If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion.
Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.
Did she suffer harassment?
Obviously. RTFA
Was the instructor aware of this?
Who knows? It doesn't matter anyway.
Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?
Again, we don't know -- but it doesn't matter! The instructor could have removed some of the worst offenders, lectured others, gave a long talk about bullying, etc. That doesn't change the fact that the girl suffered, being ostracized and harassed (presumably) just for being a girl.
But that's not really the most important bit. Kids are ostracized and harassed for other reasons not related to gender. You actually managed to puzzle this next one out on your own, but denied reality anyway:
If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.
Again, this is nonsense. Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl. Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates. This one is socially imposed, reinforced in both daily life and in media (where girls interested in computing are not portrayed as normal people but as awkward and strange aberations). Being the only girl, these social cues are confirmed: "Computing really is just for boys. I, being a girl, don't belong here."
Here's where a girls-only class most obviously helps. It tells girls, quite explicitly, that computing isn't just for boys and that it's okay for girls to like computing. This is reinforced by their classmates and the inevitable exposure to female computing role-models.
. So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.
That's about as simple and easy to understand example as you can get. You deny it.
Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman. You don't think that's going to inhibit their progress, relative to the other kids, leave them with a bad impression of the activity, or make them feel like it's not for them? When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment, what other conclusion could she come to than 'girls are welcome in computing'?
Not sure why people learning Pascal, assembler, or Lisp first would be better at OO. There's nothing OO about any of those. I would turn that around and say that 95% of programmers are bad at OO programming, period, regardless of what language they started with.
For the Lispers at least, they'll, hopefully, understand the absurdity of the OO landscape. (They giggle when they see GoF "design patterns", and wonder how things went wrong.) It is, quite possibly, the worst trend, in history, to hit software development. OO is poorly defined, failed to fullfill any of the promises made by the great OO hype machine, and resulted in monstrously over-engineered products.
It's difficult to criticize OOP as no matter what you say about it, someone will come along and claim "that's not OO!". The worst part about that, of course, is that no matter your criticism, they're right. No one agrees on what constitutes OOP. What applies to Java doesn't necessarily apply to C++, Smalltalk, Python, ECMAScript, CLOS, C#, etc.
You've even fallen for the trap:
A class should be a mostly self-contained.
Are classes essential? "Obviously not!" say the Self folks,"They're extremely limiting! Even harmful!". "They're absolutely essential!" scream the Java lobby "It's impossible to do without them!". With perfectly reasonable arguments following from each side.
You said 95% of people are terrible at it, but I think that's an underestimate. I'd say it's closer to 100%. (Ask anyone and they'll tell you that you're doing it wrong, I'm doing it wrong, that guy over there is doing it wrong... The only one not doing it wrong is the person you asked. Ask someone else, and they'll tell you the first guy is doing it wrong!)
Either way, the promise that OOP was going to revolutionize software, making our lives easier, our programs more reliable, easier to change, and faster to develop has not only not been fulfilled, it's actually done the exact opposite. It's made our software less reliable, more difficult to change, and significantly increased the time it takes to deliver.
Worse, it's slowed progress on other approaches to development, and heaped countless distractions designed to ease the pain of OOP. From bloated IDE's to snake-oil "development methodologies" for leading your harried team through another over-designed project that follows the latest "best practices" from whatever trade-rag hit your supervisors desk that morning.
That ball-of-yarn dependency diagram and impossibly deep class hierarchy you see every day isn't a result of the applications inherent complexity. The OOP hype machine, coupled with the save-OO-at-all-costs consultancy industry, are to blame. Billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted chasing the empty promises made by marketing departments in the 90's. We're like the citizens of Idiocracy repeating "It's what plants crave!" despite the overwhelming evidence that it's all been a horrible mistake. Still, even conscientious developers, like yourself, defend it.
The LISP guys got a lot of stuff right. That's why they've endured and we're finally seeing a move toward functional programming. Here's hoping that we get the good parts, and not merely the superficial bits. (I'm hoping against hope, I know.) I'm no purist, don't get me wrong. Functional languages just aren't a practical choice for most modern development. That said, a healthy dose of functional influence just might save us from the OOP hell we've suffered from for the last 20+ years.
It comes from an old (15+ years) defense of Java. The claim was that Java was no longer slow thank to JIT, with HotSpot making it possible for Java code to run faster than equivalent code written in C or C++.
OP is playing the part of a turn-of-the-century die-hard Java zealot cracking under the harsh light of reality, desperately clinging to their long-cherished beliefs.
Anyhow, why do I claim there are barriers to entry? Because, there exist barriers to entry! I don't infer them based on whatever 50/50 thing you imagined. To deny their existence is to deny reality. This has been well-established. Take a few seconds, do some reading, and tell me none exist.
Hell, even half the MRA's here acknowledge that women and girls face barriers to entry that men and boys don't face -- they just think they should "suck it up" and learn to compete on an uneven playing field (where the boys have the advantage). It's pitiful, really, but even they've managed to accept that particular aspect of reality.
I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women
We've really got to work on your literacy. I did not "infer" anything. (Tip: look up the words "infer" and "imply". Note both your mistake and the fact I've done neither.) I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.
You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry.
No. That's not implied in any way by my analogy. You know this already.
I am saying that there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry. These are well-understood. That you deny they exist is irrelevant. Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.
You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase.
That's because they do. In this case, girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome. Surprise, surprise, the girl didn't enjoy being subjected to such a hostile environment and, consequently, developed an aversion to the subject as a result. As she's changed her opinion after her more positive and supportive experience in an all-girl classroom, it would seem that it wasn't computing, but the harassment, that pushed her away from the subject she otherwise would have enjoyed.
One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS.
We have an awful lot of evidence. The barriers are well-established and well-understood. This specific account is perfectly in line with what has already been well-established. The outcome here was completely predictable. That you're unwilling to look at the evidence yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. You've had countless opportunities to remove your ignorance here.
What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?
This is a social, not a legal, issue. That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.
If that's so, then so is pointing out logical fallacies.
Well, it very often is the antithesis of discussion. It's so bad these days that when I see the word "fallacy" on this and other similar sites, I know that I'm not dealing with a rational person.
Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why?
Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.
Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?
It's flawed on its face. You know it as well as everyone else. What you want is to ignore the issue and quibble of semantics. It's not worth the effort.
Anyhow, the disadvantages, in this case, are very well-understood. The solution is both simple and effective. No group is disadvantaged, on the contrary, this ultimately provides more opportunities for everyone, not just girls.
There is no harm to girls being in the same class as boys.
There is demonstrable harm. That's why they have a girls-only class.
There is, however, arguably harm to boys being in the same classes as girls as we've bent over backwards to make sure that no girl is left behind.
Only in your imagination. Perhaps some evidence? The other side has presented more than enough. It would be nice if you had even a little to support these absurd assertions.
The issue is more complicated than that. I, and many others, have explained this in detail in the past. That you still don't understand seems to indicate that you're either incapable of learning or simply unwilling to face reality.
You use the word MRA like it's some sort of bad thing.
That's because it is.
Remember: Just as Klansmen think they're part of a fine upstanding organization working toward a greater social good, MRA's honestly think they're a force for positive social change.
The rest of civilized society sees them for what they really are.
Smaller, particularly community operated, app stores can handle QA far more thoroughly and efficiently.
Given the generally low quality of app store apps, it's pretty obvious that Apple's investment is minimal. This should come as no surprise, as they "review" thousands of apps every day. I guarantee that they're not investing more in QA than they pull in from app store revenue. It's likely more in the "as little as possible" range.
They're in business to make a profit, after all. They're not some mythical omnibenevolent entity.
Apple has a sketchy security track record. Like Linux, it benefited from being an unattractive target as it had such a tiny user-base. OSX still does. As for iOS, for a while there, you could root the damn thing by visiting a webpage.
That is, their products are not an attractive target for malware. When someone bothers, they're usually successful. See: pwn2own for countless recent examples.
Aside from the microscopic market share, Apple is just like everyone else.
A much better solution, impossible on iOS, is to have multiple (smaller) third-party curated stores where better QA can be assured. A single massive store with thousands of submissions per day is a recipe for failure. Given the size, you'd very often spend far more per app review than you'd likely recover from sales if you wanted to keep low-quality and malware infested apps out.
But you are one of the people who "vastly overestimate what Apple can do".
Look at the posts you've made here. You'd think your whole world view was crumbling around you.
Just accept the fact that Apple isn't infallible, the walled garden is no guarantee against malware, and people will criticize them when their draconian policies fail to deliver on the promises they've made in exchange for your acceptance of the same.
You're getting better. Just look at this amazing quote:
If even a modicum of obsfucation is used, a skilled Developer can hide quite a bit in a system as huge as XCode.
Had someone else made the same statement earlier, you'd have fallen over yourself in a vain attempt to defend Apple against this "fud".
You should take a look at what happens to countries where population growth has stalled or is falling.
I only wish more people would carry on not having children, instead of doing a shitty job and then insisting they know what they're doing because of cognitive dissonance.
You may want to look up the term "cognitive dissonance".
"What if the girl is actually stupid?"... You can't be serious.
Do you go around insulting the intelligence of below average children? "Hey, kid, you're an idiot! You were born a failure, and you'll die a failure. Don't even bother trying, you'll be lucky to end up a burger-flipper." Should Barbie respond to the question "Am I smart" with a "No, you're really dumb. Try to marry someone successful because you're never going achieve anything on your own."
I'm reminded of a famous story about Nicolas Malebranche -- you know the one -- where he kicks a pregnant dog in the stomach (without provocation, to he horror of his companions.) Malebranche responded to their protests: "That dog is nothing but a machine. Rub it there, it scratches. Whistle, it comes. Kick it, it yelps and runs away."
At least for Malebranche, he believed the animal didn't actually suffer. He didn't believe his shameless act cruelty had any real impact. Unless you want to claim that below-average children don't have feelings, what you're suggesting is (without question) far worse.
I'm amazed that you didn't also ask: "What if the kid is acutally ugly?"
The answer, ultimately, to both is a simple: "that doesn't matter". There's absolutely no reasonable justification for that sort of cruelty. They're young children, after all, and you'd have them believe that they're incapable of succeeding academically and professionally before they've even had a chance. You'd not only make them feel bad, you'd put unnecessary barriers along their path to their success.
Slashdot Mirror
You have not demonstrated any extra barrier this girl faced.
That's a bald-faced lie.
I'm done. You're beyond reason. Enjoy your delusions.
It is, quite obviously, not the same thing. The issues involved and motivation of the organizers are dramatically different.
Try to see if you can work out the differences. As soon as you give the issue a moment's thought, it'll be painfully clear.
If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion.
Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.
Did she suffer harassment?
Obviously. RTFA
Was the instructor aware of this?
Who knows? It doesn't matter anyway.
Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?
Again, we don't know -- but it doesn't matter! The instructor could have removed some of the worst offenders, lectured others, gave a long talk about bullying, etc. That doesn't change the fact that the girl suffered, being ostracized and harassed (presumably) just for being a girl.
But that's not really the most important bit. Kids are ostracized and harassed for other reasons not related to gender. You actually managed to puzzle this next one out on your own, but denied reality anyway:
If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.
Again, this is nonsense. Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl. Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates. This one is socially imposed, reinforced in both daily life and in media (where girls interested in computing are not portrayed as normal people but as awkward and strange aberations). Being the only girl, these social cues are confirmed: "Computing really is just for boys. I, being a girl, don't belong here."
Here's where a girls-only class most obviously helps. It tells girls, quite explicitly, that computing isn't just for boys and that it's okay for girls to like computing. This is reinforced by their classmates and the inevitable exposure to female computing role-models.
This is not complicated.
. So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.
That's about as simple and easy to understand example as you can get. You deny it.
Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman. You don't think that's going to inhibit their progress, relative to the other kids, leave them with a bad impression of the activity, or make them feel like it's not for them? When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment, what other conclusion could she come to than 'girls are welcome in computing'?
You're beyond reason.
Fads are fads. Today's 'best practices' are tomorrow's 'horrible mistakes'.
You're right that rewrites often result in a significantly better product. I suspect that, in addition to your reason, the two are correlated.
Not sure why people learning Pascal, assembler, or Lisp first would be better at OO. There's nothing OO about any of those. I would turn that around and say that 95% of programmers are bad at OO programming, period, regardless of what language they started with.
For the Lispers at least, they'll, hopefully, understand the absurdity of the OO landscape. (They giggle when they see GoF "design patterns", and wonder how things went wrong.) It is, quite possibly, the worst trend, in history, to hit software development. OO is poorly defined, failed to fullfill any of the promises made by the great OO hype machine, and resulted in monstrously over-engineered products.
It's difficult to criticize OOP as no matter what you say about it, someone will come along and claim "that's not OO!". The worst part about that, of course, is that no matter your criticism, they're right. No one agrees on what constitutes OOP. What applies to Java doesn't necessarily apply to C++, Smalltalk, Python, ECMAScript, CLOS, C#, etc.
You've even fallen for the trap:
A class should be a mostly self-contained.
Are classes essential? "Obviously not!" say the Self folks,"They're extremely limiting! Even harmful!". "They're absolutely essential!" scream the Java lobby "It's impossible to do without them!". With perfectly reasonable arguments following from each side.
You said 95% of people are terrible at it, but I think that's an underestimate. I'd say it's closer to 100%. (Ask anyone and they'll tell you that you're doing it wrong, I'm doing it wrong, that guy over there is doing it wrong... The only one not doing it wrong is the person you asked. Ask someone else, and they'll tell you the first guy is doing it wrong!)
Either way, the promise that OOP was going to revolutionize software, making our lives easier, our programs more reliable, easier to change, and faster to develop has not only not been fulfilled, it's actually done the exact opposite. It's made our software less reliable, more difficult to change, and significantly increased the time it takes to deliver.
Worse, it's slowed progress on other approaches to development, and heaped countless distractions designed to ease the pain of OOP. From bloated IDE's to snake-oil "development methodologies" for leading your harried team through another over-designed project that follows the latest "best practices" from whatever trade-rag hit your supervisors desk that morning.
That ball-of-yarn dependency diagram and impossibly deep class hierarchy you see every day isn't a result of the applications inherent complexity. The OOP hype machine, coupled with the save-OO-at-all-costs consultancy industry, are to blame. Billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted chasing the empty promises made by marketing departments in the 90's. We're like the citizens of Idiocracy repeating "It's what plants crave!" despite the overwhelming evidence that it's all been a horrible mistake. Still, even conscientious developers, like yourself, defend it.
The LISP guys got a lot of stuff right. That's why they've endured and we're finally seeing a move toward functional programming. Here's hoping that we get the good parts, and not merely the superficial bits. (I'm hoping against hope, I know.) I'm no purist, don't get me wrong. Functional languages just aren't a practical choice for most modern development. That said, a healthy dose of functional influence just might save us from the OOP hell we've suffered from for the last 20+ years.
It comes from an old (15+ years) defense of Java. The claim was that Java was no longer slow thank to JIT, with HotSpot making it possible for Java code to run faster than equivalent code written in C or C++.
OP is playing the part of a turn-of-the-century die-hard Java zealot cracking under the harsh light of reality, desperately clinging to their long-cherished beliefs.
Wow, bullet proof logic there
Yes, yes it is. Care to take a shot at it?
Anyhow, why do I claim there are barriers to entry? Because, there exist barriers to entry! I don't infer them based on whatever 50/50 thing you imagined. To deny their existence is to deny reality. This has been well-established. Take a few seconds, do some reading, and tell me none exist.
Hell, even half the MRA's here acknowledge that women and girls face barriers to entry that men and boys don't face -- they just think they should "suck it up" and learn to compete on an uneven playing field (where the boys have the advantage). It's pitiful, really, but even they've managed to accept that particular aspect of reality.
I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women
We've really got to work on your literacy. I did not "infer" anything. (Tip: look up the words "infer" and "imply". Note both your mistake and the fact I've done neither.) I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.
You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry.
No. That's not implied in any way by my analogy. You know this already.
I am saying that there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry. These are well-understood. That you deny they exist is irrelevant. Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.
You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase.
That's because they do. In this case, girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome. Surprise, surprise, the girl didn't enjoy being subjected to such a hostile environment and, consequently, developed an aversion to the subject as a result. As she's changed her opinion after her more positive and supportive experience in an all-girl classroom, it would seem that it wasn't computing, but the harassment, that pushed her away from the subject she otherwise would have enjoyed.
One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS.
We have an awful lot of evidence. The barriers are well-established and well-understood. This specific account is perfectly in line with what has already been well-established. The outcome here was completely predictable. That you're unwilling to look at the evidence yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. You've had countless opportunities to remove your ignorance here.
What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?
This is a social, not a legal, issue. That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.
I think it's the antithesis of discussion.
If that's so, then so is pointing out logical fallacies.
Well, it very often is the antithesis of discussion. It's so bad these days that when I see the word "fallacy" on this and other similar sites, I know that I'm not dealing with a rational person.
Where do I begin?
Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why?
Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.
Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?
It's flawed on its face. You know it as well as everyone else. What you want is to ignore the issue and quibble of semantics. It's not worth the effort.
Anyhow, the disadvantages, in this case, are very well-understood. The solution is both simple and effective. No group is disadvantaged, on the contrary, this ultimately provides more opportunities for everyone, not just girls.
It has been explained to you, and others, endlessly. It's been explained over and over again in every one of these click-bait threads.
There is no harm to girls being in the same class as boys.
There is demonstrable harm. That's why they have a girls-only class.
There is, however, arguably harm to boys being in the same classes as girls as we've bent over backwards to make sure that no girl is left behind.
Only in your imagination. Perhaps some evidence? The other side has presented more than enough. It would be nice if you had even a little to support these absurd assertions.
That's because the issues are completely different and we're not so simple-minded as to make such a false equivalence.
You know it's nonsense as well, I suspect, but push this nonsense anyway as your delusion better suits your politics than does reality.
The issue is more complicated than that. I, and many others, have explained this in detail in the past. That you still don't understand seems to indicate that you're either incapable of learning or simply unwilling to face reality.
You use the word MRA like it's some sort of bad thing.
That's because it is.
Remember: Just as Klansmen think they're part of a fine upstanding organization working toward a greater social good, MRA's honestly think they're a force for positive social change.
The rest of civilized society sees them for what they really are.
Yet, they still managed to get their apps inside Apple's walls. They'd make the Greeks proud.
Smaller, particularly community operated, app stores can handle QA far more thoroughly and efficiently.
Given the generally low quality of app store apps, it's pretty obvious that Apple's investment is minimal. This should come as no surprise, as they "review" thousands of apps every day. I guarantee that they're not investing more in QA than they pull in from app store revenue. It's likely more in the "as little as possible" range.
They're in business to make a profit, after all. They're not some mythical omnibenevolent entity.
As far as you know...
Apple has a sketchy security track record. Like Linux, it benefited from being an unattractive target as it had such a tiny user-base. OSX still does. As for iOS, for a while there, you could root the damn thing by visiting a webpage.
That is, their products are not an attractive target for malware. When someone bothers, they're usually successful. See: pwn2own for countless recent examples.
Aside from the microscopic market share, Apple is just like everyone else.
A much better solution, impossible on iOS, is to have multiple (smaller) third-party curated stores where better QA can be assured. A single massive store with thousands of submissions per day is a recipe for failure. Given the size, you'd very often spend far more per app review than you'd likely recover from sales if you wanted to keep low-quality and malware infested apps out.
But you are one of the people who "vastly overestimate what Apple can do".
Look at the posts you've made here. You'd think your whole world view was crumbling around you.
Just accept the fact that Apple isn't infallible, the walled garden is no guarantee against malware, and people will criticize them when their draconian policies fail to deliver on the promises they've made in exchange for your acceptance of the same.
You're getting better. Just look at this amazing quote:
If even a modicum of obsfucation is used, a skilled Developer can hide quite a bit in a system as huge as XCode.
Had someone else made the same statement earlier, you'd have fallen over yourself in a vain attempt to defend Apple against this "fud".
You should take a look at what happens to countries where population growth has stalled or is falling.
I only wish more people would carry on not having children, instead of doing a shitty job and then insisting they know what they're doing because of cognitive dissonance.
You may want to look up the term "cognitive dissonance".
You will note I don't have kids.
That explains it. Carry on.
And what, exactly, did you mean?
From your post, you look a bit like an MRA with a lower-than-average sense of social responsibility.
"What if the girl is actually stupid?" ... You can't be serious.
Do you go around insulting the intelligence of below average children? "Hey, kid, you're an idiot! You were born a failure, and you'll die a failure. Don't even bother trying, you'll be lucky to end up a burger-flipper." Should Barbie respond to the question "Am I smart" with a "No, you're really dumb. Try to marry someone successful because you're never going achieve anything on your own."
I'm reminded of a famous story about Nicolas Malebranche -- you know the one -- where he kicks a pregnant dog in the stomach (without provocation, to he horror of his companions.) Malebranche responded to their protests: "That dog is nothing but a machine. Rub it there, it scratches. Whistle, it comes. Kick it, it yelps and runs away."
At least for Malebranche, he believed the animal didn't actually suffer. He didn't believe his shameless act cruelty had any real impact. Unless you want to claim that below-average children don't have feelings, what you're suggesting is (without question) far worse.
I'm amazed that you didn't also ask: "What if the kid is acutally ugly?"
The answer, ultimately, to both is a simple: "that doesn't matter". There's absolutely no reasonable justification for that sort of cruelty. They're young children, after all, and you'd have them believe that they're incapable of succeeding academically and professionally before they've even had a chance. You'd not only make them feel bad, you'd put unnecessary barriers along their path to their success.