> Where is the contradiction? You referenced, approvingly I assume, emphasizing "potential" over skill in admissions. You'd like for it not to unfairly impact

> Where is the contradiction? You referenced, approvingly I assume, emphasizing "potential" over skill in admissions. You'd like for it not to unfairly impact boys who've had a genuine interest since a young age. Unfortunately CMU's policy seems to be to disregard all levels of prior experience. They contrast the newer polices with the old, which gave preference to "lots of previous programming experience". (not just a little bit) They target aptitude and "non-academic strengths". (a lot or a little previous experience doesn't fit here). Finally, if you are actually giving weight to experience, explicitly stating "no prior experience required" is a funny way to go about it. One last thing: a corollary of my edit is that an intervention that changes requirements however they need to be changed, just to get more girls in the door, is inequitable.