@dstark - you still aren’t addressing the question. I’m not sure why not.
The question is this - why are the numbers as CONSISTENT as they are? Is the randomness (or lack thereof) within expected parameters. Again, I have no idea.
The question is not - if you average out the women admitted to ME over 14 or so years, why is that number 15%. The question is, why is EVERY YEAR, regardless of raw number of women or men applying, regardless of dean, regardless of average rainfall or GDP or inflation, is the % of women admitted to ME at UCLA always between like 13.5 and 16.5 %? Is that to be expected?
Again, I don’t know, but it seems odd to me in a system that is prohibited BY LAW from taking gender into account that gender percentages remain so consistent (it seems similar for URMs btw). Is it really possible that never in the past 13 or 15 years there was one year where the stats of the female applicants was just poor, and only 7% of the applicants were good enough for ME. Or that one year a bunch of awesome girls got inspired and applied and BAM! a full 19% were good enough for ME?
Doesn’t that tight range seem somewhat suspect? Maybe it’s not. Again, this is not my world. But I’d love someone who actually knows to comment. I think that would be interesting.
You really would have to know the percentage of women who actually applied to ME in the first place. ME is statistically one of the least represented types of engineering that women tend to gravitate to. They are much more represented in things like biomedical, chemical and environmental than they are in mechanical and electrical, for instance.
@ucbalumnus there is no need to “think of it” in any way. There are actual numbers all over the place out there. I have provided numbers that show you can easily up the percent - not immediately to 25, but you can move toward parity.
The harder question is why does everyone say “you can’t do it” when a quick look at actual numbers show the needle can at least be moved a bit, very easily. Why would we rather believe in unicorns?
And one that compares UCB to Stanford and MIT that also includes applicants, I think. But I haven’t gotten access easily to anyplace to find the UCLA application numbers. If those UCB numbers are any indication, it has increased dramatically in recent years. If I could find the % admit and yield numbers I could work backward too, but I haven’t found those and frankly don’t want to spend that much time. I’m too slow at it anyway.
Yes, I had posted the same link with the 2011 data back in post # 298. That is where I noticed the info about what women are studying the most. Thanks for finding the updated link.
@dstark, as a California resident, I thank you and @CaliDad2020 (and the other fine contributors) for this very interesting and worthwhile discussion about our UC system.
@dstark maybe they are higher than “average” but they are much lower than many, many top universities.
And, of course it depends how - and what - you count: However, many Asian nations have a better record of producing female engineers: in China, 40 percent of engineers are female, and the number of female engineering graduates in India has doubled in recent years. Over the same period, the number of female engineers in North America has dropped. The U.S. is also behind 13 Muslim countries in the percentage of women graduating with STEM degrees, including Bahrain, Brunei, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey, and Morocco. http://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2013/02/19/where-are-americas-women-engineers
So while UCB and UCLA may be above a national average, they are no where close to doing as well as many of their peers (nor is UMich, which is just a bit better. Some schools, like Urbana do much worse.)
But again, it is the UC Deans themselves that say the UCs must do better… and yet they don’t.
Your daughter is not going to get into UCB engineering with her numbers. My daughter wouldn’t either. It’s ok.
I haven’t checked but I doubt her numbers are strong enough for UCLA or UCSD either.
So…I wouldn’t worry about those schools.
However, does your daughter really want to go to UC Irvine? UC Davis?
I would call the schools up and ask what is going on.
UC Irvine has a pretty high acceptance rate for engineering.
Interesting: None of the UC campuses belongs to the top 20 schools that has the highest percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women in 2011. See the center column titled “Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded to Women by Schools” on page 15 in the link provided by @dstark.
Olin College, not very big school has the highest - 44.9%
MIT ranks second - 43.4%
Caltech, the smallest school and probably the hardest engineering school has 31.7%.
Yes. And most importantly, of course, is that the UC Deans and President themselves have said, repeatedly, that the UC engineering schools are doing a poor job with gender and URM diversity.
So the question remains -
Is the “stickiness” of the low application, admit and SIR numbers for women and URMs “just the way it is” based on some natural and very consistent level of female and URM applicant.
Is there some structural issue in the acceptance system for the UCs (relying more on SAT Math scores, for instance, versus GPA or SAT WR, which will favor men over women {men on average have a 30 pt. higher SAT math score than women, but men have, on average, lower GPAs and lower SAT WR scores.)
Are the adcoms actually, consciously or unconsciously, adjusting admits to reflect a consistent attendance percentage?
I don’t know the answer, but the fact that women at UCSD egnineering, for example, have higher GPAs than then men 9 our of 10 years, suggests that whatever the UC admission criteria, it is more effective in picking higher quality women than it is picking higher quality men.
And ultimately the question is why the Deans, despite vowing to encourage more female and URM diversity on the UC engineering campuses, continue to fail to do so.
All I know is that the website says one is eligible for consideration for out of state admission by exam only with a UC score of 425. My female 459 -35 one sitting ACT and 800 math level 2 and a decent literature score got flat out rejections at top 5 choices with no corresponding offers from Riverside or Merced. Ok, grades were meh, but don’t advertise 425 if that’s laughably low. If it’s 475, say so and stop accepting fees from those you’re tricking into thinking they might have a chance. And NO, this avenue is not only for the homeschooled.
Can this be true?
According to the numbers for UCLA ( http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/seasoasa/UCEE-Report-2015_2_27.pdf ), annual enrollment averaged about 760 students for the past few years (Freshmen + transfer) and graduations averaged 706 for the same time period. A 93% graduation rate for engineering, one of the most rigorous programs on campus? If this is true the COE is clearly not casting a wide inclusive, holistic net for students. In fact, they are not casting a net at all but rather spearfishing in a small shallow pool for students with a 90%+ chance of graduation.
I once had an advanced math class in which the professor stated that in order to achieve a B in the course he would have to feel confident walking across a bridge we had designed. It was a good point (even though I was a biology major). Weeding out is necessary to ensure the integrity of the field. If almost none of the enrolled students are weeded out after 4 years it means they were chosen very carefully and without an eye to taking a risk on someone who doesn’t meet a certain set of parameters. Hardly the way to expand diversity.