University lowers entry standard for women in engineering courses

[Metaphor]

You have no evidence about applicants who have no more than a 10 point deficit in their score compared have a lower graduation rate.

Even if that were true, how does that justify discriminating against certain applicants on the basis of sex?

It would if the graduation rate of women with no more than a 10 point deficit had the same graduation rate as men with the higher score.

There's no evidence that the ATAR has differential predictive ability between men and women. In any case, this policy has nothing to do with differential predictive ability. It is explicitly about getting more women into engineering and it discriminates against men to do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, we've discussed this for years and this is the very first time I am aware of that you've ever written a sentence such as " Qualified blacks do as well as qualified whites."

It should have been obvious. You keep viewing my words through your racism filter and don't understand so I spelled out the obvious.

Years into discussing this, it's nice that you have finally deigned to explain your use of the term 'unqualified blacks.

If you didn't view the world through a racism filter it should have been obvious and not need explanation.

Can you demonstrate that Affirmative Action admits unqualified students? Is there any such data? Can you please provide sources/links?

There's no point in this because you would simply say that lower scores != unqualified.

Affirmative Action is NOT a set of laws or policies designed to admit ANY unqualified student. Your claims otherwise seem to be specious.

No, it's a set of laws to slap "qualified" labels on those that don't meet the standards.

That does not say that all black admits are AA admits (although this actually does happen at second-tier colleges--there are virtually no qualified blacks to admit because they all went to the first-tier schools), but to distinguish them from the qualified admits.

Again, can you provide links/sources for this data? My reading shows that you seem to be confusing quite a few different things and also that you ignore that there are many blacks admitted to most universities, although blacks are under represented at universities in general . You also seem confused about what Affirmative Action is and about the fact that no unqualified students are admitted due to affirmative action.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the book that I found the bit about some colleges having no overlap between white and black scores. You seem to be falling victim to the usual SJW fallacy of disparate results being proof of discrimination.

Qualified blacks do as well as qualified whites.

Nice to see you write this.

The fact that I singled out the unqualified ones should have made it obvious that my statements did not apply to the qualified ones.

Once again, you seem to be treating people as stamped out by cookie cutters. In reality, what's going on is that on average on the work/life balance women will choose a point more towards the life side. This doesn't say they all do!

I think I'm not the one treating all people, or in this case, all women, as stamped out by cookie cutters. You are the one making broad oversweeping statements about what women do and do not want.

Even if women on average are more likely to choose the life side over the work side of the work/life balance, should we continue to have a society where this is a more rational decision for more women than men?

Why do you assume it's a matter of society dictating it?? You're still assuming disparate results = discrimination. The reality is that on average women are more social than men. The fields with very low female percentages are fields where most of your work is with machines, not people.

Is it ok to presume that women are less qualified or less interested in certain fields or programs?

It's not a presumption but an observation. The more flexibility to follow their desires a woman is the less likely they are to go into such fields.

There is no discussion from you about cultural forces and influences that make it more difficult or less desirable for women to pursue careers in traditionally male fields or forces and influences which make it less desirable or more difficult for men to stay home to raise children.

Reality: Women from poorer backgrounds are more likely to choose the high paying male fields than women from a background free from want. While there might be cultural forces there certainly are substantial internal ones.

Reality: You should provide some data or link some data or articles to support this assertion which is very much counter to my own personal observations. Children of wealthier families are more free in many respects to pursue or to consider pursuing careers which are less high paying because they are more likely to be insulated from seeing a serious need to earn a high income and are more likely to see the downsides of focusing solely on the work side of the work/life balance.

This applies to men as well as women. I have a branch of the family that is fairly wealthy, in part due to family wealth. The family members my age have, with a single exception of one individual who decided to pursue dance as a career (as other members of the family had done previously) while the others pursued highly competitive fields with very good remuneration placing them on equal or higher socioeconomic status as their parents. The female members (aside from the dancer) pursued more heavily male dominated careers. Looking at offspring of university professors of my acquaintance, more of the male students seem likely to pursue less economically high status careers compared with females. Of course, that's just my own observation. I'd love to see data. Can you link to the data you used to reach your conclusion?

I was talking about poor vs not-poor, not wealthy.

Please forgive me if I am incorrect in understanding your position, but you seem to have argued against altering workplaces in order to become more family friendly: to make it easier for people to have predictable schedules and to have flexibility in their schedules, which helps not only women but also men, especially any man who has or wants a family or has ill or disabled family members who need care.

Yes, you are incorrect. What I have said is that such alterations come with a cost--such workplaces will pay less. I have no problem with a company aiming for that sector, I have a big problem with expecting them to pay as much as a place that isn't so family friendly.

Every work place and every career path comes with costs/benefits. Why should talented and interested persons be forced into programs/fields of work/study that are not what they want so that companies can see a higher profit?

For that matter, why should some companies be able to profit by creating a workforce that has a poor work/life balance and so has more stress related illnesses which cost all of society?

What you don't seem to understand is the policies you want cost the company money. For the same cost per employee they can pay a higher salary or they can "pay" more family friendliness. As usual you are looking at things with no regard for the other side of the coin.

Well, that depends on the college, doesn't it? Have you any data that shows that more so called unqualified students who are admitted are black than are white? Can you show data that the highest scoring black scored significantly less well than the lowest scoring white? I'm assuming we are talking about admitted students here.

Yes, we are talking admitted. I don't have the data around anymore and it would be quite old anyway--the universities responded to the allegations of discrimination by hiding the data so there is almost no recent data to be had. We do have that one recent report that shows far fewer blacks admitted if they went with a strict merit system.

I realize there are issues--it's that I don't believe preferences are a solution to those issues. Fix the problems, don't just paint over them! Don't admit them when they're underperforming, provide them with extra education so they do perform equally.

Again, you have not demonstrated that the students to which you refer are 'underperforming.'

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't help. We have plenty of evidence that blacks are being admitted with lower SAT scores. You're just unwilling to consider it.

As I've written before, I live in a college town and am married to a college professor. I talk with a lot of college professors from a variety of disciplines. One thing that has come up over and over again is just how much having a minority person--a woman in a traditionally male field or a person of color tends to attract more students to that field of study. I doubt very much that it is conscious on the part of most of those students. But it happens and it's noticeable.

Oh, come on now. Back in the 80s when I was in the university I can't recall a class that didn't have a woman.

Good for you? But that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the positive role that instructors have in attracting students of under representative groups.

Relatively few men choose nursing or elementary education as fields of study/career paths. When young men see other men in these roles, they are more likely to choose these paths.

The point is that there are some there. Your argument is when they see a person helps. Now you're moving the goalposts and saying you need more.

I'd be delighted if the talent of persons of color and women was recognized on par with the recognition that white male students receive for their 'abilities.'

The problem is that you believe the talent exists even when the scores say otherwise.

 

[Derec]

It would if the graduation rate of women with no more than a 10 point deficit had the same graduation rate as men with the higher score.

And you think that's the case why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You genuinely think people talk about "unqualified blacks" because they think being black has something to do with them being unqualified? You cant grasp that they are distinguishing the blacks who get in with scores even to other races and those who get in because the bar is lowered for them? Or are you being intentionally dense?

Fanatics tend to have a very hard time understanding blasphemy.

Again with the nasty characterizations that you like to assign to women posters. It's very unbecoming, Loren. And ill placed. If you can't make a cogent argument then you should just remain silent.

On the other hand, it's nice that a few of you have formed a friendship.

Just because you're female doesn't mean every negative thing directed at you is because you're female.

I'm saying you're being a fanatic about this. I also consider Half-Life a fanatic. You think he's female?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if women on average are more likely to choose the life side over the work side of the work/life balance, should we continue to have a society where this is a more rational decision for more women than men.'

Yes. Doing anything else would be against science, biology, evolution, and nature.

Of course it is more rational for women to have kids since they are structurally the only ones who can have kids! Besides that, making public policy any otherwise is saying that men know more than evolution. The last time men thought they knew more than evolution was during ww2. And we know how that ended.

How is this rational? Not all women want to be or are capable of being or suited to be mothers. Lots of men are excellent caregivers.

We did not evolve as a species to be comfortable living a 9-5 Leave It To Beaver society. 100 years ago, most people were farmers, meaning that men and women were engaged in extremely demanding physical work. Even shopkeepers and merchants tended to involve the hands on labor of every member of the family that was weaned and could walk well.

The so called modern model of man=breadwinner/woman stay home and make dinner and babies only came into being for most people post WW2. It is ridiculous to say that our society is the way it is because of biology or that the current model is the one that best supports the human population.

We aren't saying women shouldn't be allowed into STEM fields. We are saying that not that many will choose them.

 

[Jarhyn]

How is this rational? Not all women want to be or are capable of being or suited to be mothers. Lots of men are excellent caregivers.

We did not evolve as a species to be comfortable living a 9-5 Leave It To Beaver society. 100 years ago, most people were farmers, meaning that men and women were engaged in extremely demanding physical work. Even shopkeepers and merchants tended to involve the hands on labor of every member of the family that was weaned and could walk well.

The so called modern model of man=breadwinner/woman stay home and make dinner and babies only came into being for most people post WW2. It is ridiculous to say that our society is the way it is because of biology or that the current model is the one that best supports the human population.

We aren't saying women shouldn't be allowed into STEM fields. We are saying that not that many will choose them.

And it provides a fundamental benefit to society, particularly to women in general, when women DO choose them, so increasing the number that CHOOSE them, and accepting more of the ones that do, fundamentally helps them and us, through diversity of thought and perspective.

I mean, the anti-manspreading chair that someone posted about isn't a great solution, but it is one of very few proposals to solve a problem that a lot of people have run into, including me as a person with the beans and frank: manspreading is shitty and a technology that ends it would be welcome.

Having female voices in engineering and enough of them that they won't get drowned out by people who consider their problems as "not important enough" is a laudable goal.

So the point here is to allow more women choose a career in STEM fields.

 

[laughing dog]

It would if the graduation rate of women with no more than a 10 point deficit had the same graduation rate as men with the higher score.

And you think that's the case why?

You asked about a hypothetical and I gave the answer.

 

[laughing dog]

There's no evidence that the ATAR has differential predictive ability between men and women.

Is that because
1) there is no predictive ability,
2) no one has looked, or
3) you don't know.

The point is that ATAR is not a perfect measure of predictive ability, so claiming one is lowering standards is pretty much bullshit. And if there is differential predictive ability, a differential standard would not be unfairly discriminatory. In fact, holding to one standard would be unfairly discriminatory.

For those who claim to be for fairness and non-discrimination, one would think they might be actually interested in those implications instead of evading those issues. It is almost like they are ideological fanatics.

 

[Metaphor]

There's no evidence that the ATAR has differential predictive ability between men and women.

Is that because
1) there is no predictive ability,
2) no one has looked, or
3) you don't know.

You raised the possibility that it had differential predictive ability, not me. I did merely what you tend to do when someone raises a possibility: you say there's no evidence for it.

The point is that ATAR is not a perfect measure of predictive ability, so claiming one is lowering standards is pretty much bullshit.

No, it is not bullshit. Measures do not have to be perfect to be valid measures. ATAR is positively associated with university retention and academic performance, in part because it is composed of proven academic performance. Higher ATARs mean higher academic performance (because that's how it's composed and that's what it predicts). Therefore, lower ATARs mean lower academic performance.

Lowering the ATAR bar is lowering the academic standard to get in. To pretend otherwise is bullshit.

And if there is differential predictive ability, a differential standard would not be unfairly discriminatory. In fact, holding to one standard would be unfairly discriminatory.

And you have no evidence that there is differential predictive ability.

For those who claim to be for fairness and non-discrimination, one would think they might be actually interested in those implications instead of evading those issues. It is almost like they are ideological fanatics.

If it had differential predictive ability (of which you have no evidence), then indeed what the 'correct' response to that would be interesting.

But dropping the entry score for one group of people versus the other would not be the correct response in any case.

Let's say the ATAR predicts male performance in engineering well, but is much poorer in predicting female performance. It might be justified to retain the ATAR for male entrants into engineering, and to drop use of ATAR and use some alternative method to admit female students. It makes no sense to just give an arbitrary amount of bonus points to female students when the measure doesn't predict their performance anyway.

In all likelihood however, I very much doubt that the regression lines for males and females, if they are different, systematically discriminate against one gender. If they have different slopes, then performance will be 'overpredicted' at some points in spectrum for males and females, and 'underpredicted' at other points in the spectrum for males and females.

 

[Metaphor]

And it provides a fundamental benefit to society, particularly to women in general, when women DO choose them, so increasing the number that CHOOSE them, and accepting more of the ones that do, fundamentally helps them and us, through diversity of thought and perspective.

What is an example of an engineered product that would have been better, but was held back from being better, because the engineering firm lacked 'female perspective'? I see this claim often but nobody has given me a convincing example--or any example.

I mean, the anti-manspreading chair that someone posted about isn't a great solution, but it is one of very few proposals to solve a problem that a lot of people have run into, including me as a person with the beans and frank: manspreading is shitty and a technology that ends it would be welcome.

Spreading one's legs when seated is a far more natural posture for men than for women, and therefore more men do it. It is not a result of 'the patriarchy', (or indeed, as one intersectional feminist postulated in a mainstream media opinion piece, a deliberate attempt by men to drive women away from public spaces). That doesn't mean that men are entitled to do it, but it is partly a function of our physiology.

But manspreading is nothing like a conspiracy to aggravate women but a result of several factors. Seating on public transport is more comfortable for women than for men. Seating is designed as a compromise between space and the measurements of the population. Men are taller than women and their thighs and legs are longer. This means that most public seating is too low for most men to sit in properly, and changing the angle of one's knees relieves some of the postural pressure if more of their their upper legs can be rested on the seat. (Very very short people whose legs don't touch the ground also have public seating problems).

Men are also fatter than women, and the very obese cannot not 'spread' when they sit down.

There would be solutions to this (like half the seats in a venue having longer seat width and length and that are higher off the ground), but if male engineers are incapable of catering to men's needs, what makes you think female engineers would?

Having female voices in engineering and enough of them that they won't get drowned out by people who consider their problems as "not important enough" is a laudable goal.

So the point here is to allow more women choose a career in STEM fields.

There's no evidence that there is a large 'bottleneck' of women who would have chosen engineering at UTS, but fell within ten points below the ATAR cutoff and therefore missed out. Any woman who had a real passion for engineering but who didn't make the cutoff at UTS would have chosen a different university with a lower cutoff.

And if other universities did not have a lower ATAR cutoff, it's clearly because universities believe there needs to be an absolute minimum standard for engineering students, and lowering the ATAR because they want more women (and not because they were wrong about the absolute minimum necessary) is stupid and wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

You raised the possibility that it had differential predictive ability, not me. I did merely what you tend to do when someone raises a possibility: you say there's no evidence for it.

I raised it as a theoretical possibility in response to a comment that was general in nature, not to this specific instance. Try to read within context.

No, it is not bullshit. Measures do not have to be perfect to be valid measures. ATAR is positively associated with university retention and academic performance, in part because it is composed of proven academic performance. Higher ATARs mean higher academic performance (because that's how it's composed and that's what it predicts). Therefore, lower ATARs mean lower academic performance.

Only on average, not for an individual case. Since you are using a standard that is based on average not for an individual it is pretty much bullshit unless the ATAR is a perfect measure.

And you have no evidence that there is differential predictive ability.

If you don't understand what "if" means, I don't know how to response to you.

If it had differential predictive ability (of which you have no evidence), then indeed what the 'correct' response to that would be interesting.

You admit the predictive ability is not perfect. And, there is no evidence that anyone has looked for a differential effect. For those who claim to be for fairness and non-discrimination, one would think they might be actually interested in those implications instead of evading those issues with handwaved defenses of the status quo.

But dropping the entry score for one group of people versus the other would not be the correct response in any case.

Of course it would. If the ATAR - X points gives the same predictive performance for females as males at ATAR, it makes perfect sense to drop it by X points.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course it would. If the ATAR - X points gives the same predictive performance for females as males at ATAR, it makes perfect sense to drop it by X points.

What if the opposite is true? What if ATAR - X points givs the same predictive performance for males as females at ATAR? Should you then drop the entrance requirement for men so even more men are admitted and even less women are?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it would. If the ATAR - X points gives the same predictive performance for females as males at ATAR, it makes perfect sense to drop it by X points.

What if the opposite is true? What if ATAR - X points givs the same predictive performance for males as females at ATAR? Should you then drop the entrance requirement for men so even more men are admitted and even less women are?

Yes

 

[Toni]

It should have been obvious. You keep viewing my words through your racism filter and don't understand so I spelled out the obvious.

Affirmative action is applied not only for black applicants.

I would think that anyone who wished to refer to unqualified applicants would use that term rather than single out one portion of those protected under affirmative action as you have habitually done all the years I’ve read your posts.

I am not the only person who has questioned your term ‘unqualified blacks’ or to have made the natural assumption that you viewed blacks as unqualified. Others have called you out on it as well. Many times. Yet it is only now that you have cared to clarify.

In any case, I’m glad that you recognize that blacks can be as well qualified as whites.

 

[RVonse]

And it provides a fundamental benefit to society, particularly to women in general, when women DO choose them, so increasing the number that CHOOSE them, and accepting more of the ones that do, fundamentally helps them and us, through diversity of thought and perspective.

I dont see any fundamental benefit to society at all and agree completely with the comments made by Metephor.

Furthermore, it may not be in style to say this here but it should be. And that is the fundamental harms done when government goes against biology and nature.

I mean, the anti-manspreading chair that someone posted about isn't a great solution, but it is one of very few proposals to solve a problem that a lot of people have run into, including me as a person with the beans and frank: manspreading is shitty and a technology that ends it would be welcome.

Having female voices in engineering and enough of them that they won't get drowned out by people who consider their problems as "not important enough" is a laudable goal.

So the point here is to allow more women choose a career in STEM fields.

Manspreading....give me a break Jarhyn.

That is laughable to me. If men were complaining about women boob spreading how much credibility would you give for a device that prevented that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you provide evidence that these students are admitted with significantly lower GPAs/test scores? Can you provide evidence that these students are less likely to graduate because they have lower GPAs/test scores?

AFIAK the data you are asking for does not exist.

What we do know:

The bigger the difference in admission criteria the bigger the difference in graduation rate.

The idea that it could make a difference in bulk but not individually doesn't pass the laugh test but I have never seen any evidence of an individual connection. It would probably be impossible, anyway, due to small sample sizes.

I don't know what the bolded statement means. Can you please clarify? And can you please back up your claim that the bigger difference in admission criteria leads to a bigger difference in graduation rate with some kind of link?

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Turn off your racism filter to improve your understanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody wrote that.

The notion that there is some objective and accurate measure for the quality of admitting students is a fantasy. The notion that anyone who is an iota or a small deviation from some stated standard is truly "unqualified" is based some of quixotic vision of admission standards. The premise when standards are changed to reflect changes in goals or a due to recognitions of the imperfections in the previous standards that the necessary result is unqualified people are admitted is reactionary nonsense.

Improving appearances was given as a reason to admit low-scoring applicants.

Low-scoring applicants have a considerably lower graduation rate, but they're going to end up with student loans anyway--loans that will likely saddle them for life. Admitting them for appearances inflicts big harm.

Repeating your straw men does not make them true.

You have no evidence about applicants who have no more than a 10 point deficit in their score compared have a lower graduation rate. None.

No one was arguing that any application with any lower score should be admitted. Your argument assumes that some cutoff based on some arithmetical formula is a perfect determiner of an applicant's potential for success. Since there is no perfect determiner, your argument is based on a false premise.

The usual dodge when faced with damning data--pick an increment that's small enough it can't be detected through the noise.

 

[Toni]

I don't know what the bolded statement means. Can you please clarify? And can you please back up your claim that the bigger difference in admission criteria leads to a bigger difference in graduation rate with some kind of link?

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Turn off your racism filter to improve your understanding.

If you don’t understand what you wrote well enough to explain it, the deficit is not mine.

 

[Metaphor]

Only on average, not for an individual case. Since you are using a standard that is based on average not for an individual it is pretty much bullshit unless the ATAR is a perfect measure.

Lord have mercy. Averages are built up by individual scores. If we are justified in using a measure because in the population it correlates with performance, then we are justified in using it on individuals.

You admit the predictive ability is not perfect. And, there is no evidence that anyone has looked for a differential effect. For those who claim to be for fairness and non-discrimination, one would think they might be actually interested in those implications instead of evading those issues with handwaved defenses of the status quo.

If there was differential predictive ability, UTS could have used that to justify the lower entry standard for women (and surely they would have if they had evidence of it).

Of course it would. If the ATAR - X points gives the same predictive performance for females as males at ATAR, it makes perfect sense to drop it by X points.

The addition or subtraction of a constant is not what is meant by differential predictive power. But if you are imagining a situation where the slopes of the regression lines are parallel but with different intercepts...okay. That would be an astonishing statistical situation to find in real life data and I've never seen it.

 

[Jarhyn]

And it provides a fundamental benefit to society, particularly to women in general, when women DO choose them, so increasing the number that CHOOSE them, and accepting more of the ones that do, fundamentally helps them and us, through diversity of thought and perspective.

I dont see any fundamental benefit to society at all and agree completely with the comments made by Metephor.

Furthermore, it may not be in style to say this here but it should be. And that is the fundamental harms done when government goes against biology and nature.

I mean, the anti-manspreading chair that someone posted about isn't a great solution, but it is one of very few proposals to solve a problem that a lot of people have run into, including me as a person with the beans and frank: manspreading is shitty and a technology that ends it would be welcome.

Having female voices in engineering and enough of them that they won't get drowned out by people who consider their problems as "not important enough" is a laudable goal.

So the point here is to allow more women choose a career in STEM fields.

Manspreading....give me a break Jarhyn.

That is laughable to me. If men were complaining about women boob spreading how much credibility would you give for a device that prevented that?

If women, as a function of sitting down, frequently rubbed their tits on me, quite a bit. I find it gross enough when someone let's themselves get so large as to spill out on my seat with their hips let alone their tits.