Live data from Hacker News

How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

blog.play-i.com

1–10 of 48 posts

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#5
post #2

No offence. But I would be more interested in how they increased diversity without lowering the bar.

It sounds like the only thing they did with admissions was to not look at previous programming experience as a major factor.

I was admitted to a Chemical Engineering college program, despite the fact that I had no previous high school experience in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and the rest. No one thought that was strange.

Why is CS so different that you have to be a hot-shot programmer before you enter?

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#6
post #5
post #2

No offence. But I would be more interested in how they increased diversity without lowering the bar.

It sounds like the only thing they did with admissions was to not look at previous programming experience as a major factor. I was admitted to a Chemical Engineering college program, despite the fact that I had no previous high school experience in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and the rest. No one thought that was strange. Why is CS so different that you have to be a hot-shot programmer before you enter?

Where is the hot-shot requirement?

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#7
I think that the biggest one is number 2 (giving more emphasis to CS potential rather than CS skill in the admissions process).

Somehow we've made a society in which getting into computer programming at a young age is generally not something young girls are taught to want. Consequently, the huge majority of young programmers (below college age) are boys.

I started programming when I was 12. The advantage this has given me in the tech world (academia and industry) cannot be overstated. There is a giant gap between people who start programming at a young age due to desire and curiosity and people who learn to for coursework at uni.

So while not giving preferential treatment to the boys whom society has not discouraged from programming at a young age (and seems to discourage girls from it) is definitely going to increase the number of girls in the department (which is a good thing), I also think we should really figure out what element of society is making programming an undesirable hobby for young ladies.

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#8
post #5
post #2

No offence. But I would be more interested in how they increased diversity without lowering the bar.

It sounds like the only thing they did with admissions was to not look at previous programming experience as a major factor. I was admitted to a Chemical Engineering college program, despite the fact that I had no previous high school experience in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and the rest. No one thought that was strange. Why is CS so different that you have to be a hot-shot programmer before you enter?

CMU is a top tier school. Why should you deny a hot-shot programmer admission for someone who has a passing fancy? Judging "potential" instead of a candidate's past work and experience reeks of affirmative action.

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the only thing they did with admissions was to not look at previous programming experience as a major factor. I was admitted to a Chemical Engineering college program, despite the fact that I had no previous high school experience in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and the rest. No one thought that was strange. Why is CS so different that you have to be a hot-shot programmer before you enter?

Where is the hot-shot requirement?

> In the past, admissions gave preference to people with lots of previous programming experience.

Re: How CMU Increased the Proportion of Women in Computer Science (2013)

#10
Prior to now, many of the approaches I'd seen targeted women specifically. The tactics listed in this article instead focus on trying to abstract out what could make a good developer _in the future_.

This is elegant to me because it approaches the problem in a bottom up way: "how can we more equitably target candidates so that we don't miss potentially great fits?", instead of top down: "how can we include more of these specific groups in our candidate pool?"

Post reply on HN