First of all, once again we have that dreaded AP CS exam where the media voluntarily ignores the fact that the rates for the whole country were abysmal and inst

First of all, once again we have that dreaded AP CS exam where the media voluntarily ignores the fact that the rates for the whole country were abysmal and instead focusing on a particular minority where it's statistically likely that they have virtually no representation whatsoever. Second, they're fallaciously assuming that the AP CS exam accurately reflects technological literacy and social demographics of people pursuing careers in CS. In reality, the exam is little more than an idealized Java course and is often an afterthought in many places. Organizers say their goal is "a Silicon Valley that lives up to the dreams of Dr. King." Stats prove that it doesn't. I'm not very familiar with MLK's philosophy in detail, but wasn't he for equal opportunity? Equal opportunity != equal representation. Then we seem to have a misunderstanding of what a meritocracy is. I'm not saying we have one, but even if we did, that wouldn't magically mean that we would have affirmative action and ridiculously high rates of minorities in certain professional areas. That makes no sense. The ideals of a meritocracy are that those who have more knowledge and skill will advance higher. If no one is pursuing such knowledge and skill in the first place, that's not the fault of the meritocracy itself. They should not be pushed to participate in things which they have no interest in, either. But finally, the icing on the cake... clearly this is all Silicon Valley's fault and its hideous "brogrammer" culture that everyone talks about, but no one is really sure if it even exists. I can tolerate all of the other things, but how the hell do you go from "minorities are underrepresented" to "Let's blame Silicon Valley!" without any real data to support this?