5 ms·

>That's the kind underhanded, unconscious sexism that we're trying to avoid here I'm interested in facts, not political correctness. Were admission rates loos

>That's the kind underhanded, unconscious sexism that we're trying to avoid here I'm interested in facts, not political correctness. Were admission rates loosened to accomplish the goals, or were they not? >It sounds like you've lost sight of the forest for the trees. Or have you? To me, the forest is graduating the best CS students, regardless of colour, race or gender.

alistairSH 11y ago
The linked article mentions nothing about reducing standards. Nor do any of the other articles I found in a quick Google search. The only thing I found is the acceptance rate for women is higher than for me. BUT! The application numbers are skewed, with 3x as many men applying as women. The SAT scores of both genders are similar.
phasmantistes 11y ago
> Were admission rates loosened to accomplish the goals, or were they not? They were not. The class of 2014 (admitted in 2010) consisted of 101 women and 95 men, having more women than men for the first time in the college's history. The following year it swung back the other way, with only 42% of the incoming class being female. In both years, the same percent of admitted students were valedictorians or salutatorians at their high schools. In both years, the 75%ile SAT and ACT scores remained the same. Admittedly, I don't have access to all of the data, but the numbers I have show that there was no loosening of admission rates. > graduating the best CS students, regardless of colour, race or gender. I maintain two counterpoints to this argument: * Especially when you're talking on the scale of admitting 200 students a year (only ~40 of whom will be CS majors) the difference between the best 200 men in the country and the best 200 women in the country is exceedingly small, if it exists at all. So given that the school is going to admit 200 equally qualified people no matter what, it might as well admit them in the ratio that it chooses. * That statement has an implicit assumption that individuals are the best CS students. With a few notable exceptions, this is not true in the wider worlds of academia or professional industry. Teams with diverse skill sets, view points, knowledge, and experience perform the best in both academia and industry. So rather than trying to produce the 40 best individual computer scientists every year, Mudd tries to produce the 40 best team players who will succeed and make their chosen teams better by a multiplicative factor, rather than just an additive one. EDIT: s/colleges/highschools/ when speaking of valedictorians

alistairSH 11y ago

The linked article mentions nothing about reducing standards. Nor do any of the other articles I found in a quick Google search. The only thing I found is the acceptance rate for women is higher than for me. BUT! The application numbers are skewed, with 3x as many men applying as women. The SAT scores of both genders are similar.

phasmantistes 11y ago

> Were admission rates loosened to accomplish the goals, or were they not? They were not. The class of 2014 (admitted in 2010) consisted of 101 women and 95 men, having more women than men for the first time in the college's history. The following year it swung back the other way, with only 42% of the incoming class being female. In both years, the same percent of admitted students were valedictorians or salutatorians at their high schools. In both years, the 75%ile SAT and ACT scores remained the same. Admittedly, I don't have access to all of the data, but the numbers I have show that there was no loosening of admission rates. > graduating the best CS students, regardless of colour, race or gender. I maintain two counterpoints to this argument: * Especially when you're talking on the scale of admitting 200 students a year (only ~40 of whom will be CS majors) the difference between the best 200 men in the country and the best 200 women in the country is exceedingly small, if it exists at all. So given that the school is going to admit 200 equally qualified people no matter what, it might as well admit them in the ratio that it chooses. * That statement has an implicit assumption that individuals are the best CS students. With a few notable exceptions, this is not true in the wider worlds of academia or professional industry. Teams with diverse skill sets, view points, knowledge, and experience perform the best in both academia and industry. So rather than trying to produce the 40 best individual computer scientists every year, Mudd tries to produce the 40 best team players who will succeed and make their chosen teams better by a multiplicative factor, rather than just an additive one. EDIT: s/colleges/highschools/ when speaking of valedictorians