4 ms·

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 u

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.

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.