Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education United States

The University of Washington's Fuzzy CS Diversity Success Math 107

theodp writes: The University of Washington's Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Access (DEIA) relies on "a set of objective measurements that will enable us to assess our progress." So, what might those look like? Well, for Goal O.3 "have effective pipelines for students to enter the Allen School as Ph.D. students with a focus on increasing diversity," the UW's 5-Year Strategic Plan for DEIA (PDF) specifies these 'Objective Measurements':

1. Measure the percentage of women at the Ph.D. level and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 40%.
2. Measure the percentage of domestic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Ph.D students and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 12% (the UW-Seattle average for Ph.D. students).
3. Measure the percentage of Ph.D. students with disabilities (measured based on DRS use) and, by year 5, evaluate whether the percentage is at least 8% (the UW-Seattle average).

But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.

Even if it falls short, at least UW attempted to publicly quantify what their overall DEI race/ethnicity goals are, which is more than what Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have done. That the UW felt compelled to break out U.S. and International students separately in an effort to facilitate more meaningful comparisons also suggests another way that the tech giants' self-reported race/ethnicity percentages and EEO-1 raw numbers for their U.S.-based tech workforce (which presumably includes International students and other visa workers) may be misleading, as well as a possible explanation for tech's puzzling diversity trends.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The University of Washington's Fuzzy CS Diversity Success Math

Comments Filter:
  • So what's your solve for racist/sexist people favoring the white and/or male candidate over the equally qualified alternative?
    • Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @10:09AM (#62476744) Journal

      So what's your solve for racist/sexist people favoring the white and/or male candidate over the equally qualified alternative?

      How do you know that anybody is even doing that?

      I could ask in turn what's your "solve" for racist/sexist people favoring non-whites and non-males? Because they publicly, loudly, do so.

      • Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:5, Informative)

        by mrclevesque ( 1413593 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @11:51AM (#62477312)

        > How do you know that anybody is even doing that?

        All the studies ? Like comparative grading of anonymous student's papers compared to papers with names, comparing hiring selection based on CVs with and without names, or orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.

        Those also suggest how the discrimination can be reduced with little or no effort.

        • I'm confused. Is anonymous grading good?

          https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/or... [harvard.edu]

          Or is it bad?

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]

          • > Or is it bad?

            Thanks for the link. A while ago I'd have said keep the blind and favour "affirmative action", but now I think I'd say funding needs to be targeted a lot earlier than that.

          • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            It depends on your goal. If you do not want discrimination based on a particular feature, eliminate information about that feature from the grading/hiring/whatever process.

            If you *want* discrimination, then don't do that.

        • by Mitreya ( 579078 )

          orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.

          To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions [nytimes.com]

        • > How do you know that anybody is even doing that?

          All the studies ? Like comparative grading of anonymous student's papers compared to papers with names, comparing hiring selection based on CVs with and without names, or orchestra auditions based on only listening to a performer play from behind a screen.

          Those also suggest how the discrimination can be reduced with little or no effort.

          I don't believe that the studies about 'names' controlled for perceived class; I'm not sure how those 'researchers' selected names for their study and called them 'white' and 'black' (or whatever), but if you don't control for class perception then the researchers might have been revealing their own biases and limited view. Social research is fraught with these kinds of problems and worse (like outright fabrication, or more kindly 'non-reproducibility')

          As for blind orchestra auditions, some orchestras are t

          • Yeah, some surely aren't well done. But I think some are, easily enough to confirm there's a solid population level effect.

            On class, I wasn't thinking about that specifically, just more generally about discrimination, so class would fall under that too.

            But if you're saying, I also agree class is a huge bias.

        • A little something for everyone.
    • Minorities (Score:4, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @10:13AM (#62476756)

      What makes you think admissions is favoring white people over other minorities? The demographic breakdown in the UoW is *very* specific in whom it tracks, and some rather large minority populations are not included. In my CS classes way back in the early 90's, white people were the minority.

      And, to be completely clear, I didn't care then and I don't care now.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

      There are more women than men globally and in the USA. Men are the minority.

      • Men are not a minority at the top end of IQ distribution, which is the pool in which you're looking for prospective Ph.D. students.
        • by lsllll ( 830002 )

          When it comes to cognitive ability testing as measured by IQ, I'd venture and say that there are no differences between men and women. But in reality the ratio of college graduates in the U.S. is heavily women vs men [ed.gov], including Ph.D. To top that, the percentages reflected on that page for black Americans aren't that far off from race distribution in the U.S, [census.gov] especially when you consider the multiple race column. Some lagging happens with Hispanics, especially for masters and Ph.D., but they actually are

    • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @10:20AM (#62476778)

      The real answer in my opinion is actually to make university schooling cheaper and/or free and place less emphasis on the particular school you go it. This really only happens because admissions at the "top tier" schools are such a scarce resource. We should be treating state and community systems like CalTech and CUNY/SUNY with similar regard so people don't feel like they are "losing out" by attending such schools and those schools actually make up the bulk of qualified graduates.

      It's like the story that printed this weekend in the WSJ about how a girl with a 1550 SAT couldn't get admitted into the Ivy leagues she wanted to when in reality there are actually far more people qualified than her than there are seats in those schools. College admissions has become a competitive bloodsport.

    • I could argue that in tech, Asian candidates are favored over equally qualified alternatives, and that would be borne out by the fact that Asians are overrepresented in tech. My question to you, given that Asians, which includes dark-skin hued Indians, are statistically favored, is that racism or not? If not, then there's nothing to see here, but if it is, is the solution to discriminate against Asians?

      • by DaHat ( 247651 )

        Overrepresented in tech.. in what way? By what measure?

        Let's simplify, China & India, populations of ~1.4 & 1.38 billion (according to Bing moments ago)... that's ~2.78 billion people.

        Population of Europe is ~742.65 million, while the US is ~331.45 million.

        Even if we were to assume that the population of each country is completely homogenous, of the 3.85 billion people in this pool, 72.2% are Chinese or Indian... are you saying that more than 72% of people working in tech are Asian?

        It's a simple mat

        • Comparisons of the demographics of the US tech industry are against the US population as a whole, not against the world population.

          Looking at the demographics of the US tech industry, Asians are overrepresented.
          • by DaHat ( 247651 )

            I'm not one who really focuses on what my co-workers look like or where they are from... so who is more/less represented isn't something I spend many cycles on. Even if we accept your assertion, they are overrepresented based on the US population/demographics (which also counts a visa holding Asian as the same as one whose family has been here for generations), you ignore the why.

            China & India are big, so are going to see a larger # of graduates in a particular field than a country with a smaller # of p

          • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

            Comparisons of the demographics of the US tech industry are against the US population as a whole, not against the world population.

            In a world where H1B's do not exist, that would be a valid way to look at things. Unfortunately, that's not our reality.

    • Nothing, because it doesn't happen? [frontiersin.org]
    • Re:In B4 "OMG SJWS!" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Potor ( 658520 ) <farker1@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday April 25, 2022 @11:14AM (#62477090) Journal

      Current job ad at my alma mater:

      The Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo is seeking an exceptional scholar and researcher to fill a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Tier 2 Canada Research Chair and tenure track position at the rank of Assistant Professor with an anticipated start date of 1 July 2022. In the case of an exceptional candidate, an appointment at the rank of Associate Professor will be considered. This call is open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit.

      • Must not be that important of a job if it's only being offered to half the population. A token job that doesn't really need to be done.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Yeah, there was one at McGill recently that was only open to black people.

        Someone needs to take these to the human rights commission. They're blatantly illegal.

        Or, you know, identify as non-binary, at least until the hiring process is over.

        • by Potor ( 658520 )
          I am sure you know that about half of the job ad explains why the search is not illegal. I've seen quite a number of such jobs in ON.
          • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            You know you're doing something wrong when you feel you have to pre-emptively explain that you're not actually doing anything wrong.

            It'll work itself out of course. Unfortunately the people who get hurt will be the ones these things are supposedly trying to help.

    • I have an idea; visit Africa, South America, India, China or any myriad number of countries out there. You might be surprised how few whites you'll encounter in top universities there. Oh wait, I forgot - USA == World.
  • But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.

    And that would be a problem ... why?

  • This is completely ludicrous.

    A university should select people based on merit, not sex or ethnicity. A Caucasian male could sue them because of racism, if his merit is higher then all the other candidates.

    • A university should select people based on merit, not sex or ethnicity.

      I agree, it should be based on the student's merit, not on their parent's money or alumni connections. If 12% of applicants are visible minorities, then 12% should qualify based on merit (unless for some reason you think they are inherently inferior to white applicants).

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      A university should select people based on merit, not sex or ethnicity.

      Instead of past performance, why not select people based on anticipated potential?

      Maybe you think your school has the right professors to bring that poor black kid's ranking from the 20th percentile (well below average) to the 50th (average). Wouldn't that be a huge success?

      It's a tragedy that we don't rate schools and teachers that way [wikipedia.org].

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Instead of past performance, why not select people based on anticipated potential?

        I would support that if you actually have an objective metric that can measure it. But let's face it, such a metric doesn't exist because people don't even agree on what "success" looks like. An award-winning public school teacher might be a "success" in terms of societal impact, but they're certainly not making billions of dollars.

        Maybe you think your school has the right professors to bring that poor black kid's ranking from the 20th percentile (well below average) to the 50th (average).

        Fuzzy feelings don't work. It's been tried before and results in discrimination against out-groups (i.e. not members of your race, gender, culture or religion), such as women and

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      Wasn't this settled about 45 years ago? see Bakke Decision from 1978 [britannica.com]

    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      I agree with you, we should select on merit. But there are still many things to consider.

      You could advertise your program more generally or in more targetted ways to particular populations. This will drive application from a broader pool of students. And in that pool of student, your merit criteria may yield a more "balanced" distribution.

      Also, I have sat on selection committees for various things from PhD admission to providing funding for students to attend events. Often what you see if that there are mor

  • by redmid17 ( 1217076 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @09:55AM (#62476674)
    Why is ./ being used as a shitty blog?
  • by 2TecTom ( 311314 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @10:03AM (#62476714) Homepage Journal

    Education should be paid for by society, by industry and commerce. Anything that puts the economic burden on the student must be classist discrimination by definition. Only a free education, freely available to all, can be the foundation of a free society.

    Education as it is now is simply being used to reinforce class structures and class barriers. The upper class does not want to share the rewards we all work for. Keeping lower class people out of positions of power is how this is accomplished. Power corrupts, the education industry has power and has become corrupted by self interest. Corruption is leading to the decline and collapse of our civilization.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @11:45AM (#62477256)

        1) we need to teach them better than we were taught, which leads to 2) we need to let professional educators figure out what to teach them

        I can't argue with point one but I do find that schools nowadays are more like daily-use warehouses where parents can park their kids. We expect schools to clothe, feed, and be social service centers for the community, not a center for education.

        There are very few "professional educators" out there, those that are truly professional have my admiration. Those that try to feed their value system to kids and veer from the approved syllabus should be weeded out. In a nutshell don't trust the "professionals," watch them, and question them. If you do that your child will get a good education.

        "Professional Educators" with my children involved a school principal who called me to a conference because my son rode his new bike to school one day. He wasn't late, he observed all the safety rules of riding but this "educator" thought it was irresponsible of this parent to allow him to do so.
        "Professional Educators" called me up to say one of my sons "hacked" their "proxy server" and could get to the content that wasn't approved. After reading this educator the riot act of how insecure their network was and that middle schoolers could "hack" their infrastructure, she shut up.
        "Professional Educators" called me one day to say my son had a citation issued for decking another student in the class. It turns out the "other educator" lost control of the class when another student became belligerent and mouthed off to the "other educator" and the rest of my class, including my son. Of course, to be fair, both students were issued citations by the "resource officer."

        I could go on and on about personal experiences here but please don't call most of these hall monitors "professional educators."

      • The problem is that currently, professional educators are cutting real world courses in favor of flavor of the day--which at this point is incredibly SJWish. Why have Political Science when you can have History of Oppression?

        Source? I support an educational district where most of the older teachers are pondering leaving.The ones that are left are like the one who recently yelled at everyone for putting meat in the staff refrigerator, because it contaminates her vegan meals.

    • Bullshit. If you keep thinking "the man is keeping me down" then the man in your head will.
      We have community colleges and state colleges and if we're honest not every damn position out there requires a full 4-year degree either. Companies have just become snobby insisting that you have a bachelor's or a master's degree for an entry-level job now. That's ridiculous.

      I'll take people who are enthusiastic, willing to learn, and will stick with it over a guy looking for $200K for an entry-level position.

      • You don't think there might be a halfway point?

        Like, for example, perhaps it can become more common that large businesses provide scholarships to promising students, with jobs as soon as those students graduate. There would be details to work out, of course, to protect everyone's interests, but something like this would be totally workable.

        I don't think that there should be a blanket corporate tax that winds up funding education for any student and any degree. There are too many worthless degrees that are

        • We've become too attached to "higher education" and use it as a crutch for positions that don't need it. This raises expectations of the job seeker while the potential employer starts narrowing the job requirements so that a small percentage of applicants may fit the position. It's ludicrous. I agree with you, there are useless degrees that have nothing to do with the real world but then again do I need a 4-year degree to be a React dev? No.

          The education system we have now is fundamentally broken and in ord

      • by hey00 ( 5046921 )

        Bullshit. If you keep thinking "the man is keeping me down" then the man in your head will.

        And if you constantly keep telling a group that society is racist against them, will hinder them and keep them down, like a significant proportion of the population does (politicians, elders of the group, and many others), it's no surprise the youngs will believe it, hate society, won't even try to suceed (because the man will keep them down), resent those of the group who try (traitors), feel no responsibility for their failures (society's fault anyway), and pass on that idea to their children.

        Yes, discrim

    • by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      We had that. For 65 years, three generations. No discernible difference between family income and educational opportunities, be it in class or outside.

      Would you guess what the outcome at school, college or university was under this perfectly leveled playing field? Everyone got top marks? Everyone got bad marks? Everyone scored in the middle?

      Yes, you guessed correctly, it was a Gaussian distribution. So how would the "equity" fools account for reality?

  • Having "diversity goals" is admission of making decisions based on sex, gender, race, etc...
    • UW has to do a rather odd dance, though. Officially, UW is forbidden from enforcing quotas based on race or gender - but leadership also has made these public declarations of their commitment to DEI. So you get a lot of behind-the-scenes discussion that boils down to "we're only hiring a woman faculty member this time - we'll interview some men too, and just give them lower DEI tie-breaker scores wink wink nudge nudge".

  • Instead we have quotas, how about this quota: enroll the smartest people.

    -or-

    The truly best quota is to enroll the dumbest people in the chance some can become competently smart, which arguably helps society the most.

    Instead we are looking at race and gender - a statistic that is essentially meaningless (yea sadly, this isn't the case because we are people, after all).
  • Sorry, but if you decide anything based on the person's race, you are a nazi.

  • But with an Allen School Incoming Ph.D. Class of only 54 students -- of which 63% are International -- that suggests race/ethnicity success for an incoming PhD class could be just one Black student and one Hispanic student, if my UW DEIA math is correct.

    You would need to add one more (American Indian/Alaska Native?), to get at least 12% (2/20 is only 10%).

  • Arguments dismissing racial quotas as punishment against white people for crimes their ancestors committed are misdirected. Perhaps deliberately so. Nobody is accusing white people living in the US today of owning slaves or practicing government-sanctioned apartheid. Programs like UW's DEIA are not about punishing white people.

    Let me state this explicitly just in case I didn't make it clear: This is not about us (white people).

    Racial oppression in the US did NOT abruptly end with the Civil Rights Act of

    • Arguments dismissing racial quotas as punishment against white people for crimes their ancestors committed are misdirected.

      Racial quotas are inherently prejudicial and discriminatory. This is reason enough to dismiss the idea.

      Programs like UW's DEIA are not about punishing white people.

      They are about deliberately perpetuating prejudice. In many countries this type of discrimination is explicitly illegal. Taxpayer funding should be withheld from any university engaged in explicit discrimination. Students should continue to file lawsuits when they are explicitly racially discriminated against.

      Racial oppression in the US did NOT abruptly end with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Social policies, traditions, laws and regulations deliberately designed to maintain the order "white people on top everyone else at the bottom" are still baked into our culture.

      What existing US laws are racist? Which existing regulations are racist? Which policies are

  • Wouldn't it make more sense to survey potential students to find the percentages of each group they are targeting who are interested in potentially earning a CS PhD, and then compare that to the numbers who actually enter the program? What happens if the target groups aren't interested? It's literally retarded.

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...