Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by forensic | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

forensic

So they increased female students by...

1. Giving female students special benefits and privileges.

1.1. Access to Big Sister program.

1.2. Special female-only clubs.

1.3. Special favour in admissions.

1.4. Special favour in high school.

2. Stopped evaluating new students on ability in computer science (which is based, like anything else, on experience) and started evaluating them on extracurriculars and intangibles.

Does this seem kind of fucked to anyone else? They basically threw merit out the window because they'd rather have diversity than talent. Are math programs going to start admitting people who have no experience or proven ability in math now, because those people do more charity work than math nerds? Are chemistry students going to be chosen for their leadership ability rather than scientific ability?

View on HN

Incidentally, this scheme will only work at an elite college. Giving preferences in admission (as of 2000, acceptance rates are 39% to 9% for women and men respectively) will tend to result in less qualified students. But if you are a top school, it probably won't matter -- there are more top applicants than slots.

Though even at CMU, watering down the applicants seems to be an issue. Women leave CS at a much higher rate than men.

So all this really does is increase the number of women at CMU. It doesn't increase the number of women in CS, since the women CMU admits might have just gone to Rutgers instead.

Numbers taken from the extended article:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lblum/PAPERS/women_in_computer_scienc...

I don't think you understand how college admissions work. Students are generally accepted based on their overall academic record. Grades, SAT score, extracurriculars, etc.

Students are not accepted to CS programs because they've written a lot of prior code. I'm sure most incoming chemistry students have not spent time inside a lab outside of their high school chemistry class. College is where you specialize in a particular field so students are accepted based on their overall aptitude and not experience in a specific subject.

... of course I understand how college admissions work. Do you assume that I am a total idiot or something? :)

"the Admissions Office began giving more weight to non-academic factors, looking for applicants with leadership potential and a commitment to “give back to the community.” These broadened criteria also became important in awarding financial aid."

They changed the weighting to emphasize intangibles such as charity and "leadership potential".

"He felt it was important to get the message out that “no prior programming experience is necessary” to enter the CMU computer science program."

They changed the weighting to de-emphasize experience - which is the #1 correlate to ability.

"I'm sure most incoming chemistry students have not spent time inside a lab outside of their high school chemistry class."

But if there was a student who spent time outside the lab, they would give that student special consideration because of proven ability and interest in the field. It just so happens that the majority of CS students are going to have experience outside the computer lab, because in this world everyone has their own computer. Most people don't have their own chemistry lab.

Experience does correlate strongly with current ability, but it correlates much more weakly with potential ability.

There's no college out there that requires "5 years prior job experience", because the relationship between college and student is very different than between employer and employee. Employers look for current ability. Colleges, on the other hand, look for future ability, the indicators of which are significantly more speculative.

There is at least one college which requires demonstrated skill (albeit not $N years of experience).

http://www.juilliard.edu/admissions/entrance/index.html

According to my mother (a musician) most music programs tend to require prior experience. The rationale is a stronger version of what forensic said: anyone serious about music would have already invested effort into learning how to play. The same could be easily said about CS.

Every college looks at SATs and GPA, which are nothing more than measures of current ability. SATs measure current ability† in math and language. GPA measures current ability in all the subjects. Oftentimes an applicant can get special consideration by proving their interest in the subject and having some experience - for instance at science fairs. Or you can go talk to the professors of your particular subject and if the professors are impressed by your interest in the field they give special consideration. The best predictor of future interest is past interest. And anyone interested in computer science will have experience with it outside of the classroom.

†I know, theoretically they measure potential - but c'mon we all know that's bullshit. It's so easy to either raise or lower your SAT scores through study and experience.

"because in this world everyone has their own computer. Most people don't have their own chemistry lab."

It's worth pointing out that this wasn't always true- ``home chemistry kits'' used to be reasonably popular.

They used to be reasonably legal, too.

Half the stuff from my old chemistry kit in the 80's would be illegal to sell to mass consumers now. Even legal home chemistry labs can result in getting one's door kicked down by people with guns and being charged with making drug manufacture or terrorism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com