For 1. - that's not how it works. When you adjust a parameter to "give a better chance" to one group you are inadvertently negating the advantage of the other. As said before, admissions are a 0 sum game. Any advantage you give to one group it can only turn into a disadvantage for another. And testing the ability to work under pressure in an exam is as reasonable as you can expect.
In this case extending the time because "female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure" negates the advantage people that can work under pressure have.
I'm curious how they're going to do this in real life when (unsurprisingly) they will be expected to work under pressure and it will highlight a big mismatch between academic and professional performance levels.
In this case extending the time because "female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure" negates the advantage people that can work under pressure have.
I'm curious how they're going to do this in real life when (unsurprisingly) they will be expected to work under pressure and it will highlight a big mismatch between academic and professional performance levels.