for the development of a country. Without it, countries are bound to fall behind others in the competition for development. Without the development of human resources and institution building, a nation cannot dream of progress and prosperity. The investment in higher education should not be logged and its abandonment is not disregarded. Government policies are placing more focus on upgrading skills of the vast resources of human capital in the country through steps that promote access to education, with a focus on the enhancement of understanding the economy driven by the power deployment network of collaboration and dissemination of technology, and provide favorable conditions to the change of the scientific system view to maximizing the benefits of technology. (Maqbool, 2009) Higher education research, for so long a minority interest, has grown substantially in importance over the last two decades (Sadlak & Altbach, 1997). There are a number of interrelated reasons for this, the most obvious of which is the massification of higher education systems across the developed world (Scott, 1995). Higher education, as big
16

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector business, has thereby become a more respectable and attractive focus for academic research. This expansion has been accompanied by an increasing concern amongst government typically the major funders of higher education with the quality of higher education processes and products (Brennan & Shah, 2000). That concern, as well as providing a major stimulus for the development of monitoring regimes, has also led to the funding (often, again, by governments) of many evaluative research projects. A rapid increase was seen in the number of universities after WORLD WAR II in many countries. (Boyer, Albatch and Whitelaw, 1994) Higher education, as big business, has thereby become a more respectable and attractive focus for academic research. This expansion has been accompanied by an increasing concern amongst Governments typically the major funders of higher education with the equality of higher education processes and products (Brennan & Shah, 2000). The greatest treasure and asset of any nation are its educational institutions. They make or mark the destiny of any nation (Govt. of Pakistan 1998). Higher education has a vital role in the development of human resources of any country (Farooq, Tabbasum & Gujjar, 2011). The problems which affect the delivery capability of higher education systems of many developing countries are well known. Under endowed institutions, demoralized administrations, less motivated faculty and students, poor quality of instruction, campus violence, and irrelevant and outdated nature of curricula and high levels of graduate unemployment are all commonly observed manifestations of these problems (Pasha, 1995).
17

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector To place higher education on a fast track, the most important need is to foster existing institutions by ensuring equity and fairness in their intake, by strengthening their basic infrastructural need (Arnold & Lee, 1991). Beyond the realization of the impact of this phenomenon on a nations manpower development and peace, very little has truly been done to minimize or totally eliminate the divide in education. (Esiobu, 2005) This sad can be changed in a single optimistic provided the nation shows the commitment and political leadership is serious for the development of human resources. The strength of a nation depends on the quality of its system of higher education. The example of developed countries shows a direct relationship between the quality of its educational institutions and the quality of his life. The development of higher education thus stands out as the most important factor in which the investment would have immediate returns for the socioeconomic and would brighten the future of the country. The nation needs to ensure him that only through higher education, science and technology we can reach an adequate level of human development and respectable status in the comity of decent nations. The rapid means of communication and the digital revolution have opened wide views of the world. The rise of internationalization, globalization of the economy, knowledge and culture, and the concept of lifelong learning, give distinct position and higher education, both in national and international contexts. Through its contribution to lifelong learning, competitiveness and the pursuit of excellence, higher education must play a significant role
18

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector in society. Internationalization has university education in the forefront of the education world map. Our universities must comply with the international standards and to produce graduates who can compete globally. As a result, higher education institutions must meet the challenges of a new world of rapid change and challenge society's expectations and growing needs of the student population on the rise. Higher education is seen as a source of great potential for socio-economic and cultural center of the country, and it is our belief that through higher education quality, the nation can be transformed into a developed nation within a life cycle of a single generation. For this purpose, the system of higher education must transform into a dynamic system to adjust items that change and reinvigorate itself through the renewal of efforts from time to time. Factors, such as the distinctive character of higher education institutions, the international mobility of students and teachers, accessibility of computer-based learning, the pursuit of research and scholarship and the globalization of the economy, emphasize the international context of higher education. There is a global recognition that universities and centers of higher education are considered to be powerful agents of development in the construction of a nation. They are important in terms of knowledge generation, dissemination of knowledge, and use of knowledge. They are the main contributors to the economic growth that is a source of new scientific knowledge and its technological applications, and training of scientists and technicians. To see if this is

19

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector done in the field of education in general and higher education, in particular, without discrimination, this study was designed. (Maqbool, 2009) Higher education helps to expand the various professional groups. Qualified graduates obtain employment in professional, technical and administrative assistance in the field of government and industry. A UNESCO expert writes: "I tried to examine the situation in European universities in different professions and specialization in the provision of adequate manpower to support growing economies, without which, the level and quality of development that have not been reached possible "(Sanyal 1988). Discrimination can be referred to as any unequal treatment resulting from unconscious bias rather than intentional exclusion. Discrimination is treating someone unfairly or unequally. It depicts the concept of inequality. Discrimination is a widely discussed issue now days, affecting the lives of many people mentally and economically. (Ozcan, Ozkara & Kizidag, 2011) Awareness of discriminatory practices is increasing now days. Justice demands some effective policies to protect people from human right abuses but still there are places where discrimination is a common practice. (Chima & Wharton, 2007) Interest and reading are increasing day by day on the topic of discrimination. (Ozcan, Ozkara & Kizilag, 2011) Discrimination is difficult to prove. It can always be said that it was an individuals attitude rather than an inadequate or discriminatory policy; as a result, you cant get action taken.
20

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector People are laughing in your face: discrimination is an experience, the experience of a slap in the face. (Weller et al., 2001: 115) Discriminatory practices have been focused for decades in the literature in Human resources (Kasimoglu & Halici). Discrimination is inherent in many societies affecting the lives of people in many ways. It has been increasingly recognized as causing damage to economies, organizations and individuals. (Leemin & Baruch, 1998) Discrimination can be on the basis of gender, age, caste, language, region, religion, nationality, disability, race or ethnicity, education, ideology & beliefs and employment. (Kasimoglu & Halici, 1998) Several discriminatory practices have been observed and reported in higher education institutes. Sexual harassment, racial discrimination, religious bias nesses were the major dilemmas which resulted in workplace bullying and unsatisfactory behaviors of people who are part of educational institutes. (Lewis, 1999) It is acceptable that now awareness of discriminatory practices is increasing but students still face unique problems in dealing with culturally intensive practices. (Chima & Wharton, 2007). Terry and Thomas (1997) are of the view that fairness in education is the just and fair treatment of all members of our society having legislative rights to take part and enjoy the benefits opportunities in education. All learners and adults have the very possibility of

21

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector participate fully and to experience success and human dignity while developing competences, knowledge and attitudes necessary to help achieve significantly to society. Secada (1989) expressed that equity is the outcome of legislation and policy that are crucial implemented, should ensure fair treatment and access to resources and programs for all students, as well as to raise awareness for parental involvement. In addition to the learning environment to teach and promote the self-esteem is necessary to allow each student to make a productive contribution to his / her school, community, nation and the world. Education is for all and all are equal to have education in any field. All people whether adults or adolescents are fully free to acquire education from an educational institutions they like. They are equal and are free to participate in development of society and their skills. (Terry & Thomas) Discriminations arise due to improper and selective education systems. Youngsters or adults belonging to low backgrounds and economies are discouraged and thus being differed by many of the educational institutes. (UNDP, 2003) A vivid vision is needed in expressing a successful reform in Higher education sector. Discriminatory practices need to be unleashing seriously for positive practical results and awareness. (Arnold & Lee, 1991) Culture appears to play a formative role in the educational process. Also, the way in which culture impacts on a classroom setting, across nationalities, appears to differ. (Wilson, 2010)

22

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Many legal steps have been taken to discourage discrimination in the workplace. In the USA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discriminatory employment practices based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin in all state, local, private, and educational organizations with 15 or more employees. Research on social categorization suggests that individuals who categorize themselves and others as belonging to different groups may have more negative attitudes about the other group than about members of their own group. (Weigand et al, 2008) Policy makers need to be more explicit about expecting several contributions from several segments of a layered system. Deliver a clear view the goals and the structure of a system of higher education is fundamental to set up a reform agenda while ensuring that this vision has extensively shared is vital for achievement of concrete results (Arnold and Lee, 1991). The domineering perception of higher education is that the teacher has to please the chief executive with his performance, which usually does not mean academic excellence and most often refers to questions involving the administration yes-manship. The professor who did the writing, that you take the hours looking up and push forward the frontiers of research is not likely to be promoted or recognized as having a role in the university (Talati, 1998). In a fungal growth of higher education, the quality of certain of the colleges in the public sector has also suffered from a lack of reasonably physically fit facilities and the best teachers. Even though some of the institutions in private sector have been set on

23

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector considerations purely didactic, a large number of them are trading companies with financial and political reasons (Isani and Virk, 2003). Gender discrimination is a widely studied topic. This type of discrimination arises due to physical personal characteristics of men and women. (Sandico & Kleiner, 1999). Women are faced by different intentional biases due their physical orientation at workplace and educational institutes. (Bell et al, 2002) The gender discriminatory practices in Pakistani society additionally shape the distribution of impecuniosities in the country. Women are considered to be remain at home and men are required to be at the work places due to traditional gender roles, culturally man is always defined as the breadwinner. Consequently, investment done on women is much lesser than men. Women in Pakistan suffer from impecuniosities of opportunities throughout their lives. Literacy rate of females in Pakistan is 29% while males enjoy a higher percentage of literacy at 55%. There is less than 3% contribution of women in legislative bodies. The constitutional reform of 1973 sanctioned the reserved seats in both houses of parliament for the period of 20 years for women which were an applauded step, thus ascertaining that women would be represented in parliament regardless of whether or not they are elected on general seats. This provision was taken back in 1993, so there were no seats reserved seats for women remained. This worthy provision was again restored for women in the elections scheduled for October 2002 that constitute 17% of the vigor of parliament. Labor rates of females in Pakistan are awfully low. All this, coupled with elevate of accolade killings against women, a licit system
24

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector that is regarded as misogynistic, and the intransigent denial of these quandaries by the Pakistan regime, as well as their institutionalized harassment of womens rights groups operating in the country contribute the deteriorating situation. Gender discrimination exists in family, espousement, children upbringing and education, health and vocation development, in economic field and specifically in employment a woman has to bear more work load but still earn less than man. On the other hand respectable jobs with exceptionally higher incomes and top positions in organizations are enjoyed by man while women are conventionally auxiliaries and having secondary jobs. Females face disparities in property rights too. Majority of woman whether belonging to any status quo do not receives property from her father, mother, brothers and husband. Education plays a prominent role in getting affluent jobs but there are hurdles to women in higher inculcation, very few girls reach college or university to get privileged education. . (Amnesty International, 1995) To get a wage or a job in any field, women face biased behavior. Women are much preferred for the lower jobs and they get hired on fewer salaries than man comparatively. Even in the higher education institutes woman are discriminated and face biased attitudes from their opposite gender and even with the same gender. Much research on gender in higher education has focused on gender inequality among groups of academic staff and argues that barriers exist to womens career progression: the so-called glass-ceiling (Ledwith and Manfredi, 2000, Bain and Cummings, 2000).

25

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Studies have also been conducted on the attitude of university students toward inequality within higher education arguing that students are resistant to recognize ongoing gender inequality (Neitz, 1985, Morrison et al., 2005). Drawing on research by Diane Millen (1997), a study by Morrison et al. argues that this disinclination is a coping strategy (2005, 151) for dealing with inequality as well as an indication of a wider post-feminist belief that equality between the sexes has largely been achieved. (Kavka, 2002) Gender discrimination is prohibited in higher education by several federal statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Equal Pay Act.29 Despite these statutes, gender equity in higher education is a continuing concern. Universities struggle with gender equity. (Chase, 2007) Gender discrimination is common in educational institutes. Females are still discouraged and there is a lack of acceptance attitude of the opposite gender. Female staff and students still face disparity and lack of positive role models in all areas. Females face traditional discriminatory behavior from stereotypes in undergraduate careers. Those include lack of flexible entry and exit pint to higher education. (Rees, 1990) Women academies and university staff have faced similar discrimination rather more diverse. Not only this in itself harms the careers and ambitions of those women, but also had an adverse effect on future generations of students looking for female, academic and professional, and more generally the academic discipline (Farooq, 1996).

26

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Gender inequality is particularly evident in South Asia. Pakistan as a country where this imbalance is glaring, with the sex ratio of the population estimated recently that are 108.5 males per 100 females (Pakistan Census Organization, 1998). However, the distinction between the sexes in Pakistan appears instead Paradox. On the other hand, there are excess female mortality with an estimated 13 percent of women are "missing". Increase the gender gap in literacy (the rate of literacy of 29 percent for women versus 58 percent of men in 2001), at an alarming rate of violence against women, and the labor force participation rate of 15% female that is low compared to other countries with GDP per capita. On top of this, the Pakistani society is one that Fragmented and polarized on the basis of social, economic, religious, and ethnic biases (Talbot, 2009). Disability discrimination: Discrimination on the base of disability is worse in some areas. Due their unusual physical appearance these people face disparities in many places. Disabled students represent a minority within the student population of any higher education institution and little is known about their experience of higher education (Hurst, 2006): and yet, in terms of contemporary policies aimed towards widening access and offering improved opportunities for study to under-represented and disadvantaged social groups, it constitutes an important focus. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992, it is an act, to reset a person because of their inability (direct distinction) or a person with an inability to require taking conditions which, if suitable for people without an inability, are not possible, appropriate to be taken by
27

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector one person due to his disability. It is also illegal to discriminate against the family or associates of a person with a disability because of the deficit of the person. In fact, it is a condition of educational systems to allow access to all applications for the education of persons with disabilities, including the provision of necessary support and environmental modifications necessary for a person to be able to access to education. Discriminatory action against the physically or cognitively less able in some form or other has been an integral part of almost every society throughout history, and although it is clear that forms the most extreme of negative discrimination that was synonymous with the times above, as persecution violent infanticide may disappeared to a large extent, the truth is that the quality of life experienced by the vast majority of persons with disabilities in contemporary society, are much lower than those provided by non-disabled peers. Also, it seems that as our society becomes increasingly socially and technologically complex on the number of people considered disabled is increasing. Discrimination issues in higher education have covered physical access; inadequate support such as interpreters for deaf people or provision of course notes. Poor distribution and the inability to complete the tasks within the time required, and the establishment of a graduation ceremony, "especially" for people with disabilities as it seems that higher education systems to compete for students, and they are willing to make concessions relatively reconciled when challenged on discrimination issues (Jackson, McAfee, Cockram, 1998 ). "The frustration, humiliation, and rely frequency and pain and suffering. Suitable suffer from this at some point, but not all the time and every day is not the end of it, so what may come
28

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector special teams for people with special needs? Nothing is itself a mixture of vices and virtues, and the same confusion of needs. This is the point, is not it? Our bodies do not look good and work correctly, but our hearts and minds are the same emotions (Shearer & Anne, 1981) Negative attitudes are linked to behaviors such as social rejection and maintenance higher levels of social distance toward people with disabilities (White et al, 2006,). Negative attitudes which led to discrimination in the workplace continue to be a big problem for people with disabilities (Brostrand 2006 quoting Antonak, 2000). Language discrimination: Necessity and social upbringing is determined by the language or languages that we use through a combination of choice. The different ways in which we use these different languages is in part related to our multiple roles within the community, ethnic identity and religious, social or cultural. Even if we see ourselves as a monolingual, and we live in a multi-language communities, and use a variety of languages around us, with the advent of global communications and perhaps increasingly so. Although the question of languages that are used in our classrooms is an important educational issue, and decisions about the role of different languages in education is largely political (Edwards, 1994; Paulston, 1999) Language is an integral part of the culture and identity, and in some places in the world is in fact are the hallmark of ethnic identity. Academics monitoring educational issues of access, quality, and the inclusion of minorities often express itself in the lack of correlation of cultural national curriculum, the need to respect linguistic diversity, and the lack of trained teachers and qualified ethnic communities as well as stiffness in salary provide criteria and
29

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector geographical location. Not only unequal education system but also on the current labor market is characterized by the ethnic people. (Alladdin, 2010) Regardless of the role of language in the construction of identity, there is the question of its use in education and stances towards it. In this context, Abbas wrote a strong presence of the English language in education and other areas in Pakistan (Abbas 1993). Implemented on the morning of Mansur survey of students Punjabi attitude 'towards languages, and comes to the conclusion that it occupies the top ranking English; Urdu, comes in second at the bottom is the mother tongue, Punjabi (Mansur 1993). There is a very small number of linguists in Pakistan, and there's not a lot of scientific research in the field of very interesting relationship between the language with the power in Pakistan. (Rahman, 2002) Language policy of the education system in Pakistan creates class society, curved, promotes unequal opportunities for advancement, and nature regulator to weaken the already economically disadvantaged classes, and focus power in the hands of a select group of privileged class and the elite. A crash has contributed to the ideal of social equality arising from the practical application of the language in the country trends moderation, domination, and hierarchical in state policies and cultural attitudes towards Language Teaching (Breeze, 2005). Even 60 years after the end of colonial rule and the English culture, values, and systems, language is still a respected power and privilege, and the division of Pakistani society to the privileged and underprivileged, and the establishment of structures of neo-colonial, and
30

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector models of internal colonialism that are supported by the politics of language teaching in the country. The English language is the language of force, of the law and the courts, government administration, and the language in which alone can open the doors to the higher echelons of the bureaucracy, commerce, and industry. (Khurshid, 2009) Religious Discrimination is one of the common disparities in multicultural countries. (Fox, 2000). After the terrific incident of 9/11 religious differences raised at their peak, including a list of unfair behaviors those deteriorating equal opportunities. (Kuran & McCaffery, 2008) Lawful cases of religious biasness have been raised. (Garnet & clay, 2010) An incident may start as a road rage incident and then move to racial insults, even if it wasnt initially motivated by race. Theres the same problem with religion: it might begin as racial harassment but then elements of religion are brought into it. (Weller et al., 2001: 124) Using a behavioral intentions measure regarding the attitude towards engaging in activities with members of the opposite group, they found that religious students clearly preferred other students who were religious and vice versa on the non-religious students. (Weigand et al, 2008) UNICEF also published a report titled Education and Religious Discrimination in Pakistan: A
Study of Public Schools and Madrassas which depicts that students do not consider non-

Muslim minorities living in Pakistan as equal citizen. Ideological Discrimination: Some people are differed according to their political views and profession. (Ozcan, Ozkara & Kizilag, 2011)
31

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Rise of campus violence and subsequent ban on student unions, however, broke the link between student organizations and their mentors outside the campus. Now that the lifting of ban on student union is in the discussion and stated mainly by government policies student faces a huge challenge to justify its existence, not only because of his violent past and changing political and ideological contexts, but cause visible changes in the academic environment and growth of the education sector, changes in society, access to new technologies with advances in political communication and incentives constantly expanding alternative sources of building resources and activism within the campuses. Ideology or political association of a student was a tabooed subject, students were discriminated and thus their association towards any party was considered as less privileged. A wider consultation on student politics created an environment that made possible and open discussions on public the rights issue within universities and higher education structures. Formerly, it was a taboo subject. (Butt, 2009) Caste Discrimination: Biasness, brutality, disrespectful treatment have been observed much on the grounds of caste. In much of Asia and parts of Africa, caste is the basis for the definition and exclusion of distinct population groups by reason of their descent. A huge population of 250 million people worldwide has to bear slavery, violent behavior, and brutal treatment. People face may hurdles in getting their full economic, social and political rights due to caste differentiation. It is very hard to live with lower caste in Asia and in African countries. It cannot be changed or exchanged because it is hereditary in nature. It is the source of identification for people to recognize them according to their specie. It is a
32

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector characteristic determined by ones birth into a particular caste, irrespective of the faith practiced by the individual. Caste shows a system of specific socially stratified group defined by descent and occupation. Under various caste systems throughout the world, caste divisions also dominate in housing, marriage, and general social interactiondivisions that are reinforced through the practice and threat of social ostracism, economic boycotts, and even physical violence. (Human rights watch, 2001) (Human rights watch, 2001) The report highlights the significant economic and educational disparities persist between countries and upper-caste communities. Lower-caste communities often lack access to health care and education and are also plagued by low literacy levels. Physical Appearance: Physical appearance matters a lot in todays society. People prefer good looking and attractive one. Females with pretty looks are preferred which creates a sense of discriminatory practice among those people are not pretty or less physically attractive. Similarly males with pleasant personalities are preferred ore for job as compared to males with normal built and height which clearly draws a line of discrimination. The authors surprised by concluding that a person cannot sue the other one if he/she regard him/her as unattractive because civil right laws do not provide any legislation under this heading unless a person is discriminated on his appearance on basis of sex, race or ethnicity. (Caviko, Muffler & Mujtaba, 2012) One will not hear or see the term "lookism" in too many places, but there are large research base that covers the topic. Lookism, often known as a "breach of Beauty" (Etcoff, 1999, P. 25) or discrimination against any person on the basis of their appearance, and one that is not
33

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector raises Extreme emotions related sister Terms "racism" and "discrimination on the basis of sex," Until now it has become an important topic in the professional world. Traditionally, based on discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, or even, moreover, the victim and practitioner usually aware to some extent of what happened. In contrast, The lookism is a silent form of discrimination, where rarely thinks of someone "and said he was Offered a lower salary because he is short "(Etcoff, 1999, p 83) In spite of the lack of government attention or publicity, and proved that individuals Considered "attractive" are usually able to earn more money (up to 12 percent more for the same Work), have so many opportunities now, to marry, to have children, and are attributed with positive qualities such as intelligence based solely on their appearance. These individuals are less than the average in appearance are more likely to abuse as child they are supposed to be less intelligent, and are often excluded from being hired in some Positions or professions (Jeffes, 1998).

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

34

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

The research was conducted on students of higher education institutes. In this study I have conducted analysis on quantitative approach. Quantitative research is constituted by those studies in which the data concerned can be evaluated in terms of numbers .The search can also be qualitative, i.e., can describe events, people and so on scientifically without the use of numerical data . Quantitative research is based more directly on original plans and its results are more easily construed and interpreted. Qualitative research is more open and susceptible to his subject. Both types of research are valid and useful. They are not mutually exclusive. It 'possible that a single investigation to use both methods. (Best and Khan 1989) 3.1.1 Quantitative Research Key Characteristics: Control: This is the most crucial element because it enables the scientist and understands the source of observations. The experiments are conducted in an effort to answer some questions. They pose attempts to identify why something occurs, what causes some event, or under what circumstances an event happens. It is necessary in order to deliver univocal answers to these questions inspection. To answer the questions in education and social science we have to eliminate the simultaneous influence of many variables to isolate the cause of an effect. Monitored investigation is absolutely essential to this, because without it the cause of an impact could not be insulated.

35

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Operational definition: this means that the words shall be defined by the steps or operations used to assess. This procedure is necessary to remove all confusion of meaning and communication. Regarded the statement anxiety provokes students to score poorly in tests'. One might ask: 'What do you mean with anxiety?' To say that anxiety refers to being strained or some other such term only adds to the confusion. However, stating that anxiety refers to a score of more than one criterion level of anxiety scale enables others to figure out what is meant by anxiety. Claiming an operative definition compels to identify empirical referents, or terms. In this way, ambiguity is minimized. Even in this case, introversion can be defined as a score on a scale of particular character, hunger as many hours of the last nourished and social class under occupation.

Replication: the data obtained in a procedure must be predictable, that the same result must be found if the study is repeated. If the data points are not recoverable, our descriptions and explanations are deemed unreliable.

Hypothesis testing: systematically making of a hypothesis and test it empirically.

(Adapted from Burns, 2000: 6-7)

Why I chose quantitative approach is to achieve the results quantitatively because quantities results are easy to interpret as to qualitative approach. Authentic softwares are available to analyze the quantitative result which also ensures the reliability of data gathered. To do that

36

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector questionnaire is designed. Questions are closed ended so that respondents may respond according to the question. Discrimination on the basis of sex, language, religion, disability, ideology, caste and physical appearance are covered in questionnaire in relation to the students conduct including students communication skills, presentation skills, grades, and self-confidence

responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Questionnaire is an easy method and respondents may not feel reluctant to fill the questionnaires as compared to interviews. Face to face interactions may let the interviewee hesitated in answering some personal questions. Questionnaire is less time consuming method so, it will be appropriate to use questionnaire method to make the study feasible. Students from different higher education institutes are randomly selected and questionnaires are provided to them to fill at that time. Some questionnaires are also sent by an e-mail to receive the required response. 3.2 POPULATION

Target populations are students who are studying in higher education institutes in province of Punjab. Population comprises huge number of students studying in universities and higher education institutions and acquiring different level of degrees from these institutes. 3.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

37

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector In this random sampling technique is used to receive the response from the target population. One of the best ways to achieve unbiased results in a study is through random sampling. Random sampling includes choosing subjects from a population through unpredictable means. As the respondents are students so it is easy to approach them. To have least biased results random sampling proves to be a good technique. 3.3.1 Benefits One of the biggest advantages of using a random sampling in a survey is the fact that, since the subjects are obviously random, it is the best way to ensure that the results are unbiased. It is also much faster and often less expensive to use random sampling and as a result is a much more efficient way to get results. In addition, random sampling consistently provides results that are valid, making it easier for researchers to draw conclusions about large populations. 3.3.2 Risks Like with any survey, there is no way to guarantee that the results that come from a sample in a random survey are 100% accurate, although the results tend to be accurate those obtained through other methods. The sample may not be representative of larger population, which may incur a sampling error, but the likelihood this from happening can be fixed at the beginning of the survey of mathematical theories. Spite of the problems associated with this method, it is important to remember that every poll comes with measures of uncertainty.

38

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 3.4 SAMPLE SIZE: Targeted population is students and it is not possible to gather data from all of the students having education in higher education institutions. So, 350 respondents (students) are taken as sample. Questionnaires were distributed in three cities i.e. Multan, Lahore and Islamabad. 150 questionnaires are distributed in Multan, 100 in Lahore and rest 100 were sent to Islamabad. Overall Response rate was approximately 86%. In city of Multan out of 150 questionnaires 100 were given to students by hand in their institutes and 50 were sent by email from which only 26 students responded. So, 124 questionnaires were considered. In the city of Lahore 100 questionnaires were sent to different higher educational institutes and all questionnaires were received back out of them 15 respondents did not face any discriminatory practice in their institute, so those questionnaires are not included. Similarly 100 questionnaires were distributed in different institutes in city of Islamabad and 79 students responded. So, by summing up all total 300 questionnaires were filled and received back out of 350. Researcher has considered 300 questionnaires to analyze the data and for proceeding outcomes. 3.5 RESEARCH TOOLS The study is survey based. Self administered and email surveys are used in order to get responses from students. likert scale questions are used to formulate questionnaire. Different types of rating scales have been developed to measure the attitudes directly (ie the person knows their attitude is being studied). The most used is the Likert scale. Likert-type scales or
39

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector frequency reply formats currently using fixed choice and are designed for measure attitudes or opinions (Bowling 1997 Burns & Grove 1997). These ordinal scales measure levels of agreement / disagreement. The respondents have been notified about the purpose of research and they were assured that their basic information will be kept confidential. No data and responses will be publicized and responses will only used to analyze the research problem strictly. The data is then entered in SPSS16 software for the analysis purpose. Data is collected from one sector, that is, higher education sector. Analysis of data collected from the mentioned sector was done using the same tool. Further Analytical Hierarchal process (AHP) is used to prioritize the given set of factors. AHP is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method was introduced in 1980 by Saaty. MCDM is well known class of decision making which addresses decision problems that are related with a number of decision criteria. AHP is very useful method and it is still considered as the most appropriate method for decision making. AHP prioritize the data for proper decision making. In AHP, it takes complex problems apart and a pair wise comparison is done then it again merges the results to have best rational results. (I & B, 2009) Afterwards, T-test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been used to compare the means of different factors.
40

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Further, correlation analysis is done to see the impact of various dimensions of discrimination on students conduct. The regression is applied with the aim to find out that which factors are appropriate indicators, what factors carry meager information and which factors are not significant. To measure the relationship and association of factors, correlation method was applied. Conclusively following tools have been implemented for data analysis: Analytical Hierarchal process to prioritize the set of factors. One way Analysis of Variance T-test Regression and correlation analysis to observe the impact of various factors.

3.6 DATA COLLECTION

Data has been collected from different higher education institutes in province of Punjab. Students are the respondents in this research. All the respondents are randomly selected and some of them received questionnaire by mail in order to increase the participation level and to make ensure that questionnaire is not filled by any other person who does not come under the heading of higher education student. Leading public and private institutes are chosen to get the required response. Questionnaire is based on students conduct which are communication skills, presentation skills, grades, self confidence, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in
41

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector extracurricular activities as dependent variables, while 7 discriminatory practices are included gender, language, disability, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations as independent variables which effects the students conduct. In questionnaire 5 point likert scale is used i.e. 1 represents strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree ad 5 strongly disagree. Total questions are 35. Along with demographics in which gender and qualification i.e. bachelors, Masters, MPhil and Phd is asked.

42

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

3.7 CONCEPTUAL MODEL Figure 1

Independent Variable Discriminatory Practices Gender Language Disability Religious (Sectarian) Ideology Caste Physical Appearance

Dependent Variable Students Conduct Communication skills Presentation skills Grades Self confidence Responsiveness Interest in Studies Participation in extracurricular activities

43

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 CRONBACH ALPHA Cronbach alpha reliability test is applied to check the reliability of data. If the results are, 0.7 or more than 0.7 than data is considered as reliable enough. Communication Skills:
Cronbach's Alpha .830 N of Items 5

Presentation skills: Cronbach's Alpha .769 Grades: N of Items 5

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items
44

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector .969 Self confidence: Cronbach's Alpha .726 N of Items 5 5

Responsiveness: Cronbach's Alpha .769 Interest In Studies: Cronbach's Alpha .801 Participation in Extracurricular Activities: Cronbach's Alpha .824 Over All reliability: Cronbach's Alpha .930 N of Items 35 N of Items 5 N of Items 5 N of Items 5

Reliability statistics shows that the data entered according to specified variables is reliable. Communication skills show 83% reliability. Presentation skills show 76.9% reliability.
45

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Grades have highest reliability so far with 96.9%. Self confidence has 72.6% and next responsiveness has 76.9% reliability. Interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities shows reliability with 80.1% and 82.4%. The overall reliability of data is 93% which is greater than 70% and is said to be reliable enough for further analysis.

4.2 ANALYTICAL HIERARICHAL PROCESS (AHP) AHP is applied on the factors to find the local and global weights of communication skills, presentation skills, grades, self confidence, responsiveness, interest in studies, participation level. Along with this the local and global weights of their sub items are also found out to compute the weighted indexes of the identified factors. These weights are computed by applying computation done on MS Excel spread sheet 2007 on the mean of items under each factor. These computations are thus resulted in local weights by using pair wise comparisons. Local weights of these items are multiplied with the local weights of the factors to find out the global weights of the items under that factor. The resulted global weights of the items under all the factors are managed in descending order and are plotted in bar graphs sing excel sheet. This order of the factors is then
46

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector categorized in three tiers which represent critical, supporting and maintaining factors. These factors can be described as follows. TIER-I Critical: These are the factors which are critical and absolutely essential. Their presence is very crucial for the judgment of students conduct. Due to high significance, these factors have a great impact on student and these factors are compulsory to improve. TIER-II Supporting: These factors are important but not absolutely essential. There is possibility of that students conduct can be improved if the part of or all of these factors are considered. However institutions should consider then or keep them in future pipeline. These factors if improved may be helpful in improving the student behavior academically. TIER-III Maintaining: These factors are of meager importance and have very little impact on students conduct. Changing or improvement in these factors will not affect the conduct of students of higher education institutes.

Table 4.1
Relative Weights
Communication Skills Presentation skills Grades Self confidence Responsiveness Interest In studies 0.182565 0.218326 0.090575 0.20684 0.075202 0.157618 47

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Participation in extracurricular activities

0.0688741

In above shown relative weights presentation skills shows the highest significance with 0.218326. This represents that presentation skills are adversely affected by all of the discriminatory practices discussed during this research. Presentation skills are only be improved if the discriminatory practices .i.e. gender, language, disability, religious, ideology, appearance should be concerned seriously y the higher educational institutes to improve the performances of students academically. Self confidence has got the second highest significance with .20684. Self confidence is a mandatory part of a student conduct in their academics. If a student is not confident about him/herself that he/she cant perform well then he/ she will not be able to show good result in his/her academics. Self confidence shows that the students believe in him/her, he/she can do whatever he/she is asked for in his/her academics. Without self confidence one cannot excel. So, preventing all the discussed discriminations is necessary in building up a self confidence of students. Third one is communication skills with significance of .182565. Communication skills also contribute a greater part in a good conduct of student. Absence of good communication skills will lead to show lower results of a student academically. Again higher educational institutes are required to concern about discriminatory practices which are affecting students conduct drastically. Reduction in these discriminatory behaviors will automatically lead to high performance of the students. Relative weight of rest of variables shows significance but not that much high as
48

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector compared to self confidence, presentation skills and communication skills. Though interest in studies has next highest significance with relative weight of 0.157618, after that grade has got 0.090575, then responsiveness with 0.075202 and participation in studies has lowest significance with 0.0688741. These all variables also have much significance but self confidence, presentation skills, and communication skills have a greater edge than other variables. So, higher educational institutes should consider these variables and reduce he discriminatory behaviors to improve the students conduct.

Table 4.2
AHP OVERALL Questions my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I certainly feel useless at times I feel that I am not good at all I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. I unable to keep eye contact with my audience My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest my voice shivers when I speak to my fellows I find it to focus on lectures I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior I forget soon whatever I memorize GW 0.071952 0.056254 0.053415 0.045662 0.044511 0.042728 0.040673 0.040389 0.040144 0.039403 0.038539 0.036501 0.034433 0.031171 0.031171 0.031171 0.027605 49

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
I stay reserve with my mates I cannot convince with my answers during presentation My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. depression due to bias effected my CGPA Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity I received unfair grading due to bias It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I participate less in extracurricular activities I feel that my participation will be worthless I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures TOTAL SUM 0.022361 0.021165 0.020603 0.019846 0.018617 0.018375 0.017956 0.017956 0.017956 0.016972 0.016104 0.014229 0.01395 0.013316 0.012951 0.011792 0.011684 0.008445 1

Graph 4.1

50

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I generally stay alone as compared to my other I feel that my participation will be worthless I participate less in extra curricular activities I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extra It is hard for me to become fiendly with other I eceived unfair grading due to bias I am not encouraged to take part in any extra Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my depression due to bias effected my CGPA Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. I speak less with my peers due to this I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I am unable answer well in cross questionning My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by this I cannot convince with my answers during I stay reserve with my mates I forget soon whtever I memorize I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to I find it to focus on lectures my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer I eel that I cannot do anything better than my Mytone and pitch gets shivered while I unable to keep eye contact with my audience I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I feel that I am not good at all I certanily feel uselss at times I feel that I do not have much to be proud of My tongue slips fequently due to discriminatory My speech bcomes less clear due to this My voice becomes low while communicating my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

51

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Tier I representing critical factors shows that facial expression with global weight .071952 is highly affected by all of the discriminatory practices prevailing in higher educational institutes. Weird facial expressions while presentation is the cause of discriminatory practices. Presentation skills are commonly disturbed due to all of the discriminatory behaviors in forms of gender, language, disability, religious, ideology, caste, physical appearance. Presentation skills are an important part of students conduct. If they are not satisfactory then it will have a bad impact on students performance and student will show poor performance academically. Especially facial expressions should be accurate and confident while giving presentation but biased behaviors may affect the presentation skills of student and especially facial expression may get weird due to discrimination. In this regard discriminatory attitudes are the major factors in disturbing the students facial expression while giving presentation. To improve this part biased behaviors should be critically noticed and wiped out by the concerning authority of higher education institutes. Students should be given awareness and for this an extra mile effort is required from both sides students and concerning authority to reduce these discriminations and to improve presentation skills of students who are victims of these biasness. Gender, language, disability, religion, ideology, caste and appearance have no concern with education. Everyone has right to be treated equally without noticing his/her gender, disability, language, religion, caste, ideology and physical appearance. But unfortunately in our higher educational institutes student commonly become victim of these discriminations which are affecting the facial expression

52

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector while presentation vigorously. So, an acute concentration is required by higher edification institutes to prevent their students from these biased decries by taking some crucial steps. Tier II representing supporting factors shows that two supporting factors are there which are my voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows and my speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination with global weights .056254, .053214. These factors come under heading of communication skills. To prevent the problems discussed in these factors educational institutes are required to focus discriminatory practices prevailing in their institutes. By reducing these types of discriminations which may lead to better communication skills of students and better communication skills will move towards the satisfactory performance of students in future. Though these are not as crucial as facial expression but still improvement in these factors will ensure the good performance of victimized students in future. Tier III represents maintaining factors which show the least importance of these factors. They are not necessary to be focused and improvement in them will have a very mild effect on the students conduct. However, if they are concerned for improvement then it is appreciated.

53

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AHP

Questions my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I certainly feel useless at times I feel that I am not good at all I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. I unable to keep eye contact with my audience My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest my voice shivers when speak to my fellows I find it to focus on lectures I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior I forget soon whatever I memorize I stay reserve with my mates I cannot convince with my answers during presentation My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. depression due to bias effected my CGPA Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity I received unfair grading due to bias It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I participate less in extracurricular activities I feel that my participation will be worthless GW 0.071952 0.056254 0.053415 0.045662 0.044511 0.042728 0.040673 0.040389 0.040144 0.039403 0.038539 0.036501 0.034433 0.031171 0.031171 0.031171 0.027605 0.022361 0.021165 0.020603 0.019846 0.018617 0.018375 0.017956 0.017956 0.017956 0.016972 0.016104 0.014229 0.01395 0.013316 0.012951 54

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures TOTAL SUM 0.011792 0.011684 0.008445 1

Table 4.3 Graph 4.2

55

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

I am not encouraged to take part in any extra I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt I participate less in extra curricular activities It is hard for me to become fiendly with other I generally stay alone as compared to my I cannot convince with my answers during I feel discouraged in getting involved in any I feel that my participation will be worthless My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I speak less with my peers due to this Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. depression due to bias effected my CGPA I eceived unfair grading due to bias I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I stay reserve with my mates Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my I unable to keep eye contact with my audience I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due It is hard for me reproduce any query on I forget soon whtever I memorize I find it to focus on lectures I certanily feel uselss at times My voice becomes low while communicating My tongue slips fequently due to my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows I am unable answer well in cross questionning I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I feel that I am not good at all I eel that I cannot do anything better than my I feel that I do not have much to be proud of my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of Mytone and pitch gets shivered while My speech bcomes less clear due to this 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Series1

0.1

56

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Tier I shows the critical factor which is considered as most crucial one. In AHP of gender discrimination the critical factor is facial expression which gets wired due to fear of discrimination of a student in presentation skills. Global weight is .071952. Gender discrimination has an adverse effect on the facial expressions of students which comes under the head of presentation skills. The factor should be considered very important to be concerned for improvement. Presentation skills are an important part of students conduct. If they are not satisfactory then it will have a bad impact on students performance and student will show low performance academically. Especially facial expressions should be accurate and confident while giving presentation but biased behavior may affect the presentation skills of student and especially facial expression may get weird due to discrimination. In this regard gender discrimination is the major factor in disturbing the students facial expression while giving presentation. To improve this part gender discrimination should be critically noticed and wiped out by the concerning authority of higher education institutes. Students should be given awareness and for this an extra mile effort is required from both sides students and concerning authority to reduce gender discrimination and to improve presentation skills of students who are victims of this biasness. Gender has no concern with education. Everyone has right to be treated equally without noticing his/her gender. But unfortunately in our higher educational institutes student commonly become victim of sex discrimination which is affecting their facial expression while presentation vigorously. So, an acute concentration
57

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector is required by higher edification institutes to prevent their students from this biased decry by taking some crucial steps. Tier II shows the supporting factors which supports the critical factor and may be helpful in fulfilling the future needs. Two supporting factors are there which are my voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows and my speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination with global weights .056254, .053214. These factors come under heading of communication skills. To prevent the problems discussed in these factors educational institutes are required to focus gender discrimination prevailing in their institutes. By reducing this type of discrimination may lead to better communication skills of students and better communication skills will move towards the satisfactory performance of students in future. Though these are not as crucial as facial expression but still improvement in these factors will ensure the good performance of victimized students in future. Tier III represents maintaining factors which show the least importance of these factors. They are not necessary to be focused and improvement in them will have a very mild effect on the students conduct. However, if they are concerned for improvement then it is appreciated.

58

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.4
LANGUAGE DISCRIMINATION AHP Questions My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness my voice shivers when I speak to my fellows My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. I find it difficult to focus on lectures my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude I am unable to keep eye contact with my audience I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. I certainly feel useless at times I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I feel that I am not good at all It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I forget soon whatever I memorize I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior I cannot convince with my answers during presentation I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias I stay reserve with my mates I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination I received unfair grading due to bias It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I participate less in extracurricular activities GW 0.0565 0.0555 0.0515 0.0475 0.0452 0.0448 0.0446 0.0428 0.0428 0.0413 0.0399 0.0399 0.035 0.03 0.03 0.0267 0.0263 0.0245 0.0219 0.0219 0.0216 0.0208 0.0195 0.0183 0.0168 0.0154 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 59

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
I feel that my participation will be worthless I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. depression due to bias effected my CGPA I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures TOTAL SUM Graph 4.2 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0136 0.013 0.0082 0.9988

I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions during depression due to bias effected my CGPA Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. I am not encouraged to take part in any extra I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extra I feel that my participation will be worthless I participate less in extra curricular activities I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates It is hard for me to become fiendly with other fellows I eceived unfair grading due to bias I speak less with my peers due to this discrimnation I stay reserve with my mates My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by this bias I am unable answer well in cross questionning during I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I cannot convince with my answers during Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my detriorating I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear I forget soon whtever I memorize It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer I feel that I am not good at all I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I eel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I certanily feel uselss at times I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I unable to keep eye contact with my audience my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of I find it to focus on lectures My speech bcomes less clear due to this My tongue slips fequently due to discriminatory My voice becomes low while communicating with my my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows Mytone and pitch gets shivered while presentation 0 0.02 0.04 Series1

60

0.06

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Tier I shows two critical factors which are tone and pitch gets shivered while giving presentations and voice shivers when I speak to my fellows. First factor is a part of presentation skills and second one belongs to communication skills. Tone and pitch of a student while giving presentations and voice while communicating with other fellows is adversely affected due to language discrimination with .0565 and .0555 global weights. Language biasness has a deteriorating effect on the tone and pitch and voice of a student. Both factors have crucial need for improvement. Without reducing language discrimination prevailing in higher education institute the betterment in these factors cannot be achieved. So, the educational institutes are required to take special interest in preventing this type of discrimination to have better performances and bilingual conduct from the victimized students. As presentation and communication is mandatory part of any student conduct and absence of good presentation and communication will surely have drastic effects on the academic conduct of student. So there is dire need to boost up the presentation and communication expertise of a student linked with their tone and pitch and their shivering voice by reducing language discrimination in their educational institutes surroundings. Supporting factor includes that voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows with global weight of 0.0515. Although this factor is not as essential as the critical factors but if this is also improved by preventing language discrimination then it will be helpful in improving the communication skills of a student along with critical factors in future. Confident and vivid voice while communication is equally important like other factors of
61

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector communication skills. Absence of clear voice will give a steaming effect of communication of a student on other fellows. Improvement in this section will surely create a meaningful positive difference in communication skills of victimized students in future. Rest of all factors excluding critical and supporting one are maintaining factors which have a mild effect on students conduct. Changing or any improvement in these factors will not create any difference in betterment of students conduct. But still if they are improved then it will be appreciated in far future.

62

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.5 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AHP

QUESTIONS My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows my voice shivers when is peak to my fellows I unable to keep eye contact with my audience My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior I feel that I do not have much to be proud of my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude I cannot convince with my answers during presentation I forget soon whatever I memorize I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination I feel that I am not good at all My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I certainly feel useless at times I find it to focus on lectures I received unfair grading due to bias I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias depression due to bias effected my CGPA I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination I stay reserve with my mates I participate less in extracurricular activities It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows I feel that my participation will be worthless Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity TOTAL SUM GW 0.077536 0.066162 0.0564 0.045059 0.042257 0.042204 0.03826 0.035069 0.034422 0.034211 0.033782 0.033042 0.032476 0.032453 0.030593 0.029178 0.029023 0.028745 0.028008 0.025493 0.022989 0.022042 0.019367 0.018848 0.018848 0.01647 0.016399 0.014955 0.014177 0.014177 0.014095 0.009851 0.009032 0.00802 0.006359 1.000002 63

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Graph 4.3

64

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

I am not encouraged to take part in any extra Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my detriorating I feel that my participation will be worthless It is hard for me to become fiendly with other fellows I participate less in extra curricular activities I stay reserve with my mates I speak less with my peers due to this discrimnation I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extra I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. depression due to bias effected my CGPA My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by this bias Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I eceived unfair grading due to bias I find it to focus on lectures I certanily feel uselss at times It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer I am unable answer well in cross questionning Mytone and pitch gets shivered while presentation I feel that I am not good at all I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to I forget soon whtever I memorize I cannot convince with my answers during my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of I feel that I do not have much to be proud of My voice becomes low while communicating with I unable to keep eye contact with my audience my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows I eel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows My speech bcomes less clear due to this I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. My tongue slips fequently due to discriminatory 0 0.05 0.1 Series1

65

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Critical factor in Disability discrimination AHP is my tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude with global weight of .077536. The factor comes under the heading of presentation skills. It means that again presentation skills are highly affected by disability discrimination. Disability biasness creates a distance between a physically unfit student with other students and people in his/her surroundings. Due to the sensitive physical condition disable students feel hesitated in presenting themselves confidently. They may have low self esteem and they feel reluctant in presenting good presentation which leads to poor conduct academically. To prevent this slip of tongue while presentation in disable students, there is dire need to overcome the disability discrimination among students studying in higher education institutes. Disable student should be treated equal like other normal students. Treating them normally will help them to improve their presentation skills and their overall conduct. Because they are as normal as other students if their physical condition is ignored, because disability accept mental disability has nothing to do with academics and education. Higher education institutes should follow the mandate education for all to reduce disability discrimination and for betterment of the favorable student conduct. Supporting factors includes I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely and My speech becomes less clear due to discriminatory attitude with .066162 and .0564 global weights. First supporting factor is a part of self confidence and second supporting factor belongs to communication skills. Although these factors are not as necessary to be improved as the slip of tongue in critical factor but still improvement in these factors will be helpful in
66

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector boosting up the performance of students in future. Betterment in the supporting factors will also help to improve the critical factor much faster. Supporting factors have their own importance and they cannot be easily ignored. Good self confidence and communication skills will lead to laudable presentation skills of a student. This is possible only if higher education institutes should consider this discriminatory practice seriously to overcome. Rest are maintaining factors and dont have much importance to be considered. Changing in them will not affect the students performance academically. We can say that higher education institutes should not consider them as crucial one but still work out on them in far future will benefit the higher educational institutes to some extent. They may help in provision of much better performance by student in their academics if considered keenly in distant future.

67

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.6
RELIGIOUS DSCRIMINATION AHP
Questions My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness my voice shivers when I speak to my fellows My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I unable to keep eye contact with my audience I stay reserve with my mates I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination I participate less in extracurricular activities I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I forget soon whatever I memorize I find it to focus on lectures I feel that my participation will be worthless I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I feel that I am not good at all I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I received unfair grading due to bias I certainly feel useless at times I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I cannot convince with my answers during presentation I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity GW 0.05479524 0.05086799 0.05030799 0.04646723 0.04630444 0.04581998 0.042536 0.04206772 0.04189414 0.03989737 0.03989737 0.0361385 0.0361333 0.03569042 0.03503203 0.0342738 0.03080344 0.02727264 0.02727028 0.02635529 0.02139477 0.02046066 0.0192288 0.01809897 0.01809897 0.01775016 0.01739801 0.01710928 0.01355697 0.01153572 0.01139859 0.01098804 68

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. depression due to bias effected my CGPA Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. TOTAL SUM 0.00822176 0.00262209 0.00231242 1.00000038

Graph 4.5

69

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. depression due to bias effected my CGPA Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my I am not encouraged to take part in any extra I am unable answer well in cross questionning I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions I cannot convince with my answers during I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I certanily feel uselss at times I eceived unfair grading due to bias I eel that I cannot do anything better than my I feel discouraged in getting involved in any I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I feel that I am not good at all I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I feel that my participation will be worthless I find it to focus on lectures I forget soon whtever I memorize I generally stay alone as compared to my other I participate less in extra curricular activities I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I speak less with my peers due to this I stay reserve with my mates I unable to keep eye contact with my audience It is hard for me reproduce any query on It is hard for me to become fiendly with other my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by My speech bcomes less clear due to this My tongue slips fequently due to My voice becomes low while communicating my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows Mytone and pitch gets shivered while 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Series1

70

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector My tone and pitch gets shivered while giving presentation has global weight .05479524 is the most critical factor that should be improved. Its a part of presentation skills and it shows that tone and pitch of students is highly affected by religious discrimination. Religious discrimination on the basis of sector i.e. shia, sunni, wahabi etc. is common. A student is ignored or teased directly or indirectly if he/she belongs to other sector. So, due this ignorant and biased attitude students presentation skills and his/her tone & pitch is adversely affecting. This effect is leading a student to show low performance which is a point of acute focus. To refrain a student from this decry higher education institutes must take some serious steps to reduce this type of discrimination. Students should feel that they are equal like other students because religion or sector has nothing to do with education. Education itself is sign of equity and everyone has right to acquire education.. Presentation skills are essential part of a student conduct and without good presentation skills a student will not be able to prove him/herself better than other students but religious discrimination is refraining to do so. Higher education institutes should tighten their policy and run some campaign to reduce this discriminatory practice. Extra work out is needed to have better students performance especially to have exceptional presentation skills in a student. As religious has no direct link with education so, the concerning authority must consider this religious discrimination seriously and help the students and faculty member in reducing this discriminatory behavior prevailing among students.

71

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Supporting factors in religious discrimination AHP are my voice shivers when I speak to my fellows and my voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows with global weights 0.05086799 and 0.05030799. Both factors are part of communication skills and there is a need to improve them for good conduct of students in near future. These factors will also help the critical factor to have better results of students in academics. There is an extra mile effort required in pushing up these factors to have laudable academic performance of students getting higher inculcation. These factors will be very fruitful in giving a boost to students conduct in higher education institutes if focused with acuteness. Apart from critical and supporting factors rest are maintaining factors which have no effect or have very unnoticeable effect on students conduct. That is why they will not be considered as serious as critical and supporting one. Thought improvement in them will have a very mild effect but still if they are focused then they can be beneficial in giving the better students conduct in far future.

72

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.7
IDELOGY DISCRIMINATION AHP
Questions I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I feel that I am not good at all My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I feel that I do not have much to be proud of My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude I unable to keep eye contact with my audience I eel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I forget soon whatever I memorize I cannot convince with my answers during presentation I certainly feel useless at times My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. my voice shivers when speak to my fellows my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior I find it to focus on lectures I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination I feel that my participation will be worthless My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I received unfair grading due to bias I stay reserve with my mates I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. depression due to bias effected my CGPA It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. GW 0.07214 0.05242 0.05094 0.04359 0.04313 0.04313 0.04313 0.04199 0.04099 0.038 0.03544 0.03428 0.03341 0.03166 0.03046 0.03046 0.0299 0.0262 0.02608 0.02581 0.02373 0.02247 0.0184 0.01773 0.01773 0.01684 0.01641 0.01497 0.01477 0.01181 73

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
I participate less in extracurricular activities I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity TOTAL SUM 0.01181 0.0115 0.01069 0.00963 0.00837 1

Graph 4.6

74

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

I am not encouraged to take part in any I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt I feel discouraged in getting involved in any I generally stay alone as compared to my I participate less in extra curricular activities I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I speak less with my peers due to this My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected Biased comparison leads me to score lw It is hard for me to become fiendly with depression due to bias effected my CGPA Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I stay reserve with my mates I eceived unfair grading due to bias It is hard for me reproduce any query on My voice becomes low while I feel that my participation will be worthless I rapidly lose my attention during lectures I find it to focus on lectures my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns My speech bcomes less clear due to this I certanily feel uselss at times I cannot convince with my answers during I forget soon whtever I memorize I eel that I cannot do anything better than I unable to keep eye contact with my my facial expressions gets weird due to fear My tongue slips fequently due to I feel that I do not have much to be proud of Mytone and pitch gets shivered while I feel that I am not good at all I am unable answer well in cross 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Series1

75

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Critical factor shows I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures with .07214 global weight comes under the heading of communication skills. A student who supports any political part or has political association is always discriminated on the basis of his/her ideology. He/she is even abused and called by bad names. Here this ideological discrimination is affecting the communication skills of students conduct in a sense that he/she cannot answer well in cross question session during lectures. He/she always pointed towards his/her political affiliation when a student tries to respond in cross questioning. In a broader way if we see that then political association has nothing to do with cross questioning and with course work. A student should be free to express his/her views on anything by remaining in certain limits. But in our higher education institutes students face this ideological base discrimination which harshly affects their academic performance. Higher education institutes should direct the concerning authority to take notice on this issue as freedom of association and expression is the right of every one. This independence will provoke a positive thinking among those students who discriminate their fellows on the basis of their ideology. It will also helps in improving the communication skills of a student which is a mandatory part of students conduct. Absence of good communication skills cannot make a student to give a flourishing performance academically. There is a dire need to take some fast steps in improving the discussed deficiency in students by reducing ideological discrimination. Because beliefs and thoughts of any one cannot be changed but if a person is discriminated due to his/her thoughts then this a serious matter to be considered by higher education institutes. Positive thinking should be provoked to get the desired results.
76

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector I feel that I am not good at all and my tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness with global weights of .05242 and .05094. First supporting factor is part of self confidence and second one has belonging with presentation skills. Self confidence is the very essential to have desired positive results in a student conduct. Without self confidence a student is unable to excel academically. Low self esteem may lead to show poor result in academics which is not good. Similarly presentation also plays role in performing better. If a student feels that he cannot control his/her pitch while presentation then it will have bad effect on his/her overall conduct, and ideology discrimination is effecting the students self confidence in a sense that he/she does not feel herself good and his/her tone & pitch gets shivered while presentation. Though these factors are not as crucial as the critical one but they should also be seriously focused for improvement. They will support the critical factors to improve more in future. Factors other than critical and supporting are maintaining factors and there is no need to improve or any change in them yet. But still if these factors are considered to be improved then they will give benefit in betterment of students conduct in far future.

77

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.8
CASTE DISCRIMINATION AHP
Questions My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I certainly feel useless at times My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I unable to keep eye contact with my audience I cannot convince with my answers during presentation It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. my voice shivers when speak to my fellows I feel that I am not good at all I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I find it to focus on lectures I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I forget soon whatever I memorize I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. I received unfair grading due to bias My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. I participate less in extracurricular activities I feel that my participation will be worthless I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I stay reserve with my mates I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures depression due to bias effected my CGPA TOTAL SUM GW 0.073391 0.055974 0.054802 0.053158 0.043334 0.041367 0.040324 0.038067 0.03765 0.036183 0.035759 0.034649 0.033496 0.032105 0.030736 0.030277 0.029844 0.02845 0.028018 0.025505 0.024427 0.022142 0.020745 0.019911 0.017631 0.01637 0.015577 0.012222 0.011967 0.011619 0.011477 0.009511 0.008797 0.007626 0.00689 1 78

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Graph 4.7

79

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

depression due to bias effected my CGPA I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions I stay reserve with my mates I generally stay alone as compared to my other I am not encouraged to take part in any extra It is hard for me to become fiendly with other I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I feel that my participation will be worthless I participate less in extra curricular activities Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extra my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by this I eceived unfair grading due to bias Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to I forget soon whtever I memorize I am unable answer well in cross questionning I find it to focus on lectures I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I feel that I am not good at all my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I eel that I cannot do anything better than my My speech bcomes less clear due to this I speak less with my peers due to this discrimnation It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer I cannot convince with my answers during I unable to keep eye contact with my audience Mytone and pitch gets shivered while I certanily feel uselss at times I feel that I do not have much to be proud of My voice becomes low while communicating with My tongue slips fequently due to discriminatory 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Series1

0.08

80

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Tier I shows the critical factor i.e. my tongue slips frequently due discriminatory attitude with global weight .073391 which comes under the heading of presentation skills. Again the presentation of students is harshly affected by caste discrimination. Although caste has no business with education but it is unfortunate that students face biased attitude because of their caste. Lower or upper caste distinction is common in Pakistan and now some evidences have been revealed in higher educational institutes too which are affecting students presentation skills. To improve the presentation skills educational institutes need to focus on caste discrimination and provoking the thinking among students and other people that there is no link of caste with education. Everyone is equally important. To have better presentation skills higher education centers should take some crucial steps. Tier II represents two supporting factors .i.e. my voice become low while communicating with my fellows and I feel that I do not have much to be proud of. Both factors have global weights .055974, .054802. Factor one belongs to communication skills and second factor is part of self confidence. Though they are not as crucial to be improved but they should in future pipeline for further noticeable improvements. Good self confidence and exceptional communication skills will automatically lead to laudable presentation skills which will represents an affluent student conduct in future. Rests of the factors are maintaining and they will have no effect o the conduct of students if changed. Improvements in these factors will not support any betterment in students

81

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector performance in higher education institutes. Though if they are still considered then these can be beneficial to a minor extent in distant future.

Table 4.9
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE DISCRIMIATION AHP
Questions my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude my voice shivers when speak to my fellows My voice becomes low while communicating with my fellows I certainly feel useless at times I feel that I cannot do anything better than my fellows I cannot convince with my answers during presentation My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness I feel that I am not good at all I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely. I find it to focus on lectures I feel that I do not have much to be proud of My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination I forget soon whatever I memorize It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest I unable to keep eye contact with my audience My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. my enthusiasm in studies is effecting due to biased behavior Discriminatory attitude is the factor of my deteriorating percentage. I stay reserve with my mates I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. I am unable answer well in cross questioning during lectures I received unfair grading due to bias depression due to bias effected my CGPA It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows My grades/GPA/percentage were affected by this bias I participate less in extracurricular activities I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. GW 0.067378 0.067007 0.051138 0.045193 0.044856 0.043579 0.043243 0.041764 0.03927 0.038074 0.035758 0.035652 0.030963 0.030963 0.030963 0.028474 0.028271 0.026655 0.022756 0.02193 0.020135 0.019664 0.018451 0.017697 0.017177 0.017177 0.014476 0.0138 0.013775 0.013775 82

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity I feel that my participation will be worthless I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures TOTAL SUM 0.013775 0.013775 0.013775 0.009891 0.00877 1

Graph 4.8

83

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

I caanot respond rpoperly on abrupt questions I generally stay alone as compared to my other I feel that my participation will be worthless I am not encouraged to take part in any extra I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extra I remain absent on functions, sorts gala etc. I participate less in extra curricular activities My grades/GPA/percentagewere effected by this It is hard for me to become fiendly with other depression due to bias effected my CGPA I eceived unfair grading due to bias I am unable answer well in cross questionning I can't defend my viewpoints and opinion. Biased comparison leads me to score lw grades. I speak less with my peers due to this discrimnation I stay reserve with my mates Disrimintory attitude is the factor of my My speech bcomes less clear due to this I unable to keep eye contact with my audience It is hard for me reproduce any query on answer I forget soon whtever I memorize I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to My tongue slips fequently due to discriminatory I feel that I do not have much to be proud of I find it to focus on lectures I feel hesitaed in discussing my concerns freely. I feel that I am not good at all Mytone and pitch gets shivered while I cannot convince with my answers during I eel that I cannot do anything better than my I certanily feel uselss at times My voice becomes low while communicating with my voice shivers when ispeak to my fellows my facial expressions gets weird due to fear of 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Series1

0.08

84

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Tier I shows the critical factors which are considered as most crucial one. In AHP of Physical appearance discrimination the first critical factor is facial expression which gets wired due to fear of discrimination of a student in presentation skills. Global weight is .06378. Second factor is my voice shivers when I speak to my fellows with global weight of .067007. Physical appearance discrimination has an adverse effect on the facial expressions of students which comes under the head of presentation skills, while voice is also affected which is a part of communication skills. The factors should be considered very important to be concerned for improvement. Presentation and communication skills are an important part of students conduct. If they are not satisfactory then it will have a bad impact on students performance and student will show low performance academically. Especially facial expressions and voice should be accurate and confident while communicating or presenting something but biased behavior may affect these skills of student and especially facial expression with shivering voice get weird due to discrimination. In this regard Physical appearance discrimination is the major factor in disturbing the students facial expression and voice while giving presentation or communicating with other fellows. To improve this part appearance discrimination should be critically noticed and wiped out by the concerning authority of higher education institutes. Students should be given awareness and for this an extra mile effort is required from both sides students and concerning authority to reduce appearance discrimination and to improve presentation skills along with communication expertise of students who are victims of this biasness. Appearance has no concern with education. Everyone has right to be treated equally without noticing his/her appearance. But
85

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector unfortunately in our higher educational institutes the students commonly become victim of look phobia which is affecting vigorously their facial expression in presentation and voice while communicating. So, an acute concentration is required by higher edification institutes to prevent their students from this biased decry by taking some crucial steps. Supporting factor in TIER II includes my voice become low while communicating with fellows with global weight .051138. It is also a part of communication skills. It is not that much necessary to improve this factor but higher education institutes have to consider this factor to have better student conduct in future. Good communication skills will lead to good presentation skills in future. Rests of factors are maintaining factors and they are least important to be concerned for improvement in students conduct due to physical appearance discrimination. But if higher educational institutes still take interest in improving them then they may give a share in benefiting the students conduct in distant future.

86

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

4.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) In questionnaire seven variables are included to observe the existence and impact of discriminations on respondents. Respondents are students. There are five generally asked questionnaire to confirm that whether the respondent has faced discriminatory behavior or not. These five questions are individually analyzed to judge the impact while rest of variables included observing students conduct is as follows. Variables that are included are named as Communication skills Presentation skills Grades Self confidence Responsiveness Interest in studies Participation in extracurricular activities

All the seven variables have 5 questions. ANOVA post hoc-LSD was applied to observe the results.

87

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector The results shown in the following table will be analyzed by keeping in view the confidence levels of variables equal to or less than .05. Variable will be considered as affecting more on the corresponding variables if and only if the confidence level of variable is equal to or less than .05 and the mean difference is positive. Similarly the variable be will be less affected as compared to corresponding variables if and only if the confidence level of corresponding variable is equal to or less than .05 and mean difference is negative. In all of the following tables only those variables are explained which are just according to the criteria of significance level discussed above. Hence rests of all insignificant variables are ignored. Full table is shown in annexure section. 4.3.1 ANOVA of General Questions and independent variables

Table 4.10
I have been teased in the university
(I) Type Discrimination Gender of (J) Type Discrimination Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability physical appearance Language Religious Ideology Caste of Mean Difference (I-J) 1.23373* .97033* 1.47793* 1.30840* .70084* -1.23373* -1.52381* -.53289* 1.52381* 1.26042* 1.76802* 1.59848* Std. Error .26561 .25305 .24058 .38864 .18138 .26561 .41668 .25792 .41668 .40879 .40118 .50410 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound .7110 1.7565 .4723 1.4684 1.0045 1.9514 .5435 2.0733 .3439 1.0578 -1.7565 -.7110 -2.3439 -.7038 -1.0405 -.0253 .7038 2.3439 .4559 2.0650 .9784 2.5576 .6064 2.5906 88

Language

Disability

.000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .040 .000 .002 .000 .002

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
physical appearance .99092* Religious Gender -.97033* Disability -1.26042* Ideology Gender -1.47793* Disability -1.76802* physical appearance -.77709* Caste Gender -1.30840* Disability -1.59848* physical appearance Gender -.70084* Language .53289* Disability -.99092* Ideology .77709* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .36874 .25305 .40879 .24058 .40118 .23207 .38864 .50410 .18138 .25792 .36874 .23207 .008 .000 .002 .000 .000 .001 .001 .002 .000 .040 .008 .001 .2652 -1.4684 -2.0650 -1.9514 -2.5576 -1.2338 -2.0733 -2.5906 -1.0578 .0253 -1.7166 .3204 1.7166 -.4723 -.4559 -1.0045 -.9784 -.3204 -.5435 -.6064 -.3439 1.0405 -.2652 1.2338

First part of table 4.10 shows that respondents seems to be more teased due to gender discrimination as compared language, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance disparities. All these have positive mean differences with significance < 0.05. Second part shows that, with less than .05 significance and negative mean differences gender, disability and physical appearance discrimination is the major cause of teasing in university premises as compared to language discrimination. On the basis of disability respondents are more irritated by other fellows and people in university as compared to language, religion, ideology, caste and physical appearance differences as shown in third part.

89

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Forth one deals with religious discrimination which is less impacting as compared to gender and disability discrimination. It depicts that students are teased on the basis of gender and disability more than religious discrimination. Gender, disability and physical appearance with less than .05 significance and negative mean differences are the major disparities on which students are teased more as compared to ideological discrimination depicts in fifth part. Students are more irritate on the basis of gender and disability which have less that .05 significance with negative mean differences as compared to caste in sixth part. Respondents are more teased on the basis of Gender and disability discrimination with significance level less than .05 and negative mean differences as compare to physical appearance discrimination. While respondents are teased on the basis of physical appearance disparity as compared to their language and ideology which elaborated in last part.

90

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.11
I have been told that I am unable to academically perform at the same level as my peers
(I) Type Discrimination Mean Difference (I-J) Gender Language .84720* Religious .66416* Ideology .57886* Caste .99655* physical appearance .67252* Language Gender -.84720* Disability -.79762* Disability Language .79762* physical appearance .62294* Religious Gender -.66416* Ideology Gender -.57886* Caste Gender -.99655* Disability -.94697* physical appearance Gender -.67252* Disability -.62294* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. of (J) Type Discrimination of Std. Error .21776 .20747 .19724 .31864 .14871 .21776 .34162 .34162 .30232 .20747 .19724 .31864 .41330 .14871 .30232 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound .4186 1.2758 .2558 1.0725 .1907 .9670 .3694 1.6237 .3798 .9652 -1.2758 -.4186 -1.4700 -.1253 .1253 1.4700 .0279 1.2179 -1.0725 -.2558 -.9670 -.1907 -1.6237 -.3694 -1.7604 -.1336 -.9652 -.3798 -1.2179 -.0279

.000 .002 .004 .002 .000 .000 .020 .020 .040 .002 .004 .002 .023 .000 .040

91

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Gender is the major discriminatory practices on which students were let down to academically perform as compared to language, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discrimination. This is all shown in first part of table 4.11. Similarly gender and disability are causes of biased behaviors that student cannot academically perform well than their peers as compared to language discrimination in second one. Third one shows that disability affects more as compared to language, caste and physical appearance on academic performance of students. Only gender discrimination depicts that students were told that they will not be able to perform well than their fellows as compared to religious discrimination shown in fourth part. Fifth one is of the view that again gender discrimination with .004sifnificance and negative mean difference is the cause to let down students that cant do well academically than their fellows as compared to ideology discrimination. Sixth part shows that again gender in addition with disability discrimination which has .002 and .023significance with negative mean difference is the cause to let down students that cant do well academically than their fellows as compared to caste discrimination.

92

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Seventh shows same results as sixth part gender and disability with .000 and 0.040 and negative mean differences are more affecting discriminatory practices as compared to physical appearance discrimination in higher education institutes.

Table 4.12
I have experienced being called with abusive names
(I) Type Discrimination Gender of (J) Type Discrimination of Mean Difference (I-J) -1.20458* .68239* .35656* -1.53958* -1.51577* -1.43243* 1.20458* 1.53958* 1.51577* Std. Error .19496 .31495 .14699 .24514 .32512 .23626 .19496 .24514 .32512 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -1.5883 -.8209 .0625 1.3022 .0673 .6459 -2.0220 -1.0571 -2.1556 -.8759 -1.8974 -.9675 .8209 1.5883 1.0571 2.0220 .8759 2.1556 93

Language Disability Religious Ideology

ideology caste physical appearance ideology ideology Ideology Gender Language Disability

.000 .031 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Religious 1.43243* Caste 1.88698* physical appearance 1.56115* Caste Gender -.68239* Ideology -1.88698* physical appearance Gender -.35656* Ideology -1.56115* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .23626 .33609 .18807 .31495 .33609 .14699 .18807 .000 .000 .000 .031 .000 .016 .000 .9675 1.2255 1.1910 -1.3022 -2.5484 -.6459 -1.9313 1.8974 2.5484 1.9313 -.0625 -1.2255 -.0673 -1.1910

Two kinds of results are dictated by part one of table 4.12. Ideology discrimination is the major cause for students to be called by abusive names as compared to gender discrimination. Similarly other result shows that gender effects more compared to caste and physical appearance discrimination. Second one shows that again ideology is major cause of abusive names for students as compared to language discrimination. Third one is also depicting the same results that ideological discrimination is the major effect on students to be called by bad names in university premises as compared to disability discrimination. Repeatedly in fourth part ideology comes in front to be a major cause of abusive names for students than religious biasness comparatively. Fifth one shows that ideology discrimination comparing with gender, language, disability, religious, caste and physical appearance have very high significance with all these

94

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector discriminations. It means that again ideological discrimination has an edge with respect to abusive names. Sixth one shows that gender and ideology discriminations with less than .05 significance level and negative mean difference shows that both discriminations have an effect on abusive names for students as compared to caste discriminations. Last part of this table deals with physical discrimination. It elaborates same results as sixth part that gender and ideology with .016, .000 significance and negative mean differences have greater impact as compared to physical discrimination.

Table 4.13
I have experienced being ignored in classroom
(I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Ideology Caste Ideology Ideology Mean Difference (I-J) -.93808* 1.13809* -.94305* 1.13312* -1.12162* -1.37162* Std. Error .27036 .43676 .33994 .48293 .45085 .32763 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -1.4702 -.4060 .2785 1.9977 -1.6121 -.2740 .1827 2.0836 -2.0089 -.2343 -2.0164 -.7268 95

.001 .010 .006 .020 .013 .000

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
physical -.55198* appearance Ideology Gender .93808* Language .94305* Disability 1.12162* Religious 1.37162* Caste 2.07617* physical .81964* appearance Caste Gender -1.13809* Language -1.13312* Ideology -2.07617* physical -1.25653* appearance physical Religious .55198* appearance Ideology -.81964* Caste 1.25653* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .27531 .27036 .33994 .45085 .32763 .46607 .26080 .43676 .48293 .46607 .43090 .27531 .26080 .43090 .046 .001 .006 .013 .000 .000 .002 .010 .020 .000 .004 .046 .002 .004 -1.0938 .4060 .2740 .2343 .7268 1.1589 .3064 -1.9977 -2.0836 -2.9934 -2.1046 .0101 -1.3329 .4085 -.0101 1.4702 1.6121 2.0089 2.0164 2.9934 1.3329 -.2785 -.1827 -1.1589 -.4085 1.0938 -.3064 2.1046

First part of table 4.13 depicts that ideology with 0.01 significance level and negative mean difference is major cause for a student being ignored in classroom by his mates and teachers as compared to gender discrimination. While gender effects more as compared to caste disparity which has .001 significance level with positive mean difference. Second part has same results as first one that ideology discrimination is with .006 significance level and negative mean difference is major cause for a student being ignored in classroom by his mates and teachers as compared to gender discrimination. While gender effects more as compared to caste disparity which has .020 significance level with positive mean difference.

96

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector It is observed in third part the again ideology discrimination has strong effects of being ignored in classroom as compared to disability discrimination. We can see in fourth part that ideology and physical appearance discrimination having .000 and .046 significance are major disparities which results in being ignored in classroom as compared to religious discrimination. Fifth one shows that ideology affects more as compared to gender, language, disability, religious, caste and physical appearance discrimination because all these discriminations have positive mean differences with significance levels less than .05. Sixth part is of the view that gender, language, ideology and physical appearance discrimination are major cause of being ignored in classroom in higher education institutes as compared to caste discrimination. Physical appearance discrimination is the major factor of being ignored in classroom as compared to religious and caste discrimination. In the same part ideology discrimination has greater impact as compared to physical appearance discrimination.

Table 4.14
My intelligence has been belittled
(I) Type of Discrimination Religious (J) Type of Discrimination Ideology physical appearance Mean Difference (I-J) -.56757* -.70297
*

Std. Error .28262 .23749

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -1.1238 -1.1704 -.0113 -.2356 97

.046 .003

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Ideology Caste physical appearance Religious physical appearance Religious Caste .56757* -.79388 .70297 .79388
* * *

.28262 .37172 .23749 .37172

.046 .034 .003 .034

.0113 -1.5254 .2356 .0623

1.1238 -.0623 1.1704 1.5254

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

In table 4.14 only those factors and values are considered which have .05 or <.05 significance levels, hence other values with >.05 significance have been ignored. So here the table shows that ideology and physical appearance discriminations are causes of belittled intelligence of students as compared to religious discrimination. Next part is depicting ideology discrimination as major disparity of belittled intelligence as compared to religious discrimination. Physical appearance discrimination is playing a major role in belittling of intelligence of higher educational institute student than caste discrimination comparatively. Last part clearly showing that physical appearance is playing a greater role in belittling of intelligence of students as compared to religious and caste discriminations.

98

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.15
Dependent Variable (I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Mean Difference (I-J) .40056* .44905* .91386* -.40056* -.70863* .75495* .70863* .75713* 1.22194* .42922* -.44905* -.75713* -.32792* -.91386* -.75495* -1.22194* -.79272* -.42922* .32792* .79272* -.35804* -.59439* -.60189* -.61825* .59439* .60189* .45121* -.45121* Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound .0276 .7735 .1112 .7869 .3681 1.4596 -.7735 -.0276 -1.1474 -.2698 .0471 1.4628 .2698 1.1474 .3478 1.1665 .6293 1.8146 .0852 .7732 -.7869 -1.1665 -.6538 -1.4596 -1.4628 -1.8146 -1.3311 -.7732 .0021 .2543 -.6109 -1.1753 -1.0376 -.9778 .0135 .1662 .0448 -.8577 -.1112 -.3478 -.0021 -.3681 -.0471 -.6293 -.2543 -.0852 .6538 1.3311 -.1052 -.0135 -.1662 -.2587 1.1753 1.0376 .8577 -.0448 99

Communication skills

Gender

Language Disability Religious

Ideology

Caste

physical appearance Presentation skills Gender Language

Disability Religious Ideology

Language Ideology Caste Gender Religious Caste Language Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Religious physical appearance Gender Disability Religious physical appearance Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Disability Religious physical appearance Language Language Ideology Religious

.18950 .17164 .27728 .18950 .22296 .35966 .22296 .20800 .30114 .17478 .17164 .20800 .16557 .27728 .35966 .30114 .27357 .17478 .16557 .27357 .12849 .29517 .22137 .18271 .29517 .22137 .20652 .20652

.035 .009 .001 .035 .002 .037 .002 .000 .000 .015 .009 .000 .049 .001 .037 .000 .004 .015 .049 .004 .006 .045 .007 .001 .045 .007 .030 .030

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
physical appearance Gender Language Ideology Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Caste Religious Caste Gender Language Disability Gender Caste Gender Language Disability Ideology physical appearance Gender Disability Caste Ideology Caste physical appearance physical appearance Ideology Caste Ideology Caste -.46757* .35804* .61825* .46757* .71131* .42027* 1.23581* .49498* 1.12481* .88616* 1.41066* -.71131* -.60031* -.88616* -.42027* .81554* -1.23581* -1.12481* -1.41066* -.81554* -.74083* -.49498* -.66983* .74083* .40666* .55776* -.22173* -.40065* .46405* .61516* .43173* .58283* .16439 .12849 .18271 .16439 .21701 .20631 .33329 .15555 .36852 .35056 .43230 .21701 .26799 .35056 .20631 .35565 .33329 .36852 .43230 .35565 .32882 .15555 .31622 .32882 .13933 .22509 .10505 .14938 .23235 .29195 .16884 .24446 .005 .006 .001 .005 .001 .043 .000 .002 .002 .012 .001 .001 .026 .012 .043 .023 .000 .002 .001 .023 .025 .002 .035 .025 .004 .014 .036 .008 .047 .036 .011 .018 -.7911 .1052 .2587 .1440 .2842 .0142 .5799 .1888 .3995 .1962 .5599 -1.1384 -1.1277 -1.5761 -.8263 .1156 -1.8917 -1.8501 -2.2615 -1.5155 -1.3880 -.8011 -1.2922 .0937 .1324 .1148 -.4285 -.6946 .0068 .0406 .0994 .1017 -.1440 .6109 .9778 .7911 1.1384 .8263 1.8917 .8011 1.8501 1.5761 2.2615 -.2842 -.0729 -.1962 -.0142 1.5155 -.5799 -.3995 -.5599 -.1156 -.0937 -.1888 -.0475 1.3880 .6809 1.0008 -.0150 -.1067 .9213 1.1898 .7640 1.0639 100

physical appearance Gender Grades

Language Disability Religious

Ideology Caste

physical appearance self confidence Gender

Language Disability Religious

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Ideology Gender Disability Religious physical appearance Gender Disability Religious physical appearance Gender Language Ideology Caste Religious Ideology Caste Religious Caste Religious Ideology Caste Gender Language Disability Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious -.40666* -.46405* -.43173* -.62838* -.55776* -.61516* -.58283* -.77949* .22173* .40065* .62838* .77949* .71474* .55415* 1.50166* .44786* 1.23478* .86007* .69948* 1.64698* -.71474* -.44786* -.86007* .78692* -.75760* -.55415* -.69948* .94751* -.59701* -1.50166* -1.23478* -1.64698* -.78692* .13933 .23235 .16884 .13441 .22509 .29195 .24446 .22207 .10505 .14938 .13441 .22207 .17508 .16645 .26890 .21622 .29732 .28284 .27757 .34878 .17508 .21622 .28284 .29204 .16950 .16645 .27757 .28694 .16057 .26890 .29732 .34878 .29204 .004 .047 .011 .000 .014 .036 .018 .001 .036 .008 .000 .001 .000 .001 .000 .039 .000 .003 .012 .000 .000 .039 .003 .007 .000 .001 .012 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .007 -.6809 -.9213 -.7640 -.8929 -1.0008 -1.1898 -1.0639 -1.2165 .0150 .1067 .3639 .3424 .3702 .2266 .9724 .0223 .6496 .3034 .1532 .9606 -1.0593 -.8734 -1.4167 .2122 -1.0912 -.8817 -1.2458 .3828 -.9130 -2.0309 -1.8199 -2.3334 -1.3617 -.1324 -.0068 -.0994 -.3639 -.1148 -.0406 -.1017 -.3424 .4285 .6946 .8929 1.2165 1.0593 .8817 2.0309 .8734 1.8199 1.4167 1.2458 2.3334 -.3702 -.0223 -.3034 1.3617 -.4240 -.2266 -.1532 1.5122 -.2810 -.9724 -.6496 -.9606 -.2122 101

Caste

physical appearance

Responsiveness

Gender

Language Disability

Religious

Ideology

Caste

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Ideology physical appearance Religious Ideology Caste Ideology Caste physical appearance Ideology Caste Ideology Caste Ideology Caste Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Ideology Caste Language Religious Ideology Caste -.94751* -1.54451* .75760* .59701* 1.54451* .48614* 1.29686* -.21929* .42297* 1.23369* .53368* 1.34440* .67610* 1.48682* -.48614* -.42297* -.53368* -.67610* .81072* -.70543* -1.29686* -1.23369* -1.34440* -1.48682* -.81072* -1.51615* .21929* .70543* 1.51615* .72480* .94906* .77066* 1.28480* .28694 .26529 .16950 .16057 .26529 .14554 .23511 .10973 .18300 .25997 .24270 .30496 .17637 .25535 .14554 .18300 .24270 .17637 .25089 .14039 .23511 .25997 .30496 .25535 .25089 .23196 .10973 .14039 .23196 .18809 .17920 .17037 .27522 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .047 .022 .000 .029 .000 .000 .000 .001 .022 .029 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .047 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 -1.5122 -2.0666 .4240 .2810 1.0224 .1997 .8341 -.4353 .0628 .7220 .0560 .7442 .3290 .9843 -.7726 -.7831 -1.0113 -1.0232 .3169 -.9817 -1.7596 -1.7453 -1.9446 -1.9894 -1.3045 -1.9727 .0033 .4291 1.0596 .3546 .5964 .4354 .7431 -.3828 -1.0224 1.0912 .9130 2.0666 .7726 1.7596 -.0033 .7831 1.7453 1.0113 1.9446 1.0232 1.9894 -.1997 -.0628 -.0560 -.3290 1.3045 -.4291 -.8341 -.7220 -.7442 -.9843 -.3169 -1.0596 .4353 .9817 1.9727 1.0950 1.3017 1.1060 1.8265 102

physical appearance Interest studies in Gender

Language Disability Religious Ideology

Caste

physical appearance Participation in Gender extracurricular activities

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
physical appearance Language Gender Disability Disability Language Religious Ideology Caste Religious Gender Disability physical appearance Ideology Gender Disability physical appearance Caste Gender Disability physical appearance physical Gender appearance Religious Ideology Caste *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .41271* -.72480* -.68637* .68637* .91063* .73223* 1.24637* -.94906* -.91063* -.53635* -.77066* -.73223* -.35795* -1.28480* -1.24637* -.87209* -.41271* .53635* .35795* .87209* .12845 .18809 .29507 .29507 .28949 .28410 .35698 .17920 .28949 .17348 .17037 .28410 .16434 .27522 .35698 .27153 .12845 .17348 .16434 .27153 .001 .000 .021 .021 .002 .010 .001 .000 .002 .002 .000 .010 .030 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002 .030 .001 .1599 -1.0950 -1.2671 .1056 .3409 .1731 .5438 -1.3017 -1.4804 -.8778 -1.1060 -1.2914 -.6814 -1.8265 -1.9489 -1.4065 -.6655 .1949 .0345 .3377 .6655 -.3546 -.1056 1.2671 1.4804 1.2914 1.9489 -.5964 -.3409 -.1949 -.4354 -.1731 -.0345 -.7431 -.5438 -.3377 -.1599 .8778 .6814 1.4065

Communication skills: In communication skills gender discrimination has major impact on respondents communication as compared to language and caste discrimination because both have a confidence levels less than .05 i.e. .035, .009 with positive mean differences. While religious discrimination is affecting more the communication skills as compared to gender discrimination having confidence level .001 with negative mean difference.
103

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Second part shows that gender and religious discriminations have major effect on communication section as compared to language discrimination having confidence levels of .035, .002 with negative mean differences. Third section is providing evidence that communication is more affected by disability as compared to caste discrimination which has confidence level of .035 with positive mean difference. We can see from fourth one that religious disparity effects more than language, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations. All the four discriminations have positive mean differences with confidence levels .002, .000, .000, .015. Observations of fifth part shows that discrimination on the basis of gender, religious and physical appearance effects the communication skills of respondents more as compared to ideology discrimination. Gender, religious and physical appearance discriminations have negative mean differences with confidence levels of .009, .000, .049. It can be observed from the observations of sixth part that gender, disability, religious and physical appearance caused a major impact on communication skills as compared to caste discrimination. All the four mentioned discrimination have negative mean differences with confidence levels .001, .037, .000, .004. Seventh and the last part provides that physical appearance effects communication more than religious discrimination which has a negative mean difference with confidence level of .015,
104

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector while ideology and caste discriminations have less effect on communication skills than physical appearance comparatively. Ideology and caste discriminations have positive mean differences with confidence levels of .049 and .004.

Presentation Skills: Presentation skills in first part are more affected by physical appearance discrimination as compared to gender discrimination. Physical discrimination has the negative mean difference with a confidence level of .006. In second one Disability, religious and physical appearance discrimination has a major impact on presentation skills than language discrimination. Disability, religious and physical appearance discrimination has got negative mean differences with confidence levels .045, .007, .001. With a confidence level of .045 and positive mean difference language discrimination effects less the presentation skills as compared to disability discrimination in third part. Fourth part represents that religious effect more as compared to language and ideology discriminations having positive mean differences with confidence levels of .037 and .007.

105

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Fifth part shows that religious and physical appearance caused major impact on presentation skills as compared to ideology discrimination. Religious and Physical appearance has negative mean differences with confidence levels .030 and .005. Sixth section provides with evidence that presentation skills are not affected by any one of the discussed discriminatory practices. Seventh one shows physical appearance discrimination has the major effect on presentation part of respondents as compared to gender, language and ideology discriminations which have positive mean differences with confidence levels .006, .005, .001. Grades: First part show that grades have been more effected by gender discrimination as compared to religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations having positive mean differences with confidence levels .001, .043, .000, .002. Second part depicts that language discrimination impacts more on grades than religious and caste discrimination which has positive mean differences with confidence levels .026 and .002. In the third part Grades have been more affected by disability discriminations as compared to religious, caste and physical appearance having positive mean differences with confidence levels .012, .001, .035.
106

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Fourth part clears that gender, language and disability disparities with negative means and .026, .001, .012 confidence levels make a greater impact on grades than religious discrimination. Fifth part shows that gender discrimination affects grades more than ideology discrimination which has negative mean difference with confidence level .043, while grades are more influenced by ideology if compared with caste discrimination having positive mean difference with .023 confidence level. It can be clearly observed from sixth section that gender, language, disability, ideology and physical appearance discriminations with negative mean differences and .000, .002, .001, .023, .025 confidences have greater influence on grades of respondents than caste discrimination comparatively. Seventh part shows that gender and disability discriminations having negative mean differences with confidence levels .002, .035 affects respondents grades more as compared to physical appearance discrimination, while compared with caste discrimination physical appearance has got more edge in affecting the grades of respondents. Self Confidence: First part depicts that gender discrimination affects the respondents self confidence as compared to ideology and caste discriminatory practice having confidence level of .004, .014

107

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector with positive mean differences. Similarly physical appearance affects the self confidence more than gender disparity having negative mean difference with .036 confidence level. Next language discrimination has lesser impact on self confidence as compared to physical appearance which has negative mean difference with .008 confidence level. Third one show that Disability influences self confidence more if compared with caste and ideology discrimination which has positive mean differences with confidence level of .036 and .047. Fourth provides the evidence Religious has more impact on self confidence than ideology and caste discrimination having .011, .018 confidence levels with positive mean differences. In the fifth part Gender, disability, religious and physical appearance disparity have .004, .011, .047, .000 confidence levels with negative mean difference shows that these four discriminatory practices influences the respondents self confidence more than ideology discriminatory practice. It can be clearly observed from section six that gender, disability, religious and physical appearance discriminatory practices have negative mean differences with confidence levels .014, .036, .018, .001 influences the self confidence more as compared to caste discrimination.

108

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector In seventh part observations shows that physical appearance has more edge on influencing the self confidence as compared to gender, language, ideology and caste discriminations having .036, .008, .000, .001confidence levels with positive mean differences.

Responsiveness: First part of responsiveness section shows that responsiveness is more influenced by the gender discrimination than religious, ideology and caste discriminatory practices comparatively having confidence levels .000, .001, .000 with positive mean differences Next second part represents the language discrimination affecting the responsiveness of students more than religious and caste disparities that have confidence levels .039 and .000 with positive mean difference. Third one clarifies the observation that disability is the major discrimination that affects responsiveness as compared to religious, ideology and caste which have .003, .012, .000 confidence levels with positive means differences. It is evident from fourth part that gender, language, disability and physical appearance discrimination with negative mean differences and having confidence levels .000, .039, .003,
109

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector .000 have greater impact on students responsiveness than religious discrimination. While religious discrimination influences more on responsiveness than ideology discrimination which have confidence level of .007 having positive mean difference. Fifth part show that gender and physical appearance discrimination have more impact on responsiveness than ideology because gender and physical appearance discrimination have negative mean differences with .001 and .000confidence levels while caste discrimination with positive mean difference and .001 confidence level has a less impact on responsiveness as compared to ideology discrimination. It is observed in sixth part that gender, language, disability, religious, ideology and physical appearance discrimination have negative mean differences with .000, .000, .000, .007, .001, .000 confidence levels that all of these discriminations have a greater impact on respondents responsiveness as compared to caste discrimination. Seventh one represents the evidence Physical appearance discriminatory practice influences the respondents responsiveness as compared to religious, ideology, and caste discrimination which have positive mean differences having confidence levels of .000, .000, .000. Interest In studies: Gender discrimination has a greater affect on students interest in studies as compared to ideology and caste discrimination because both the discriminations has positive mean differences with confidence levels .001 and .000. First part also shows that physical
110

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector appearance discrimination has got edge in influencing the interest in studies factor as compared to gender discrimination, as physical appearance discrimination has negative mean difference with a confidence level of .047. Second part elaborates the language discrimination as more influencing on interest in studies than ideology and caste discriminations which have positive mean differences with .022, .000 confidence levels. Third one justifies the observations as discrimination on the basis of disability influences interest in studies more as compared to ideology and caste discrimination which have .029 and .000 confidence levels with positive mean differences. Interest in studies is more affected by religious discrimination as compared to ideology and caste discrimination which have positive mean differences with .000, .000 confidence levels as elaborated in fourth part. Fifth part observations shows that gender, language, disability, religious and physical appearance have negative mean differences having confidence levels .001, .022, .029, .000, .000 influences interest in studies more than ideology discrimination. While ideology has more impact on interest in studies than caste discrimination due to its positive mean difference and .001 confidence levels.

111

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Gender, language, disability, religious, caste and physical discrimination have a greater effect on interest in studies than caste discrimination due to their negative mean differences and .000, .000, .000, .000, .001, .000 confidence levels in sixth part. Seventh part results shows that physical appearance discrimination has more impact on interest in studies than gender, ideology and caste discriminations due to their positive mean differences and .047, .000, .000 confidence levels. Participation in Extracurricular Activities: First parts results show that gender discrimination has more effect on respondents participation in extracurricular activities as compared to language, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations due to their positive mean differences and confidence levels as .000, .000, .000, .000, .001. Gender and disability discrimination has more influence on participation factor of respondents due to their negative mean differences and confidence levels as .001, .021 as compared to language discriminatory practice in the second part. Next third part is showing that disability discrimination has a greater affect on participation in extracurricular activities as compared o language, religious, ideology and caste discriminations due to their positive mean differences and confidence levels as .021, .002, .010, .001.

112

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Fourth one figured out the results as participation in extracurricular activities is more influenced by gender, disability and physical appearance discrimination because of their negative mean differences and confidence levels as .000, .002, .002 if compared with religious discrimination. Fifth section is giving an clear justification that gender, disability, and physical appearances influences the participation factor more due to their negative mean differences and confidence levels .000, .010, .030as compared to ideology discrimination. In sixth part again gender, disability and caste discrimination are affecting more the participation level of respondents due to their negative mean differences and confidence levels .000, .001, .001 as compared to caste discrimination. Last part of this table elaborates that Gender discrimination influenced the participation level more than physical appearance while physical appearance has a more influencing impact on participation than religious, ideology, and caste discriminations due to their positive mean differences with .002, .030, .001 confidence levels. 4.3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Education Demographics (Over All)

Table 4.16
EDUCATION
Dependent Variable (I) Education (J) Education Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound 113

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
communication skills Bachelors Masters Masters Mphil Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Masters Mphil Mphil Bachelors PHD Mphil Masters Bachelors Mphil Masters Masters Bachelors Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Bachelors Bachelors Masters Mphil Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters Masters Mphil PHD -.29578* -.57554* .29578* -.27976* .52012* .57554* .27976* .79989* -.52012* -.79989* -.34448* .34448* .52779* -.52779* -.48584* .48584* .33753* -.33753* -.23118* .23118* -.60607* -.54041* -.72555* .60607* .54041* .72555* -.59662* -.35625* .59662* .24037* .57689* .35625* -.24037* -.57689* -.34018* -.77367* .12578 .12351 .12578 .12420 .23882 .12351 .12420 .23763 .23882 .23763 .12464 .12464 .23980 .23980 .15513 .15513 .15318 .15318 .10649 .10649 .12772 .12542 .24214 .12772 .12542 .24214 .11168 .10966 .11168 .11027 .21204 .10966 .11027 .21204 .13049 .25193 .019 .000 .019 .025 .030 .000 .025 .001 .030 .001 .006 .006 .029 .029 .002 .002 .028 .028 .031 .031 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .003 .000 .001 .000 .030 .007 .001 .030 .007 .010 .002 -.5433 -.8186 .0482 -.5242 .0501 .3325 .0353 .3322 -.9901 -1.2675 -.5898 .0992 .0559 -.9997 -.7911 .1806 .0361 -.6390 -.4408 .0216 -.8574 -.7872 -1.2021 .3547 .2936 .2490 -.8164 -.5721 .3768 .0233 .1596 .1404 -.4574 -.9942 -.5970 -1.2695 -.0482 -.3325 .5433 -.0353 .9901 .8186 .5242 1.2675 -.0501 -.3322 -.0992 .5898 .9997 -.0559 -.1806 .7911 .6390 -.0361 -.0216 .4408 -.3547 -.2936 -.2490 .8574 .7872 1.2021 -.3768 -.1404 .8164 .4574 .9942 .5721 -.0233 -.1596 -.0834 -.2779 114

Mphil

PHD Presentation skills Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters Mphil Bachelors Masters Bachelors

Grades

Self confidence Responsiveness

Interest in studies

Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters

Mphil PHD Bachelors

participation in extracurricular

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
activities PHD -.63793* Bachelors .34018* Bachelors .77367* Masters .63793* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Masters Mphil PHD .25230 .13049 .25193 .25230 .012 .010 .002 .012 -1.1345 .0834 .2779 .1414 -.1414 .5970 1.2695 1.1345

Above table will be explained by keeping in view some restrictions that if the level of significance is .05 or <.05 then the variable will be considered for interpretation otherwise variables given in the table will be ignored. If the significance level is .05 or <.05 with positive mean difference then variable will represent itself as more influencing than corresponding variables. Similarly if level of significance is .05 or <.05 with negative mean differences than variable will be less influencing as compared to the corresponding variable. ANOVA LSD-post hoc is applied on independent variables in relation with education to observe that whom students are discriminated according to their degree level. Level of qualifications included in the research is Bachelors, Masters, Mphil and PHD.

Communication Skills: The above table 4.16 elaborates that communication skills of Masters and MPhil students with .019 and .000 significance level having negative mean differences are more affected by discriminatory practices than Bachelors students.
115

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Second part shows that Masters students communication skills are more affected by biased attitudes as compared to bachelors and Phd students with positive mean differences and having significance levels .019 .030. While in the same part Bachelors communication skills with negative mean difference and significance level .025 seems to be more effected than masters students. Third part shows that communication skills of MPhil students are more affected by biased attitude than bachelors, master and Phd students with level of significance .000, .025, .001 having positive mean differences. Fourth part represents that communication expertise has greatly affected Phd students than Master and MPhil students with negative mean differences having .030, .001 significance level. Presentation Skills: Presentation skills of Mphil students with .006 level of significance having negative mean difference are more affected than bachelor students. MPhil students presentation skills are greatly affected by discriminatory biasness as compared to bachelors and Phd students of higher education institutes. Both variables have significance levels of .006 and .029 with negative mean difference.

116

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Presentation skills of Phd students are less influenced as compared to MPhil students who have significance level of .029 with negative mean difference in fourth part. Grades: Grades of Masters Students are more affected by discriminatory practices as compared to bachelors students who have 0.002 level of significance with negative mean difference. Next part representing that grades of Masters level student are influenced more due to discriminatory behavior than bachelors and MPhil students having .002 and .028 significance level with negative mean differences. Third one again shows influence of discriminatory practices with respect to grades on masters students as compared to bachelors students. This represents that master level students have .028 confidence level and negative mean difference. Self Confidence: Masters students with .031 level of significance and negative mean difference are influenced with respect to their self confidence as compared to bachelor students that is Elaborating in First part. Second part is of the sight that again masters students are more influenced by discriminatory practices with respect to their self confidence than bachelors students which have confidence level of .031 with positive mean difference.
117

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Responsiveness: Students of Master, MPhil and Phd shows greater influence on their responsiveness due to biased attitudes with .000, .000, .003 confidence levels and negative mean differences as compared to bachelor students. Next one shows that responsiveness of masters students is more affected by discriminations as compared to bachelor students having .03 level of significance and positive mean difference. Similarly Mphil students responsiveness is affected more by discrimination than bachelor students having positive mean difference and .000 significance level. Fourth part shows that responsiveness of PHD students is more affected by discriminatory attitude than bachelor students comparatively having .003 level of significance with positive mean difference. Interest In Studies: Significance level of Masters and MPhil Students is .000 and .001 with negative mean differences show that interest in studies of both is more influenced by discriminatory attitudes as compared to bachelors students in first part.

118

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Second one is of the view that Masters students interest in studies in more disturbed than bachelors, MPhil and Phd learners. Al these three have confidence levels of .000, .030, .007 with positive mean differences. It can be seen from Third part that with positive mean difference Mphil are more affected than bachelors students with .001 confidence level. In the same part Masters Students interest in studies is more influenced by biasness with negative mean difference and .001 significance. Observation of fourth part shows that interest in studies of Master level students is more affected as compared to Phd students because Masters students has negative mean difference with .007 significance level. Participation Extracurricular Activities: Significance levels of Mphil and Phd are .010, .002. Both have negative mean differences which show that both students level has been more affected by biased attitudes with respect to their participation in extracurricular activities as compared to bachelor students in first part. In second part we observe that discrimination has affected Phd students more with respect to their participation in extracurricular activities as compared to masters level students because Phd level has negative mean differences with .012 significance.

119

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Bachelors have .012 significance level with positive mean difference which shows that bachelors are less influenced by discriminatory attitude as compared to Masters students in third part. Fourth and last part shows that Bachelor and Masters Students have positive mean differences and significance levels of .012 and .002 are less affected by discriminations with respect to participation in extracurricular activities as compared to masters level students in higher education institutes.

120

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 4.4 T-TEST (Overall) T-test is used to find the likelihood that two independent samples data came from population have identical means. Independent T-test has applied in the following table on gender demographics to observe the significance and impact of discrimination according to gender.

Table 4.17 GENDER

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 6.976 .009 t-test for Equality of Means

T -3.498

df 298

Communication Skills

Sig. (2tailed) .001

Mean Difference -.35572

Std. Error Difference .10170

-3.441

262.297

.001

-.35572

.10337

Presentation Skills

15.749

.000

-1.391

298

.165

-.14133

.10164

-1.355

248.010

.177

-.14133

.10430

Grades

12.577

.000

1.635

298

.103

.20320

.12430

1.602

256.023

.110

.20320

.12688

Participation in extracurricular activities

13.016

.000

-2.749

298

.006

-.29134

.10596

-2.675

245.395

.008

-.29134

.10892

121

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Communication skills, presentation skills, grades and participation in extracurricular activities shows high significance .i.e. .009, .000, .000, .000 in relation to discriminatory practices with respect to demographics of gender .i.e. male and female. It also depicts that male and female students communication skills, presentation skills, grades and participation in extracurricular activities are highly affected by the discriminatory practices discussed throughout in this thesis. Male and female students both feel hesitant in communicating their concerns and views with fellows and other people in the university premises. Similarly both male and female students are reluctant in answering while presenting something or giving demonstration. There pitch and tone gets disturbed due to discriminatory attitude. As far as grades are concerned it is also drastically affected and results in low score due to biased behaviors. Same is the case we observe in participation in extracurricular activities that students who are victim of biasness participate less or do not take interest in extracurricular activities. Discriminatory practices include gender, language, disability, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations.

122

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

4.4.1 T-Test (Types of Discrimination) In the following tables only those values are considered which have .05 or < .05 significance level. All other variables with insignificant values have been excluded. Only variables with significant values are considered and thus explained. Table 4.18 (a)* Gender discrimination
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 4.913 .030 t-test for Equality of Means

t. -3.343

df 77

Sig.(2tailed) .001

Mean Difference -.66861

Std. Error Difference .20000

-4.242

49.701

.000

-.66861

.15761

Participation in extracurricular activities

5.972

.017

1.101

77

.274

.27473

.24943

1.313

42.656

.196

.27473

.20931

Communication skills and participation in extracurricular activities is affected due to gender discrimination showing .030 and .017 significance. Both the variables are necessary to have a satisfactory students conduct without them a student may not able to prove him/herself as brilliant one.
123

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.19 (a)* Language Discrimination:

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 7.848 .009 t-test for Equality of Means

T 3.536

df 26

Sig. (2tailed) .002

Mean Difference 1.41413

Std. Error Difference .39998

6.716

13.340

.000

1.41413

.21057

Responsiveness

28.795

.000

1.878

26

.072

.78935

.42026

.959

3.129

.405

.78935

.82276

Interest in studies

12.256

.002

3.322

26

.003

1.42329

.42840

2.103

3.281

.118

1.42329

.67672

Participation in extracurricular activities

38.076

.000

1.222

26

.232

.51667

.42264

.654

3.155

.558

.51667

.79042

124

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Above table is showing that communication, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities are factors which have an impact due to language discrimination.

Table 4.20 (a)* Disability Discrimination:

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 7.936 .018 t-test for equality of means

T -.631

df 10

Sig. (2tailed) .542

Mean Difference -.34755

Std. Error Difference .55103

-.563

5.386

.596

-.34755

.61752

Participation in extracurricular activities

11.056

.008

-2.785

10

.019

-.72120

.25892

-2.368

4.417

.071

-.72120

.30454

Communication skills and participation in extracurricular activities are majorly affected due to disability discrimination. Students feel hesitated in expressing their views in classrooms; they feel reluctant in communicating with their fellows similarly students feel discouraged in participating in extracurricular activities of university due to disability discrimination.
125

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.21(a)* Religious Discrimination

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 5.239 .029 T-test for equality of means

T 2.516

Df 30

Sig. (2tailed) .017

Mean Difference .64302

Std. Error Difference .25557

2.696

27.403

.012

.64302

.23855

Only communication skills of students male or female are affected because of religious discrimination. Communication skills show high significance of .029. Table 4.22 (a)* Ideology Discrimination
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Presentation Skills Equal variances assumed Equal 11.643 .002 T-test for equality of means

t 2.577

df 35

Sig. (2tailed) .014

Mean Difference .64712

Std. Error Difference .25110

1.837

11.086

.093

.64712

.35229 126

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Grades

182.855

.000

3.687

35

.001

1.32862

.36031

2.464

10.411

.033

1.32862

.53917

Self confidence

4.880

.034

-1.290

35

.205

-.30671

.23769

-1.431

24.195

.165

-.30671

.21435

Responsiveness

11.102

.002

1.734

35

.092

.44013

.25388

1.406

12.981

.183

.44013

.31300

Presentation skills, grades, self confidence and responsiveness level of students have an impact due to ideology discrimination in higher education institutes. All these are equally important to boost up the performance level of a student without them a student cannot show an excellent conduct. Table 4.23 (a)* Caste discrimination
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. t-test for Equality of means

df

Sig. (2tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference 127

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Presentation Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 5.667 .041 -2.529 9 .032 -1.24061 .49064

-2.972

8.995

.016

-1.24061

.41738

Only presentation skills show significance with respect to caste discrimination according to gender demographics. Presentation skills are crucial for good student conduct. Table 4.24 (a)* Physical Appearance Discrimination
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 11.478 .001 T-test for equality of means

T -3.770

df 99

Sig. (2tailed) .000

Mean Difference -.68814

Std. Error Difference .18254

-3.511

63.145

.001

-.68814

.19597

Presentation Skills

19.378

.000

-3.228

99

.002

-.59463

.18419

-2.910

56.360

.005

-.59463

.20432

Grades

21.256

.000

1.316

99

.191

.27231

.20694

1.214

61.023

.229

.27231

.22434

128

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Responsiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 6.171 .015 -1.543 99 .126 -.25680 .16639

-1.608

91.277

.111

-.25680

.15967

Communication skills, presentation skills, grades and responsiveness in students conduct shows high significance level which tells that these factors are affected due to physical appearance discrimination in higher education institute.

4.5 CORRELATION Correlation is another method of finding the relationship between variables. In short, it measures the extent of correspondence between the authoritatively mandating of two desultory variables. There is a plethora of resemblance between regression and correlation but for their methods of interpretation of the relationship. In order to do the correlation analysis, there must be sufficient data for the variables under question. Once there is sufficient data, this data was plugged into a formula developed by Karl Pearson. This formula was famously called Karl Pearsons co -efficient of correlation. This involved intricate calculation and mandated the presence of a statistician in the Six Sigma team.

129

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Correlation analysis typically gives us a number result that lies between +1 and -1. The +ve or ve sign denotes the direction of the correlation. The positive sign denotes direct correlation whereas the negative sign denotes inverse correlation. Zero designates no correlation. And the more proximate the number moves towards 1, the more vigorous the correlation is. Conventionally for the correlation to be considered paramount, the correlation must be 0.5 or above in either direction.

Gender Discrimination
Comm. Comm Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 79 .623** .000 79 .586** .000 79 .420** .000 79 Table 4.25 Presentation grades .623** .000 79 1 79 .458** .000 79 .072 .529 79 .586** .000 79 .458** .000 79 1 79 .449** .000 79 Self Res Interest confidence .420** .571** .647** .000 79 .072 .529 79 .449** .000 79 1 79 .000 79 .373** .001 79 .587** .000 79 .761** .000 79 .000 79 .381** .001 79 .743** .000 79 .296** .008 79 130 participation .244* .030 79 -.117 .304 79 .290** .010 79 .783** .000 79

Presentation

Grades

Self confidence

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Res Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr. .571** .000 79 .647** .000 79 .244* .373** .001 79 .381** .001 79 -.117 .587** .000 79 .743** .000 79 .290** .010 79 .761** .000 79 .296** .008 79 .783** .000 79 1 79 .479** .000 79 .498** .000 79 .479** .000 79 1 79 .176 .121 79 .498** .000 79 .176 .121 79 1 79

Interest

Participation

Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .304 N 79 79 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

In case of gender discrimination above table is showing that Communication skills have a positive and strong significant correlation with presentation skills. Similarly communication skills show a strong, positive and significant correlation with grades, responsiveness and interest in studies. Correlation of communication skills with self confidence and participation in extracurricular activities is weak although the correlation between these variables is positive and significant. Correlation between presentation skills and grades is weak though it is positive and significant, while the table is showing a weak and no significant correlation between presentation skills and self confidence. There is a weak, positive and significant correlation between presentation skills with responsiveness and presentation skills with interest in studies. Similarly there is negative and insignificant correlation between presentation skills and participation in extracurricular activities.

131

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Now dealing with grades, there is positive, weak and significant correlation of grades with self confidence and participation in extracurricular activities. Similarly correlation of grades with responsiveness and interest in studies is strong yet positive and significant too. Correlation of Self confidence with responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities is strong but positive and significant too. Similarly correlation between self confidence and interest in studies is weak but positive and significant. Correlation of responsiveness and interest in studies is weak but positive and significant, while there is again weak but positive and significant correlation between responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities. It is observed that there is insignificant, positive correlation exist between interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Language discrimination
Table 4.26 Presentation Grades 1 28 .792** .000 28 .708** .000 28 .792** .000 28 1 28 .831** .000 28 .708** .000 28 .831** .000 28 1 28

comm Comm. Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N

Presentation

Grades

Self confidence .494** .008 28 .054 .785 28 .131 .507 28

Res .553** .002 28 .396* .037 28 .470* .012 28

Interest .642** .000 28 .360 .060 28 .573** .001 28

participation .533** .003 28 .369 .054 28 .208 .288 28 132

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Pearson Corr .494** .054 Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .785 N 28 28 ** Pearson Corr .553 .396* Res Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .037 N 28 28 ** Pearson Corr .642 .360 Interest Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .060 N 28 28 .533** .369 Participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .054 N 28 28 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Self confidence .131 .507 28 .470* .012 28 .573** .001 28 .208 .288 28 1 28 .629** .000 28 .734** .000 28 .684** .000 28 .629** .000 28 1 28 .842** .000 28 .843** .000 28 .734** .000 28 .842** .000 28 1 28 .655** .000 28 .684** .000 28 .843** .000 28 .655** .000 28 1 28

Observing the results, there is strong, positive and yet significant correlation exists in communication with presentation skills, grades, and responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Similarly there is weak, positive and significant correlation between communication skills and self confidence in case of language discrimination. Observing the correlation of presentation skills with other variables it is noticed that there is positive, strong and significant correlation exists between presentation skills and grades. Similarly there is weak, but positive and significant correlation can be seen between presentation skills and responsiveness. Further there is strong, positive but no significant correlation of presentation skills with self confidence, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities.

133

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector A weak , positive and significant correlation can be seen of grades with responsiveness while there is strong, positive yet significant correlation exists between grades and interest I studies. Further there is weak, positive and insignificant correlation between grades and self confidence, grades and participation in extracurricular activities. Self confidence is showing a strong, positive and yet highly significant relation with interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities in case of language discrimination. There is strong, positive and highly significant correlation exists between responsiveness & interest in studies, responsiveness & participation in extracurricular activities. Interest in studies is showing positive, strong and significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities.

Disability Discrimination Table 4.27 Presentation grades .848** .000 12 1 -.401 .197 12 -.481

comm Comm. Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr 1 12 .848**

Presentation

Self confidence .305 .335 12 .591*

Res .451 .141 12 .294

Interest .626* .029 12 .436

Participation -.314 .320 12 -.317 134

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 12 12 Pearson Corr -.401 -.481 Grades Sig. (2-tailed) .197 .114 N 12 12 Pearson Corr .305 .591* Self confidence Sig. (2-tailed) .335 .043 N 12 12 Pearson Corr .451 .294 Res Sig. (2-tailed) .141 .353 N 12 12 * Pearson Corr .626 .436 Interest Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .157 N 12 12 -.314 -.317 Participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .320 .316 N 12 12 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). .114 12 1 12 -.216 .501 12 -.081 .803 12 -.290 .360 12 .312 .324 12 .043 12 -.216 .501 12 1 12 .301 .341 12 .383 .219 12 .429 .164 12 .353 12 -.081 .803 12 .301 .341 12 1 12 .952** .000 12 .066 .838 12 .157 12 -.290 .360 12 .383 .219 12 .952** .000 12 1 12 .077 .812 12 .316 12 .312 .324 12 .429 .164 12 .066 .838 12 .077 .812 12 1 12

Results show that communication skills have a positive, strong and significant correlation with presentation skills and interest in studies. Similarly communication skills do not show any significant correlation with grades, responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities. Presentation skills show significant correlation with grades. Rest of variables including self confidence, responsiveness, and interest in studies and participation in extracurricular actvities has no correlation with presentation skills.

135

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Observing correlation of grades that there is no correlation exists between grades & self confidence, grades & responsiveness, grades & interest in studies, grades & participation in extracurricular activities. Now noticing the correlation of self confidence, again no correlation exists between self confidence & responsiveness, Self confidence & interest in studies, self confidence & participation in extracurricular activities. There is a strong and highly significant correlation exists between responsiveness and interest in studies while no significant correlation present between responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities. Interest in studies has no significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities.

Religious discrimination
Comm . Table 4.28 Presentation grades Self confidence Res Interest participation 136

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Pearson Corr 1 .777** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 32 32 ** .777 1 Presentation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 32 32 Pearson Corr -.179 -.301 Grades Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .095 N 32 32 Pearson Corr .171 .258 Self confidence Sig. (2-tailed) .349 .153 N 32 32 Pearson Corr .166 .277 Res Sig. (2-tailed) .365 .125 N 32 32 Pearson Corr -.240 -.352* Interest Sig. (2-tailed) .186 .048 N 32 32 -.106 .020 participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .565 .912 N 32 32 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Comm. -.179 .326 32 -.301 .095 32 1 32 .483** .005 32 .246 .175 32 .645** .000 32 .627** .000 32 .171 .349 32 .258 .153 32 .483** .005 32 1 32 .261 .150 32 .349 .050 32 .332 .063 32 .166 .365 32 .277 .125 32 .246 .175 32 .261 .150 32 1 32 -.103 .575 32 .465** .007 32 -.240 .186 32 -.352* .048 32 .645** .000 32 .349 .050 32 -.103 .575 32 1 32 .696** .000 32 -.106 .565 32 .020 .912 32 .627** .000 32 .332 .063 32 .465** .007 32 .696** .000 32 1 32

In case of religious discrimination results show that communication skills have a positive, strong and significant correlation with presentation skills. Similarly communication skills do not show any significant correlation with grades, responsiveness, and interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Presentation skills show negative yet significant correlation with interest in studies. Rest of variables including grades, self confidence, responsiveness, and participation in extracurricular activities has no correlation with presentation skills.
137

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Observing correlation of grades that there is weak and significant correlation exists between grades & self confidence. Strong correlation exists between grades & interest in studies, grades & participation in extracurricular activities, while no correlation exists between grades & responsiveness. Now noticing the correlation of self confidence, correlation exists between self confidence & interest in studies, while there is no correlation between self confidence & responsiveness, self confidence & participation in extracurricular activities. There is a weak but highly significant correlation exists between responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities, while no significant correlation present between responsiveness and interest in studies. Interest in studies has strong and high significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities.

Ideology Discrimination
Table 4.29 138

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
comm Comm. Presentation grades .180 .285 37 .626** .000 37 1 37 .020 .906 37 .305 .066 37 .910** .000 37 .516** .001 37 Self confidence .429** .008 37 .218 .195 37 .020 .906 37 1 37 .403* .013 37 .070 .678 37 .622** .000 37 Res .806** .000 37 .546** .000 37 .305 .066 37 .403* .013 37 1 37 .524** .001 37 .342* .038 37 Interest .423** .009 37 .717** .000 37 .910** .000 37 .070 .678 37 .524** .001 37 1 37 .549** .000 37 participation .329* .047 37 .444** .006 37 .516** .001 37 .622** .000 37 .342* .038 37 .549** .000 37 1 37

Pearson Corr 1 .657** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 37 37 .657** 1 Presentation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 37 37 ** Pearson Corr .180 .626 Grades Sig. (2-tailed) .285 .000 N 37 37 ** Pearson Corr .429 .218 Self confidence Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .195 N 37 37 Pearson Corr .806** .546** Res Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 37 37 Pearson Corr .423** .717** Interest Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .000 N 37 37 .329* .444** participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .047 .006 N 37 37 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Observing the results, there is strong, positive and yet significant correlation exists in communication with presentation skills, responsiveness. No correlation exists between communication skills and grades. Similarly there is weak, positive and significant correlation between communication skills and self confidence, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities in case of ideology discrimination. Observing the correlation of presentation skills with other variables it is noticed that there is positive, strong and significant correlation exists between presentation skills and grades,
139

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector presentation skills and interest in studies. Similarly there is weak, but positive and significant correlation can be seen of presentation skills with responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities. Further there is strong, positive but no significant correlation of presentation skills with self confidence. A strong, positive and significant correlation can be seen of grades with interest in studies while there is weak, positive yet significant correlation exists between grades and participation in extracurricular activities. Further there is weak, positive and insignificant correlation between grades and self confidence, grades and responsiveness. Self confidence is showing a weak, positive and yet highly significant relation with responsiveness and strong, positive and significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities in case of ideological discrimination. No correlation exists between self confidence and responsiveness. There is strong, positive and highly significant correlation exists between responsive & interest in studies. A weak, positive yet significant correlation exists between responsiveness & participation in extracurricular activities. Interest in studies is showing positive, strong and significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities.

140

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Caste Discrimination
Table 2.30 Presentation grades .905** .000 11 .863** .001 11 1 11 .733* .010 11 .787** .004 11 .847** .001 11 .857** .001 11

Comm. Comm.

Pearson Corr 1 .941** Sig. (2-tailed .000 N 11 11 ** Pearson Corr .941 1 Presentation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 11 11 ** Pearson Corr .905 .863** Grades Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 N 11 11 ** Pearson Corr .790 .825** Self confidence Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .002 N 11 11 * Pearson Corr .721 .683* Res Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .020 N 11 11 Pearson Corr .870** .938** Interest Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 N 11 11 ** .815 .700* Participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .017 N 11 11 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Self confidence .790** .004 11 .825** .002 11 .733* .010 11 1 11 .919** .000 11 .621* .042 11 .620* .042 11

Res .721* .012 11 .683* .020 11 .787** .004 11 .919** .000 11 1 11 .526 .096 11 .759** .007 11

Interest .870** .001 11 .938** .000 11 .847** .001 11 .621* .042 11 .526 .096 11 1 11 .741** .009 11

participation .815** .002 11 .700* .017 11 .857** .001 11 .620* .042 11 .759** .007 11 .741** .009 11 1 11

Observing the results, there is strong, positive and yet significant correlation exists in communication skills with presentation skills, Grades, self confidence, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities in case of caste discrimination.
141

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Observing the correlation of presentation skills with other variables it is noticed that there is positive, strong and significant correlation exists between presentation skills and grades, presentation skills and interest in studies. Similarly there is strong, significant correlation can be seen of presentation skills with self confidence, responsiveness, and interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. A strong, positive and significant correlation can be seen of grades with self confidence, responsiveness, and interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Self confidence is showing a firm, positive and yet highly significant relation with responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities in case of caste discrimination. There is strong, positive and highly significant correlation exists between responsive & interest, responsiveness & participation in extracurricular activities. Interest in studies is showing positive, strong and significant correlation with participation in extracurricular activities.

142

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Physical Appearance Discrimination

Table 4.31 comm Comm. Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Presentation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Grades Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Self confidence Res Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Interest Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N Participation Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N 101 .869
**

Presentation .869** .000 101 1 101 -.074 .460 101 .312

**

grades -.017 .866 101 -.074 .460 101 1 101 .201

*

Self confidence .375** .000 101 .312

**

Res .135 .178 101 .263

**

Interest .198* .047 101 .254

*

participation .276** .005 101 .316** .001 101 .151 .131 101 .532** .000 101 .316** .001 101 .352** .000 101 1 101

.000 101 -.017 .866 101 .375

**

.002 101 .201

*

.008 101 .484

**

.010 101 .486

**

.044 101 1 101 .275

**

.000 101 .275

**

.000 101 .107 .288 101 .623

**

.000 101 .135 .178 101 .198

*

.002 101 .263

**

.044 101 .484

**

.005 101 1 101 .623

**

.008 101 .254

*

.000 101 .486

**

.005 101 .107 .288 101 .532

**

.000 101 1 101 .352

**

.047 101 .276

**

.010 101 .316

**

.000 101 .151 .131 101

.000 101 .316

**

.005 101

.001 101

.000 101

.001 101

.000 101

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

143

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector In case of physical appearance discrimination above table is showing that Communication skills have a positive and strong significant correlation with presentation skills. Similarly communication skills show a strong, positive but insignificant correlation with grades, self confidence and responsiveness. Correlation of communication skills with interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities is weak although the correlation between these variables is positive and significant. No Correlation exists between presentation skills and grades, while the table is showing a weak and significant correlation between presentation skills and self confidence. There is a weak, positive and significant correlation between presentation skills with responsiveness and significant correlation exists between presentation skills with interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Now dealing with grades, there is positive, weak and significant correlation of grades with self confidence, responsiveness and interest in studies. Similarly no correlation is present between grades and participation in extracurricular activities. Correlation of Self confidence with responsiveness is weak but positive and significant too. Similarly correlation between self confidence and participation in extracurricular activities is weak but positive and significant. No correlation is there between self confidence & interest in studies.

144

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Correlation of responsiveness and interest in studies is strong, positive and significant, while there is weak but positive and significant correlation between responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities. It is observed that there is weak but significant and positive correlation exist between interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. 4.6 FREQUENCIES

Table 4.32
Types Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Total Frequency 79 28 12 32 37 11 101 300 Percent 26.3 9.3 4.0 10.7 12.3 3.7 33.7 100.0 Valid Percent 26.3 9.3 4.0 10.7 12.3 3.7 33.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 26.3 35.7 39.7 50.3 62.7 66.3 100.0

The above table represents number of respondents according to the types of discrimination they faced in higher education institutes. Out of 300 respondents 79 respondents were discriminated on the basis of gender which is 26.3% of total sample. 28 were faced by language biasness which comprises 9.3% of sample. Next shows that 12 respondents were discriminated due to disability which covers 4% sampled data. Religious discrimination is faced by 32 students which is 10.7% of sample data. 37 students claimed to be discriminated
145

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector on the basis of ideological discrimination which is 12.3% of total sampled data. Caste discrimination is faced by 11 students which is 3% of sample. Last 101 students notified that they were discriminated on the basis of physical appearance discrimination which shows a largest percentage by 33% from whole data. Conclusively, majority of the respondents were discriminated on the basis of physical appearance and secondly on gender basis.

CHAPTER V FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

5.1 FINDINGS In this research researcher tries to find out the existence of discrimination in higher education sector and also tries to discuss its impact on students conduct. Discriminatory areas which are covered in this research are gender, language, disability, religious, ideology, caste and physical appearance discriminations. Discriminatory practices are independent variables while students conduct is dependent variable. Students conduct is judged on the basis of communication skills, presentation

146

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector skills, grades, self confidence, and responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Reliability test shows the grades have the highest reliability. After wards Analytical Hierarchal Process was applied on overall data in which it is observed that presentation skills and communication skills and self confidence of students are adversely affected by discriminatory practices. AHP is applied to every discriminatory practice separately. First the relative weights are observed in which presentation skills; communication skills and self confidence have highest significance among all other variables. AHP of gender discrimination has rejected the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship of gender discrimination with students conduct. It is analyzed in due to gender discrimination presentation skills are crucially affected and needs to be much focused. While communication skills should be improved to have benefited in future. The significant relation between language discrimination and students conduct has been proved from AHP results. In language discrimination Presentation and communication skills needs to be concerned seriously by reducing language discrimination. Third hypothesis was to see the significant relation between disability discrimination and student conducts and researcher is successful in doing so. Disability discrimination AHP

147

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector results show that presentation skills are affected by this discrimination and self confidence if improved will lead to much better presentation skills in future. Similarly Fourth hypothesis was to observe significance between religious discrimination and students conduct and result elaborated from AHP rejected the null hypothesis. Religious discrimination AHP results show that again there is a strong impact on presentation skills of a student due to disability discrimination which needs to be overcome. Fifth hypothesis is to notify the significant relation of ideology discrimination with students conduct and results also show significance in this regard. In ideology AHP communication skills of a student seems to be disturbed due to ideological biasness. In caste discrimination, AHP results are of the view that presentation skills of students are affected and thus they should be focused more as compared to other variables. Last, in AHP of physical appearance discrimination it is observed that along with presentation skills the communication skills are also affected badly which leads to low selfesteem of a student studying in higher education institute. This proves the significance of relation between physical appearance discrimination and students conduct. Next Analysis of variance was applied on generally asked questions separately. In table 4.10 which elaborate that gender discrimination and disability biasness are the reason of being teased in the university. In table 4.11 it is observed that gender discrimination and disability discrimination are the major biasness for students being told that they cant perform well
148

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector academically than their fellows. In table 4.12 results shows that ideology and gender discrimination are the reason of being called by abusive names in higher education institutes. Ideology is main factor of being ignored in classroom as shown in table 4.13. Table 4.14 of ANOVA show that students intelligence has been belittled is due to physical appearance discrimination in higher education institutes. Further in 4.15 Analysis of variance was applied on communication skills, presentation skills, grades, self confidence, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities. Results tells that Gender and religious discrimination are major cause of disturbed communication skills of students and partially affected by ideology and physical appearance while in same table presentation skills are majorly disturbed due to physical appearance and religious discrimination on the basis of sector and a small impact is of caste and ideology discrimination. Next in same table grades of students is greatly affected by gender, language and disability discrimination and partial impact is of religious and ideology discrimination. Self confidence of students is disturbed due to gender and physical appearance discrimination and somehow affected by disability and religious discrimination. Low level of responsiveness is due to gender, physical appearance and disability discrimination and a small impact of language, ideology and religious discrimination is also noticed. Students Interest in studies is badly affected by gender and disability biasness similarly a partial impact of language; religious and physical appearance discrimination is also observed. Level of Participation of students in extracurricular activities is majorly
149

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector affected by gender and disability discrimination while a partial impact of physical appearance and religious discrimination is also observed. After wards Analysis of variance is applied on demographics i.e. education which is shown in table 4.16. Communication skills of Masters and MPhil level students are more affected due to discriminatory practices than bachelors or Phd students. Similarly presentation skills of Mphil student seem to be more affected than other students. In same table again grades of masters students are more affected by discrimination as compared to bachelor level, Mphil or Phd level students. Self confidence of Masters Students seems to have bad impact due to biasness. Dealing with responsiveness level of students, Masters and Mphil have really a vigorous impact on grades, while Phd students also complained to have low responsiveness due to discriminatory behavior. Interest in studies of Masters Students is much affected by biasness while some Mphil students also complaint to have low interest in studies due to discrimination. Participation in extracurricular activities of Phd and masters level students are badly affected due to biased behavior while Mphil students participation is partially impacted as elaborated in table 4.16. T-test is applied on gender demographics shown in table 4.17. Presentation skills, communication skills, grades and participation in extracurricular activities with high significance are much affected of male and female students by biased practices. After that Ttest is applied on type of discriminations separately in which communication and participation in extracurricular activities of students are badly affected due to gender
150

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector discrimination in table 4.18(a). Language discrimination shows an impact on communication skills, responsiveness, and interest in studies and participation in extracurricular activities of both male and female students as shown in table 4.19(a). Table 4.20(a) deals with disability discrimination which shows that again communication and participation of students have a bad impact. Religious discrimination effected the communication of students of higher education institutes shown in table 4.21(a). Ideology discrimination affects the presentation skills, grades, self confidence and responsiveness level of victimized students in table 4.22(a). Similarly in table 4.23(a) caste discrimination is the cause of low presentation skills and physical appearance discrimination affected the communication, presentation, grades and responsiveness of students as showing the results of table 4.24(a). Correlation is applied to all types of discriminations separately to see the correlation between dependent variables. It is observed that there is strong and significant existence of correlation is observed between all the variables. Especially communication skills are strongly correlated with presentation skills and participation in extracurricular activities. Similarly presentation skills show significant correlation with grades, self confidence and interest in studies. Further a strong, significant correlation is noticed between self confidence and interest in studies, while strong existence of correlation between responsiveness and participation in extracurricular activities is also observed.

151

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Next frequencies were sort out from SPSS 16 showing ratio of discrimination faced according to sampled data in table 4.32. Table 4.32 shows that Students faced Physical appearance and gender discrimination the most in higher education institutes.

5.2 DISCUSSION Findings elaborate that Students conduct is very much affected by gender and physical appearance disparities. Communication skills, presentation skills and self confidence and
152

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector participation in extracurricular activities are more affected than grades, responsiveness and interest in studies. Students feel reluctant in answering the queries while presenting, there tone and pitch gets shivered while giving any presentation in classroom. Taking into account the communication skills, students feel hesitant in communicating with their other fellows and their voice becomes low while communicating with their classmates. In self confidence a student is reluctant in discussing his/her concerns openly with their fellows, he/she feels him/herself worthless most of the time. Due to lows self esteem student stay away in participating in any fun activity, get-togethers or any extracurricular activity. All these factors are affected by gender and physical discrimination the most. All these factors have a partial impact of ideology, religious and disability discriminations too. Discussing about comparatively less affected factors like grades, responsiveness, interest in studies although these factor seems to be less affected but these factor may get disturbed in future if the communication skills, presentation skills and self confidence and participation factor are not improved on alarming basis.

CHAPTER VI
153

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION Pakistan has rich cultural values comprises with different colors of traditions, customs etc. This mixture makes a beautiful amalgamation of languages, religions, castes, ideology but besides all of this has created some problems too. One of the most prominent problems is discrimination which is biased behavior towards anything. Pakistans higher education sector has various kinds of discriminations prevailing in it. From findings it is concluded that researcher has been successful in rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between discriminatory practices and students conduct. Students conduct has shown quite significant relationship with discriminatory practices prevailing in higher educational institutes. Discriminatory practices are common in higher education institutes of Pakistan and higher inculcation institutes are required to focus on reduction of biased behaviors to improve the students conduct. The purpose of the study reported in this paper was to find out the existence of discriminatory practices and to examine the impact of these discriminations on students conduct in higher education sector. Results show the existence of discriminatory practices like gender, language, disability, religion, caste, ideology and physical appearance disparity. Some analyses are applied to draw significant results from the data collected. Analyses
154

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector includes croncbach alpha to check the reliability of data, second AHP is applied to prioritize the factors from which critical factors are highlighted. Next Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is applied to observe the affects of discriminatory practices on different students conduct and last T-test on gender demographics is applies to notify the significant variables. Gender, disability, ideology and physical appearance are the most common discriminatory practices by which students communication skills, presentation skills, grades, self confidence, responsiveness, interest in studies and participation extracurricular activities have drastic affects, while language, religion and caste discrimination had partial impact on conduct of students. Especially communication skills and presentation skills are seriously affected due to these discussed discriminatory practices. Variables on which the students conduct is analyzed are crucial for any student studying higher education institutes. Absence of any of these variables like communication skills, presentation skills, responsiveness etc will lead to low academic performance which creates a steaming image of respective institute among all other higher education institutions. Therefore, concluded that discriminatory practices specially gender, disability, physical appearance and ideological discrimination should be concerned seriously by higher education institutes to overcome the disturbed student conduct. Particularly presentation skills and communication skills should be focus for improvement because without good presentation and communication a student cannot excel in his/her practical life. 6.2 LIMITATIONS
155

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector The study will show results of only three cities of Pakistan i.e. Lahore, Multan, Islamabad. High transportation cost did not allow the researcher to explore her research in whole province or country. Short span of time did not allow the researcher to explore the study in different sectors. The study has focused only one category or respondents i.e. student. Only one sector has taken into consideration i.e. higher education sector. Results are not applicable nationwide. Human error is inherent and thus cannot be ignored.

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that higher education institutes should focus on their policies to have some strict rules regarding reduction of discriminatory practices. Study should be explored nationwide with larger sample size to have more authentic results. It would be preferred that research should be done at international level too by doing comparative analysis to have bigger scope of facts and figures. A need of vast literature about higher education sector. More discriminatory practices should be explored to have a more lucid image of discrimination and biasness.
156

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 6.4 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: Research can be applied in exploring the discriminatory practices in different sectors in future. The study can prove to be an initial step to start up a research on sensitive issue related to human rights.

REFRENCES
157

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 1. Abbas, S. 1998 Sociopolitical Dimensions in Language: English in Context in Pakistan. Journal of Applied Language Studies, Vol.23, No. 42. 2. Alladin, I. 1995.Racism in Canadian Schools. Harcourt Brace and Company. Toronto. p. 23. 3. Anne, L. & Yahuda, B. (1998), The MBA as a bridge over the troubled waters of discrimination, Women in Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 95104. 4. Amnesty International. 1995. Women in Pakistan. Disadvantaged & Denied their Rights, USA. 5. Antonak, R.F. (1980) Psychometric analysis of the Attitudes towards Disabled Persons Scale, Form-O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, Vol. 23, pp. 169-17 6. Antonak, R.F. (1981) Prediction of attitudes towards disabled persons: a multivariate analysis. Journal General Psychology 789-884 7. Antonak, R.F. (1988) Methods to measure attitudes toward people who are disabled In H.E. Yuker (Ed.) Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (p 109-126) New York: Springer Publishing Company. 8. Antonak, R.F., Livneh, H. (2000) Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, pp. 211-224 9. Arnold, F.A. and M. Lee. (1991), Educating For a change. Toronto: Marshal Company. 10. Bain, O., & Cummings, W. (2000). Academe's glass ceiling: Societal, professional organizational and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women. Comparative Education Review, Vol.44, No.4, pp. 493509
158

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 11. Barwell, R. (2006), Linguistic discrimination and mathematics education Research. (Unpublished Thesis). University of Bristol, UK 12. Beecham, L. (1995), BMA will consider investigating racism in NHS, British Medical, Vol. 310 NO. 6971, pp. 310-64. 13. Bell, M.P., Mclaughin, M.E. and Sequeria, J.M. (2002), Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: women executives as change agents Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.37 No. 1, pp. 65-76. 14. Best, J. and Khan, J. (1989), Research in Education, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prentice Hall. 15. Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000) Quality assessment and institutional change: Experiences from 14 countries, Higher Education, Vol. 40 16. Brostrand, H.L. (2006) Tilting at Windmills: Changing Attitudes towards People with Disabilities Journal of Rehabilitation 72 (1), p 4 9 17. Boyer, E., Altbach, PG. and Whitelaw, MJ. (1994), The Academic Profession: An international Perspective. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 18. Brewis, D.N. (2010), Performing Professional: University Student Perceptions of

Gender Discrimination in their Future Careers. (Unpublished Thesis). University of Birmingham. 19. Butt, I.H. (2009). Revisiting Student Politics In Pakistan. Bargad Publications.

159

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 20. Chase, M. (2007), Gender Discrimination, Higher Education, And The Seventh Circuit: Balancing Academic Freedom With Protections Under Title Vii, Case Note: Farrell Vs. Butler University, Wisconsin Womens Law Journal, Vol. 22:153. 21. Cassell, C and Symon, G (Eds) (1994) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, London, Sage 22. Cavico,F.J., Muffler, S.C. and Mujtaba,B.G., (2012), Appearance discrimination, lookism and lookphobia in the workplace, The Journal of Applied Business Research, Volume 28, Number 5. 23. Collier, V.P. & Thomas, W.P. (2004), The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All, NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2:1 24. Corbett, W.R. (2007), the ugly truth about appearance discrimination and The beauty of our employment discrimination law, Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy, Volume 14:153. 25. Creswell, J. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, (Calif), Sage. 26. Cunninghum, I. and James, P. (1998), The disability discrimination act: The early response of employers, Industrial relation Journal, Vol.29, pp.304-15. 27. Delamont, S. (1992) Fieldwork in Educational Settings: Methods, Pitfalls and

Perspectives, London, Falmer. 28. Chima, M. & Warton, W. 2007. African Americans and the work place: Overview of Persistent Discrimination.

160

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 29. Cunningham, I. and James, P. (1998), The disability Discrimination Act- an early response of employers, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95-115. 30. Edwards, J. (1994) Multilingualism, London, Penguin (Routledge). 31. Esiobu, Gladys.O. (2011) Achieving gender equity in science class: Shift from competition to cooperative learning, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 244-257. 32. Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest. New York, NY: Anchor Books

33. Farooq, R.A. Tabassum, R. and Gujjar, A.A. (2011), Equity in Higher Education Institutions in Punjab (Pakistan), International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation, Vol. 18. 34. Farooq, R. A. (1996) Education System in Pakistan: Issues and Problems. London: Minerva Press. 35. Fox, J. (2000),Religious causes of Discrimination against ethno-religious minorities, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 44 No.3, pp 423-50. 36. Garnett, R. and Clay, J.M. (2010), "Workplace religious discrimination", Caesars Hospitality Research Summit. Paper 8 37. Gibelman, M., (2000), The Nonprofit Sector And Gender Discrimination: A Preliminary Investigation Into The Glass Ceiling, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 10, No. 3.

161

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 38. Govt. of Pakistan (1998), National Education Policy, 1998-2010. Islamabad. Ministry of Education. 39. Govt. of Pakistan. 1999. Economic Survey. Finance Division, p. 38. 40. Haque, A. R. 1993 The position and status of English in Pakistan. In Baumgardner (ed.) The English Language in Pakistan. (pp. 13-18). Oxford: Oxford University Press 41. Henry, E.G. and Jennings, J.P. (2004), Age discrimination in Layoffs: factors of injustice, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 217-74. 42. Hughes, M. and Thomas, M.E. (1998), The continuing significance of race revisited: a study of race, class and quality of life in America from 1972 to 1996, American sociological Review, Vol.63, pp785-95. 43. Human Rights Watch (2001), Caste Discrimination: A Global Concern, Vol. 13, No. 3(G). 44. Hurst, R. and Albert, B. 2006: The Social Model of Disability: human rights and development cooperation. In B. Albert (ed.), In or Out of the Mainstream? Lessons from research on disability and development cooperation, Leeds: The Disability Press, 24- 39. 45. Iqbal, M. 1986. Misali Ustad Sadar Mualeen Aur Mualmeen Ki Nazar Main (Unpublished Master Thesis). Institute of Education and Research, Lahore. P.69. 46. Isani, U. A. G. and M. L. Virk, 2003. Higher Education in Pakistan. A Historical and Futeristic Perspective. National Book Foundation, Islamabad. p.132. 47. Jacklin, A., Robinson., OMeara, L. and Harris, A. (2007), Improving the experiences of disabled students in higher education, The Higher Education Academy.

162

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 48. KAVKA, M. 2002. Feminism, Ethics, and History, or What Is the "Post" in Post feminism? Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, 21, 29-44. 49. Jeffes, S. (1998). Appearance is Everything. Pittsburgh, PA: Sterling House. 50. Kuran, T. and McCaffery, Edward J. (2001), Sex Differences in the Acceptability of Discrimination, Academic journal article from Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2. 51. Kasimoglu, M., and Halici, A., (2002), Discrimination Areas in higher education institutes in Turkey and scale of Development study, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 333-338. 52. Khurshid, N.K. (2009). Language Education In Pakistan: A Postcolonial Analysis (Unpublished Thesis). The University Of New Brunswick. 53. Lee, Jenny. J. & Rice, C. (2007), Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination, Higher Education, Vol. 53, pp.381409 54. Lewis, D. (1999), Workplace bullying-interim findings of a study in further and higher education in Wales, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20 No. 1/2, pp. 106-118. 55. Lippi-Green, R. 2001 English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States, California Linguistic Notes, Volume XXVI No. 1 p. xvii, 286. 56. Maqbool, S. (2009), A study on the equity of higher education in punjab in context of equal opportunities in higher education, Contemporary Issues In Education Research, Volume 2, No.2. 57. Mansoor, S. (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A sociolinguistic study. Lahore: Vanguard.
163

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 58. Mason, J. (1994) Linking qualitative and quantitative data analysis, Qualitative Data, London, Routledge, pp 89-110 59. Memon, G.R. (2007), Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and The New Challenges, Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.47-55. 60. Middlemis, S. and Downie, M. (2009), Recent changes in the evidential requirements in indirect sex and race discrimination cases, International Journal of Law and management, Vol.51 No. 6, pp. 637-73. 61. Morrison, Z., Bourke, M. & Kelly, C. (2005), Stop Making It Such A Big Issue': Perceptions And Experiences Of Gender Inequality By Undergraduates At A British University. Women's Studies International Forum, Vol.28, pp.150-162. 62. Neitz, M. J. (19850), Resistances To Feminist Analysis. American Sociological Association Teaching Sociology, Vol.12, pp.339-353. 63. Neuman, W., (1994) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Boston, Allyn and Bacon. 64. Paulston, C. B. (1999) Multilingualism, in Spolsky, B. (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics, pp. 60-63. 65. Ozcan, K., Ozkara, B. and Kizilag, D. (2011), Discrimination in health care industry: a research on public hospitals, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 22-40. 66. Pasha, A. (1995), political economy of higher education: a study of Pakistan, Pakistan Economic and Social Review, Volume XXXIII Nos. l&2, pp 19-36
164

Analysing

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 67. Pratten, J. and Lovat, C. (2003), Sex discrimination in the licensed trade: a study of the differing attitudes to legal matters, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 379-85. 68. Rabl, T. (2010), Age, discrimination, and achievement motives: A study of German employees, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 448-467. 69. Rahman, T. (2002). Language, Ideology and Power: Language Learning Among Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Karachi: Oxford University Press. 70. Jackson, R., McAfee, J. and Cockram, J. (1999). Disability Discrimination In Education Discussion Paper, Centre for Disability Research and Development, Edith Cowan University. 71. Rachel, L. (2009), How to Deal with Discrimination. New york. The Rosen Publishing Group. 72. Rees, R. (1991), Women Discrimination at Higher Education. New York. Pergamon Press. 73. Reguri, R.R. and Lako, J.F. (2012), Workplace Diversity, Discrimination and Harassment of Expatriate Academics in the South Pacific Higher Education. 74. Regmi, K. Naidoo, J. and Regmi, S. (2009), Understanding the effect of discrimination in the workplace: A case study amongst Nepalese immigrants in the UK, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 398-414.

165

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 75. Sandico, C.V. and Kleiner, B.H. (1999), New development concerning gender discrimination in the workplace, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 18 Nos 2-4, pp. 33-6. 76. Sanyal, B. C. 1988. Higher Education and the New International Order. Frances Printers, London.p.312. 77. Sargeant, M. (2009), Age discrimination, sexual orientation and gender identity: UK/US perspectives, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 28 No. 8, 2009, pp. 634-645. 78. Secada, G. (1989) Educational Equity versus Equality of Education. New York: Palmer Printers. 79. Shearer, A. (1981) Disability Whose Handicap? 80. Stanley, L (Ed) (1990) Feminist Praxis, London, Routledge 81. Talati, J. J. (1998) Higher Education: A Pathway to Development. Karachi: Oxford University Press. 82. TALBOT, M. 2010. Women in charge: dealing with the double-bind. In: TALBOT, M. (ed.) Language & Gender 2nd Edition. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press. 83. Terry, G and T. B. Thomas (1997) International Dictionary of Education. London: Kogan Page. 84. Terry, G and T. B. Thomas (1997) International Dictionary of Education. London: Kogan Page. 85. UNDP (2001) Human Development Report 2001. Oxford University Press, New York. p. 26. 86. UNDP (2003) Human Development Report 2003. Oxford University Press, New York.
166

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 87. Weigand, K. Johnson, D.C. Dawson, B. and Ward, M. (2008), The effects of sensitive symbols on class project selection decisions, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 355-371

167

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

TABLES

Table 4.10 I have been teased in the university

(I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Gender language disability religious ideology caste physical appearance Language gender disability religious ideology caste physical appearance Disability Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Religious Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Mean Difference (I-J) 1.23373* -.29008 .97033 1.47793 1.30840 .70084 -1.23373 -1.52381
* * * *

Std. Error .26561 .37416 .25305 .24058 .38864 .18138 .26561 .41668 .31251 .30249 .42973 .25792 .37416 .41668 .40879 .40118 .50410 .36874 .25305 .31251 .40879 .29153 .42209 .24498

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.7565 .4463 1.4684 1.9514 2.0733 1.0578 -.7110 -.7038 .3516 .8395 .9204 -.0253 1.0265 2.3439 2.0650 2.5576 2.5906 1.7166 -.4723 .8784 -.4559 1.0814 1.1688 .2126 168

.000 .439 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .400 .420 .862 .040 .439 .000 .002 .000 .002 .008 .000 .400 .002 .083 .424 .272

.7110 -1.0265 .4723 1.0045 .5435 .3439 -1.7565 -2.3439 -.8784 -.3511 -.7711 -1.0405 -.4463 .7038 .4559 .9784 .6064 .2652 -1.4684 -.3516 -2.0650 -.0662 -.4926 -.7516

* *

-.26339 .24421 .07468 -.53289

*

.29008 1.52381 1.26042 1.76802 1.59848 .99092 -.97033 -1.26042

* * * * *

.26339
*

.50760 .33807 -.26949

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Ideology Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Caste Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste -1.47793* -.24421 -1.76802
*

.24058 .30249 .40118 .29153 .41473 .23207 .38864 .42973 .50410 .42209 .41473 .38343 .18138 .25792 .36874 .24498 .23207 .38343

.000 .420 .000 .083 .683 .001 .001 .862 .002 .424 .683 .114 .000 .040 .008 .272 .001 .114

-1.9514 -.8395 -2.5576 -1.0814 -.9858 -1.2338 -2.0733 -.9204 -2.5906 -1.1688 -.6467 -1.3622 -1.0578 .0253 -1.7166 -.2126 .3204 -.1471

-1.0045 .3511 -.9784 .0662 .6467 -.3204 -.5435 .7711 -.6064 .4926 .9858 .1471 -.3439 1.0405 -.2652 .7516 1.2338 1.3622

-.50760 -.16953 -.77709 -1.30840 -1.59848

* *

-.07468
*

-.33807 .16953 -.60756 -.70084 -.99092

* *

.53289

.26949 .77709
*

.60756

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4.11
I have been told that I am unable to academically perform at the same level as my peers
(I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Mean Difference (I-J) .84720* .04958 .66416* .57886* .99655* .67252* -.84720* -.79762* Std. Error .21776 .30676 .20747 .19724 .31864 .14871 .21776 .34162 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound .4186 1.2758 -.5542 .6533 .2558 1.0725 .1907 .9670 .3694 1.6237 .3798 .9652 -1.2758 -1.4700 -.4186 -.1253 169

.000 .872 .002 .004 .002 .000 .000 .020

Language

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Religious -.18304 Ideology -.26834 Caste .14935 physical -.17468 appearance Disability Gender -.04958 Language .79762* Religious .61458 Ideology .52928 Caste .94697* physical .62294* appearance Religious Gender -.66416* Language .18304 Disability -.61458 Ideology -.08530 Caste .33239 physical .00835 appearance Ideology Gender -.57886* Language .26834 Disability -.52928 Religious .08530 Caste .41769 physical .09366 appearance Caste Gender -.99655* Language -.14935 Disability -.94697* Religious -.33239 Ideology -.41769 physical -.32403 appearance physical Gender -.67252* appearance Language .17468 Disability -.62294* Religious -.00835 Ideology -.09366 Caste .32403 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .25622 .24800 .35232 .21147 .30676 .34162 .33515 .32892 .41330 .30232 .20747 .25622 .33515 .23902 .34606 .20085 .19724 .24800 .32892 .23902 .34002 .19027 .31864 .35232 .41330 .34606 .34002 .31437 .14871 .21147 .30232 .20085 .19027 .31437 .476 .280 .672 .409 .872 .020 .068 .109 .023 .040 .002 .476 .068 .721 .338 .967 .004 .280 .109 .721 .220 .623 .002 .672 .023 .338 .220 .304 .000 .409 .040 .967 .623 .304 -.6873 -.7564 -.5441 -.5909 -.6533 .1253 -.0450 -.1181 .1336 .0279 -1.0725 -.3212 -1.2742 -.5557 -.3487 -.3869 -.9670 -.2198 -1.1766 -.3851 -.2515 -.2808 -1.6237 -.8428 -1.7604 -1.0135 -1.0869 -.9427 -.9652 -.2415 -1.2179 -.4036 -.4681 -.2947 .3212 .2198 .8428 .2415 .5542 1.4700 1.2742 1.1766 1.7604 1.2179 -.2558 .6873 .0450 .3851 1.0135 .4036 -.1907 .7564 .1181 .5557 1.0869 .4681 -.3694 .5441 -.1336 .3487 .2515 .2947 -.3798 .5909 -.0279 .3869 .2808 .9427

170

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.12 I have experienced being called with abusive names

(I) Type of Discrimination Gender (J) Type of Discrimination language disability religious ideology caste physical appearance Language gender disability religious ideology caste physical appearance Disability gender language religious ideology caste physical appearance Religious Gender Language Disability Mean Difference (I-J) .33499 .31118 .22785 -1.20458
* * *

Std. Error .21524 .30321 .20507 .19496 .31495 .14699 .21524 .33767 .25325 .24514 .34825 .20902 .30321 .33767 .33128 .32512 .40852 .29883 .20507 .25325 .33128

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.0886 -.2856 -.1758 -1.5883 .0625 .0673 -.7586 -.6884 -.6056 -2.0220 -.3380 -.3898 -.9079 -.6408 -.7353 -2.1556 -.4328 -.5427 -.6314 -.3913 -.5687 .7586 .9079 .6314 -.8209 1.3022 .6459 .0886 .6408 .3913 -1.0571 1.0328 .4329 .2856 .6884 .5687 -.8759 1.1752 .6335 .1758 .6056 .7353 171

.121 .306 .267 .000 .031 .016 .121 .944 .673 .000 .319 .918 .306 .944 .802 .000 .364 .879 .267 .673 .802

.68239 .35656

-.33499 -.02381 -.10714 -1.53958

*

.34740 .02157 -.31118 .02381 -.08333 -1.51577

*

.37121 .04538 -.22785 .10714 .08333

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Ideology Caste physical appearance Ideology Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Caste Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste -1.43243* .45455 .12871 1.20458* 1.53958 1.51577 1.43243 1.88698 1.56115
* * * * *

.23626 .34205 .19853 .19496 .24514 .32512 .23626 .33609 .18807 .31495 .34825 .40852 .34205 .33609 .31073 .14699 .20902 .29883 .19853 .18807 .31073

.000 .185 .517 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .031 .319 .364 .185 .000 .295 .016 .918 .879 .517 .000 .295

-1.8974 -.2186 -.2620 .8209 1.0571 .8759 .9675 1.2255 1.1910 -1.3022 -1.0328 -1.1752 -1.1277 -2.5484 -.9374 -.6459 -.4329 -.6335 -.5194 -1.9313 -.2857

-.9675 1.1277 .5194 1.5883 2.0220 2.1556 1.8974 2.5484 1.9313 -.0625 .3380 .4328 .2186 -1.2255 .2857 -.0673 .3898 .5427 .2620 -1.1910 .9374

-.68239* -.34740 -.37121 -.45455 -1.88698

*

-.32583 -.35656* -.02157 -.04538 -.12871 -1.56115

*

.32583

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4.13 I have experienced being ignored in classroom

(I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound 172

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender .00497 .18354 .43354 -.93808* 1.13809* -.11844 -.00497 .17857 .42857 -.94305* 1.13312* -.12341 -.18354 -.17857 .25000 -1.12162* .95455 -.30198 -.43354 -.42857 -.25000 -1.37162* .70455 -.55198* .93808* .94305* 1.12162* 1.37162* 2.07617* .81964* -1.13809* .29849 .42048 .28438 .27036 .43676 .20384 .29849 .46826 .35120 .33994 .48293 .28986 .42048 .46826 .45940 .45085 .56651 .41440 .28438 .35120 .45940 .32763 .47434 .27531 .27036 .33994 .45085 .32763 .46607 .26080 .43676 .987 .663 .128 .001 .010 .562 .987 .703 .223 .006 .020 .671 .663 .703 .587 .013 .093 .467 .128 .223 .587 .000 .139 .046 .001 .006 .013 .000 .000 .002 .010 -.5825 -.6440 -.1261 -1.4702 .2785 -.5196 -.5924 -.7430 -.2626 -1.6121 .1827 -.6939 -1.0111 -1.1002 -.6541 -2.0089 -.1604 -1.1176 -.9932 -1.1198 -1.1541 -2.0164 -.2290 -1.0938 .4060 .2740 .2343 .7268 1.1589 .3064 -1.9977 .5924 1.0111 .9932 -.4060 1.9977 .2827 .5825 1.1002 1.1198 -.2740 2.0836 .4471 .6440 .7430 1.1541 -.2343 2.0695 .5136 .1261 .2626 .6541 -.7268 1.6381 -.0101 1.4702 1.6121 2.0089 2.0164 2.9934 1.3329 -.2785 173

Language

Disability

Religious

Ideology

Caste

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language -1.13312* Disability -.95455 Religious -.70455 Ideology -2.07617* physical -1.25653* appearance physical Gender .11844 appearance Language .12341 Disability .30198 Religious .55198* Ideology -.81964* Caste 1.25653* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .48293 .56651 .47434 .46607 .43090 .20384 .28986 .41440 .27531 .26080 .43090 .020 .093 .139 .000 .004 .562 .671 .467 .046 .002 .004 -2.0836 -2.0695 -1.6381 -2.9934 -2.1046 -.2827 -.4471 -.5136 .0101 -1.3329 .4085 -.1827 .1604 .2290 -1.1589 -.4085 .5196 .6939 1.1176 1.0938 -.3064 2.1046

Table 4.14 My intelligence has been belittled

(I) Type of Discrimination Gender (J) Type of Discrimination Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Language Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Disability Gender Mean Difference (I-J) .20570 .28903 .45570 -.11187 .54661 -.24727 -.20570 .08333 .25000 -.31757 .34091 -.45297 -.28903 Std. Error .25749 .36272 .24532 .23322 .37676 .17584 .25749 .40394 .30296 .29325 .41660 .25004 .36272 Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.3011 -.4248 -.0271 -.5709 -.1949 -.5933 -.7125 -.7117 -.3462 -.8947 -.4790 -.9451 -1.0029 .7125 1.0029 .9385 .3471 1.2881 .0988 .3011 .8783 .8462 .2596 1.1608 .0391 .4248 174

.425 .426 .064 .632 .148 .161 .425 .837 .410 .280 .414 .071 .426

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Religious Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Ideology Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Caste Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance physical appearence Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste -.08333 .16667 -.40090 .25758 -.53630 -.45570 -.25000 -.16667 -.56757 -.70297
*

.40394 .39630 .38892 .48869 .35748 .24532 .30296 .39630 .28262 .40919 .23749 .23322 .29325 .38892 .28262 .40205 .22498 .37676 .41660 .48869 .40919 .40205 .37172 .17584 .25004 .35748 .23749 .22498 .37172

.837 .674 .303 .599 .135 .064 .410 .674 .046 .824 .003 .632 .280 .303 .046 .103 .548 .148 .414 .599 .824 .103 .034 .161 .071 .135 .003 .548 .034

-.8783 -.6133 -1.1663 -.7042 -1.2398 -.9385 -.8462 -.9466 -1.1238 -.7144 -1.1704 -.3471 -.2596 -.3645 .0113 -.1328 -.5782 -1.2881 -1.1608 -1.2194 -.8962 -1.4498 -1.5254 -.0988 -.0391 -.1672 .2356 -.3074 .0623

.7117 .9466 .3645 1.2194 .1672 .0271 .3462 .6133 -.0113 .8962 -.2356 .5709 .8947 1.1663 1.1238 1.4498 .3074 .1949 .4790 .7042 .7144 .1328 -.0623 .5933 .9451 1.2398 1.1704 .5782 1.5254 175

.09091
*

.11187 .31757 .40090 .56757

*

.65848 -.13540 -.54661 -.34091 -.25758 -.09091 -.65848 -.79388

*

.24727 .45297 .53630 .70297 .79388

*

.13540
*

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

176

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.15
LSD Dependent Variable (I) Type of (J) Type of Discrimination Discrimination Mean Difference (I-J) .40056* .15891 -.30808 .44905* .91386* .12114 -.40056* -.24165 -.70863* .04850 .51330 -.27942 -.15891 .24165 -.46699 .29014 .75495* -.03777 .30808 .70863* .46699 .75713* 1.22194* .42922* -.44905* -.04850 -.29014 -.75713* .46481 -.32792* -.91386* Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound .0276 .7735 -.3665 .6843 -.6634 .0472 .1112 .7869 .3681 1.4596 -.1336 .3758 -.7735 -.8267 -1.1474 -.3763 -.0901 -.6416 -.6843 -.3434 -1.0410 -.2732 .0471 -.5556 -.0472 .2698 -.1070 .3478 .6293 .0852 -.7869 -.4732 -.8535 -1.1665 -.1175 -.6538 -1.4596 -.0276 .3434 -.2698 .4732 1.1167 .0828 .3665 .8267 .1070 .8535 1.4628 .4800 .6634 1.1474 1.0410 1.1665 1.8146 .7732 -.1112 .3763 .2732 -.3478 1.0471 -.0021 -.3681 177

communication

Gender

Language

Disability

Religious

Ideology

Caste

Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender

.18950 .26695 .18054 .17164 .27728 .12941 .18950 .29728 .22296 .21582 .30660 .18402 .26695 .29728 .29166 .28623 .35966 .26309 .18054 .22296 .29166 .20800 .30114 .17478 .17164 .21582 .28623 .20800 .29589 .16557 .27728

.035 .552 .089 .009 .001 .350 .035 .417 .002 .822 .095 .130 .552 .417 .110 .312 .037 .886 .089 .002 .110 .000 .000 .015 .009 .822 .312 .000 .117 .049 .001

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender -.51330 -.75495* -1.22194* -.46481 -.79272* -.12114 .27942 .03777 -.42922* .32792* .79272* .26020 -.33418 -.34168 .10953 -.22882 -.35804* -.26020 -.59439* -.60189* -.15068 -.48902 -.61825* .33418 .59439* -.00750 .44371 .10536 -.02386 .34168 .60189* .00750 .45121* .11286 -.01636 -.10953 .30660 .35966 .30114 .29589 .27357 .12941 .18402 .26309 .17478 .16557 .27357 .18815 .26505 .17926 .17042 .27531 .12849 .18815 .29517 .22137 .21428 .30441 .18271 .26505 .29517 .28958 .28419 .35709 .26121 .17926 .22137 .28958 .20652 .29900 .17354 .17042 .095 .037 .000 .117 .004 .350 .130 .886 .015 .049 .004 .168 .208 .058 .521 .407 .006 .168 .045 .007 .483 .109 .001 .208 .045 .979 .120 .768 .927 .058 .007 .979 .030 .706 .925 .521 -1.1167 -1.4628 -1.8146 -1.0471 -1.3311 -.3758 -.0828 -.4800 -.7732 .0021 .2543 -.1101 -.8558 -.6945 -.2259 -.7707 -.6109 -.6305 -1.1753 -1.0376 -.5724 -1.0881 -.9778 -.1875 .0135 -.5774 -.1156 -.5974 -.5379 -.0111 .1662 -.5624 .0448 -.4756 -.3579 -.4449 .0901 -.0471 -.6293 .1175 -.2543 .1336 .6416 .5556 -.0852 .6538 1.3311 .6305 .1875 .0111 .4449 .3130 -.1052 .1101 -.0135 -.1662 .2710 .1101 -.2587 .8558 1.1753 .5624 1.0030 .8082 .4902 .6945 1.0376 .5774 .8577 .7013 .3252 .2259 178

physical appearance

GW_ Presentation skills

Gender

Language

Disability

Religious

Ideology

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender .15068 -.44371 -.45121* -.33835 -.46757* .22882 .48902 -.10536 -.11286 .33835 -.12922 .35804* .61825* .02386 .01636 .46757* .12922 .11100 -.17485 .71131* .42027* 1.23581* .49498* -.11100 -.28585 .60031* .30928 1.12481* .38398 .17485 .28585 .88616* .59512 1.41066* .66983* -.71131* .21428 .28419 .20652 .29378 .16439 .27531 .30441 .35709 .29900 .29378 .27162 .12849 .18271 .26121 .17354 .16439 .27162 .22777 .32086 .21701 .20631 .33329 .15555 .22777 .35733 .26799 .25941 .36852 .22119 .32086 .35733 .35056 .34404 .43230 .31622 .21701 .483 .120 .030 .250 .005 .407 .109 .768 .706 .250 .635 .006 .001 .927 .925 .005 .635 .626 .586 .001 .043 .000 .002 .626 .424 .026 .234 .002 .084 .586 .424 .012 .085 .001 .035 .001 -.2710 -1.0030 -.8577 -.9165 -.7911 -.3130 -.1101 -.8082 -.7013 -.2398 -.6638 .1052 .2587 -.4902 -.3252 .1440 -.4053 -.3373 -.8063 .2842 .0142 .5799 .1888 -.5593 -.9891 .0729 -.2013 .3995 -.0513 -.4566 -.4174 .1962 -.0820 .5599 .0475 -1.1384 .5724 .1156 -.0448 .2398 -.1440 .7707 1.0881 .5974 .4756 .9165 .4053 .6109 .9778 .5379 .3579 .7911 .6638 .5593 .4566 1.1384 .8263 1.8917 .8011 .3373 .4174 1.1277 .8198 1.8501 .8193 .8063 .9891 1.5761 1.2722 2.2615 1.2922 -.2842 179

Caste

physical appearance

GW_ grades

Gender

Language

Disability

Religious

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender -.60031* -.88616* -.29103 .52450 -.21633 -.42027* -.30928 -.59512 .29103 .81554* .07470 -1.23581* -1.12481* -1.41066* -.52450 -.81554* -.74083* -.49498* -.38398 -.66983* .21633 -.07470 .74083* .17893 -.05740 -.02507 .40666* .55776* -.22173* -.17893 -.23632 -.20400 .22773 .37883 -.40065* .05740 .26799 .35056 .25001 .36197 .21008 .20631 .25941 .34404 .25001 .35565 .19901 .33329 .36852 .43230 .36197 .35565 .32882 .15555 .22119 .31622 .21008 .19901 .32882 .15383 .21670 .14656 .13933 .22509 .10505 .15383 .24132 .18099 .17519 .24888 .14938 .21670 .026 .012 .245 .148 .304 .043 .234 .085 .245 .023 .708 .000 .002 .001 .148 .023 .025 .002 .084 .035 .304 .708 .025 .246 .791 .864 .004 .014 .036 .246 .328 .261 .195 .129 .008 .791 -1.1277 -1.5761 -.7831 -.1879 -.6298 -.8263 -.8198 -1.2722 -.2010 .1156 -.3170 -1.8917 -1.8501 -2.2615 -1.2369 -1.5155 -1.3880 -.8011 -.8193 -1.2922 -.1971 -.4664 .0937 -.1238 -.4839 -.3135 .1324 .1148 -.4285 -.4817 -.7113 -.5602 -.1171 -.1110 -.6946 -.3691 -.0729 -.1962 .2010 1.2369 .1971 -.0142 .2013 .0820 .7831 1.5155 .4664 -.5799 -.3995 -.5599 .1879 -.1156 -.0937 -.1888 .0513 -.0475 .6298 .3170 1.3880 .4817 .3691 .2634 .6809 1.0008 -.0150 .1238 .2386 .1522 .5725 .8687 -.1067 .4839 180

Ideology

Caste

physical appearance

GW_ self Gender confidence

Language

Disability

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender .23632 .03232 .46405* .61516* -.16433 .02507 .20400 -.03232 .43173* .58283* -.19665 -.40666* -.22773 -.46405* -.43173* .15110 -.62838* -.55776* -.37883 -.61516* -.58283* -.15110 -.77949* .22173* .40065* .16433 .19665 .62838* .77949* .26688 -.14532 .71474* .55415* 1.50166* -.04285 -.26688 .24132 .23675 .23235 .29195 .21356 .14656 .18099 .23675 .16884 .24446 .14188 .13933 .17519 .23235 .16884 .24019 .13441 .22509 .24888 .29195 .24446 .24019 .22207 .10505 .14938 .21356 .14188 .13441 .22207 .18377 .25887 .17508 .16645 .26890 .12550 .18377 .328 .892 .047 .036 .442 .864 .261 .892 .011 .018 .167 .004 .195 .047 .011 .530 .000 .014 .129 .036 .018 .530 .001 .036 .008 .442 .167 .000 .001 .147 .575 .000 .001 .000 .733 .147 -.2386 -.4336 .0068 .0406 -.5846 -.2634 -.1522 -.4983 .0994 .1017 -.4759 -.6809 -.5725 -.9213 -.7640 -.3216 -.8929 -1.0008 -.8687 -1.1898 -1.0639 -.6238 -1.2165 .0150 .1067 -.2560 -.0826 .3639 .3424 -.0948 -.6548 .3702 .2266 .9724 -.2898 -.6286 .7113 .4983 .9213 1.1898 .2560 .3135 .5602 .4336 .7640 1.0639 .0826 -.1324 .1171 -.0068 -.0994 .6238 -.3639 -.1148 .1110 -.0406 -.1017 .3216 -.3424 .4285 .6946 .5846 .4759 .8929 1.2165 .6286 .3642 1.0593 .8817 2.0309 .2041 .0948 181

Religious

Ideology

Caste

physical appearance

GW_ Responsiveness

Gender

Language

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language -.41221 .44786* .28727 1.23478* -.30974 .14532 .41221 .86007* .69948* 1.64698* .10247 -.71474* -.44786* -.86007* -.16059 .78692* -.75760* -.55415* -.28727 -.69948* .16059 .94751* -.59701* -1.50166* -1.23478* -1.64698* -.78692* -.94751* -1.54451* .04285 .30974 -.10247 .75760* .59701* 1.54451* .06317 .28829 .21622 .20929 .29732 .17845 .25887 .28829 .28284 .27757 .34878 .25513 .17508 .21622 .28284 .20171 .29204 .16950 .16645 .20929 .27757 .20171 .28694 .16057 .26890 .29732 .34878 .29204 .28694 .26529 .12550 .17845 .25513 .16950 .16057 .26529 .16068 .154 .039 .171 .000 .084 .575 .154 .003 .012 .000 .688 .000 .039 .003 .427 .007 .000 .001 .171 .012 .427 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .007 .001 .000 .733 .084 .688 .000 .000 .000 .695 -.9796 .0223 -.1246 .6496 -.6610 -.3642 -.1552 .3034 .1532 .9606 -.3996 -1.0593 -.8734 -1.4167 -.5576 .2122 -1.0912 -.8817 -.6992 -1.2458 -.2364 .3828 -.9130 -2.0309 -1.8199 -2.3334 -1.3617 -1.5122 -2.0666 -.2041 -.0415 -.6046 .4240 .2810 1.0224 -.2531 .1552 .8734 .6992 1.8199 .0415 .6548 .9796 1.4167 1.2458 2.3334 .6046 -.3702 -.0223 -.3034 .2364 1.3617 -.4240 -.2266 .1246 -.1532 .5576 1.5122 -.2810 -.9724 -.6496 -.9606 -.2122 -.3828 -1.0224 .2898 .6610 .3996 1.0912 .9130 2.0666 .3794 182

Disability

Religious

Ideology

Caste

physical appearance

GW_ Interest in Gender

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
studies Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance -.04754 -.18996 .48614* 1.29686* -.21929* -.06317 -.11071 -.25313 .42297* 1.23369* -.28246 .04754 .11071 -.14242 .53368* 1.34440* -.17175 .18996 .25313 .14242 .67610* 1.48682* -.02933 -.48614* -.42297* -.53368* -.67610* .81072* -.70543* -1.29686* -1.23369* -1.34440* -1.48682* -.81072* -1.51615* .22635 .15309 .14554 .23511 .10973 .16068 .25207 .18905 .18300 .25997 .15603 .22635 .25207 .24730 .24270 .30496 .22308 .15309 .18905 .24730 .17637 .25535 .14820 .14554 .18300 .24270 .17637 .25089 .14039 .23511 .25997 .30496 .25535 .25089 .23196 .834 .216 .001 .000 .047 .695 .661 .182 .022 .000 .071 .834 .661 .565 .029 .000 .442 .216 .182 .565 .000 .000 .843 .001 .022 .029 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 -.4930 -.4913 .1997 .8341 -.4353 -.3794 -.6068 -.6252 .0628 .7220 -.5896 -.3979 -.3854 -.6291 .0560 .7442 -.6108 -.1113 -.1189 -.3443 .3290 .9843 -.3210 -.7726 -.7831 -1.0113 -1.0232 .3169 -.9817 -1.7596 -1.7453 -1.9446 -1.9894 -1.3045 -1.9727 .3979 .1113 .7726 1.7596 -.0033 .2531 .3854 .1189 .7831 1.7453 .0246 .4930 .6068 .3443 1.0113 1.9446 .2673 .4913 .6252 .6291 1.0232 1.9894 .2623 -.1997 -.0628 -.0560 -.3290 1.3045 -.4291 -.8341 -.7220 -.7442 -.9843 -.3169 -1.0596

Language

Disability

Religious

Ideology

Caste

183

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Disability Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Religious Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Ideology Caste physical appearance Gender Language Disability Religious Caste physical appearance .21929* .28246 .17175 .02933 .70543* 1.51615* .72480* .03843 .94906* .77066* 1.28480* .41271* -.72480* -.68637* .22426 .04586 .56000 -.31209 -.03843 .68637* .91063* .73223* 1.24637* .37428 -.94906* -.22426 -.91063* -.17840 .33574 -.53635* -.77066* -.04586 -.73223* .17840 .51414 -.35795* .10973 .15603 .22308 .14820 .14039 .23196 .18809 .26496 .17920 .17037 .27522 .12845 .18809 .29507 .22131 .21421 .30432 .18265 .26496 .29507 .28949 .28410 .35698 .26113 .17920 .22131 .28949 .20645 .29891 .17348 .17037 .21421 .28410 .20645 .29369 .16434 .047 .071 .442 .843 .000 .000 .000 .885 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .021 .312 .831 .067 .089 .885 .021 .002 .010 .001 .153 .000 .312 .002 .388 .262 .002 .000 .831 .010 .388 .081 .030 .0033 -.0246 -.2673 -.2623 .4291 1.0596 .3546 -.4830 .5964 .4354 .7431 .1599 -1.0950 -1.2671 -.2113 -.3757 -.0389 -.6716 -.5599 .1056 .3409 .1731 .5438 -.1397 -1.3017 -.6598 -1.4804 -.5847 -.2525 -.8778 -1.1060 -.4675 -1.2914 -.2279 -.0639 -.6814 .4353 .5896 .6108 .3210 .9817 1.9727 1.0950 .5599 1.3017 1.1060 1.8265 .6655 -.3546 -.1056 .6598 .4675 1.1589 .0474 .4830 1.2671 1.4804 1.2914 1.9489 .8882 -.5964 .2113 -.3409 .2279 .9240 -.1949 -.4354 .3757 -.1731 .5847 1.0922 -.0345

GW_ Gender participation in extracurricular activities

Language

Disability

Religious

Ideology

184

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Gender Language Disability Religious Ideology physical appearance physical Gender appearance Language Disability Religious Ideology Caste *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Caste -1.28480* -.56000 -1.24637* -.33574 -.51414 -.87209* -.41271* .31209 -.37428 .53635* .35795* .87209* .27522 .30432 .35698 .29891 .29369 .27153 .12845 .18265 .26113 .17348 .16434 .27153 .000 .067 .001 .262 .081 .001 .001 .089 .153 .002 .030 .001 -1.8265 -1.1589 -1.9489 -.9240 -1.0922 -1.4065 -.6655 -.0474 -.8882 .1949 .0345 .3377 -.7431 .0389 -.5438 .2525 .0639 -.3377 -.1599 .6716 .1397 .8778 .6814 1.4065

Table 4.16
EDUCATION Dependent Variable (I) Education (J) Education Mean Difference (I-J) -.29578* -.57554* .22435 .29578* -.27976* .52012* .57554* .27976* .79989* -.22435 -.52012* -.79989* -.19895 -.34448* .18331 .19895 -.14553 Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.5433 -.0482 -.8186 -.3325 -.2449 .6936 .0482 .5433 -.5242 -.0353 .0501 .9901 .3325 .8186 .0353 .5242 .3322 1.2675 -.6936 .2449 -.9901 -.0501 -1.2675 -.3322 -.4488 .0508 -.5898 -.0992 -.2903 .6569 -.0508 .4488 -.3922 .1011 185

communication skills

Bachelors

Masters

Mphil

PHD

Presentation skills

Bachelors

Masters

Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Bachelors Masters Mphil Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Mphil

.12578 .12351 .23846 .12578 .12420 .23882 .12351 .12420 .23763 .23846 .23882 .23763 .12693 .12464 .24064 .12693 .12534

.019 .000 .348 .019 .025 .030 .000 .025 .001 .348 .030 .001 .118 .006 .447 .118 .247

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Bachelors Masters Mphil Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Bachelors Masters Mphil Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Bachelors Masters Mphil Masters Mphil PHD Bachelors Mphil PHD Bachelors Masters PHD Bachelors .38226 .34448* .14553 .52779* -.18331 -.38226 -.52779* -.48584* -.14832 -.50205 .48584* .33753* -.01621 .14832 -.33753* -.35374 .50205 .01621 .35374 -.23118* -.16630 -.07793 .23118* .06488 .15326 .16630 -.06488 .08838 .07793 -.15326 -.08838 -.60607* -.54041* -.72555* .60607* .06565 -.11949 .54041* -.06565 -.18514 .72555* .24100 .12464 .12534 .23980 .24064 .24100 .23980 .15513 .15233 .29410 .15513 .15318 .29454 .15233 .15318 .29307 .29410 .29454 .29307 .10649 .10457 .20189 .10649 .10515 .20220 .10457 .10515 .20119 .20189 .20220 .20119 .12772 .12542 .24214 .12772 .12611 .24250 .12542 .12611 .24129 .24214 .114 .006 .247 .029 .447 .114 .029 .002 .331 .089 .002 .028 .956 .331 .028 .228 .089 .956 .228 .031 .113 .700 .031 .538 .449 .113 .538 .661 .700 .449 .661 .000 .000 .003 .000 .603 .623 .000 .603 .444 .003 -.0920 .0992 -.1011 .0559 -.6569 -.8566 -.9997 -.7911 -.4481 -1.0808 .1806 .0361 -.5959 -.1515 -.6390 -.9305 -.0767 -.5634 -.2230 -.4408 -.3721 -.4753 .0216 -.1421 -.2447 -.0395 -.2718 -.3076 -.3194 -.5512 -.4843 -.8574 -.7872 -1.2021 .3547 -.1825 -.5967 .2936 -.3138 -.6600 .2490 .8566 .5898 .3922 .9997 .2903 .0920 -.0559 -.1806 .1515 .0767 .7911 .6390 .5634 .4481 -.0361 .2230 1.0808 .5959 .9305 -.0216 .0395 .3194 .4408 .2718 .5512 .3721 .1421 .4843 .4753 .2447 .3076 -.3547 -.2936 -.2490 .8574 .3138 .3578 .7872 .1825 .2897 1.2021 186

Mphil

PHD

grades

Bachelors

Masters

Mphil

PHD

Self confidence

Bachelors

Masters

Mphil

PHD

Responsivness

Bachelors

Masters

Mphil

PHD

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Masters .11949 Mphil .18514 Interest in Bachelors Masters -.59662* studies Mphil -.35625* PHD -.01973 Masters Bachelors .59662* Mphil .24037* PHD .57689* Mphil Bachelors .35625* Masters -.24037* PHD .33651 PHD Bachelors .01973 Masters -.57689* Mphil -.33651 participation in Bachelors Masters -.13574 extracurricular Mphil -.34018* activities PHD -.77367* Masters Bachelors .13574 Mphil -.20443 PHD -.63793* Mphil Bachelors .34018* Masters .20443 PHD -.43349 PHD Bachelors .77367* Masters .63793* Mphil .43349 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. .24250 .24129 .11168 .10966 .21173 .11168 .11027 .21204 .10966 .11027 .21099 .21173 .21204 .21099 .13288 .13049 .25193 .13288 .13121 .25230 .13049 .13121 .25105 .25193 .25230 .25105 .623 .444 .000 .001 .926 .000 .030 .007 .001 .030 .112 .926 .007 .112 .308 .010 .002 .308 .120 .012 .010 .120 .085 .002 .012 .085 -.3578 -.2897 -.8164 -.5721 -.4364 .3768 .0233 .1596 .1404 -.4574 -.0787 -.3969 -.9942 -.7517 -.3973 -.5970 -1.2695 -.1258 -.4627 -1.1345 .0834 -.0538 -.9276 .2779 .1414 -.0606 .5967 .6600 -.3768 -.1404 .3969 .8164 .4574 .9942 .5721 -.0233 .7517 .4364 -.1596 .0787 .1258 -.0834 -.2779 .3973 .0538 -.1414 .5970 .4627 .0606 1.2695 1.1345 .9276

Table 4.17 GENDER

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. 6.976 .009 t-test for Equality of Means

T -3.498

df 298

Communication Skills

Presentation Skills

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal

Sig. (2tailed) .001

Mean Difference -.35572

Std. Error Difference .10170

-3.441

262.297

.001

-.35572

.10337

15.749

.000

-1.391

298

.165

-.14133 187

.10164

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

-1.355

248.010

.177

-.14133

.10430

Grades

12.577

.000

1.635

298

.103

.20320

.12430

1.602

256.023

.110

.20320

.12688

Self confidence

.554

.457

-2.473

298

.014

-.20771

.08397

-2.461

277.211

.014

-.20771

.08441

Responsiveness

2.240

.136

-.370

298

.712

-.03909

.10578

-.363

258.495

.717

-.03909

.10780

Interest in Studies

1.310

.253

1.656

298

.099

.15288

.09230

1.636

267.587

.103

.15288

.09346

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

13.016

.000

-2.749

298

.006

-.29134

.10596

-2.675

245.395

.008

-.29134

.10892

Table 4.18 (a) Gender discrimination.

Group Statistics Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 188

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Communication Skills Male Female Presentation Skills Male Female Grades Male Female Self confidence Male Female Responsiveness Male Female Interest in Studies Male Female Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female 19 60 19 60 19 60 19 60 19 60 19 60 19 60 2.3425 3.0111 2.1040 2.6416 3.7153 3.9147 2.4517 2.1880 3.5808 3.2814 3.3725 3.4464 3.7263 3.4516 .50829 .82128 .79233 .67223 1.10479 .80368 .62785 .59028 .89456 .92051 .61106 .64079 .71462 1.00790 .11661 .10603 .18177 .08678 .25346 .10375 .14404 .07620 .20523 .11884 .14019 .08273 .16394 .13012

Table 4.18 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not 4.913 .030 t-test for Equality of Means

t. -3.343

df 77

Sig.(2tailed) .001

Mean Difference -.66861

Std. Error Difference .20000

-4.242

49.701

.000

-.66861

.15761

Presentation Skills

.205

.652

-2.909

77

.005

-.53760

.18484

-2.669

26.718

.013

-.53760

.20143 189

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Grades

1.370

.245

-.858

77

.394

-.19946

.23253

-.728

24.330

.473

-.19946

.27387

Self confidence

.003

.958

1.672

77

.099

.26375

.15776

1.619

28.798

.116

.26375

.16295

Responsiveness

.301

.585

1.244

77

.217

.29939

.24074

1.262

31.030

.216

.29939

.23715

Interest in Studies

.467

.496

-.443

77

.659

-.07394

.16689

-.454

31.552

.653

-.07394

.16278

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

5.972

.017

1.101

77

.274

.27473

.24943

1.313

42.656

.196

.27473

.20931

4.19 (A) Language Discrimination

Group Statistics Gender Communication Skills Presentation Skills Male Female Male N 24 4 24 Mean 2.6518 1.2377 2.3400 Std. Deviation .78115 .27508 .88601 Std. Error Mean .15945 .13754 .18086 190

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Female Grades Male Female Self confidence Male Female Responsiveness Male Female Interest in Studies Male Female Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female 4 24 4 24 4 24 4 24 4 24 4 1.7242 3.9217 2.7604 2.1664 1.5089 3.1993 2.4100 3.5688 2.1455 2.8667 2.3500 1.01488 1.10489 1.30370 .40971 .77438 .58200 1.62828 .69489 1.32337 .61196 1.56098 .50744 .22553 .65185 .08363 .38719 .11880 .81414 .14184 .66168 .12492 .78049

Table 4.19 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal 7.848 .009 t-test for Equality of Means

t 3.536

df 26

Sig. (2-tailed) .002

Mean Difference 1.41413

Std. Error Difference .39998

6.716

13.340

.000

1.41413

.21057

Presentation

.005

.942

1.265

26

.217

.61588

.48704 191

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Skills variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

1.143

3.803

.320

.61588

.53871

Grades

.151

.701

1.904

26

.068

1.16133

.61006

1.684

3.754

.172

1.16133

.68977

Self confidence

2.821

.105

2.609

26

.015

.65751

.25198

1.660

3.286

.188

.65751

.39612

Responsiveness

28.795

.000

1.878

26

.072

.78935

.42026

.959

3.129

.405

.78935

.82276

Interest in studies

12.256

.002

3.322

26

.003

1.42329

.42840

2.103

3.281

.118

1.42329

.67672

Participation in extracurricular activities

38.076

.000

1.222

26

.232

.51667

.42264

.654

3.155

.558

.51667

.79042

Table 4.20 (a) Disability Discrimination

Group Statistics N Mean 7 2.5466 5 2.8942

Communication Skills

Gender Male Female

Std. Deviation .62547 1.27563

Std. Error Mean .23640 .57048 192

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Presentation Skills Grades Self confidence Responsiveness Interest in Studies Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 2.8677 2.8168 3.9642 4.1501 2.1274 2.5628 3.4429 3.5770 3.3871 3.6008 3.1787 3.8999 .84037 1.06957 .57791 .22223 .52544 .45866 .30400 .31965 .32348 .30739 .17869 .66403 .31763 .47833 .21843 .09938 .19860 .20512 .11490 .14295 .12226 .13747 .06754 .29696

Table 4.20 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal 7.936 .018 T-test from equality of means

t -.631

df 10

Sig. (2tailed) .542

Mean Difference -.34755

Std. Error Difference .55103

-.563

5.386

.596

-.34755

.61752

Presentation Skills

.253

.626

.093

10

.928

.05091

.54970

.089

7.352

.932

.05091

.57418

Grades

.941

.355

-.677

10

.514

-.18588

.27473

-.775

8.213

.460

-.18588

.23998

Self confidence

.316

.586

-1.488

10

.168

-.43534

.29265 193

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

-1.525

9.468

.160

-.43534

.28551

Responsiveness

.085

.776

-.738

10

.477

-.13412

.18172

-.731

8.479

.484

-.13412

.18340

Interest in Studies

.263

.619

-1.151

10

.277

-.21371

.18570

-1.162

9.054

.275

-.21371

.18397

Participation in Extracurricular activities

11.056

.008

-2.785

10

.019

-.72120

.25892

-2.368

4.417

.071

-.72120

.30454

Table 4.21 (a) Religious Discrimination

Group Statistics N Mean 18 3.4397 14 2.7967 18 3.0592 14 2.5901 18 3.7033 14 2.4511 18 2.3214 14 2.2188 18 2.9508 14 2.2374 18 3.5881

Communication Skills Presentation Skills Grades Self confidence Responsiveness Interest in Studies

Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Std. Deviation .85829 .47297 .84773 .80738 1.16412 .73214 .90463 .41828 .70797 1.09052 .66410

Std. Error Mean .20230 .12641 .19981 .21578 .27439 .19567 .21322 .11179 .16687 .29145 .15653 194

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Female Male Female 14 18 14 3.6578 2.7149 2.3805 .69544 .82096 .95486 .18586 .19350 .25520

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

Table 4.21 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 5.239 .029 T-test for equality of means

t 2.516

df 30

Sig. (2tailed) .017

Mean Difference .64302

Std. Error Difference .25557

2.696

27.403

.012

.64302

.23855

Presentation Skills

.213

.648

1.585

30

.123

.46907

.29594

1.595

28.710

.122

.46907

.29409

Grades

2.605

.117

3.514

30

.001

1.25226

.35639

3.716

28.910

.001

1.25226

.33701

Self confidence

4.104

.052

.392

30

.698

.10262

.26175

.426

25.146

.674

.10262

.24075

Responsiveness

1.170

.288

2.239

30

.033

.71344

.31860

2.124

21.180

.046

.71344

.33584

Interest in Studies

.003

.960

-.289

30

.775

-.06973

.24155

-.287

27.429

.776

-.06973

.24300

195

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Participation in Extracurricular Activities Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .994 .327 1.065 30 .295 .33445 .31412

1.044

25.739

.306

.33445

.32026

Table 4.21 (a) Ideology Discrimination

Group Statistics Gender Communication Skills Male Female Presentation Skills Male Female Grades Male Female Self confidence Male Female Responsiveness Male Female Interest in Studies Male Female Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female N 26 11 26 11 26 11 26 11 26 11 26 11 26 11 Mean 2.4718 2.2345 2.5951 1.9480 3.8415 2.5129 1.7536 2.0603 2.9301 2.4900 3.3008 2.0956 2.8382 2.5313 Std. Deviation .76554 .77767 .40491 1.13836 .38916 1.77022 .70186 .54495 .56635 .97054 .19430 1.20499 .56921 .87125 Std. Error Mean .15013 .23448 .07941 .34323 .07632 .53374 .13765 .16431 .11107 .29263 .03810 .36332 .11163 .26269

Table 4.22 (b)

196

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. T-test for equality of means

df

Sig. (2tailed) .397

Communication Skills

Presentation Skills

Grades

Self confidence

Responsiveness

Interest in Studies

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.009

.925

.858

35

Mean Differenc e .23726

Std. Error Difference .27660

.852

18.628

.405

.23726

.27842

11.643

.002

2.577

35

.014

.64712

.25110

1.837

11.086

.093

.64712

.35229

182.855

.000

3.687

35

.001

1.32862

.36031

2.464

10.411

.033

1.32862

.53917

4.880

.034

-1.290

35

.205

-.30671

.23769

-1.431

24.195

.165

-.30671

.21435

11.102

.002

1.734

35

.092

.44013

.25388

1.406

12.981

.183

.44013

.31300

46.181

.000

5.041

35

.000

1.20517

.23908

3.299

10.221

.008

1.20517

.36531

197

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Participation in Extracurricular Activities Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 2.844 .101 1.274 35 .211 .30690 .24083

1.075

13.758

.301

.30690

.28543

Table 4.23 (a) Caste Discrimination

Group Statistics Gender Communication Skills Male Female Presentation Skills Male Female Grades Male Female Self confidence Male Female Responsiveness Male Female Interest in Studies Male Female Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female N 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 Mean 1.6087 2.5100 2.2900 3.5306 2.2767 3.2509 1.4286 2.1575 1.6651 2.1785 1.7226 2.8478 2.0068 2.6285 Std. Deviation .68060 .66187 .89387 .49015 1.50883 1.00383 .66454 .35113 .78012 .71260 .99441 .67501 1.00216 .91246 Std. Error Mean .25724 .33093 .33785 .24508 .57028 .50191 .25117 .17556 .29486 .35630 .37585 .33751 .37878 .45623

198

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.23 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not .011 .917 T-test for equality of means

t -2.132

df 9

Sig. (2tailed) .062

Mean Difference -.90133

Std. Error Difference .42271

-2.150

6.529

.071

-.90133

.41916

Presentation Skills

5.667

.041

-2.529

.032

-1.24061

.49064

-2.972

8.995

.016

-1.24061

.41738

Grades

1.828

.209

-1.142

.283

-.97411

.85335

-1.282

8.589

.233

-.97411

.75970

Self confidence

1.835

.209

-2.008

.076

-.72897

.36305

-2.379

8.999

.041

-.72897

.30645

Responsiveness

.009

.926

-1.080

.308

-.51337

.47528

-1.110

6.898

.304

-.51337

.46248

Interest in Studies

1.358

.274

-1.993

.077

-1.12524

.56449

-2.228

8.510

.055

-1.12524

.50515 199

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

.125

.732

-1.019

.335

-.62178

.60997

-1.049

6.918

.330

-.62178

.59297

4.24 (a) Physical Appearance Discrimination

Group Statistics Gender Communication Skills Male Female Presentation Skills Male Female Grades Male Female Self confidence Male Female Responsiveness Male Female Interest in Studies Male Female Participation in Extracurricular Activities Male Female N 62 39 62 39 62 39 62 39 62 39 62 39 62 39 Mean 2.4635 3.1516 2.6407 3.2353 3.4769 3.2046 2.2556 2.8190 3.2971 3.5539 3.7694 3.4549 2.9258 3.3897 Std. Deviation .77108 1.06008 .70705 1.14612 .85176 1.22736 .70839 .88289 .86624 .72271 .70393 .67446 .82520 .84224 Std. Error Mean .09793 .16975 .08980 .18353 .10817 .19654 .08997 .14138 .11001 .11573 .08940 .10800 .10480 .13487

200

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Table 4.24 (b)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Communication Skills Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 11.478 Sig. .001 t -3.770 T-test for Equality of means

df 99

Sig. (2tailed) .000

Mean Difference -.68814

Std. Error Difference .18254

-3.511

63.145

.001

-.68814

.19597

Presentation Skills

19.378

.000

-3.228

99

.002

-.59463

.18419

-2.910

56.360

.005

-.59463

.20432

Grades

21.256

.000

1.316

99

.191

.27231

.20694

1.214

61.023

.229

.27231

.22434

Self confidence

1.200

.276

-3.534

99

.001

-.56336

.15941

-3.362

68.056

.001

-.56336

.16757

Responsiveness

6.171

.015

-1.543

99

.126

-.25680

.16639

-1.608

91.277

.111

-.25680

.15967

201

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector
Interest in Studies Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 1.581 .212 2.221 99 .029 .31445 .14159

2.243

83.495

.028

.31445

.14020

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

.185

.668

-2.729

99

.008

-.46394

.17000

-2.716

79.655

.008

-.46394

.17080

Table 4.32 (a)

Gender division Frequency Valid Male Female Total 167 133 300 Percent 55.7 44.3 100.0 Valid Percent 55.7 44.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 55.7 100.0

Table 4.32 (b)

Education Frequency Valid Bachelors Masters MPhil PHD Total 94 92 99 15 300 Percent 31.3 30.7 33.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 31.3 30.7 33.0 5.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 31.3 62.0 95.0 100.0

202

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

QUESTIONNAIRE
Assalam-o-Aalikum! My name is Hafsa Jamil Syed and I am student of MS Business Administration at Air University. I am conducting a study under the title Effect of Discriminatory Practices on Students Conduct: Evidence from Higher Education Institutions. With the purpose to identify some prominent discriminatory practices prevailing among students and also find the effect of each discriminatory practice on students conduct. This questionnaire will take your precious 10 minutes. I need your kind cooperation for the fulfillment of this project. All information will be kept strictly confidential and you will remain completely anonymous throughout. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. The information you give will only be used for this project. Profound Regards, Hafsa Jamil Syed

203

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Institute Name: ____________________________________________________________ You Are: Male Female

Education Level: Bachelors Masters Mphil PHD

Q. What are the most common discriminatory practices you observe in your institute?
Please encircle from the following: Gender Language (Siraiki, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, etc.) Disability (Physically unfit)
204

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector Religious (Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, ect.) Ideology (Political association) Caste (Jutt, Araain, etc.) Physical Appearance (Looks, dressing, etc.)

Note:
Please tick in the boxes to rate the following questions with the help of scale mentioned in boxes.

Have you ever been a victim of any of the above mentioned discriminatory practice? Yes / No

If yes then mention the type of discrimination. _______________________

General Questions
S.No 1 2 3 4 5 Questions I have been teased in university I have been told that I cannot perform well academically I have been called by abusive names I have been ignored in class rooms My intelligence has been belittled 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

Communication skills:
1 2 3 4 5
205

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector S.No 1 2 3 4 5 Questions My speech becomes less clear due to this discrimination. My voice becomes low when communicating with my fellows. I am unable to answer well in cross questioning during lectures. I cant defend my viewpoints and opinions. My voice shivers when I speak to my fellows. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Presentation skills:
S.No 6 7 8 9 10 Questions I am unable to keep eye contact with my audience. My tongue slips frequently due to discriminatory attitude My tone and pitch gets shivered while presentation due to fear of biasness. I cannot convince with my answers during presentation. My facial expressions gets weird due to fear of discriminatory attitude 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

Grades:
S.No 11 Questions I received unfair grading due to bias.
206

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Neutral

4 Agree

5 Strongly Agree

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector 12 13 14 15 My grades/CGPA/ Percentage were affected by this bias. Biased comparison leads me to score low grades. Discriminatory attitude is a factor of my deteriorating percentage. Depression due to biasness affected my CGPA.

Self Confidence:
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

S.No 16 17 18 19 20

Questions I feel that I am not good at all. I feel hesitated in discussing my concerns freely I feel that I cannot do anything better than my other fellows. I feel that I do not have much to be proud of. I certainly feel useless at times.

Responsiveness:
1 2 3 4 5
207

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector S.No 21 22 23 24 25 Questions I speak less with my peers due to this discrimination I stay reserve with my mates. I cannot respond properly on abrupt questions during lectures. I generally stay alone as compared to my other mates. It is hard for me to become friendly with other fellows. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Interest In Studies:
S.No 26 27 28 29 30 Questions I find it difficult to focus on lectures My enthusiasm in studies is affecting due to biased behavior. I rapidly lose my attention during lectures due to fear of discrimination. I forget son whatever I memorize. It is hard for me to reproduce any query on answer sheet with keen interest. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

208

Effect Of Discriminatory Practices On Students Conduct: Evidence 2013 From Higher Education Sector

Participation in extracurricular activities:

S.No 31 32 33 34 35 Questions I participate less in extracurricular activities. I remain absent on functions, sports gala etc. I feel discouraged in getting involved in any extracurricular activity. I am not encouraged to take part in any extracurricular activity. I feel that my participation will be worthless. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

Thank you for your response.

209