6 ms·

Carnegie Mellon Admission Levels Field by Eliminating Demonstrated Interest

57 points by guard0g 8y ago

nsnick 8y ago
Eliminating demonstrated interest seems to go against the whole Carnegie Mellon ethos. After all the motto is "My heart is in the work." Demonstrated interest was a way of admitting people who have passion for the subject and who may not have been admitted with grades or test scores alone. With this change, CMU will likely get more of the same applicants that all top tier universities get who just study for the SAT constantly instead of the kids who spend all their time programming or competing in robotics. The argument advanced seems to be that eliminating demonstrated interest makes the admissions process more equitable because wealthy parents will push their children into the activities CMU is looking for and will know how to demonstrate interest. The counter to this argument is that wealthy parents will always be able to game an adversarial process. Parents will just push their children to study for the SAT more and pay more for SAT test prep. Parents will just push their children to work more on grades and classwork instead of things the children actually want to do like robotics or programming.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Given that this change seems to have been pushed by the Diversity team, I think they were probably finding that minority and female demographics were severely underrepresented in the demonstrated interest category and probably did much poorer in alumni interviews as well. Eliminating those factors makes it more likely that minority and female candidates will get in on general academic merit and then hopefully make the choice to pursue engineering once they get there. Basically, I'm reading this as a diversity play, not a rich/poor play. Whether it will actually work or not is another question that's hard to answer without seeing their data. I can pretty much guarantee that on the male/female side, though, demonstrated interest massively favors male applicants. Female students just aren't encouraged to do (or maybe don't have as much interest in) the kinds of things that impress admissions committees in that category, regardless of what they may end up wanting to study by the time they graduate.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I'm reading this as a diversity play, not a rich/poor play Is there a factual basis for this reading?
    - C4stor 8y ago
      "Diversity" related words are used thrice in the article, "inclusive" ones six times, but neither rich or poor related ones are even mentioned. Seems factual enough !
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      I'm not sure what you're asking. It says multiple times in this press release that they're trying to increase diversity. It leads with the first sentence "The mission of Carnegie Mellon University includes the cultivation of a diverse community." and then follows with "The goal is to provide a more equitable, level playing field where all segments of our applicant population have the same opportunity in the admission process." They want diverse students, which includes poorer students, but also includes underrepresented demographics (looks like male/female split is 55/45, and hispanic/latino and black numbers are small).
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    It's worth being said that "rich/poor" (or, socioeconomic diversity) is usually a diversity metric HE is also tracked on, so it'd be rare to see an organisation take a stance that would also negatively affect that. Contextual recruitment (which they say they're moving to), is the current industry best practice in this regard of looking at the issue across most of these factors, so not sure it's favouring one characteristic over another.
- mlevental 8y ago
  how about we recognize education for what it is in this country: indoctrination and grooming for your role in the economy. to make it more relatable: the mission statements (ethos) from schools are exactly like company culture statements from tech ("don't be evil"); they're meaningless as far as the real purpose of the organization. CMU doesn't care about passion - it cares about bottom line and its bottom line is a function of donations/tuition/research funding (in the form of institution overhead). with the harvard asian personality thing, the nyc public schools shsat thing, and now this i wonder how is that people don't recognize all of this hand-wringing over affluence begetting affluence and "hacking" for what it is: band-aids on a broken system. we should decouple education (which is essential for being productive) from social selection. how? i don't know because all of this is so highly coupled that you'd need a phd in market design and non-linear optimization to even start unwinding the relationships. edit: i'm getting downvoted. when microsoft/google/uber/etc. speak from their ethos does anyone believe them? when fb last year released chat for children and claimed to be interested in helping kids or whatever did anyone believe them? what's the difference here? CMU doesn't even operate under the guise of a public service - it is a private institution after all.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > we should decouple education (which is essential for being productive) from social selection. how? It seems straightforward: Lower the cost of education significantly. The reasons you cite are the reasons for the public universities in the US, AFAIK. The number one predictor of college education, IIRC, is parental wealth or income; education wasn't always this expensive.
    - mlevental 8y ago
      great. now fund public institutions better than private so excellent researchers have the tools and the compensation they need in order to work for them rather than privates. california seems to get it.
      - mdorazio 8y ago
        Excellent researchers does not equal good education for the broader student body. It's also not at all clear that increased funding leads to better educational outcomes or higher likelihood of landing a good job (the data is a bit old, but the divergence is clear here: [1]). Either way, education funding is just something that the US population is demonstrably not interested in. Very few people push for more taxes to pay for education, which is what it would take, leading to things like teachers needing to strike just to get low-class income. And outside of specific demographic groups we do not have a culture that encourages academic study from a young age like many other countries do. These are big socioeconomic problems that are going to take a generation or more to change even a little bit. [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/30/Shocking-Chart-on-Tuition-vs-Earnings-for-College-Grads http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/30/Shocking-C...
- dub 8y ago
  I'm grateful that, when I applied to CMU, the process allowed admissions to recognize that I was a passionate achiever in many areas, including my chosen area of study. Jumping through some of the arbitrary hoops and doing the busywork of high school turned out not to be among my passions, so if I'd been evaluated purely based on GPA I'd have probably been passed over in favor of someone better at following rules and perhaps less of a creative and independent thinker. I ended up having quite a high QPA at CMU. I was the same person, but CMU and I turned out to be far better matched than high school and I. I'm sad to hear that the admissions process no longer has an appreciation for these kinds of good matches.
- murph-almighty 8y ago
  CMU alum (CIT '17) here. During orientation there's a 1-2 hour ceremony where you're effectively welcomed in to the college- think like a graduation but the inverse of it (the exact phrase is slipping my mind right now), where the president speaks along with a few students. The one point that stuck out to me from that was the then-president, Subra Suresh, mentioning that they hadn't admitted a single student who had gotten a 2400 on the SAT, though some had applied. It was implied that they weren't looking for test scores, but rather for people who had potential beyond checking statistical boxes. My main question from reading this is "if your applicants are consistently getting 700+ SATs by category, and you don't want them to demonstrate the things they do in their field that demonstrates their passion, then how do you differentiate them?"
  - jlebar 8y ago
    Demonstrated interest in CMU isn't the same thing as demonstrated interest in STEM.
- sjbase 8y ago
  > wealthy parents will push their children into the activities CMU is looking for I had the same thought, but there may be more to it... they unfortunately left us speculating as to what findings about their admissions process led them to this change. Trying on a slightly fringe hypothesis: engineering has surpassed finance as the perceived get-insanely-rich discipline. So the top engineering schools are now more vulnerable to those who will pretend their "heart is in the work" but really just want to get on track to becoming Lord Voldemort (take your pick of real-world unscrupulous CEO). I have nothing against financial success being a motivator. But as a university, or as a manager for that matter, I'd want to filter out anyone for whom it's the only motivator. Put another way: a demonstrated interest requirement selects for intense drive/motivation of any kind. Maybe CMU is looking for a specific kind, e.g. intellectual curiosity. As an aside, agreed there will always be admissions gaming. But if the game is going to be broken, changing the rules periodically at least prevents the hacks from becoming too commoditized.
- pitt1980 8y ago
  idk, I've always been pretty skeptical of early decision programs what's the demo of kids that can commit to a private college before knowing what potential scholarship/aid packages are actually on the table?
- jlebar 8y ago
  > Eliminating demonstrated interest seems to go against the whole Carnegie Mellon ethos. After all the motto is "My heart is in the work." "Demonstrated interest" is a term of art in college admissions that refers to "demonstrated interest in attending a particular school". Things like "I interviewed with a CMU alum", "I sent letters to the admissions department about how much I <3 CMU", etc. (All of these are in TFA.) It doesn't refer to "demonstrated interest in STEM." TFA is not talking about ignoring demonstrated passion in STEM.
hadrian82 8y ago
They lead off saying all of the buzz words about diversity which always rings hollow with me personally, and this decision is based on increasing diversity according to them. Honest question: why should diversity (as they use it) ever be a goal? Immutable characteristics of a person should not be a consideration in any application to life unless the application is explicitly for that (tall people in basketball for instance). Meritocracy should be the paramount consideration in all things, and possibly a small consideration of diversity of ideas and beliefs, but not diversity of skin color or genitalia. If all of the most brilliant astrophysicist minds in the world happen to be Japanese women, why shouldn't they be preferred over all others in getting into prestigious colleges to study astrophysics? Why do we care if we have a certain number of European males in that situation? The right answer is that we don't care how many European males enter that field (which is true today but for different reasons that I am not trying to get into).
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  How about: what if an equitable share of the brilliant astrophysicist minds are women of many ethnicities? And are underrepresented due to high selection factors in the admission process for alumni, coached applicants and so forth? Which is far more likely the case than some hunky-doodle strawman meant to justify continued bias.
  - hadrian82 8y ago
    My bias is towards letting the cream rise. I don't care what color my surgeon is or what is/isn't between their legs. I want the surgeon who got in based on merit alone and is one of the best people in the world for this job. I don't want a diversity candidate who barely got by and got passed along by people who were afraid to be labeled racist because of PC culture. Immutable traits should never be considered, only merit.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      First they are students, not surgeons. And we've likely been passing over the most brilliant, most talented, most likely to succeed because of biased application processes. There's no mention in the CMU process of being 'passed along'. In fact, its all about them standing on their own merit, and not their alumni-parent nor influential uncle. I'm so glad to hear 'your bias' is right in line with the new CMU process!
gfodor 8y ago
It would be interesting to know if the people who showed demonstrated interest tended to be more likely to become successful graduates or not.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Like many other institutions, we are inundated with demonstrations of continued interest and additional recommendations, mostly from well-resourced or well-advised applicants. Though we don't request any at all, students write letters of continued interest, send us more recommendations, send projects, visit our campus to make their case in person and also have anyone with any perceived influence make phone calls to lobby and advocate for them. The above indicates very high demand for Carnegie Mellon's educational services (along with other universities like CMU). Perhaps the obvious solution is to increase supply - if so many are so willing and apparently able to study at that level (the difference between the last admitted and first rejected is, AFAIK, almost undetectable), let's give them the opportunity! Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded. It raises many questions: What do students and parents perceive is better about CMU than the next school down their list? Is their perception accurate? Can other schools be changed to match CMU in some or all regards? I imagine (but don't want to assume) that the faculty at CMU are better than the next best school, but is that really so? Is there a material difference, other than prestige? And how important is that - all faculty (and most PhD students) at any school know infinitely more than almost any freshman, and few undergraduates take advantage of the faculty resources until later in college. Perhaps the solution is that admission to CMU-level schools and access to their faculty shouldn't happen until a student demonstrates the ability and interest in their first year or two.
- mlevental 8y ago
  >Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded. like i wrote elsewhere in this thread the cognitive dissonance here comes from the idea that CMU is about educating. it's not. it's about generating profits. just like porshe/rolex/debeers could easily produce more product but doesn't in order to artificially deflate supply (in order to be able to give the impression of scarcity in order to be able to charge more) every elite institution does the same. for what it actually looks like when a school is honest about the material value of its degree just take a look at the online masters in CS from GT.
CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Looking at their diversity stats, the largest group in their student body is Asians despite Asians only being 5.6% of the US population. Much like the elite high schools here in New York, CMU’s entrance requirements have changed now that the wrong kind of people are the majority. I don’t know how to feel about that.
exogeny 8y ago
This one is hard for me, as there is likely no way I’d have gotten into CMU if I didn’t schedule an interview, basically say it was my dream school, and apply early - all of which is clear and demonstratable interest. I wasn’t rich; I simply lived in Pittsburgh, and grew up indoctrinated that CMU was where the smart kids went. Like any elite school, CMU is very far-ranging and international w/r/t student body; it’s fair to assume that a disproportionate amount of students traveling to Pittsburgh to interview, tour, and attend pre-college are from above-average means. I get the logic. I also (anecdotally) know at least a dozen students at my time there who were wholly unqualified to be there save for their family’s ability’s to pay their tuition in full, cash. I have zero interest in litigating the value of diversity; if that had to be explained here then you’re too ideologically gone for either of our time spent to be useful. What I can say - and I suspect CMU agrees - is that education and opportunity is a great way to give underserved populations upward mobility, therefore minimizing outputs of family affluence and giving more opportunities to lower-income applicants will yield a higher overall impact. I’m sure they likely saw performance (and potentially even donor) differences between the two populations; it’s possible that the demonstrative interest population simply didn’t perform as well.
- corpMaverick 8y ago
  > family’s ability’s to pay their tuition in full, cash. There is an argument in favor of this. It lets the poor kids connect with the rich kid's network.
  - arcaster 8y ago
    Shakes fist at rich people
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > This one is hard for me, as there is likely no way I’d have gotten into CMU if I didn’t schedule an interview, basically say it was my dream school, and apply early ... To generalize, what you are so honestly saying is something that often obstructs change: People with power are vested in the current system: They are the successful outcomes (the unsuccessful don't have power), so they believe in the system and instinctively don't want to undermine their self-image as deserving (i.e., that they didn't have an unfair advantage). They also don't want to undermine their own power, but that doesn't apply as much here. > I have zero interest in litigating the value of diversity; if that had to be explained here then you’re too ideologically gone for either of our time spent to be useful. The other side believes they can persuade people and have succeeded at an unexpected level. People and opinions change; look at views of women in college and the workforce; even your views on diversity (which I share) were probably unheard of a few generations ago, but people worked hard to change that. What will we bequeath on the next generation?
rpiguy 8y ago
The logic here is mind boggling. Essentially they are removing merit as a selection criteria, because privilege affords people more opportunities to show merit. If you are raised with privilege your parents are far more likely to have encouraged you to do extra cirriculars, support your interest in X,Y,Z, paid an essay coach to help or write your admission essays, etc. I understand this, but it is not a good policy. In effect you will now be discriminating against good kids who worked their asses off to do extra cirriculars and prep for the SATs, etc. Get rid of legacy preference for sure, find new ways to be more inclusive of underrepresented populations, but don't fix discrimination with more discrimination.
- jlebar 8y ago
  "Demonstrated interest" is a term of art in college admissions that refers to demonstrated interest *in attending a particular school". They're not talking about extra-curriculars, which might demonstrate interest in STEM or whatever, but don't count as "demonstrated interest" in CMU.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pmarreck 8y ago
So basically, because some small percentage of irrational evaluations are -ist (racist, sexist, genderist, whatever), they are moving towards purely rational measures? I think this is a step back from the best solution to the problem of finding a good college/student fit. EDIT: Try not to downvote without at least giving a reason.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
To me this seems like two decisions combined. The idea of making sure that "letters of continued interest, extra recommendations, expectation of campus visits, lobbying efforts," do not play a role in campus decisions (notably, the statement offered no response to recent issues with donor preference at other "top" schools) seems like a common-sense focus on actually relevant factors and an attempt to reduce bias that will no doubt favor more diverse (and more ethical) candidates. But how does that in any way go along with shunning "supplementary submission of materials, including resumes, research abstracts, writing samples, multimedia demonstrations of talents, and maker portfolios." How is work (most of which, like a writing sample or resume, requires no resources or affluence to create) less equal than academic records which are literally determined by what neighborhood one lives in? Essays aren't bad in theory, but it's only a matter of time before entire books are written by "admissions counselors" on exactly what influential people to name drop and what "shared values" with the school to highlight. Beyond a basic capability (prerequisites) and a lack of contrary evidence (ex. failing classes repeatedly), what could possibly be a better discriminator of student success then the interest they demonstrate through actual self-driven initiative?
- wastedhours 8y ago
  > self-driven initiative? How much "self-driven initiative" is actually self-driven though when it comes to a formal application process, and not influenced by someone in an advisory role? E.g. a parent who's been through the application process, or a careers advisor in a school (if you're lucky enough to have access to either)?
Edmond 8y ago
Maybe they looked at their Alumni and realized most of them are product managers and programmers at a FANG....in other words while they have fine careers and are making "positive" contribution to society they are not doing anything that they couldn't if they'd attended a less renowned institution.
erikb 8y ago
What does that mean? Maybe it's that English is my second language? I would interpret it as, "if you really want to come here and show that to us, then we will decrease your chance of succeeding". Is that correct? And they argue that this should equalize the chances for everybody? I can't see the logic in that.

57 points by guard0g 8y ago

Eliminating demonstrated interest seems to go against the whole Carnegie Mellon ethos. After all the motto is "My heart is in the work." Demonstrated interest was a way of admitting people who have passion for the subject and who may not have been admitted with grades or test scores alone. With this change, CMU will likely get more of the same applicants that all top tier universities get who just study for the SAT constantly instead of the kids who spend all their time programming or competing in robotics. The argument advanced seems to be that eliminating demonstrated interest makes the admissions process more equitable because wealthy parents will push their children into the activities CMU is looking for and will know how to demonstrate interest. The counter to this argument is that wealthy parents will always be able to game an adversarial process. Parents will just push their children to study for the SAT more and pay more for SAT test prep. Parents will just push their children to work more on grades and classwork instead of things the children actually want to do like robotics or programming.

mdorazio 8y ago
Given that this change seems to have been pushed by the Diversity team, I think they were probably finding that minority and female demographics were severely underrepresented in the demonstrated interest category and probably did much poorer in alumni interviews as well. Eliminating those factors makes it more likely that minority and female candidates will get in on general academic merit and then hopefully make the choice to pursue engineering once they get there. Basically, I'm reading this as a diversity play, not a rich/poor play. Whether it will actually work or not is another question that's hard to answer without seeing their data. I can pretty much guarantee that on the male/female side, though, demonstrated interest massively favors male applicants. Female students just aren't encouraged to do (or maybe don't have as much interest in) the kinds of things that impress admissions committees in that category, regardless of what they may end up wanting to study by the time they graduate.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I'm reading this as a diversity play, not a rich/poor play Is there a factual basis for this reading?
  - C4stor 8y ago
    "Diversity" related words are used thrice in the article, "inclusive" ones six times, but neither rich or poor related ones are even mentioned. Seems factual enough !
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you're asking. It says multiple times in this press release that they're trying to increase diversity. It leads with the first sentence "The mission of Carnegie Mellon University includes the cultivation of a diverse community." and then follows with "The goal is to provide a more equitable, level playing field where all segments of our applicant population have the same opportunity in the admission process." They want diverse students, which includes poorer students, but also includes underrepresented demographics (looks like male/female split is 55/45, and hispanic/latino and black numbers are small).
- wastedhours 8y ago
  It's worth being said that "rich/poor" (or, socioeconomic diversity) is usually a diversity metric HE is also tracked on, so it'd be rare to see an organisation take a stance that would also negatively affect that. Contextual recruitment (which they say they're moving to), is the current industry best practice in this regard of looking at the issue across most of these factors, so not sure it's favouring one characteristic over another.
mlevental 8y ago
how about we recognize education for what it is in this country: indoctrination and grooming for your role in the economy. to make it more relatable: the mission statements (ethos) from schools are exactly like company culture statements from tech ("don't be evil"); they're meaningless as far as the real purpose of the organization. CMU doesn't care about passion - it cares about bottom line and its bottom line is a function of donations/tuition/research funding (in the form of institution overhead). with the harvard asian personality thing, the nyc public schools shsat thing, and now this i wonder how is that people don't recognize all of this hand-wringing over affluence begetting affluence and "hacking" for what it is: band-aids on a broken system. we should decouple education (which is essential for being productive) from social selection. how? i don't know because all of this is so highly coupled that you'd need a phd in market design and non-linear optimization to even start unwinding the relationships. edit: i'm getting downvoted. when microsoft/google/uber/etc. speak from their ethos does anyone believe them? when fb last year released chat for children and claimed to be interested in helping kids or whatever did anyone believe them? what's the difference here? CMU doesn't even operate under the guise of a public service - it is a private institution after all.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > we should decouple education (which is essential for being productive) from social selection. how? It seems straightforward: Lower the cost of education significantly. The reasons you cite are the reasons for the public universities in the US, AFAIK. The number one predictor of college education, IIRC, is parental wealth or income; education wasn't always this expensive.
  - mlevental 8y ago
    great. now fund public institutions better than private so excellent researchers have the tools and the compensation they need in order to work for them rather than privates. california seems to get it.
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      Excellent researchers does not equal good education for the broader student body. It's also not at all clear that increased funding leads to better educational outcomes or higher likelihood of landing a good job (the data is a bit old, but the divergence is clear here: [1]). Either way, education funding is just something that the US population is demonstrably not interested in. Very few people push for more taxes to pay for education, which is what it would take, leading to things like teachers needing to strike just to get low-class income. And outside of specific demographic groups we do not have a culture that encourages academic study from a young age like many other countries do. These are big socioeconomic problems that are going to take a generation or more to change even a little bit. [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/30/Shocking-Chart-on-Tuition-vs-Earnings-for-College-Grads http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/30/Shocking-C...
dub 8y ago
I'm grateful that, when I applied to CMU, the process allowed admissions to recognize that I was a passionate achiever in many areas, including my chosen area of study. Jumping through some of the arbitrary hoops and doing the busywork of high school turned out not to be among my passions, so if I'd been evaluated purely based on GPA I'd have probably been passed over in favor of someone better at following rules and perhaps less of a creative and independent thinker. I ended up having quite a high QPA at CMU. I was the same person, but CMU and I turned out to be far better matched than high school and I. I'm sad to hear that the admissions process no longer has an appreciation for these kinds of good matches.
murph-almighty 8y ago
CMU alum (CIT '17) here. During orientation there's a 1-2 hour ceremony where you're effectively welcomed in to the college- think like a graduation but the inverse of it (the exact phrase is slipping my mind right now), where the president speaks along with a few students. The one point that stuck out to me from that was the then-president, Subra Suresh, mentioning that they hadn't admitted a single student who had gotten a 2400 on the SAT, though some had applied. It was implied that they weren't looking for test scores, but rather for people who had potential beyond checking statistical boxes. My main question from reading this is "if your applicants are consistently getting 700+ SATs by category, and you don't want them to demonstrate the things they do in their field that demonstrates their passion, then how do you differentiate them?"
- jlebar 8y ago
  Demonstrated interest in CMU isn't the same thing as demonstrated interest in STEM.
sjbase 8y ago
> wealthy parents will push their children into the activities CMU is looking for I had the same thought, but there may be more to it... they unfortunately left us speculating as to what findings about their admissions process led them to this change. Trying on a slightly fringe hypothesis: engineering has surpassed finance as the perceived get-insanely-rich discipline. So the top engineering schools are now more vulnerable to those who will pretend their "heart is in the work" but really just want to get on track to becoming Lord Voldemort (take your pick of real-world unscrupulous CEO). I have nothing against financial success being a motivator. But as a university, or as a manager for that matter, I'd want to filter out anyone for whom it's the only motivator. Put another way: a demonstrated interest requirement selects for intense drive/motivation of any kind. Maybe CMU is looking for a specific kind, e.g. intellectual curiosity. As an aside, agreed there will always be admissions gaming. But if the game is going to be broken, changing the rules periodically at least prevents the hacks from becoming too commoditized.
pitt1980 8y ago
idk, I've always been pretty skeptical of early decision programs what's the demo of kids that can commit to a private college before knowing what potential scholarship/aid packages are actually on the table?
jlebar 8y ago
> Eliminating demonstrated interest seems to go against the whole Carnegie Mellon ethos. After all the motto is "My heart is in the work." "Demonstrated interest" is a term of art in college admissions that refers to "demonstrated interest in attending a particular school". Things like "I interviewed with a CMU alum", "I sent letters to the admissions department about how much I <3 CMU", etc. (All of these are in TFA.) It doesn't refer to "demonstrated interest in STEM." TFA is not talking about ignoring demonstrated passion in STEM.

hadrian82 8y ago

They lead off saying all of the buzz words about diversity which always rings hollow with me personally, and this decision is based on increasing diversity according to them. Honest question: why should diversity (as they use it) ever be a goal? Immutable characteristics of a person should not be a consideration in any application to life unless the application is explicitly for that (tall people in basketball for instance). Meritocracy should be the paramount consideration in all things, and possibly a small consideration of diversity of ideas and beliefs, but not diversity of skin color or genitalia. If all of the most brilliant astrophysicist minds in the world happen to be Japanese women, why shouldn't they be preferred over all others in getting into prestigious colleges to study astrophysics? Why do we care if we have a certain number of European males in that situation? The right answer is that we don't care how many European males enter that field (which is true today but for different reasons that I am not trying to get into).

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
How about: what if an equitable share of the brilliant astrophysicist minds are women of many ethnicities? And are underrepresented due to high selection factors in the admission process for alumni, coached applicants and so forth? Which is far more likely the case than some hunky-doodle strawman meant to justify continued bias.
- hadrian82 8y ago
  My bias is towards letting the cream rise. I don't care what color my surgeon is or what is/isn't between their legs. I want the surgeon who got in based on merit alone and is one of the best people in the world for this job. I don't want a diversity candidate who barely got by and got passed along by people who were afraid to be labeled racist because of PC culture. Immutable traits should never be considered, only merit.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    First they are students, not surgeons. And we've likely been passing over the most brilliant, most talented, most likely to succeed because of biased application processes. There's no mention in the CMU process of being 'passed along'. In fact, its all about them standing on their own merit, and not their alumni-parent nor influential uncle. I'm so glad to hear 'your bias' is right in line with the new CMU process!

gfodor 8y ago

It would be interesting to know if the people who showed demonstrated interest tended to be more likely to become successful graduates or not.

forapurpose 8y ago

> Like many other institutions, we are inundated with demonstrations of continued interest and additional recommendations, mostly from well-resourced or well-advised applicants. Though we don't request any at all, students write letters of continued interest, send us more recommendations, send projects, visit our campus to make their case in person and also have anyone with any perceived influence make phone calls to lobby and advocate for them. The above indicates very high demand for Carnegie Mellon's educational services (along with other universities like CMU). Perhaps the obvious solution is to increase supply - if so many are so willing and apparently able to study at that level (the difference between the last admitted and first rejected is, AFAIK, almost undetectable), let's give them the opportunity! Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded. It raises many questions: What do students and parents perceive is better about CMU than the next school down their list? Is their perception accurate? Can other schools be changed to match CMU in some or all regards? I imagine (but don't want to assume) that the faculty at CMU are better than the next best school, but is that really so? Is there a material difference, other than prestige? And how important is that - all faculty (and most PhD students) at any school know infinitely more than almost any freshman, and few undergraduates take advantage of the faculty resources until later in college. Perhaps the solution is that admission to CMU-level schools and access to their faculty shouldn't happen until a student demonstrates the ability and interest in their first year or two.

mlevental 8y ago
>Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded. like i wrote elsewhere in this thread the cognitive dissonance here comes from the idea that CMU is about educating. it's not. it's about generating profits. just like porshe/rolex/debeers could easily produce more product but doesn't in order to artificially deflate supply (in order to be able to give the impression of scarcity in order to be able to charge more) every elite institution does the same. for what it actually looks like when a school is honest about the material value of its degree just take a look at the online masters in CS from GT.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago

Looking at their diversity stats, the largest group in their student body is Asians despite Asians only being 5.6% of the US population. Much like the elite high schools here in New York, CMU’s entrance requirements have changed now that the wrong kind of people are the majority. I don’t know how to feel about that.

exogeny 8y ago

This one is hard for me, as there is likely no way I’d have gotten into CMU if I didn’t schedule an interview, basically say it was my dream school, and apply early - all of which is clear and demonstratable interest. I wasn’t rich; I simply lived in Pittsburgh, and grew up indoctrinated that CMU was where the smart kids went. Like any elite school, CMU is very far-ranging and international w/r/t student body; it’s fair to assume that a disproportionate amount of students traveling to Pittsburgh to interview, tour, and attend pre-college are from above-average means. I get the logic. I also (anecdotally) know at least a dozen students at my time there who were wholly unqualified to be there save for their family’s ability’s to pay their tuition in full, cash. I have zero interest in litigating the value of diversity; if that had to be explained here then you’re too ideologically gone for either of our time spent to be useful. What I can say - and I suspect CMU agrees - is that education and opportunity is a great way to give underserved populations upward mobility, therefore minimizing outputs of family affluence and giving more opportunities to lower-income applicants will yield a higher overall impact. I’m sure they likely saw performance (and potentially even donor) differences between the two populations; it’s possible that the demonstrative interest population simply didn’t perform as well.

corpMaverick 8y ago
> family’s ability’s to pay their tuition in full, cash. There is an argument in favor of this. It lets the poor kids connect with the rich kid's network.
- arcaster 8y ago
  Shakes fist at rich people
forapurpose 8y ago
> This one is hard for me, as there is likely no way I’d have gotten into CMU if I didn’t schedule an interview, basically say it was my dream school, and apply early ... To generalize, what you are so honestly saying is something that often obstructs change: People with power are vested in the current system: They are the successful outcomes (the unsuccessful don't have power), so they believe in the system and instinctively don't want to undermine their self-image as deserving (i.e., that they didn't have an unfair advantage). They also don't want to undermine their own power, but that doesn't apply as much here. > I have zero interest in litigating the value of diversity; if that had to be explained here then you’re too ideologically gone for either of our time spent to be useful. The other side believes they can persuade people and have succeeded at an unexpected level. People and opinions change; look at views of women in college and the workforce; even your views on diversity (which I share) were probably unheard of a few generations ago, but people worked hard to change that. What will we bequeath on the next generation?

rpiguy 8y ago

The logic here is mind boggling. Essentially they are removing merit as a selection criteria, because privilege affords people more opportunities to show merit. If you are raised with privilege your parents are far more likely to have encouraged you to do extra cirriculars, support your interest in X,Y,Z, paid an essay coach to help or write your admission essays, etc. I understand this, but it is not a good policy. In effect you will now be discriminating against good kids who worked their asses off to do extra cirriculars and prep for the SATs, etc. Get rid of legacy preference for sure, find new ways to be more inclusive of underrepresented populations, but don't fix discrimination with more discrimination.

jlebar 8y ago
"Demonstrated interest" is a term of art in college admissions that refers to demonstrated interest *in attending a particular school". They're not talking about extra-curriculars, which might demonstrate interest in STEM or whatever, but don't count as "demonstrated interest" in CMU.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pmarreck 8y ago

So basically, because some small percentage of irrational evaluations are -ist (racist, sexist, genderist, whatever), they are moving towards purely rational measures? I think this is a step back from the best solution to the problem of finding a good college/student fit. EDIT: Try not to downvote without at least giving a reason.

morpheuskafka 8y ago

To me this seems like two decisions combined. The idea of making sure that "letters of continued interest, extra recommendations, expectation of campus visits, lobbying efforts," do not play a role in campus decisions (notably, the statement offered no response to recent issues with donor preference at other "top" schools) seems like a common-sense focus on actually relevant factors and an attempt to reduce bias that will no doubt favor more diverse (and more ethical) candidates. But how does that in any way go along with shunning "supplementary submission of materials, including resumes, research abstracts, writing samples, multimedia demonstrations of talents, and maker portfolios." How is work (most of which, like a writing sample or resume, requires no resources or affluence to create) less equal than academic records which are literally determined by what neighborhood one lives in? Essays aren't bad in theory, but it's only a matter of time before entire books are written by "admissions counselors" on exactly what influential people to name drop and what "shared values" with the school to highlight. Beyond a basic capability (prerequisites) and a lack of contrary evidence (ex. failing classes repeatedly), what could possibly be a better discriminator of student success then the interest they demonstrate through actual self-driven initiative?

wastedhours 8y ago
> self-driven initiative? How much "self-driven initiative" is actually self-driven though when it comes to a formal application process, and not influenced by someone in an advisory role? E.g. a parent who's been through the application process, or a careers advisor in a school (if you're lucky enough to have access to either)?

Edmond 8y ago

Maybe they looked at their Alumni and realized most of them are product managers and programmers at a FANG....in other words while they have fine careers and are making "positive" contribution to society they are not doing anything that they couldn't if they'd attended a less renowned institution.

erikb 8y ago

What does that mean? Maybe it's that English is my second language? I would interpret it as, "if you really want to come here and show that to us, then we will decrease your chance of succeeding". Is that correct? And they argue that this should equalize the chances for everybody? I can't see the logic in that.