Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#31

Post by davorak »

codexon wrote: post #13
arthulia wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Anecdotal rebuttal: I know a bunch of female students at Harvey Mudd and that doesn't appear to be the case.

It doesn't need a citation, it is supported by Occam's razor while you are suggesting a complex explanation. How does Harvey Mudd magically close their gender gap as though they suddenly decided to stop discriminating against females all these years? If the girls you knew were, say 10% less capable compared to male applicants, would you be able to tell? I doubt it.

The 48 percent statistic is for the junior year, the third year. It seems like your argument would require Mudd to grade females more lightly for the at least the first three years. This seems unlikely since it would require some form of collusion between all/most CS professors(maybe TAs too).

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#32

Post by davorak »

cousin_it wrote: post #26
joe_the_user wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the acceptance rate by itself is too murky a statistic to prove the gp's point.

Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier, because underrepresentation is a function of the acceptance rate and the number of applicants.

> Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier,

If it was an isolated incident then yes. The gender difference in engineering/science and in this case CS is fairly broad and it seems unlikely that it does not point to something significant, cultural momentum and bias being a popular choice.

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#33

Post by davorak »

codexon wrote: post #17
arthulia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the girls you knew were, say 10% less capable compared to male applicants, would you be able to tell? I doubt it. If you can't tell then what difference does it make?

It makes a difference to the male applicants that would've been accepted if there wasn't a bias.

A program erasing the current cultural bias/momentum against females will make a difference to all the females who will not have to face said momentum/bias.

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#34

Post by [deleted] »

davorak wrote: post #32
cousin_it wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier, because underrepresentation is a function of the acceptance rate and the number of applicants.

> Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier, If it was an isolated incident then yes. The gender difference in engineering/science and in this case CS is fairly broad and it seems unlikely that it does not point to something significant, cultural momentum and bias being a popular choice.

[deleted]

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#35

Post by mathattack »

011011100 wrote: post #27
anonymous wrote: post #24

You know, on reflection, this is actually a good thing. Not because of the diversity - screw diversity. Because you'll have more people with aptitude admitted. Programming aptitude is mostly evenly distributed regardless of gender and race, therefore if you keep your number admitted persons constant, but give a good incentive for every kind of person to apply, you'll end up with better applicants. Or to put it anothe…

"Programming aptitude is mostly evenly distributed regardless of gender and race," Is it really?

Independently of whether it is or isn't, there is benefit to trying to get as broad a swatch of the population into programming as possible.

My thinking on this has changed over the years. I used to view programming as a pure meritocracy. Then I realized that the same thing could be said about so many other male dominated fields, whose barriers eventually broke down. (Law, Accounting, Teaching...) Now my inclination is to believe that there are other things at work: parental expectations, mentorship, etc. that are bigger drivers.

And how much downside is there if we smartly (key word!) try to be more inclusive in the field? I don't mean lowering standards, but I do mean outreach, identifying mentors, etc.

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#36

Post by [deleted] »

arjie wrote: post #6
Luit2 wrote: post #5

Here are Harvey Mudd's acceptance rates by gender: Men 14.4% Women 38% Source: http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-545-harvey-mudd-c... I am perpetually bamboozled how anyone can think anecdotes like this matter. If Harvard wanted too I am sure they could make half their undergraduate population disabled black lesbians. That does not prove that your average state school is horrible and discriminatory just beca…

Well, the higher female acceptance rate may be because only good female students do CS. If you have a hostile environment, only the most motivated will succeed. It's like a sieve. You are applying selective pressure against a certain group of people succeeding. Expect to get only the most motivated. Not saying this is the case in reality, but I think the conclusion that they're indiscriminately accepting women is fac…

[deleted]

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#37

Post by codexon »

davorak wrote: post #33
codexon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a difference to the male applicants that would've been accepted if there wasn't a bias.

A program erasing the current cultural bias/momentum against females will make a difference to all the females who will not have to face said momentum/bias.

But how do you know that a 50/50 balance is even natural in engineering fields like CS?

Why isn't there a 50/50 balance and other similar initiatives for males for female dominated subjects like nursing and education?

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#38

Post by codexon »

davorak wrote: post #31
codexon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need a citation, it is supported by Occam's razor while you are suggesting a complex explanation. How does Harvey Mudd magically close their gender gap as though they suddenly decided to stop discriminating against females all these years? If the girls you knew were, say 10% less capable compared to male applicants, would you be able to tell? I doubt it.

The 48 percent statistic is for the junior year, the third year. It seems like your argument would require Mudd to grade females more lightly for the at least the first three years. This seems unlikely since it would require some form of collusion between all/most CS professors(maybe TAs too).

I don't follow this argument. You are suggesting that the rate of females leaving the major/school is exactly proportional to the grade they get.

I don't believe anyone would quit a school/major because they scored a little bit lower average. This might be possible if they all happened to be near the threshold for failing but I doubt Mudd is this strict.

Also everyone is well aware of affirmative action, so even if their grades were worse they would not think they would not be able to compete for the same jobs/academic positions.

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#39

Post by davorak »

codexon wrote: post #38
davorak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 48 percent statistic is for the junior year, the third year. It seems like your argument would require Mudd to grade females more lightly for the at least the first three years. This seems unlikely since it would require some form of collusion between all/most CS professors(maybe TAs too).

I don't follow this argument. You are suggesting that the rate of females leaving the major/school is exactly proportional to the grade they get. I don't believe anyone would quit a school/major because they scored a little bit lower average. This might be possible if they all happened to be near the threshold for failing but I doubt Mudd is this strict. Also everyone is well aware of affirmative action, so even if t…

> I don't follow this argument. You are suggesting that the rate of females leaving the major/school is exactly proportional to the grade they get.

The percentage of females normal drops year by year in the CS programs I am familiar with. This does not seem to be happening at Mudd to the degree it does elsewhere. I have not see you put forward how initial acceptance has changed this trend, or that the trend exists at Mudd and they simply start the first year with a high female ratio say 40%-60% male-female.

> I don't believe anyone would quit a school/major because they scored a little bit lower average. This might be possible if they all happened to be near the threshold for failing but I doubt Mudd is this strict.

People do switch majors when they are below average, not always but I would be surprised if this reason is rare. Your argument now requires that the females are below average compared to the males but not so below average that they want to switch majors. I would count this as a minor complexity penalty to your argument.

> Also everyone is well aware of affirmative action, so even if their grades were worse they would not think they would not be able to compete for the same jobs/academic positions.

This by it self does not work at most universities. So what makes Mudd different that this argument works there?

Re: How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program And Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap

#40

Post by davorak »

codexon wrote: post #37
davorak wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A program erasing the current cultural bias/momentum against females will make a difference to all the females who will not have to face said momentum/bias.

But how do you know that a 50/50 balance is even natural in engineering fields like CS? Why isn't there a 50/50 balance and other similar initiatives for males for female dominated subjects like nursing and education?

Is there solid evidence of an IQ difference between the genders or a general subject, with a biological understanding of why such a difference exists?

I currently have not come across any such solid evidence and biological understanding. Seems unproductive to operate under an understanding far from 50/50 when I do not have solid evidence that I should be.

Post reply on HN