<p>I know one thing Carnegie Mellon does is to have several different entry levels for the initial comp sci course so that you really can start from nothing. At least when my son applied they said that they always accepted some students who had never seen a computer, but who had high math scores. They also have an organization for women in computer science. [Women</a> in Computer Science: Carnegie Mellon’s Women@SCS](<a href=“http://women.cs.cmu.edu/]Women”>http://women.cs.cmu.edu/) I think they still have a harder time keeping women in the School of Computer Science than the guys though.</p>
<p>It could be that Brown gets more women in its lower-level CS classes because the classes are more fun and interdisciplinary rather than just technical. Each class has a theme that changes from year to year and often a skit on opening day. Recent themes have been Harry Potter, 007, The Matrix and Inception. There are also several female undergraduate TA’s and that might well make a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A strong foundation in math is key as most who were “weeded out” in the intro CS classes for majors I took were folks whose math foundations were weak and/or those not willing to put in the requisite effort. </p>
<p>Never seeing a computer is a disadvantage, but can be overcome much more easily within a matter of hours/days provided the one with the disadvantage is genuinely curious and not perfunctorily doing CS “because it leads to a job”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a mix of the nerdy one-upsmanship combined with latent sexism against female students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many hardcore engineering/CS nerd students, old school engineering/CS Profs, and many old school engineering/CS oriented employers perceive all that as “watering down the standards” and “producing sub-par graduates”. </p>
<p>Overheard plenty of this in the computer technology forums and among/from friends on both sides of the debate over whether making intro-CS courses less technical is a good or a bad thing. </p>
<p>Personally, while I am all for fun being a derivative incidental bonus in classroom teaching, I do think there’s some value for students learning to endure “no/less fun” classes as good preparation for adult life. Not all areas of adult life are “fun”…especially in the workplace.</p>
<p>I took a very fun beginning computer programming class way back in the dark ages. I’m glad I took it. I think it was rigorous enough for me to figure out that it was not for me. Both my brothers were CS majors (well younger one was, older one had to major in applied math because CS didn’t exist yet.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love Brown. Even CS sounds great at Brown. Of all the schools I didn’t attend, Brown is my favorite, bar none.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A CS class can be interdisciplinary and fun without being any less technical. At Brown, no one has any distribution requirements; thus no one ever takes a course that he or she doesn’t want to be in (except for a few occasional major requirements). The class better be interesting if they expect it to fill up. Dry as dust doesn’t cut when attendance is not compulsory. </p>
<p>Because everyone wants to be there, the professor can expect more work from each student and actually get it. Even the guaranteed-A students have little competitions and special ways to prove themselves and participate just because they want to.</p>
<p>Furthermore, CS taught in a vacuum is really not being very well taught: CS is just a tool that is used in many different industries and knowing something beyond mere coding is extremely useful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems absolutely ridiculous to me. So if a female were dominating the classroom conversation and no one else were able to participate, the professor would just go on as normal rather than mentioning it to that student in private as they would if it were a male student? That’s discouraging males rather than encouraging females. Reminds me of the idea that you can reduce income inequality by making all the rich people poorer. It doesn’t do anyone any good. Far more ridiculous than number 3 which provides information to people that may be pertinent to their plans for the future. Maybe it’s giving unaksed advice, but it’s not detrimental to their students the same way number 1 is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one’s really saying that’s the world today (well, at least I’m not). Many would argue that it’s not a good future, in disagreement with the few who have said that they prefer balance to ensuring that everyone is interested in what they do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where I go I can do that. But say I decided I wanted to take an intro CS class Pass/Fail, and after taking it decided I liked it so much I wanted to major in it. Now I have to go though all sorts of hoops to be able to do that, because I can’t take major classes pass fail. Pass/Fail options are worthless for that purpose.</p>
<p>
The fact that they represent less than 50% of a field, or that “it’d be great to see more girls in these fields” in no way implies that there is a NEED for more women in these fields. Really, it’s just political correctness run amok.</p>
<p>There is a need for more women in STEM fields. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Male applicants to HMC = 2143</p>
<p>Female app = 814</p>
<p>Acceptance rate for the former 16%, the latter 41%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, Mudd applicants self-select, and any females who matriculate can do well. (No different than females at Caltech, MIT and other top tech schools.)</p>
<p>But the message, I believe, is that STEM (and in particular physical sciences+math) lose the females starting in middle school and not from ability. (see post 18) As a result, by the time they matriculate to college, they are less prepared than their male counterparts. (See AP courses in Calc and physics/chem.)</p>
<p>^That could be, though I suspect the ones who apply to MIT, Caltech etc. are every bit as qualified as the guys. My son didn’t get into MIT or Caltech - one of his best friends, a girl did. I think her scores were similar, and her grades were a smidgeon better, and she had more first place ribbons at Science Olympiad. Hard to judge whether her science research should trump what he did with computers, but basically I held no grudge against her at all. Years ago MIT did a study of the female students they accepted and found that even with somewhat lower stats they were outperforming males once at MIT. So why not accept a greater percentage of them?</p>
<p>Vladenschlutte - I assume if a woman were to dominate the classroom discussion she would be encouraged to allow more overall participation too. It didn’t sound like women did that though. Also, she was lecturing about how to get more women in CS so she focused on that topic and used examples highlighted her strategy.</p>
<p>Thank you for telling us about this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How appropriate do you think this statement is (which should not be construed as necessarily reflecting personal opinions)?</p>
<p>“We have made the streets safer by sending all the worthless Blacks crack dealers to prison.”</p>
<p>Sounds a little bit racist, right? Doesn’t that sound like it’s implying that Blacks are all out there selling crack or that a White kid can sell crack and it’s not a problem? Yeah, you could say “Well, they didn’t say that they weren’t arresting White crack dealers.” but there’s a certain implication. If what they do is ask people to stop participating in class who participate “too much” then they’re doing it to “help” everyone in the class (except for that kid who wants to learn of 'course) not just females. They didn’t list about how they have free tutoring, or offer study rooms for groups, or whatever services they offer to everybody. </p>
<p>I go off on that side track without discussing how misguided it is to tell people that they’re trying to learn too much and that they need to stop because they’re exceeding others.</p>
<p>The point of preventing the (male) student from monopolizing discussion in CS classes is not so much that he intimidates female students as it is that other students who may not have as much knowledge about CS will feel intimidated by their lack of knowledge. What Mudd did in part was change their intro CS courses by splitting students into classes based on how much programming background they had, including offering courses for non-CS majors, largely to demystify the topic and make it less threatening to students with less knowledge than say the class discussion monopolizer. As a liberal arts major myself, i can remember taking the math and science classes designed for non math and science majors. And actually enjoyed them. Because they did not make me feel like I was out of my element.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes sense, and sounds reasonable. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t say this if that’s the reality of the situation there.</p>
<p>^actually, they did 
</p>
<p>My last post was from my ipad and way after I should have been asleep so I didn’t link this 2011 article I came across earlier in the day - and although “demystify” is absolutely the right word, it wasn’t my own! But was apparently even used on Harvey Mudd’s website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[A</a> Campus Champion for Women in Computer Science - Businessweek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>
I would not make that assumption at all. Since she wishes to ENCOURAGE participation from the female students, she would not do anything to DISCOURAGE it. She would have a bias to allowing the female students more latitude, by the very fact that this is where her efforts are focused.</p>
<p>The fact that they represent less than 50% of a field, or that “it’d be great to see more girls in these fields” in no way implies that there is a NEED for more women in these fields. Really, it’s just political correctness run amok.</p>
<p>This depends entirely on how you define “need,” sylvan, and who’s need we’re talking about here.</p>
<p>Also, allowing one female student to dominate the class also discourages participation from female students. Women are more likely to doubt their own mathematical and technical knowledge and more likely to drop out of majors if they believe that their technical knowledge is far behind others - especially male others, but female others as well. In short, they’re more intimidated by the obnoxious know-it-all who takes over the entire class. A good professor doesn’t let any student monopolize the class discussion, regardless of whether it’s a philosophy class, a music class, or a computer science class. But this is especially important for underrepresented groups in courses in which they are underrepresented, including women in STEM.</p>
<p>o if a female were dominating the classroom conversation and no one else were able to participate, the professor would just go on as normal rather than mentioning it to that student in private as they would if it were a male student</p>
<p>Nobody said that. A good professor doesn’t allow anyone to monopolize any class, regardless of gender, and encourages the quiet ones to participate by varying classroom activities.</p>
<p>Vladenschlutte, your comparison is not good. The original statement was not valenced the way yours is, and did not imply that female students who monopolize class would not also be told to step back a little and let others participate. It only implied that an extra emphasis would be placed on making sure that male students don’t dominate the class.</p>
<p>I go off on that side track without discussing how misguided it is to tell people that they’re trying to learn too much and that they need to stop because they’re exceeding others.</p>
<p>Have you ever led a classroom? Students can learn without monopolizing the discussion, and part of learning is also hearing the opinions and thoughts of others. A particularly bright student can always come visit office hours or make an appointment with the professor if they have additional questions. Telling a student not to take over the discussion or to step back and let others participate is not the same thing, or even close, to telling them that they are trying to learn too much.</p>
<p>xiggi - can’t find any info on the online 10th grader project. Any idea when that is supposed to take off?</p>