@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…