[ceol]

> Outreach is used fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means

Check.

> to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education).

Check.

It does both things. It fills the gap of an affordable, welcoming resource for women who have an interest in programming, and it reaches women who would otherwise not be aware of a resource that is friendly toward them. You just don't like that it's reaching out to a specific group that you happen to not belong to.

> women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive.

Hacker School isn't excluding men. It's merely saying they will help women with expenses while attending the school. It's not giving women an express lane through the application process.

> You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.

Do you have any source to prove this is a step backwards? Because one of the largest and most resourceful tech companies in the world happens to disagree with you, so you're going to need a little more to back yourself up than, "Nuh uh!"

And please don't throw around "scientific method" as though it applies here. You're not bringing in any new information. You're just stating your own opinion and then acting as though it's fact.

[belorn]

A appeal to authority fallacy will get you nowhere. I will counter your appeal to Google with my appeal to Mozilla. Mozilla believes in a mentor program and non-exclusive aid, which is exactly the right way to approach imbalance. It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias.

If you want sources, do you own research. like I said, Sweden education system tried and failed and that fact is not hard to find for yourself. Others has published articles such as http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.... which paints the discussion as an debate with two sides. I do however like to point out that the only side that actually do research on the efficiency of preferential treatment programs are those who are against them. I have yet to see any study that show preferential treatments to be beneficially.

Can you provide any source what so ever that preferential treatments has ever worked to eliminate gender bias? Ever? Surely such sources should be all over the web?

[ceol]

> It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias.

Another unsubstantiated claim. It's like you don't understand how claims work. Saying whatever you believe as though it's fact doesn't make it so.

> like I said, Sweden education system tried and failed and that fact is not hard to find for yourself.

First: It's not my job to prove your argument for you. Second: According to you, Sweden apparently tried gender-exclusive classes. Hacker School isn't excluding men from its program. It's just providing a way for women to pay for expenses. Those are two very different things.

> Others has published articles such as

That article actually proves you wrong...

>> These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white compared to 45 percent today.

So, they are beneficial, and they do work.

[belorn]

> It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias. > Another unsubstantiated claim.

Sorry, I thought you could your own searches. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, and can provide any sources of your own, why should anyone care what you got to say?

any, for the incurrable lazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6NvCH7A8Vs and https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeLove/Mentors

> Sweden apparently tried gender-exclusive classes

No, they did not. They added a simple rule that said: If a person enrolling in a class would become a minority in that class, then that person deserve some preferential treatment. The end resulted was that over 80% of the time this rule triggered, it was a white male, trying to enter a white female dominated class room.

> That article actually proves you wrong...

Apprently a lack of reading skills...

The article ends on:

>> Few people question the need to eliminate racial and sexist barriers that exclude minorities' and women from full participation in society. Preferential treatment programs may be one means toward this goal. But these programs also raise ethical issues that direct us to consider their potential benefits and harms, the justice of compensating groups for past harms and present disadvantages, and the fairest way to distribute the burdens of compensation.

And it talks about what those temporary measures where designed for:

>> First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities.

And last:

>> Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.

they are not beneficial, and they do not work.