<p>“However, dumbing down courses or making things easier for women is no way to get them in these fields.”
Couple of previous posts concerned about dumbed down courses: All HMC students take a core CS course “CS for scientists”. There are different sections, one of which assumes no previous programming. There is a path for students taking that section with an additional course to progress into the computer science major, whereas more experienced programmers could take only one course.
So, a defined pathway was created for a novice programmer to get into the computer science major, without any dumbing down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really highly doubt this actually happened. Sorry. Nobody said that to you.</p>
<p>
Why is there a “correct rate”? And why are you basing that rate solely on the distribution of science/math aptitude in society? What about the rate of field interest in society? Are you similarly focused on making other non/STEM fields meet with the “correct rate” of gender participation? What about meeting the “correct rates” of gay participation, asian participation, and male participation?<br>
Despite the current disparity in male/female rates of higher education attainment, apparently they are still on their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The correct rate is whatever the participation rate would be if there were no inappropriate negative influences discouraging students. So, there is always a correct rate. We just have no idea what it is. This applies across the board to all situations (though I have yet to encounter a situation where gay students have been discouraged from CS… don’t quite know how that would come up). I am not at all in favor of the sort of “encouragement” Harvey Mudd thinks its giving. I personally detest this sort of “Women in <em>insert random STEM field</em>” crap. However, I do believe that there harmful stereotypes and biases that are discouraging girls from even finding out of they are interested in CS. But it is not a college issue. It starts way before that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer is that I do not know nor care too much about the issue of offering some courses that might come with training wheels. Perhaps you disagree with my comment about the direct competitors of HMC, and that is your right. I happen to think that the undergraduates at both Caltech and HMC might agree with me, and so does the long term rivalry antics. </p>
<p>It also remains, however, that HMC is still a Liberal Arts College and one that is part of the 5C. That means that students are encouraged to look at courses outside their own alma mater. I also do not see the fact that an introduction course at HMC as a sign of lower quality, and more than a Harvey Mudd could enroll in one of the very best courses in Economics or Goverment at CMC, a school that excels in such offerings. </p>
<p>But again, if you think that HMC has a different set of competitors, so be it. We can have different opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if you mean a near-perfect understanding of grammar and syntax, then yes: a program might be thought of as a 5-page paper which disappears if you leave out the wrong comma or parenthesis. Nevertheless, CS does require comfort with structured analytical thinking, which correlates strongly with math skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly is this dumbing down the curriculum? Some of the best computer science students at my school did not program a thing until they went to college.</p>
<p>I don’t know LI. I keep hearing Zuckerberg has better language skills than Math skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then the Law of Unintended Consequences takes over and you create yet a new disparity. High schools over the last few decades have become increasingly biased toward rewarding feminine values, replacing an emphasis on pure test scores with elements that heavily consider on-time and neat completion of homework, arts and crafts style presentations, class participation and team projects. The result? Now nearly 60% of college applicants are female and males generally have an easier time getting in. Once they’re in, the females have to work harder to get dates, due to excess competition.</p>
<p>^yes it has definitely gotten much more difficult for females to get their MRS degrees ;)</p>
<p>@scansmom Ahhhh, I see why you did there! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but Facebook sucks from a programming standpoint. It succeeded due to its brilliant sociological and marketing insights: give thousands of horny college students a way to meet members of the opposite sex from their dorm rooms and then slap an exclusive cachet (Ivy League school enrollment) on top to make it desirable.</p>
<p>I read a study a while ago that said women were more easily discouraged in “weed out” math and science than men are. Men are more likely to keep going even in the face of a few low grades, while women are quicker to assume they are not cut out for those professions and switch to other majors. Can’t find the source, unfortunately… </p>
<p>But this stuck with me when I read it because I was a women who was “weeded out” of the sciences by a terrible chem grade at a top research university many years ago, I can attest to the fact that it does happen. Looking back I wish I had (1) gotten a tutor for the class, and (2) taken the darned thing again if I need a higher grade to in order to move ahead (I actually got a C+, which in retrospect should NOT have stopped me – but did). Because I know now that I was plenty smart enough to achieve in that field (I did get an A in Calculus that same year at the same university). But I just figured I wasn’t good at it, so should bail out. Now I know I was in with a bunch of pre-med students gunning for good grades to get into med school, many of whom had better high school preparation than my lousy public school one. And I was in a several hundred person lecture with a TA who barely spoke English for my section. I didn’t want to be a Chem major, but needed the class for the science major I was initially interested in. </p>
<p>I also recently ran into a male friend who is an engineer who builds rockets. We were talking about engineering as a career for girls because my D2 was considering it at the time. He got very animated (not usually an animated guy!) and said that whenever his group is hiring an intern or a new hire, they always try to get a woman. He said adding even one woman into a group of male engineers ups the communications skills and productivity of the group by a lot. He just wishes there were more in the pipeline to hire, he would love to have a bunch of them.</p>
<p>My D is a classic example of a woman going to Mudd who has not done much computer programming. A little Python this last year with her school programming club, but nothing compared to some of the boys in her class who have been fiddling with computers since elementary school. It would be silly to put her in the same intro class with them. But it would be equally silly to say that she could not have a successful career in CS (I work in IT, I KNOW she could do it if she chooses that major and career path). It is as much an issue of “unequal preparation” as anything else. Which, by the way, Mudd deals with in all of their subjects. Some kids come from high schools that don’t offer any APs in the sciences. Mudd does not accept AP credits, although they will sometimes move students up based on placement exams. But not a lot… The Darwinian (read: research university) way of dealing with unequal prep is to let the kids flounder and drop out of STEM. Mudd has a vested interest as a STEM school in helping the kids they admit succeed in their core and major courses. That seems like an admirable trait, not something to be belittled as some have done on this thread. And I don’t believe anyone can dispute Mudd’s success in producing PhD candidates in the STEM subjects or graduates getting high paying jobs in the STEM fields. By the end of their four years, pretty much every Mudd student has a great tech education and marketable skills.</p>
<p>By the way, I will encourage my D to take the biology oriented CS course at Mudd, although it will be her decision. Primarily because I think it will be focused on using computers to solve science problems, which I think is more her interest than core CS topics. I think it will serve her better in the long run than learning to write a sort, for example (a skill I learned in a CS class in college and have NEVER used outside that setting).</p>
<p>Here is one more thought. Look at a school like University of Chicago. They offer two levels of intro physics courses, one is an “honors” course track for likely majors, and another track a step down from that. But… quite a few physics majors come from that lower track because they didn’t enter the college KNOWING from the first day that they wanted to major in Physics. They found out when they took the class – and maybe had a better experience in their introduction because they weren’t trampled by the kids who have been living and breathing it since they were 5.</p>
<p>This is an exciting discussion. We are back to MIT takes girls although they are not good enough.</p>
<p>Some universities permit students with considerable experience in a foreign language to take the complete beginners’ course. My university will not even prevent a native speaker from enrolling in the complete beginners’ course. This starts to get really silly. </p>
<p>Earlier, students were placed into courses depending on the total time of previous coursework in the language–never mind what level was attained, and never mind how long ago it was. So for example, a “mature student” who returned to finish a degree after 20 years, but had 1 year of a foreign language at college level 20 years ago was forced to take the second year of that language, or not take that language at all.</p>
<p>It is hard to know how to set up courses when the students have wildly unequal backgrounds. I think that having separate courses for students who have never studied programming before vs. students who have quite a lot of background just makes sense, and is not “dumbing down” the university any more than offering first-year courses in many different foreign languages is “dumbing down” the university.</p>
<p>I think that we actually have no idea what the “natural” level of participation by women in STEM subjects would be. I could certainly entertain the idea that it might not be 50/50. However, I seriously doubt that the natural level is as low as the currently observed level.</p>
<p>In the “QuantMech Predicts” category: I estimate that it will take another three generations for the participation by women in STEM subjects to reach its natural level–maybe four. Based on observations, I’d guess that a foothold for equality probably has to be attained at each educational/career level successively. For example, I have mentioned elsewhere that my mother was prohibited by the physics teacher from taking physics in high school–girls were not allowed to take the class. She took bookkeeping instead. When I was in high school, there were (I believe) 4 girls in the upper level of the two levels of physics that were offered–out of about 60 students total in the upper-level class. It is possible that there might have been as many as 6 girls out of 60, but definitely not more. I think that participation in the “top” level high school physics is approaching parity now. At the undergraduate level, participation by women in physics and engineering fields is still rather low–but rising.</p>
<p>As one moves up the faculty ranks in most STEM subjects, the percentage of women falls off regularly–but as one moves up the faculty ranks, one is also sampling people who are older and older, and therefore obtaining information on conditions in the past.</p>
<p>When I was an undergraduate, I had a total of 2 female professors out of approximately 60 courses that I took, and neither of the two was in math or science. In fact, I was quite startled when I walked into a course in my sophomore year, and it was being taught by a woman faculty member–only the last names of the professors were listed in the schedule of courses. She was quite distinguished in her field. Her father had wanted her to take a secretarial course, as better suited to women.</p>
<p>I am not sure how I feel about the “Women in [put STEM field here],” to be honest. I can see both pros and cons of these programs. On the other hand, I think that it is the opinion of young women on the cusp of decisions, who <em>might</em> go into STEM fields, whose thoughts about these programs really matter. It would be great if it did not take another 3 or 4 generations for the participation by women to rise to its natural level (i.e., the level that would be attained absent any cultural discouragement).</p>
<p>“I have mentioned elsewhere that my mother was prohibited by the physics teacher from taking physics in high school”</p>
<p>I assume she was in US. US is a regressive society where women are concerned although they claim to be progressive and ahead of other nations. My mother was a science teacher starting in the early 60s and could have been a doctor if her parents had a little bit of money.</p>
<p>A highly qualified local girl went to MIT, and I can honestly say she was top science kid in the hs (and probably the district too). She took 3 IB science courses, all HL. She also did advanced research and received the school science award. Not all students that are qualified get admitted to MIT/Mudd, but I think all admitted students are qualified.</p>
<p>But plenty of female college Presidents. And even a few remarkable ones.</p>