4 ms·

You're presupposing that whatever admissions standard existed before was "neutral" and any deviation from that involves discrimination. No he isn't. The questi

by yock 13y ago

You're presupposing that whatever admissions standard existed before was "neutral" and any deviation from that involves discrimination. No he isn't. The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions. If gender is to be elevated above merit, all we've done is exchanged one form of discrimination for another. We should be constantly scrutinizing how we judge merit and filter out discriminatory practices. The danger is of course that this is very hard, and it's much easier to weight our decisions in favor of those who have been discriminated against rather than strive for getting the judgement correct. To my heart, this is worse than the original inequality.

Anechoic 13y ago
If gender is to be elevated above merit It could be that gender (in this case, the male gender) was previously elevated about merit, and the new standards restore the use of merit as the ultimate criteria for admissions. That was rayiner's point.
slurry 13y ago
No he isn't. The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions. If gender is to be elevated above merit, all we've done is exchanged one form of discrimination for another. If what the article was talking about were a simple quota system, where they decided to admit X% men and Y% women, let the scores fall where they may, you might have a point. But that's not what they did. Instead, they changed the way they measured merit. For example, they focused recruiting on demonstrated general math and science ability rather than specific coding experience. That's a good move anyway (some of the worst programmers I know were 1337 h4xx0rz in high school, some of the best barely touched a keyboard until undergrad) but it also happens to yield a better gender balance.
rayiner 13y ago
> The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that the original admission process measured "merit" in the first place. To me the original process measured exposure (people who had been exposed to programming before), not merit. The new process seems more meritorious if anything else (focusing more on people with general aptitude). > The danger is of course that this is very hard, and it's much easier to weight our decisions in favor of those who have been discriminated against rather than strive for getting the judgement correct. To my heart, this is worse than the original inequality. No, it's not. It's not worse for a small number of marginal male candidates to be denied admission as a side-effect of a larger effort to counteract the impact of centuries of discrimination against women. Not even close. Not even a little bit. Not on any day of the week. The fact that a few workers might get killed doesn't stop you from building the skyscraper...
- lliamander 13y ago
  > Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that the original admission process measured "merit" in the first place. He (that is, yock) did not beg the question. I quote "If gender is to be elevated above merit, all we've done is exchanged one form of discrimination for another". Perhaps the old policy favored prior exposure in contrast to merit; now the new policy favors gender over merit. Perhaps aroch is assuming that the original process was merit based, but yock's argument in no way reflects or depends upon such an assumption. >No, it's not. It's not worse for a small number of marginal male candidates to be denied admission as a side-effect of a larger effort to counteract the impact of centuries of discrimination against women. Not even close. Not even a little bit. Not on any day of the week. The root of the problem, at least as far as I understand the Feminist Movement to be saying, is that an attitude of discrimination based upon factors which aren't inherently relevant to the issue at hand (such as choosing not to serve someone food just because of their skin color) is wrong, regardless of any history of transgressions.Vengeance is not justice. Besides, we don't actually know the net number of people who are unfairly (i.e. for reasons other than merit) prevented from entering CS as a result of this policy change. > The fact that a few workers might get killed doesn't stop you from building the skyscraper... While not an unreasonable analogy regarding the trade-offs and risks of progress, it is not the most flattering of you. More than a few movie plots have villains who take more or less the same attitude. Of course, they were less scrupulous about prevent unnecessary worker deaths, especially when they "had it coming"... Full Disclosure: I worked at a plywood mill that, in the past, suffered a few too many workers deaths until the workers formed a union and OSHA stepped in.
abalone 13y ago
> The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions. You didn't read the article either, did you. They specifically explain that by "inclusive" they mean looking more purely at merit in things like math, science and leadership. Their previous practice was discriminatory in the same way selecting for "prior golfing experience" would favor rich white kids. You want to look for the potential to be a great golfer, not some b.s. high school level experience that is more a reflection of opportunities or peer pressure, not true merit.

by yock 13y ago

Anechoic 13y ago

If gender is to be elevated above merit It could be that gender (in this case, the male gender) was previously elevated about merit, and the new standards restore the use of merit as the ultimate criteria for admissions. That was rayiner's point.

slurry 13y ago

No he isn't. The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions. If gender is to be elevated above merit, all we've done is exchanged one form of discrimination for another. If what the article was talking about were a simple quota system, where they decided to admit X% men and Y% women, let the scores fall where they may, you might have a point. But that's not what they did. Instead, they changed the way they measured merit. For example, they focused recruiting on demonstrated general math and science ability rather than specific coding experience. That's a good move anyway (some of the worst programmers I know were 1337 h4xx0rz in high school, some of the best barely touched a keyboard until undergrad) but it also happens to yield a better gender balance.

rayiner 13y ago

> The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that the original admission process measured "merit" in the first place. To me the original process measured exposure (people who had been exposed to programming before), not merit. The new process seems more meritorious if anything else (focusing more on people with general aptitude). > The danger is of course that this is very hard, and it's much easier to weight our decisions in favor of those who have been discriminated against rather than strive for getting the judgement correct. To my heart, this is worse than the original inequality. No, it's not. It's not worse for a small number of marginal male candidates to be denied admission as a side-effect of a larger effort to counteract the impact of centuries of discrimination against women. Not even close. Not even a little bit. Not on any day of the week. The fact that a few workers might get killed doesn't stop you from building the skyscraper...

lliamander 13y ago
> Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that the original admission process measured "merit" in the first place. He (that is, yock) did not beg the question. I quote "If gender is to be elevated above merit, all we've done is exchanged one form of discrimination for another". Perhaps the old policy favored prior exposure in contrast to merit; now the new policy favors gender over merit. Perhaps aroch is assuming that the original process was merit based, but yock's argument in no way reflects or depends upon such an assumption. >No, it's not. It's not worse for a small number of marginal male candidates to be denied admission as a side-effect of a larger effort to counteract the impact of centuries of discrimination against women. Not even close. Not even a little bit. Not on any day of the week. The root of the problem, at least as far as I understand the Feminist Movement to be saying, is that an attitude of discrimination based upon factors which aren't inherently relevant to the issue at hand (such as choosing not to serve someone food just because of their skin color) is wrong, regardless of any history of transgressions.Vengeance is not justice. Besides, we don't actually know the net number of people who are unfairly (i.e. for reasons other than merit) prevented from entering CS as a result of this policy change. > The fact that a few workers might get killed doesn't stop you from building the skyscraper... While not an unreasonable analogy regarding the trade-offs and risks of progress, it is not the most flattering of you. More than a few movie plots have villains who take more or less the same attitude. Of course, they were less scrupulous about prevent unnecessary worker deaths, especially when they "had it coming"... Full Disclosure: I worked at a plywood mill that, in the past, suffered a few too many workers deaths until the workers formed a union and OSHA stepped in.

abalone 13y ago

> The question is whether or not merit is the ultimate criteria for admissions. You didn't read the article either, did you. They specifically explain that by "inclusive" they mean looking more purely at merit in things like math, science and leadership. Their previous practice was discriminatory in the same way selecting for "prior golfing experience" would favor rich white kids. You want to look for the potential to be a great golfer, not some b.s. high school level experience that is more a reflection of opportunities or peer pressure, not true merit.