Women make up majority of Carnegie Mellon first-years

@psycholing @Ynotgo
I’m open to hearing your objection and dialogue but honestly I reread both posts above and cannot see a good argument. In fact, it may support more of what I am saying. For example,

My point exactly, if the female is qualified in a math intensive course (whether she is female or not), she should be accepted. Pretty easy.

It’s not so much CMU losing your son, as it is your son not wanting to enroll. Now that CMU forces a closer 50/50 enrollment they are accepting people at a lower qualification level which in turn lowers the bar. I’m all for CMU doing that if that’s what they want to do. That is not my point, my point is that if schools gave acceptances to all qualified people, then the highly qualified guys would not be getting all of these unprecidented rejection letters from their primary dream schools. A 1590/5.2 gpa gets turned down from his dream school because there aren’t enough women getting enrolled so they force a 50/50 enrollment by giving his seat to a 1390 female. I don’t mean any offense as I know that this might irk some people, I only mean it as a genuine common logic observation.

@slimmy You write a mythical 5.2 GPA student.

Back in my day (the stone ages/1980’s) the top GPA was a 4.0. Getting a 4.0 was somewhat rare, but every school had 1 or 2, sometimes 4 or 5. Almost anybody who had a 4.0 also took honors or if available AP classes – that is just what you did back then. We had “tracks”, and if you got all A’s, well, you were moved up to the highest track. The top 5-10 students in the class occasionally went to an Ivy or an elite LAC, but more likely went to the local public school with a full ride merit scholarship.

Using weighted scores is distorting, because that means every school is on a different scoring system. When scores are on different scales, they can neither be compared nor averaged. As a researcher who understands statistics, I can tell you that when I see a rating over 4.0 as a GPA, my initial thought is “wow, that is a meaningless number” rather than, “wow, that is impressive”. I have never seen a single cogent explanation as to how weighting grades, such as adding one or two points for a course that is taught with a single minded purpose of passing an AP test, leads to a more accurate prediction of a college performance. compared to just using unweighted grades. Furthermore, there is such grade inflation in at most high schools, that even an unweighted 4.0 might indicate a hard-working, yet intellectually average, student. (This comes from direct experience, having taught at the college level extensively.) For example, I had one grad student who came in to our program with a 4.0 in high school and college – never had a B in his life. He just could not learn statistics. I had to run all the stats for his masters thesis. In other academic areas he was mediocre. Not by any means a brilliant student, not a creative thinker, actually, not quick at all, but he sure was tenacious.

Let’s add discussion of the SATs. The SATs were “recentered” in the 1990’s, because the test was bottom heavy (too few students were receiving high scores.) Then, the entire test was reconfigured a number of times. At this juncture, SATs have been watered down and inflated such that they are considerably easier then they were in the 1980’s. Now, 1% of test takers score over a 1500 in a single sitting. If we add in superscores, we have (I speculate) over 2%, perhaps 3% with these scores over 1500. Some of those students are very good test takers, some are super-prepared, and some are truly brilliant. Some took the test multiple times to achieve an ideal score. So, how to distinguish them? CMU wants the innovators and thinkers – not the grinds who take 300 practice tests. But how to find them? This is the challenge for the adcoms – and no, taking your suggestion of doubling down on high test scores and high grades will not cut it. THIS is the reason for holistic admissions. Because the grinds who study their SAT book every night are not going to be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. Someday they are just going to be better paid grinds in a 9-5 job – like my 4.0 student mentioned above.

Finally, with your “1390 SAT female taking the space of the [deserving] 1550 male” statement, you are just inventing straw data to support your argument. I guess this is a common tactic in today’s media, and so you are emulating what you see. So learn this lesson – Made up numbers do not magically turn into data. Please point me to the actual data that demonstrates any single woman or group of women with a 1390 SAT took the “space” of a male (or group of males) with a 1590. I would like to see that… as I have read the common data set with some scrutiny and I cannot find any data to indicate that the quality of students has degraded since the university started to push towards gender equity.

You may think that if only you were female you might have gotten into a better college. But, given your argument style, that is probably incorrect. Your “entitled” attitude probably would have leaked out onto the essays, and you still would have had denials.

I see exactly what @slimmy is saying at our local IB World high school. The girls with lower scores get into better schools than the boys with higher scores. We have grade inflation, so everyone in this population, applying to CMU, MIT, Berkeley etc. gets a 4.0 unweighted, What is even worse, is at CMU, girls get into more of their choices of schools, so say first choice SCS and second ECE, both hard to get in majors at CMU, but boys always get rejected at their second choice and rarely get in for their first choice. It makes no sense at all to the boys getting these rejects.
Boys have come to realize there is so much bias, its not even worth trying!

It makes no sense, but CMU seems determined to right the wrongs of HUMANITY !!! What if it really makes no dent at all, because most of the women opt out anyway, after the cushy 50-50 ratio is over in 4 years?

What happens when these kids who want gender parity, end up in the workplace? How will @Yonotgo’s son cope with a 90-10 male/female ratio at work? Will he just “quit” his job as its not as nice a ratio as Caltech?

I did not find 80-20 to be that bad at MIT. It was fine. It prepared me for 90-10 at Hewlett Packard!

What on Earth are you talking about?

@bodangles. I am saying that all the WHINING about ratio for an engineering college is nonsense. You gotta work with whoever is
at Google, or Dow Chemical, and its 90% men. so all the WHINING about how girls are so nice to work with at Caltech is nonsense. You gotta work with whoever is at the company and the over focus on gender is total nonsense.

People with certain reproductive parts do NOT make better engineers or worse engineers. Its a don’t care.

See what mom says about how the ratio is what her son is after ! Its nonsense, as the ratio is not controllable after the four years of sweet and artificial " gender balanced" education at CMU, MIT, Caltech etc. Join the real world. Its not gender balanced.

Perhaps we should be working to make the real world more balanced instead of dismissing concerns about sexism as “whining.”

For what it’s worth, my department in the manufacturing plant at which I worked over the summer was heavily female. Not everywhere in the “real world” is 90% men.

@Coloradomama My understanding from reading these boards is that in the Drama program at CMU, which is at least as competitive as SCS, male applicants have a tremendous advantage over female. By your standards, the adcoms should just go for an all female drama program, I guess.

Do female computer science applicant get any boost in admission? If the female candidate has very high unweighted GPA above 3.95 and courses like like Multi variable calculus, AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Bio, AP US History, AP language etc. in high school?

The reason focusing on gender balance does nothing for the girl or boy in that type of environment, is because its an artificial problem created by organizations like Carnegie Mellon. It gives the Admissions office clear guidelines, “Gender balance” but it does absolutely nothing for the girl at Carnegie Mellon.

Both girls and boys need focus a lot less on anatomy of their coworkers and fellow students and focus a lot harder on both skill building and problem solving.

Noticing and focusing on gender solves nothing. It changes nothing for women my age either! And most women
with my training and career would agree. It really does not change anything in the workplace either. Saying that somehow girls are “better” during the CMU admissions process, in fact creates a bad set of new problems. Goodness is not based on gender so much.
There are some differences between genders, and a mixed gender team may be stronger overall. But if one says “you cannot go to CMU because you are boy” that makes no sense at all. Look at the candidates, not their gender.

Students should worry less about gender and more about their interests and skills if they want to stick with STEM.
STEM is not for everyone. Force fitting a lot of girls into it, does nothing for the girl herself. She should self select in
and just go to the best school she can get into, though, as we always have from the time of Eve.

see http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/2069808-our-experience-with-computer-science-admissions-2018.html

if you look at previous thread, Female applicant for SCS had a 1540 SAT (800 math), 800 Math subject test. 34 ACT. Got into some wonderful public schools but not CMU, MIT, etc. I am still waiting for actual data support the hypothesis that the women being admitted to CMU are subpar.

Btw: The fact that she was admitted to several highly competitive public programs suggests there wasn’t some dramatic flaw in her application, such as negative LoRs.

@Coloradomama , is this what you’re trying to describe, that won’t be remedied for 50-100 years?

“The literature on women in CS in the United States painted a bleak picture, and according to current data—with few exceptions—it continues to do so. Undergraduate women across the country report being told by their male peers that they do not belong in the field and are often accused of stealing the places of more qualified men; the women report feeling uncomfortable, unqualified, and isolated. The experiences of many women students in CS, including the past experiences of some women at Carnegie Mellon, made for discouraging reading. The odd woman who entered the field and had happy experiences appeared to be an anomaly, an exception to the rule.” (Kicking Butt in Computer Science: Women in Computing at Carnegie Mellon University)

Andrew Moore, Dean of SCS, from the recent Geekwire HQ2 series:

GW: One of the major triumphs of your computer science department over the past couple years is the gender equity that you’re seeing in your incoming classes. It’s remarkable. And it’s not something that’s happening elsewhere. How have you done it, and what can the rest of not only academia, but technology, learn from what you’ve done here?

Moore: The first thing is you’ve got to begin two decades ago. That’s a really hard thing for folks who want to see that recipe. But of course, I believe that folks can do it more quickly. The first thing not to do is try to make the curriculum “pink” in any way, if you see what I mean. And the faculty and the leaders around this were very clear on that. It is very important to have those connections with middle schools and high schools, where all we have to do there is say what we really believe, which is that computer science is problem solving. Computer science is not semicolons and curly braces. And I think that really helps.

But then, here was the inspiring piece. After a while it seems to become a self-reinforcing flywheel. It’s self-reinforcing in the sense that once we were 50 percent more women than the national average, we were a very attractive and interesting place for women to come to. And once that took us up to 75 percent, that was even more so. And now I think we’ve hit the optimal situation here, where it is a really good environment, where no one feels, at least gender-wise, no one feels like they’re the only one in the class or in a small minority within the class. And that was really good news.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/future-pittsburgh-world-cmus-andrew-moore-brings-geekwires-hq2-project-home/

@Coloradomama
@1NJParent
@slimmy

In my last two posts you can see how CMU identified gender imbalance 20 years ago and has consistently, methodically and thoughtfully been addressing it since.

So during that span of accepting less ‘qualified’ or less ‘capable’ students (your terms, not mine) do you think their reputation, performance and outcomes have declined? Are their students getting into fewer grad programs? Have they made fewer contributions to research? Are their grads not getting placed as frequently in leading/innovative companies? Have their salaries declined relative to other schools’ grads? Has creativity and innovation suffered?

Is CMU any less a ‘leader’ in the field and is it producing any fewer future leaders?

These questions are impossible to answer, of course, but CMU and its alums certainly doesn’t appear to have suffered from this strategic choice.

In fact, I would argue that they (and Harvey Mudd and a few others) have been ahead of the curve in anticipating that industry would need/demand more highly qualified females in leadership roles.

@Coloradomama , the days of the HP 90/10 imbalance are fading. BTW, how did that work out for them?

How’s it working out for the brogrammer culture tech companies like Uber and FaceBook where the boys run riot w damn near zero social conscience?

All along CMU has been trying to look ahead which is one of its great strengths…

I’m going to post more excerpts from “Kicking Butt…” that provide more insight:

The vision of Carnegie Mellon is to “meet the changing needs of society by building on its traditions of innovation, problem solving, and interdisciplinarity.” Diversity and inclusion are core-values to the university and diversity at the institutional level has been an evolving process. As former Carnegie Mellon President Jared L. Cohon shared in the Statement on Diversity: “In the classroom, studio, laboratory, office and residence hall, a multitude of experiences, perspectives and beliefs will enrich all that we do.”

Raj Reddy asked the Office of Undergraduate Admissions to develop criteria that would select for future leaders and visionaries in the field. One subsequent criterion gave value to “evidence of giving back to the community.” Carnegie Mellon adopted this broadened admissions policy, emphasizing diverse interests along with high achievement in mathematics and science (high SAT scores were still required) and de-emphasizing prior programming experience. According to the Director of Carnegie Mellon’s Admissions Office, the admissions criteria has continued to focus on the “student as a whole,” looking for such things as community service and indications of leadership potential, while all the time keeping high SAT scores as a primary criteria. In many cultures, including the United States, women are often the ones who are encouraged to “give back to the community.” Given this perspective we might well argue that the admissions criteria were somewhat biased towards admitting more women—and indeed this is what happened in 1999.

These interventions opened the doors to a dramatic increase in the numbers of women in the CS major (as mentioned earlier, from 8% in 1995, to 37% in 1999, to 39.5% in 2000). After brief declines ollowing the dot-com bust when all applications to CS programs dropped nationwide the enrollment of women at Carnegie Mellon has been fairly steady over the past few years, representing 29%, 34% and a projected 32%, of the 2012, 2013 and 2015 first year classes respectively, and an unprecedented 40% in 2014. Carnegie Mellon went from being among the schools with the lowest percentage of undergraduate women in CS in the United States to one of the universities with the highest percentage. Furthermore, it subsequently succeeded in building a culture and environment that allowed for a good Women-CS fit. What’s more the School of Computer Science succeeds in sustaining and graduating a very high proportion of the students who enter as first year CS majors. Indeed, the persistence rate for men and women is almost identical. According to data from Carnegie Mellon’s Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, in the last four cohorts that completed six years, the average graduation rate was 89% with no difference between the rates for men and for women.

More:

At the time of the revised admissions criteria, and something not usually noted in discussions about diversity in CS at Carnegie Mellon, the doors were opened to a different kind of male student, selected, as were the women, for their leadership potential, community service, and high SATs. Thus, the Computer Science Department began to see a more diverse student body overall.

While discussing interventions for change it is also critical to note what was not changed. Academic entry-level standards were not lowered to accommodate student diversity. Students who had no background in CS still needed high SAT scores and were for the most part already on a math/ science track. As faculty began to recognize the increased presence of women, their strengths and their potential to be good computer scientists the school started paying serious attention to the future of the undergraduate program. What we have to remember is that the existing program was geared towards a particular type of student, usually male and with some programming background. New courses were introduced to accommodate students entering the major with little or no background in CS. Any other curriculum changes were made to enhance the educational experience of a broader student body not to accommodate women’s presumed interests. Since that time any changes to improve the curriculum have been made for the benefit of all students, and are the kinds of changes that go on in any department committed to providing the best academic program possible.

Several faculty members noted that students had become increasingly grade obsessed and felt this related to the focus on improving their test taking ability in high school, to the detriment of building critical thinking skills. The students, said one faculty member, often struggled with reconciling their high school understanding of CS and the new understanding of the field as it is taught at Carnegie Mellon, especially when they first came up against the more abstract courses like Fundamental Data Structures and Algorithms. But when they “got it” they were thrilled and excited. On a similar note at least two faculty members pointed out that it was not just women who felt like they did not fit into the pre-1999 culture, some men felt the same way. One faculty member described the general environment as “sink or swim” which worked against the handful of male students who were admitted with little programming background. He suggested that when the department started to address gender issues in the late 1990s it raised the possibility of making improvements for all students. Another faculty member remarked that the changes in the department caused “a 180 degree turn around” in climate and student happiness. Faculty-advisors played a major role in ensuring a positive academic and social experience for all students. We heard many student comments, which testified to this: “the advisers are amazing”; “[ advisors] create an extremely comfortable atmosphere.”

You’re twice as likely to get accepted to CMU if you’re a woman (31% vs. 16% for men).

@SkepticalOfMost I agree that diversity, whether of gender or race or some other biological factor, has a number of socially desirable benefits, not only to the minority but also to the majority. The question in my mind is how colleges should achieve these worthwhile goals. Should they accomplish the goals by setting up quotas and lowering admission standards? These colleges obviously would deny they’re doing that but the reality is different. In social sciences, colleges only need a few superstars in each field to make a name for themselves. That’s why the Harvards of the world are fine with their student body having a relatively wide distribution of capabilities (the bottom quartile rarely contribute much to their respective fields). However, in science and technology, a few superstars in each field are insufficient. Society needs more talents in more fields for the advancement of science and technology. That’s one of the reasons why we need more girls to be interested in and to pursue careers in STEM and some of them will surely become superstars in their fields. But do you do that by denying a more talented applicant because of some biological factor?

@1NJParent “But do you do that by denying a more talented applicant because of some biological factor?”

More ‘talented’ based on what criteria? Test scores? HS grades? Past performance?

Talent to DO what? Create yet another game? Create better algorithms for selling ads? Figure out how to get people to reveal more personal information that can be sold? Create better tools for mass surveillance? To do whatever they’re told to do?

I haven’t yet seen how standardized tests and high school grades can be used to accurately predict creativity, innovation and leadership. Perhaps they can predict ability to meet goals/fulfill tasks others define for them (“tell me what grades/scores it takes to get into XYZ and I’ll work my butt off to get them”), but it seems CMU is looking for more.

Read this again: “Several faculty members noted that students had become increasingly grade obsessed and felt this related to the focus on improving their test taking ability in high school, to the detriment of building critical thinking skills. The students, said one faculty member, often struggled with reconciling their high school understanding of CS and the new understanding of the field as it is taught at Carnegie Mellon, especially when they first came up against the more abstract courses like Fundamental Data Structures and Algorithms”

Look, if kids are ‘capable’, ‘qualified’ and ‘talented’ they’ll do well no matter where they go to school. Not getting into CMU isn’t the kiss of death. And there is, as always, a big measure of chance involved. Crap happens. Life ain’t necessarily fair. But whining about it sure ain’t gonna make it better although I suppose it might make one feel better…

OK, final excerpt from the 'Kicking Butt…" (I promise!):

When we compared our findings to the 1995-1999 studies we found some attitudes were much the same but we also found some significant changes. Most notably we found that the perspectives of our students were often more alike than different. In particular the pre-1999 gender divide with men “dreaming in code” and women “computing with a purpose” was blurred. We also saw students whose views of their field had broadened quite dramatically from seeing CS as programming to seeing the field reflecting an exciting range of possibilities. What was most encouraging was that the self-doubt and the lack of confidence that had previously dominated women’s experiences in CS (as chronicled in Unlocking the Clubhouse) were gradually being replaced by confidence and enthusiasm. Having said that, as we discuss in the next chapter, our studies have found that men continue to show more confidence than women overall.


I love “computing with a purpose”…

And keep that last sentence (re difference in confidence in men & women) in mind and consider the following article, “Not smart enough? Men overestimate intelligence in science class”

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/not-smart-enough-men-overestimate-intelligence-science-class-n862801

Excerpt:

“Boys who are drawn to STEM fields often are not the humanities-focused, artistic boys who might have a higher social IQ,” said Horn. “Often you have a concentration of socially awkward people who do socially inept things.”

That can scare off girls, and many boys, as well.

What helps? Having a mentor, said Horn. “Finding people in authority who can support your own sense of confidence and validate your way of learning,” she said.

Scientific and technological talents are well defined. You can’t make a scientific genius out of an ordinary person. HS grades are inflated and standardized tests are too easy, so you obviously have to look deeper in an applicant for his/her talents. But do you “enhance” them with some biological consideration?

This is irrelevant. There’s immaturity and immorality everywhere. Do you think some biological factor makes one group more mature and moral than the other?