You lost me at "performance at Maths A-Level is the best indicator of performance at degree level Computer Science". I'm a crap to mediocre mathematician, like many people I'm just not a natural. After dragging myself through the Maths part of a foundation course I got a reasonable result for it (my original Maths AS-Level was appalling).
But in comparison my Computer Science achievement has been extremely good. I think you can be a fantastic software developer without being a fantastic mathematician. I put this down to other attributes more important to programming success such as perseverance, a dogged willingness to learn and problem solving skills.
I agree mathematicians can make great algorithmic thinkers capable of solving very complex academic problems, but in terms of development, software engineering, solving business problems and shipping software, I don't think it necessarily helps.
development, software engineering, solving business problems and shipping software
These aren't exactly what Computer Science programs focus on. There's a lot more theory (algorithms, data structures, etc.) and less practice in my experience. Working through the MIT algorithms book (CLRS) will be rough without the requisite math background. My MIS program was much more focused on the things you listed than my CS program was.
Statistically it is, hence universities using it for selection purposes. But that only means that someone who did badly at A-Level Maths will do badly at degree level on average.
I think the point is that of the information available on students, math performance is the best indicator for cs performance.
Obviously there are outliers (such as yourself). However I don't think there are any reasonably objective statistics for many of the other qualities you have mentioned.
Reading this article, the thought occurred to me that perhaps it's the "building stuff" part of computing that women aren't as interested in, as opposed to the "math" part, which is the typical culprit.
Interestingly, via the table at the end of that article, the two professional occupations which had even less participation from women than computing are: Architects, and Civil Engineers.
I once tried to comment with a thought (not mine, don't remember the source) that men are more into "stuff" and women are more into relationships, but was downvoted instantly.
Agreed! I've always thought that it's an innate-ish lack of affinity towards machines that's partially responsible.
Human infant females show a toy bias away from toys modeling machines, and even female baby primates of other species prefer soft toys (interestingly, the infant male rhesus monkeys show no preference between the "boy" and "girl" toys; but the females actually show a preference away from trucks and other mechanical toys.)
You need to both have an affinity for machines and mathematical thinking.
This article is vacuous. It claims to be able to disprove the "wrong arguments" for the issues with data, but the only data appearing at all is simply the reiteration of the fact that there aren't many women in Computer Science, and then some logic that does not follow from the raw data. You can't get to causation from there. It's not even showing correlations of particular interest (we already know women are in other disciplines of varying relatedness), let alone causation. This is argument-by-flurry-of-words(-and-graphs).
A similar article could be written asking why so few men go into elementary school teaching or nursing. Men are just as qualified as women for these positions, but pursue them at a far lower rate than women do. Looking at qualifications clearly isn't enough. The hard question to answer is why so many qualified women choose careers other than CS.
In the UK at least, the answer to that is obvious - the government assumes that any male who wishes to work with children is a paedophile and the onus is on him to prove otherwise. So men simply refuse to endure that systematic humiliation.
There are actually no barriers to women working in IT other than their personal interest in doing so.
I think the suggested reaons for the importance of equal gender distribution of software developer are exaggerated.
Not being able to code is by far not as severe as not being able to write and read. Literacy enables you to take part in society, and prevents you from being cheated in all parts of life.
While it's true that compentence in using software is increasingly important, it will always be a small fraction of the population who is able (or willing) to actually produce the technology.
It is important to be able to drive a car, but nobody considers it harmful that not everybody can build one.
PS: I would love to see more female developers, but they should be in the field for the love of it, not because someone else told them it's important for their career.
Software development is now the 7th most common graduate-level profession for men in the UK. It's more common than teaching. It's easy to miss how pervasive software development is becoming.
Even in non-software fields like finance and marketing, you see more and more jobs requiring the ability to put together models in VBA, etc.
The divide between the cans and cannots of computers is wider I think than the car building industry. Most children won't build a car at school but they probably will learn how to drill a hole in a piece of metal, mould plastic, stitch upholstery or some basic electronics.
It's not harmful that someone can use amazon or google without being able to build it, but surely there is a value and even a necessity for people to be able to write "Hello, World!" in html and understand how that relates to the professional enterprises.
This is straight up begging the question. The article is taking it as fact that we should fix it.
I don't see people trying to get more women into garbage collection, snow plowing, roadkill removal, framing, or masonry. And framing in particular includes plenty of math when it comes to laying out rafters to build the roof.
I think it has to do with type of computer gaming that boys gravitate to which encourages experimentation with the computer (swapping out video cards, adding RAM, etc) that I just don't think young girls are encouraged (or motivated by slow specs) to do.
> The article is taking it as fact that we should fix it.
Assuming that women are every bit as intelligent as men, our field is missing out on roughly half the population of brilliant minds that could be inventing the Next Big Thing. No?
Edit: OK. Summary of the answers so far. A) Cannot necessarily make the above assumption. B) Women on average may be as intelligent as men but they will never be geniuses like Einstein (or likely to go to prison). and C) We don't need that many engineers anyways.
> I don't see people trying to get more women into garbage
> collection, snow plowing, roadkill removal, framing, or
> masonry.
Was going to say something similar. Is nobody afraid that "by neglecting female adoption we're creating the potential for huge disenfranchisement issues in the future."
I also saw a comment on reddit stating, that while being 54% of the workforce
males account for more than 90% of work-related deaths. Chocking on billions must be the most likely cause then :(
>
Actually the article has a section on "Why it matters". Including this:
There's a huge shortage of software developers in the UK, the number of software development roles is increasing by approximately 10,000/year. The UK just isn't producing enough talented software developers to meet the demand. When it comes to expanding the talent pool it makes sense to target the groups who are most under-represented.
But it is also an issue for society as whole. Having a 90:10 ratio of males to females for software development should be as shocking as having a 90:10 ratio for literacy. Software development is fast becoming one of the fundamental skills of the 21st century as technology starts to dominate every industry. Of the 26 billionaires the web has produced in the last decade, only one has been female. Only a tiny fraction of technology companies started today are started by female technologists. By neglecting female adoption we're creating the potential for huge disenfranchisement issues in the future.
I don't see people trying to get more women into garbage collection
That is the dirty little secret of feminism. It's not and never was about "equality". It's about cherry-picking the best jobs - by means other than open competition.
Gaming is an interesting area, as it's shifting away from being male dominated. The number of female gamers has increased rapidly in the last few years, which may well result in more females being interested in the development side of it.
I was at a conference where a developer from India said that this is much less of an issue there; that the ratio of female/male developers is much more even. I thought that was pretty interesting - can anybody from (or with experience in) India comment on that?
When I was choosing what degree to do at university I didn't even consider computer science because I hadn't been exposed to computer science education before that so I didn't know what it was like and that I might be interested in it. I went to an all-girls school so it was probably assumed that girls would have no interest in it, in the same way that I wasn't offered courses in other typically male-oriented subjects like woodworking, mechanics etc. It wasn't until I took a computer science module as part of my business degree that I developed an interest in it and decided to do a masters in it.
So for me, the main reason I didn't study it at undergraduate level is that I simply wasn't exposed to it enough during my formative years to develop an interest in it, not through any perceived mathematical difficulty or that it is sometimes seen as a solitary activity.
My sister started out in the same Computing program that I am currently in, she managed around half a year until she switched to a law program.
She was doing quite well, better than most she was told when she left.
She left saying that computing was boring for girls, she had no outside interest in the subject and struggle to get into the right frame of mind for computing.
Look at this, computing is boring for girls. Her words not mine, if you look into the social stigma behind computing studies. I get called a nerd or a geek when people find out about my degree, it is even less cool for most girls to get into the subject. I honestly think there is a much stronger social side, where woman and young girls just do not want to get into this field.
If a guy you knew dropped out of CS (about 10-15% of them do in the first year) saying it was boring, would you be saying that computing is boring for guys ?
It seems hard to argue that there's a social stigma associated with computing that doesn't exist with IT, given that most people outside the field generally don't know the difference. So would you explain the difference in take up between the two fields ?
>To get onto a good Computer Science degree you generally need to have a strong grade at A-Level Maths (which students study between the ages of 16-18)
I stopped maths at 16, I hated it. I did CompSci at uni. About a third of unis in the UK have stopped requiring maths A level for compsci courses. They tend to be less 'pure' compsci courses and more generalised programming/IT/'making-stuff-with-computers' degrees.
I did do a Computing A-level though, which is quite rare. It was better-taught and more educational than a lot of my degree. And it was free. Goddammit.
Graduates from higher-ranking universities are much more likely to get tech jobs (we're talking 2-3x more likely), so the top universities (which require maths) are supplying a disproportionately large number of the software developers.
One of the reasons may be, that men always help women with their computers. They don't need to clean it off spyware, reinstall windows or anything, because their IT friend will do it for them. So they don't need to explore how anything works, it's just a stupid black box for them. Why would they go and study Computer Science? They probably don't know what it is about.
I got into computers thanks to my little brother - I didn't want to admit that he knows something better than me. So I tried to fix it myself. Somehow, while searching for sites about how to fix this and that, I found some discussions on how Windows sux. Found Linux. Found out about programming...
I wonder how we could gauge how much of this apparent "predestination" is due to the innate differences between men and women and how much is simply a consequence of the way our society works. Most people will paint a newborn girl room pink and a boy room blue.
I don't think we should ignore or even try to dim the differences between men and women (diversity is a chance), but maybe society should give more room to children when it comes to choose what they want to become, and not brainwash them since early childhood that GI Joes are for boys and baby dolls are for girls.
When I was finishing up my A-levels and deciding what to study at degree level, the standard advice was that if you thought you might one day want to work with computers, to not take a computing degree (because at the time they were regarded as lower-quality than more traditional subjects), but to take something like maths instead. I don't know if that advice continues to be given, and I can't think of an obvious reason why women would pay more attention to it than men, but maybe someone else can?
I think you pick up on an interesting point - the focus on Computer Science qualifications above GCSE level. The drop-offs the article points to are between A-Levels and degrees and, to a lesser extent, between GCSEs and A-Levels. But those drop-offs can only be said to explain the gender disparity among professional developers if you accept that the vast majority of software developers working professionally today studied Computer Science at degree level. I'm not sure that's true, and I'm equally unsure that it should be true.
Given that there's a software developer shortage overall and that software development jobs don't tend to require CS degrees, wouldn't it be more prudent to make the professional end more attractive rather than concentrating on outreach for degree programmes?
I can't understand why we can't just go with
"Women just aren't interested in Programming" and leave it at that.
I never considered going into fashion or nursing or anything other remotely female dominated profession, because they just weren't interesting to me, and no amount of PR would have changed that.
The problem is that some women are interested in programming, but are discouraged by the education process, which is as male-dominated as the field itself. I know several guys who are in fashion, nursing and other female-dominated fields, but they have never been made to feel ostracized and alienated to the extent that budding female programmers are.
Maybe there is some innate difference, but with a wide variety of societal factors in play I think we're probably on safer ground eliminating them from the equation before we declare that women are somehow less likely to have technical aptitude by nature.
A lot of people have said that our brains are wired differently. I highly recommend Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, it's looking into exactly those claims:
[+] [-] ses|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpritchett|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aplusbi|15 years ago|reply
Obviously there are outliers (such as yourself). However I don't think there are any reasonably objective statistics for many of the other qualities you have mentioned.
[+] [-] jsdalton|15 years ago|reply
So, did a bit of googling and found this article: http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/ArchWomen.html
Interestingly, via the table at the end of that article, the two professional occupations which had even less participation from women than computing are: Architects, and Civil Engineers.
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] araneae|15 years ago|reply
Human infant females show a toy bias away from toys modeling machines, and even female baby primates of other species prefer soft toys (interestingly, the infant male rhesus monkeys show no preference between the "boy" and "girl" toys; but the females actually show a preference away from trucks and other mechanical toys.)
You need to both have an affinity for machines and mathematical thinking.
[+] [-] jerf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
Or that the data that females have the qualifications to get onto CS degrees indicates it's not just an ability issue ?
[+] [-] Umalu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
There are actually no barriers to women working in IT other than their personal interest in doing so.
[+] [-] mduerksen|15 years ago|reply
Not being able to code is by far not as severe as not being able to write and read. Literacy enables you to take part in society, and prevents you from being cheated in all parts of life. While it's true that compentence in using software is increasingly important, it will always be a small fraction of the population who is able (or willing) to actually produce the technology.
It is important to be able to drive a car, but nobody considers it harmful that not everybody can build one.
PS: I would love to see more female developers, but they should be in the field for the love of it, not because someone else told them it's important for their career.
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
Even in non-software fields like finance and marketing, you see more and more jobs requiring the ability to put together models in VBA, etc.
[+] [-] adam-a|15 years ago|reply
It's not harmful that someone can use amazon or google without being able to build it, but surely there is a value and even a necessity for people to be able to write "Hello, World!" in html and understand how that relates to the professional enterprises.
[+] [-] parfe|15 years ago|reply
This is straight up begging the question. The article is taking it as fact that we should fix it.
I don't see people trying to get more women into garbage collection, snow plowing, roadkill removal, framing, or masonry. And framing in particular includes plenty of math when it comes to laying out rafters to build the roof.
I think it has to do with type of computer gaming that boys gravitate to which encourages experimentation with the computer (swapping out video cards, adding RAM, etc) that I just don't think young girls are encouraged (or motivated by slow specs) to do.
[+] [-] cosgroveb|15 years ago|reply
Assuming that women are every bit as intelligent as men, our field is missing out on roughly half the population of brilliant minds that could be inventing the Next Big Thing. No?
Edit: OK. Summary of the answers so far. A) Cannot necessarily make the above assumption. B) Women on average may be as intelligent as men but they will never be geniuses like Einstein (or likely to go to prison). and C) We don't need that many engineers anyways.
Conclusion: they should stay in the kitchen
[+] [-] rimantas|15 years ago|reply
Was going to say something similar. Is nobody afraid that "by neglecting female adoption we're creating the potential for huge disenfranchisement issues in the future."
I also saw a comment on reddit stating, that while being 54% of the workforce males account for more than 90% of work-related deaths. Chocking on billions must be the most likely cause then :(
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
There's a huge shortage of software developers in the UK, the number of software development roles is increasing by approximately 10,000/year. The UK just isn't producing enough talented software developers to meet the demand. When it comes to expanding the talent pool it makes sense to target the groups who are most under-represented.
But it is also an issue for society as whole. Having a 90:10 ratio of males to females for software development should be as shocking as having a 90:10 ratio for literacy. Software development is fast becoming one of the fundamental skills of the 21st century as technology starts to dominate every industry. Of the 26 billionaires the web has produced in the last decade, only one has been female. Only a tiny fraction of technology companies started today are started by female technologists. By neglecting female adoption we're creating the potential for huge disenfranchisement issues in the future.
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
That is the dirty little secret of feminism. It's not and never was about "equality". It's about cherry-picking the best jobs - by means other than open competition.
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcantor|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] compay|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wisty|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sabatier|15 years ago|reply
So for me, the main reason I didn't study it at undergraduate level is that I simply wasn't exposed to it enough during my formative years to develop an interest in it, not through any perceived mathematical difficulty or that it is sometimes seen as a solitary activity.
[+] [-] tehjones|15 years ago|reply
She was doing quite well, better than most she was told when she left.
She left saying that computing was boring for girls, she had no outside interest in the subject and struggle to get into the right frame of mind for computing.
Look at this, computing is boring for girls. Her words not mine, if you look into the social stigma behind computing studies. I get called a nerd or a geek when people find out about my degree, it is even less cool for most girls to get into the subject. I honestly think there is a much stronger social side, where woman and young girls just do not want to get into this field.
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
It seems hard to argue that there's a social stigma associated with computing that doesn't exist with IT, given that most people outside the field generally don't know the difference. So would you explain the difference in take up between the two fields ?
[+] [-] JonnieCache|15 years ago|reply
I stopped maths at 16, I hated it. I did CompSci at uni. About a third of unis in the UK have stopped requiring maths A level for compsci courses. They tend to be less 'pure' compsci courses and more generalised programming/IT/'making-stuff-with-computers' degrees.
I did do a Computing A-level though, which is quite rare. It was better-taught and more educational than a lot of my degree. And it was free. Goddammit.
[+] [-] ig1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karinqe|15 years ago|reply
I got into computers thanks to my little brother - I didn't want to admit that he knows something better than me. So I tried to fix it myself. Somehow, while searching for sites about how to fix this and that, I found some discussions on how Windows sux. Found Linux. Found out about programming...
[+] [-] simias|15 years ago|reply
I don't think we should ignore or even try to dim the differences between men and women (diversity is a chance), but maybe society should give more room to children when it comes to choose what they want to become, and not brainwash them since early childhood that GI Joes are for boys and baby dolls are for girls.
[+] [-] abstractbill|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mortice|15 years ago|reply
Given that there's a software developer shortage overall and that software development jobs don't tend to require CS degrees, wouldn't it be more prudent to make the professional end more attractive rather than concentrating on outreach for degree programmes?
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|15 years ago|reply
I never considered going into fashion or nursing or anything other remotely female dominated profession, because they just weren't interesting to me, and no amount of PR would have changed that.
[+] [-] mcantor|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iterationx|15 years ago|reply
Not to say that they can't, I knew a girl who was taking non-linear differential crypto-analysis at as a junior in high school.
[+] [-] mortice|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reneky|15 years ago|reply
http://www.cordeliafine.com/delusions_of_gender.html
[+] [-] compay|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptainCasey|15 years ago|reply