Gender Bias in Acceptance: Opinions?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
21

<p>“To assume that the women admitted are somehow “lesser” than the men is offensive.”</p>

<p>I’m not saying that they’re lesser as people or lesser in achievements. However, it’s not offensive but the REALITY that the paper record of women is on average less impressive. </p>

<p>See my other reply:
“It would be foolish to argue that females and males accepted to Mudd on average have equal paper records. Of course, females at Mudd go on to be just as successful as males. Perhaps this just speaks to the poor predictive power of a paper-record in future collegiate success.”</p>

<p>To argue that Mudd’s policies are beneficial is not a stretch (and I agree that the policies have a net benefit). However, to argue that women accepted have exactly the same paper qualifications as males on average is untenable. This is a STEM school, and science is all about being objective. </p>

<p>I’m all for an open debate of Klawe’s policy; I even take a favorable stance. However, when it comes to sticking our heads in the sand, I’m unwilling to compromise. I felt that this discussion needed to be had to assuage some resentments I’m sure exist in the male application pool. When we compromise core values of gender equality and each gender receiving fair treatment, there has to be a reason. I’m not for a set-in-stone ideology, but I believe that STEM is objective and we must use objective reasoning. </p>

<p>Under any case, I’d be glad to see a world where no one gives a damn about either gender or race.</p>

22

<p>Yes, the females being accepted to the Tech schools have lower test scores and many might not have been accepted on a gender blind basis. The same with other holistic factors that bear weight on admissions. That’s why special categories and holistic standards are brought into the mix. Without that the integration of former women’s colleges that were failing would not have been revived. We would not have the diversity we have at many schools.</p>

23

<p>I’m pretty sure that all admissions are holistic. Every college evaluates interviews, extracurricular activities, essays, transcripts, etc. to determine whether an applicant deserves to get in. The question is as to the relative weight of each aspect of an applicant.</p>

<p>I’m not sure why women tend to seek STEM less often. Even at my high school, STEM classes are more overwhelmingly taught by males. It’s a complicated sociological question that I wouldn’t be able to answer here. In my experience, women haven’t been openly discouraged from pursuing STEM. Perhaps my experience is unusual. </p>

<p>Given that gender is such a MAJOR factor in admissions, I feel that a discussion of Klawe’s policies is warranted. </p>

<hr>

<p>Perhaps the fact that females perform equally well as males in Mudd raises a big question: how well does a paper record predict success? </p>

<p>Also, I doubt that anyone applying to Mudd is unqualified. To join this killer place requires a level of gumption. There aren’t any fantasies of prestige here. Anyone wanting to better themselves with the high-standard education of Mudd is qualified in my book.</p>

24

<p>Duelix & cptofthehouse:</p>

<p>So frustrating to read your posts – they really throw out dubious assumptions & very limited thinking under the guise of “science”. </p>

<p>Where is your proof that either of these statements are true for HMC admissions?

  1. However, it’s not offensive but the REALITY that the paper record of women is on average less impressive. </p>

<ol>
<li> However, to argue that women accepted have exactly the same paper qualifications as males on average is untenable. This is a STEM school, and science is all about being objective. </li>
</ol>

<p>Your statement: If one had to choose between two applicants, one with a math I SAT score of 800 and one with a math I SAT score of 790, with no other information, one would obviously choose the person with the score of 800.</p>

<p>Why is that choice obvious? Choosing based on those two test scores is tantamount to tossing a coin. I would argue that test scores both in the 99% (see link to 2011 test score table - <a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile_Ranks_2011.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile_Ranks_2011.pdf&lt;/a&gt;) say very little about two candidates except that one had a slightly better day taking the test than the other. There is nothing informative in those two numbers. Which is why admissions are not solely based on one test taken on one day. I could throw in another story about my two Mudd daughters, one with 800 score, the other (who had taken more higher level math) with a 780 score (again, a score in the 99% for the test), and how the 780 scorer has been doing extremely well in math at Mudd… you know, because the one test on the one day doesn’t tell much more than that…</p>

<p>Statement: Mudd was gender-blind at one time
When was Mudd gender-blind? Again, where is your proof? Maybe more gender neutral before Klawe, but maybe not. </p>

<p>Statement: If we picked the 5 best people from Kansas and the 5 best people from Washington, it isn’t a stretch to assume that the Washington people picked have had a better paper record. </p>

<p>Again, how do you figure? Maybe, to do well at wrestling in Kansas you have to be very dedicated and work very hard because the resources are limited and only those willing to do their very best are allowed to compete. However, in Washington, everyone on every street corner wrestles and everyone thinks they are exceptional so they apply for teams in greater numbers. Maybe, the 100 Washington applicants has only about 20 really exceptional wrestlers, but the 10 Kansas ones are all as good as the Washington 20 best, because they’ve had to compete that much harder, and have a more rational idea of their skills. Then, maybe, the choice to have a balanced team makes perfect sense. Maybe the Kansas wrestlers have techniques that are different from the Washington wrestlers and so having a balanced team makes for more wins. </p>

<p>Statement: Yes, the females being accepted to the Tech schools have lower test scores and many might not have been accepted on a gender blind basis. </p>

<p>Again, please site your source for this statement. Show me “on paper” that lesser talented women are being accepted.</p>

<p>statement: I’m not sure why women tend to seek STEM less often.
– Please read this abstract from a 2012 study-
“In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.”
Link: [Study</a> shows gender bias in science is real. Here?s why it matters. | Unofficial Prognosis, Scientific American Blog Network](<a href=“http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/]Study”>Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here's why it matters. - Scientific American Blog Network)</p>

<p>Statement: When we compromise core values of gender equality and each gender receiving fair treatment, there has to be a reason. </p>

<p>The reason being - “fair treatment” and “meritocracy” are still dreams that are very far from reality. Again, see the above study.</p>

<p>Statement: In my experience, women haven’t been openly discouraged from pursuing STEM. Perhaps my experience is unusual. </p>

<pre><code>Finally, a statement I agree with.
</code></pre>

25

<p>Sorry to re-open this, but I just saw that HMC recently made “news” because they graduated more women than men in engineering.<br>
<a href=“Harvey Mudd College Makes School History Awarding Majority Of Engineering Degrees To Women | HuffPost College”>Harvey Mudd College Makes School History Awarding Majority Of Engineering Degrees To Women | HuffPost College;

<p>Well of course they did, because they accepted more girls so more graduated. How is this news? And I am confident that there were males who were turned away even though they were more qualified than the least qualified female accepted. Mom2kids can provide whatever anecdotal information she wants about her daughter (who had fabulous stats, by the way), but I am confident my statement is correct (and I don’t know how to prove it, so I don’t intend to debate it). By the way, I don’t have a problem with what they are doing, but I have problems with it being touted as some amazing achievement. If you are small enough and competitive of a school, you can get away with what they are doing. You can also do what other STEM schools do, and offer big merit scholarships to women to attend.</p>

<p>HMC Admission Rates from the 2012-2013 Common Data Set.
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 2447
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 889
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 311
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 331</p>

<p>Male admit rate: 12.7%
Female admit rate: 37.3%</p>

26

<p>I find this an amazing achievement, yes, I do . Though I still believe that the women who were accepted had lower scores in the maths, that they managed to get through an engineering curriculum is fantastic. It also shows that women CAN get through these programs. </p>

<p>It’s a national (and in my state very much a state problem) that not enough students are doing STEM studies, and women are so doing at half the rate of men. The test scores of women also show a disparity. It is important to get the word out there that STEM careers are also great choices for females. </p>

<p>I was in the generation of women who turned the medical profession around. Yes, in the earlier years, the men had the edge on the stats, but in the 40 years hence, the gap has narrowed. Still women do NOT have the math scores yet, that the men do, and do not take the advanced math courses that the men do. More holistic criterion needs to be used to get the gendre balance. But clearly this does not compromise the grad rates in the field which is what is important.</p>

27

<p>Is there gender bias? ABSOLUTELY! Is the female head of HMC trying to say that fewer male applicants are qualified? Or that more female applicants are superior? Baloney – this is reverse discrimination. HMC should be blind to race, gender, religion – everything except academic qualifications.</p>

28

<p>“Our Mission
Harvey Mudd College seeks to educate engineers, scientists, and mathematicians well versed in all of these areas and in the humanities and the social sciences so that they may assume leadership in their fields with a clear understanding of the impact of their work on society.”</p>

<p>That is very clear: they are NOT a school of or for people rigidly focused on academic “qualifications” to the exclusion of real world understanding and concerns. That’s not discrimination of any kind, it recognizes the vital importance of understanding the role in and effect on society you have as a graduate.</p>

<p>There are PLENTY of problems that disproportionately affect women and minorities and the disabled and the poor, problems that many middle class white men not only might not be aware of but might not even be capable of understanding, not having lived it themselves. </p>

<p>So to fulfill their mission, HMC must admit and teach and graduate people from different characteristics and backgrounds. They try to assemble a well balanced class. If that means they must turn away many more applications from middle (or upper) class white men, they seem perfectly comfortable with that. I can and do respect that.</p>

29

<p>I’m a woman in STEM, and I’m completely against any gender bias. Colleges should accept students based on merit only. I don’t see the problem with not having a 50/50 ratio in all subjects. People should study what they like. Which also brings up the point, why are people so specifically concerned with a low percentage of women in STEM? What about low percentages of men/women in other subjects, which are no less significant then STEM?</p>

<p>I understand that there exists some discrimination against women in STEM (I personally haven’t experienced it, but I’ve heard of sexist STEM teachers before). But giving women lower standards in STEM then men isn’t the way to combat it. I wouldn’t want to be accepted somewhere, because they’re trying to reach a quota (“A’s application is better then B’s, but A is a boy and B is a girl and we’ve reached our quota for males”). It’s actually a bit insulting. If I’m recognized for my achievements, I want it solely to be for those achievements.</p>

30

<p>^ @stressedouttt‌ Perhaps it might help you to look at things from the Admissions point of view, which is slightly different from yours.</p>

<p>They do not put all applications in a ranked order, from “best” to “worst”, and then go down the list until they get enough acceptances to fill the class. </p>

<p>Think of them having a minimum cutoff: “can succeed here” vs. “cannot succeed here.” Then, from among those who can succeed, there are no clear cut bases to say that an applicant with one academic index will do better in the school OR in life than another applicant with a similar but not equal academic index. Is one person’s 2300/3.8UW more meaningful than another’s 2250/4.0UW? Is either one of them better than a 35/3.9?</p>

<p>They are trying to pick and choose from among applications that have no <em>significant</em> differences among them in the raw numbers.</p>

<p>And they are also concerned about their mission. What will their students do after graduation? Is sending one more engineer to Apple or Samsung in line with what they’re trying to do, or should they instead admit someone with a 3.75UW/2200 who is keenly interested in developing an economical and efficient water purification method and apparatus for third world villages? Or maybe someone with two relatives who were paralyzed in inner city shootings who wants to work on powered prosthetics and better battery technology for wheelchairs?</p>

<p>The purpose of the school is NOT to provide a luxury education for the students. The purpose of colleges and universities is to provide research and graduates for society. The students aren’t the customers, the students are a product. They are asking, even when you first apply, “What will THIS applicant probably do with the education he would get here, vs. what is THAT applicant likely to with the education she would get here?”</p>

<p>I hope you do well with your studies. But more than that, I hope you do good with your education.</p>

31

<p>^ @stressedouttt</p>

<p>Simply stated - HMC accepts more QUALIFIED women than men. They don’t lower their standards. They don’t accept women who will ultimately fail. They are looking to get more bright, achieving, hard-working, creative, and focused women and men into STEM. At the moment, men don’t need the extra encouragement and have had fewer roadblocks to overcome on their journey to STEM studies. HMC has a self-selecting applicant pool to choose from, fewer women apply and fewer will come, so they admit more.</p>

<p>Also, as a women in STEM, you should be looking to hold out a helping hand to other women. Truly, the fantasy that you will only be judged on your merits is one you should wake up from now. Read the studies that show this clearly isn’t true. The more women there are in STEM, the more they achieve in STEM, the more they become just a part of the fabric of STEM; then the more this mysterious discrimination you’ve never felt will actually dissipate.</p>

<p>I’m always frustrated by this line of thought – that somehow encouraging more unrepresented groups into STEM can only be done by lowering standards. There are lots of bright women and minorities who could be achieving in STEM, but have felt it is somehow not for them. HMC has done a great job in overcoming the “I’m not interested or talented in computer science” mindset by re-imagining how classes are taught and marketed to students not already in CS. Not by lowering the standards of what is being learned, but by breaking through the idea that only the “few” can and should do it. I’m happy they are working towards the same with their student body makeup.</p>

32

<p>What I find really sad about this entire discussion is that neither side is going to convince the other. Many young met, and their parents who want them to be admitted to the top STEM schools, feel threatened, so that, in their minds, means that women accepted instead of them are somehow inferior. Which folks know from my earlier posts, I think is wrong. I have met the young women of Mudd, they are extraordinary. As are the men. The admissions office is looking for criteria that show that the applicants are qualified to succeed at Mudd and look beyond raw test scores for that something special (something that also works to the benefit of certain – less traditional – male candidates as well). And, on another topic, it is an extraordinary woman who has not in some way experienced discrimination in her career. I haven’t met one yet. Mudd is very special. A significant part of the rest of world – including the STEM world – is not. After leaving Mudd, some of the young women find that the labs they work in are not as welcoming. This both breaks my heart and drives me crazy. I know of women who have recently dropped out of PhD programs because the male professors are neandrathal jerks. I recommend anyone to look at the research that is being done at Harvard and Yale into implicit bias. Go on line. Take the tests yourselves. You will be astounded. </p>

33

<p>To be fair…male professors at Mudd can be jerks, too. My D has a professor this semester for a required core class who regularly made sexist (and sexual innuendo) comments in his lectures. The boys tittered, and the young women squirmed. There were complaints to the dean of faculty… for the moment, the prof has knocked it off, but I suspect he has been pulling this crap for many years and has gotten away with it. So even Mudd with a very strong female ratio and a woman president isn’t immune from this. The women of Mudd are also pretty tough, from what I can tell, which will serve them well in the STEM world. Wish they didn’t have to be, but it is reality. The BS on this thread is just more of the same – my D is more than qualified to compete with any of the guys posting out here.</p>

34

<p>And this underscores why you need a critical mass of women. They will voice the complaints, and even if the prof is a jerk – he at least has beent told his behavior is unacceptable and he has to change. That is progress. </p>

35

<p>Let’s not forget the many parents and students who prefer a school with gender balance as they see such schools having a more healthy learning and social environment. These parents and their sons (or daughters) have no qualms about admissions percentages being higher for one group or another as they believe that intentionally shaping a college community’s demographics is a good thing. </p>

36

<p>I suspect that both of the following statements are true:</p>

<ol>
<li>Women admitted to Harvey Mudd are extremely well qualified and on a par with male students who are admitted…</li>
<li>A woman has a much better chance of admission to Harvey Mudd than a similarly-qualified male applicant.</li>
</ol>

<p>The reason both of these statements can be simultaneously true is that Mudd has a very strong applicant pool from which to choose, but that pool skews strongly male. So Mudd has enough very well-qualified applicants to fill the female slots without lowering standards, but the competition for the male slots is a lot tougher.</p>

37

^I like that one.

38

I’d just like to point out that although the ratio of males attending to females attending used to be higher, was the ratio of males ACCEPTED to females ACCEPTED higher? Mudd’s become more attractive to women (including accepted ones) because of its 50-50 ratio. I know that I wouldn’t want to attend a school that’s skewed 70-30 male to female (ex. Caltech) if accepted, no matter how good the school was.

39

Ratio of males to females in freshman class in fall 2014: 52.3% male, 47.7% female

40

@intparent I meant before the whole 50-50 initiative. I feel like even if the same number of girls were admitted, I doubt many would have attended a school full of guys. I certainly wouldn’t have.