Women make up majority of Carnegie Mellon first-years

[1NJParent]

More ‘talented’ based on what criteria? Test scores? HS grades? Past performance?

I haven’t yet seen how standardized tests and high school grades can be used to accurately predict creativity, innovation and leadership.

Read this again: "Several faculty members noted that students had become increasingly grade obsessed and felt this related to the focus on improving their test taking ability in high school, to the detriment of building critical thinking skills.

Scientific and technological talents are well defined. You can’t make a scientific genius out of an ordinary person. HS grades are inflated and standardized tests are too easy, so you obviously have to look deeper in an applicant for his/her talents. But do you “enhance” them with some biological consideration?

Talent to DO what? Create yet another game? Create better algorithms for selling ads? Figure out how to get people to reveal more personal information that can be sold? Create better tools for mass surveillance? To do whatever they’re told to do?

This is irrelevant. There’s immaturity and immorality everywhere. Do you think some biological factor makes one group more mature and moral than the other?