What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html
10 comments
"How do you write women so well?" ...
I have read that those who might do well in computer science choose a different field for their success. Face it, it's not the most financially rewarding career and the hours are probably worse than anything but Ob/Gyn professionals. Toss some "gender biases" (for lack of a better word) into the mix and it's no wonder why there's an estrogen shortage in the field.
don't forget the constant need to refresh your skills. Pretty much any other job requires no refreshes, and the few that do have refreshes that basically involve a 3 hour seminar. Computer Science you gotta be on the cutting edge of technology all the time.
And unlike other fields where you basically take a 3 hour seminar to get up to speed, learning a new programming language takes a ton more time.
And like you said, its really not that much more financially rewarding than other fields
And unlike other fields where you basically take a 3 hour seminar to get up to speed, learning a new programming language takes a ton more time.
And like you said, its really not that much more financially rewarding than other fields
That doesn't explain why there are so much women in biology (for example) where the techniques, required skill and knowledge base change every few months or so it seems, and it isn't exactly financially rewarding.
> Pretty much any other job requires no refreshes
You mean to tell me that being a doctor requires less continuing education than CS? Really? You sure you can back that up?
You mean to tell me that being a doctor requires less continuing education than CS? Really? You sure you can back that up?
Doctors are required to go through a certain number of Continuing Medical Education (CME) courses each year to keep their board certification. Many of these courses are in sunny vacation spots such as Hawaii, San Diego, etc. Depending on the seminar, some doctors go for a few minutes to get credit and then go golfing.
That being said, many doctors routinely read journal articles on the latest advances in medicine. I would venture that not as many engineers read IEEE articles. Still, there are many trade publications targeted towards engineers that seem to do a good job of keeping them up to speed.
Arguing over who spends more time keeping up to date is pointless.
That being said, many doctors routinely read journal articles on the latest advances in medicine. I would venture that not as many engineers read IEEE articles. Still, there are many trade publications targeted towards engineers that seem to do a good job of keeping them up to speed.
Arguing over who spends more time keeping up to date is pointless.
> Arguing over who spends more time keeping up to date is pointless.
Agreed! but that wasn't what vaksel was arguing. He argued that CS requires "constant refreshes", unlike "pretty much any other job".
I'm simply arguing that the medical field, at least, requires just as much "refreshing" of skill as CS does.
(re the specific example of doctors, the niceness of the places where they get certified is utterly irrelevant, as indeed are generally their certifications. It requires a lot of continuing education to be a doctor, and it also requires a lot of expensive, worthless certifications.)
Agreed! but that wasn't what vaksel was arguing. He argued that CS requires "constant refreshes", unlike "pretty much any other job".
I'm simply arguing that the medical field, at least, requires just as much "refreshing" of skill as CS does.
(re the specific example of doctors, the niceness of the places where they get certified is utterly irrelevant, as indeed are generally their certifications. It requires a lot of continuing education to be a doctor, and it also requires a lot of expensive, worthless certifications.)
The technology that powers the body doesn't change much from year to year, unlike for computers.
Doctors are technologists who fix the body - they don't power the body.
And yes, the technology that fixes the body does change from year to year, perhaps more so than yearly advances in programming techniques and languages. A friend of mine wanted to join Doctors without Borders (a non-profit that goes places where people most urgently need help), but was strongly discouraged to do so by her colleagues. The reason? All of them suggested she would fall behind far too much in the 3 years or so that she wanted to be gone for.
Yes, anecdotes!=data, and surely web programming has also moved on enormously in the last three years, but I would not underestimate (misunderestimate? ;)) the continued education a good doctor has to complete.
And yes, the technology that fixes the body does change from year to year, perhaps more so than yearly advances in programming techniques and languages. A friend of mine wanted to join Doctors without Borders (a non-profit that goes places where people most urgently need help), but was strongly discouraged to do so by her colleagues. The reason? All of them suggested she would fall behind far too much in the 3 years or so that she wanted to be gone for.
Yes, anecdotes!=data, and surely web programming has also moved on enormously in the last three years, but I would not underestimate (misunderestimate? ;)) the continued education a good doctor has to complete.
I wonder what the impact of having an article that goes "Why aren't women interested in Computer Science" every other month has on this sort of thing..
It's a bit presumptive to call men the reference case and to ask what's wrong with {universities, women} that has caused a drop in female enrollment. Maybe a better question is: Why are there so many men in computer science.
The article's author doesn't seem to really make an effort to figure out what happened, other than to reference one individual who went into health care.
I think exploring this question to its fullest would require dropping some politically correct guards and questioning quite a few gender assumptions, something that neither web forums nor national newspapers are particularly good forums for.
The article's author doesn't seem to really make an effort to figure out what happened, other than to reference one individual who went into health care.
I think exploring this question to its fullest would require dropping some politically correct guards and questioning quite a few gender assumptions, something that neither web forums nor national newspapers are particularly good forums for.
Yep. You'd need somebody with absolutely no shame ... like Phil Greenspun!
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/acm-women-in-computing http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
"[A]nyone smart enough to make it as a computer scientist can make it with less work and risk as an MD, MBA, or JD."
"A lot of men are irrational, romantic, stubborn, and unwilling to admit that they've made a big mistake. With Occam's Razor, we should not need to bring in the FBI to solve the mystery of why there are more men than women who have chosen to stick with the choice that they made at age 18"
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/acm-women-in-computing http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
"[A]nyone smart enough to make it as a computer scientist can make it with less work and risk as an MD, MBA, or JD."
"A lot of men are irrational, romantic, stubborn, and unwilling to admit that they've made a big mistake. With Occam's Razor, we should not need to bring in the FBI to solve the mystery of why there are more men than women who have chosen to stick with the choice that they made at age 18"
"[A]nyone smart enough to make it as a computer scientist can make it with less work and risk as an MD, MBA, or JD."
This is odd for at least 2 reasons: 1) It's really hard to believe that getting a MD is "less work and risk" than getting a degree in CS. 2) At least in my country, most people who are interested in CS or engineering wouldn't even consider becoming doctors. It's not about money.
This is odd for at least 2 reasons: 1) It's really hard to believe that getting a MD is "less work and risk" than getting a degree in CS. 2) At least in my country, most people who are interested in CS or engineering wouldn't even consider becoming doctors. It's not about money.
"[A]nyone smart enough to make it as a computer scientist can make it with less work and risk as an MD, MBA, or JD."
Oh, come now. I see a lot of over-the-top programmer glorification on this site, but this takes the cake.
I know plenty of complete dolts who managed to get degrees in CS, and who went on to have reasonably rewarding careers. At no point were their grades (nor their general levels of ability) high enough to get them anywhere near law school, let alone medical school.
Now maybe you, dear reader, could have easily got into medical or law school, but the vast majority of your classmates couldn't.
Oh, come now. I see a lot of over-the-top programmer glorification on this site, but this takes the cake.
I know plenty of complete dolts who managed to get degrees in CS, and who went on to have reasonably rewarding careers. At no point were their grades (nor their general levels of ability) high enough to get them anywhere near law school, let alone medical school.
Now maybe you, dear reader, could have easily got into medical or law school, but the vast majority of your classmates couldn't.
Let me rephrase your question:
"What's wrong with, say, Psychology, that makes so few men enroll?" or "Why there are so few men graduating from fashion schools?"
I agree that looking at the whole picture explains it better than looking at a very small part of it and wondering, "if 50% of this picture is mostly green, why all I see is blue?". The answer could be simple: maybe you are looking at the sky.
When I graduated in a, say, 50 people class, 4 of them were women. Apart from the fact that we went to separate toilets, there was not much of a difference.
"What's wrong with, say, Psychology, that makes so few men enroll?" or "Why there are so few men graduating from fashion schools?"
I agree that looking at the whole picture explains it better than looking at a very small part of it and wondering, "if 50% of this picture is mostly green, why all I see is blue?". The answer could be simple: maybe you are looking at the sky.
When I graduated in a, say, 50 people class, 4 of them were women. Apart from the fact that we went to separate toilets, there was not much of a difference.
Men and Women have distinct and different priorities in life.
Personally, after all the efforts of the past couple of decades to get women involved in college have succeeded to the point that women now make up the majority of college students (with the trends continuing to favor even more women for the forseeable future), if computer science is actually still dropping, the possibility that it is simply an outlier must be taken seriously.
If there are relevant differences between genders w.r.t. to how one chooses a profession (and the negation of that statement would fly in the face of everything we know about such differences), then in all likelihood the gender ratios will be normally distributed. So, I mean outlier in the technical sense of a statistical distribution. There will be extremes at one end or another, and the mere fact of their existence is testimony that gender differences of a statistical nature do indeed exist, not proof that there is some other factor. If we actually got all professions to strict 50/50 proportions, that would be proof positive of major meddling.
I mean that first paragraph seriously. In the absence of such efforts, discrimination of some form would be a plausible hypothesis, but given how many other fields have overcome this and the dominant culture of universities, I find it increasingly difficult to believe the members of the field are really the problem. Computer scientists can hardly be blamed for a culture that considers them nerds and tells girls they shouldn't be nerds, if that is the root problem. (Nor will the obvious solutions work; protesting that you aren't really nerds is not a good approach. Making tons of money was a reasonably effective approach, though that has lost its apparent inevitability. :) )
If there are relevant differences between genders w.r.t. to how one chooses a profession (and the negation of that statement would fly in the face of everything we know about such differences), then in all likelihood the gender ratios will be normally distributed. So, I mean outlier in the technical sense of a statistical distribution. There will be extremes at one end or another, and the mere fact of their existence is testimony that gender differences of a statistical nature do indeed exist, not proof that there is some other factor. If we actually got all professions to strict 50/50 proportions, that would be proof positive of major meddling.
I mean that first paragraph seriously. In the absence of such efforts, discrimination of some form would be a plausible hypothesis, but given how many other fields have overcome this and the dominant culture of universities, I find it increasingly difficult to believe the members of the field are really the problem. Computer scientists can hardly be blamed for a culture that considers them nerds and tells girls they shouldn't be nerds, if that is the root problem. (Nor will the obvious solutions work; protesting that you aren't really nerds is not a good approach. Making tons of money was a reasonably effective approach, though that has lost its apparent inevitability. :) )
> If there are relevant differences between genders w.r.t. to how one chooses a profession (and the negation of that statement would fly in the face of everything we know about such differences), then in all likelihood the gender ratios will be normally distributed.
I don't see any reason why they would be normally distributed. Their weighted average would be the general gender proportion among students, but there's nothing that says or implies the distribution would be normal. One could imagine an extremely different scenario, a species with every field being populated entirely by one gender, and one could imagine a species where a few fields (say, engineering fields) are strongly preferred by one gender while the rest are equally preferred among non-engineering students. There's no reason why the human species is one where these ratios are distributed normally. And if it were, it would be entirely by coincidence.
I don't see any reason why they would be normally distributed. Their weighted average would be the general gender proportion among students, but there's nothing that says or implies the distribution would be normal. One could imagine an extremely different scenario, a species with every field being populated entirely by one gender, and one could imagine a species where a few fields (say, engineering fields) are strongly preferred by one gender while the rest are equally preferred among non-engineering students. There's no reason why the human species is one where these ratios are distributed normally. And if it were, it would be entirely by coincidence.
> I don't see any reason why they would be normally distributed.
The odds of the Central Limit Theorem failing to apply here seem extraordinarily low. I am one of the people who think it tends to be overapplied, but this is exactly the sort of scenario where it applies very strongly.
Speculating about species with alternative gender breakdowns with non-normal distributions has no effect on the fact that in humans our gender differences are very much normally distributed in almost every way relevant to the discussion of what career one would choose. Yes, such a species is biologically plausible, but what is, is.
The odds of the Central Limit Theorem failing to apply here seem extraordinarily low. I am one of the people who think it tends to be overapplied, but this is exactly the sort of scenario where it applies very strongly.
Speculating about species with alternative gender breakdowns with non-normal distributions has no effect on the fact that in humans our gender differences are very much normally distributed in almost every way relevant to the discussion of what career one would choose. Yes, such a species is biologically plausible, but what is, is.
And how does the central limit theorem apply here?
Rather than one factor deciding whether a given profession will trend male or female, it seem far more likely it will be a number of factors. I don't even have to lay them out, just assert that the alternative (there is precisely one factor that determines the gender composition of a given profession) seems almost incomprehensibly improbable. The burden of proof would really be on somebody making the alternative claim since nothing in the real world works that way.
Once you have that, you have some gender distribution of such traits, and even if that gender distribution itself isn't normally distributed (and most gender differences do have that distribution, with different averages and standard deviations for the two genders but broadly normal in both senses), the CLT says that the resulting distribution will be normal.
Digging into the math of the CLT shows the result to be relatively robust, too, as you add more and more factors into the mix. Eventually, with many factors (such as comes up when talking about anything human), you end up with a powerful pull towards the normal distribution that requires some pathological distribution to avoid.
Taleb's "Black Swan" theory, glibly paraphrasing, says that there are more such distributions than people realize, especially when you start using the CLT to gloss over pathological cases that arise in the real world. However, I don't think any such pathology exists today, and the pathology usually claimed ("systematic discrimination") was a lot more plausible before the events of the past 20 years, such as I described in my original post. (The "very strong" force is not something like "the dudes in my comp sci 101 class keep trying to pick me up", it would be more like "women in comp sci classes get death threats" at a minimum. The CLT can be overcome but it takes a lot as you start adding more distributions into the mix.)
To claim that this distribution would not be normal and therefore there should not be outliers would require demonstrating why all of the psychology research, which tends to show normal distributions of all kinds of traits in humanity, is either wrong, or all those normal distributions don't apply to the choice of career path. I don't think this is likely, as the most popular/reasonably explanation of the latter seems to me to be counter to the evidence.
This is a post on a social site; to go beyond this would probably require significant research, assigning numbers, etc. I know I'm handwaving some here, because this just isn't the place to do a full explanation of the CLT, after all. If you're more interested in this subject, I'd have to refer you to a statistics book and some time with a calculator. (I'm serious about that calculator bit, by the way; I have found it's easy to be able to spit out lots of theory without the first clue how it really manifests in the real world. I once did a programming project with Bayesian probabilities, and I found that even though I already knew the theory fairly well, once I actually started testing and computing Bayesian results en masse, I found my intuition was surprisingly poor. The CLT is the same way; you'll be surprised how quickly adding just three or four random variables together gets you to something fairly normal, and how much pathology it takes to prevent that result.)
Once you have that, you have some gender distribution of such traits, and even if that gender distribution itself isn't normally distributed (and most gender differences do have that distribution, with different averages and standard deviations for the two genders but broadly normal in both senses), the CLT says that the resulting distribution will be normal.
Digging into the math of the CLT shows the result to be relatively robust, too, as you add more and more factors into the mix. Eventually, with many factors (such as comes up when talking about anything human), you end up with a powerful pull towards the normal distribution that requires some pathological distribution to avoid.
Taleb's "Black Swan" theory, glibly paraphrasing, says that there are more such distributions than people realize, especially when you start using the CLT to gloss over pathological cases that arise in the real world. However, I don't think any such pathology exists today, and the pathology usually claimed ("systematic discrimination") was a lot more plausible before the events of the past 20 years, such as I described in my original post. (The "very strong" force is not something like "the dudes in my comp sci 101 class keep trying to pick me up", it would be more like "women in comp sci classes get death threats" at a minimum. The CLT can be overcome but it takes a lot as you start adding more distributions into the mix.)
To claim that this distribution would not be normal and therefore there should not be outliers would require demonstrating why all of the psychology research, which tends to show normal distributions of all kinds of traits in humanity, is either wrong, or all those normal distributions don't apply to the choice of career path. I don't think this is likely, as the most popular/reasonably explanation of the latter seems to me to be counter to the evidence.
This is a post on a social site; to go beyond this would probably require significant research, assigning numbers, etc. I know I'm handwaving some here, because this just isn't the place to do a full explanation of the CLT, after all. If you're more interested in this subject, I'd have to refer you to a statistics book and some time with a calculator. (I'm serious about that calculator bit, by the way; I have found it's easy to be able to spit out lots of theory without the first clue how it really manifests in the real world. I once did a programming project with Bayesian probabilities, and I found that even though I already knew the theory fairly well, once I actually started testing and computing Bayesian results en masse, I found my intuition was surprisingly poor. The CLT is the same way; you'll be surprised how quickly adding just three or four random variables together gets you to something fairly normal, and how much pathology it takes to prevent that result.)
Ok. Thanks for that explanation.
I am a woman who has been programming professionally, on and off, for about 9 years, and full-time at a corporate job for two and a half of those. I was the first woman to be hired as a software developer at my workplace in almost 25 years. I hate my job, and next fall, I will enter grad school to go into an allied health profession. My reasons for leaving full-time software development are as follows:
1) The social interaction leaves something to be desired at my job, especially if you are not into gaming or D&D. There are few coworkers with whom I can discuss non-geek topics such as travel or food. This is probably due, at least in part, to having so few women around. The guys constantly revel in their geekitude. It gets old.
2) The work itself is isolating. I love to code, but especially during the long, depressing months of winter, I long for meetings to go to, or phone calls to receive.
3) Similar to the last point: I'd like to have a reason to leave my desk several times a day, for periods longer than it takes to get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom. The highly sedentary nature of the job starts to make it feel like a prison.
In contrast to the last couple of points, my male coworkers act as though they would be happy if they never had to leave their desk chair to go to another meeting. Maybe this is just personality, and not a gender difference. Maybe I don't love programming enough to lose myself in it for hours at a time. I think some of these things, however, especially the social issues, may be indicative of basic female needs to have a connection with others, a feeling of being nurtured (and nurturing others), and good (female) role models. It would be interesting to see a workplace in which the majority of developers are women.
I recall reading about a study recently in which they found that men tended to concentrate in the hard sciences (math, physics), where women preferred sciences with a human aspect (psychology, biology). I believe they found that even women who had entered the hard sciences often ended up leaving them for fields with a more human touch.
1) The social interaction leaves something to be desired at my job, especially if you are not into gaming or D&D. There are few coworkers with whom I can discuss non-geek topics such as travel or food. This is probably due, at least in part, to having so few women around. The guys constantly revel in their geekitude. It gets old.
2) The work itself is isolating. I love to code, but especially during the long, depressing months of winter, I long for meetings to go to, or phone calls to receive.
3) Similar to the last point: I'd like to have a reason to leave my desk several times a day, for periods longer than it takes to get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom. The highly sedentary nature of the job starts to make it feel like a prison.
In contrast to the last couple of points, my male coworkers act as though they would be happy if they never had to leave their desk chair to go to another meeting. Maybe this is just personality, and not a gender difference. Maybe I don't love programming enough to lose myself in it for hours at a time. I think some of these things, however, especially the social issues, may be indicative of basic female needs to have a connection with others, a feeling of being nurtured (and nurturing others), and good (female) role models. It would be interesting to see a workplace in which the majority of developers are women.
I recall reading about a study recently in which they found that men tended to concentrate in the hard sciences (math, physics), where women preferred sciences with a human aspect (psychology, biology). I believe they found that even women who had entered the hard sciences often ended up leaving them for fields with a more human touch.
I am a man and I feel the same way. I recently graduated and have been working as a hardware designer for the past year and a half. I find cube life very depressing and am increasingly losing my motivation.
I have better social interaction, though. My work has people who are hard to converse with because of their lack of social skills but the majority of people aren't like that.
Even though I hate sitting in my cubicle all day, I really don't like most meetings because the information discussed isn't interesting and my eyes glaze over. People get into pointless arguments and I sit there hoping for the meeting to end. The only meetings that I like are design meetings, but most of our meetings just cover status updates.
I yearn for a job that doesn't involve sitting in front of a computer all day. I love hardware design and programming, but 8 hours a day of it is very taxing. I suffer from RSI in my wrists and have yet to find a long lasting remedy.
Maybe the best option would be to start my own hardware or software company. Working for someone else just adds to the dreariness. Other than that, I have been thinking about becoming a doctor.
I have better social interaction, though. My work has people who are hard to converse with because of their lack of social skills but the majority of people aren't like that.
Even though I hate sitting in my cubicle all day, I really don't like most meetings because the information discussed isn't interesting and my eyes glaze over. People get into pointless arguments and I sit there hoping for the meeting to end. The only meetings that I like are design meetings, but most of our meetings just cover status updates.
I yearn for a job that doesn't involve sitting in front of a computer all day. I love hardware design and programming, but 8 hours a day of it is very taxing. I suffer from RSI in my wrists and have yet to find a long lasting remedy.
Maybe the best option would be to start my own hardware or software company. Working for someone else just adds to the dreariness. Other than that, I have been thinking about becoming a doctor.
Your point about starting a business is a good one. I initially learned programming while self-employed as a web designer back in the wee days of the web. On my own, I always wore more hats than just "code monkey," and that made a difference. Not to mention that when you're self-employed, you can go take a walk outdoors, etc., anytime you like. I guess a predilection for self-employment is why most of us are here reading Hacker News.
At risk of going off-topic: I, too, suffer from RSI. As a programmer and musician, it is a double whammy for me. I have found many short-term solutions, but have recently experienced some astonishing relief from reading The Mindbody Prescription by Dr. Sarno (I believe someone here on HN mentioned it). If you think you would be open to the idea of RSI as a disorder originating in the brain as a result of buried emotional tension, you should check it out.
At risk of going off-topic: I, too, suffer from RSI. As a programmer and musician, it is a double whammy for me. I have found many short-term solutions, but have recently experienced some astonishing relief from reading The Mindbody Prescription by Dr. Sarno (I believe someone here on HN mentioned it). If you think you would be open to the idea of RSI as a disorder originating in the brain as a result of buried emotional tension, you should check it out.
I suffer from RSI in my wrists and have yet to find a long lasting remedy.
A bit off-topic, obviously, but I've found that rock climbing is really great for the wrists. Starting senior year, I developed unbearable wrist pain from too much typing. After being unable to type for more than an hour or so at a time for almost a year, I started climbing at a local climbing gym, and for the past couple of years I've been able to program all day without any pain. It's worth trying, if you haven't tried that already.
A bit off-topic, obviously, but I've found that rock climbing is really great for the wrists. Starting senior year, I developed unbearable wrist pain from too much typing. After being unable to type for more than an hour or so at a time for almost a year, I started climbing at a local climbing gym, and for the past couple of years I've been able to program all day without any pain. It's worth trying, if you haven't tried that already.
I would advise you to make some time of move now to discover what you really want to do with your career. I remember having the same sorts of feelings at that point in my career but ignoring them. Ten years later, guess who is still a cube dweller? Do something orthogonal to what you have been NOW.
I am also a woman software engineer, but my workplace is significantly different from yours. I'm the principal software engineer at a university with a commitment to diversity, and my team consists of 7 men and 6 women (3 developers, 1 dba, 2 QE). We're an agile workplace, so every day we have several meetings, including the stand-up, code reviews, and meetings with our partners. I don't think anyone is into gaming, but you might find the baby talk tedious (2 of us are pregnant, myself with twins, and virtually everyone has a family). The elusive "human touch," feels intrinsic to this job. However, it took me a long time to find the ideal workplace, so I fully understand your frustration.
For years, I was the one&only technical woman in the different companies I worked for. That can be very difficult, especially in a start-up environment where (depending on the culture), the atmosphere can be as sexually charged as a college dorm. I've had supervisors hit on me & grope me at parties. Another boss told me he was going to replace me with a nice, docile set of Geisha programmers, or sell me into white slavery if the start-up folded. The new sales guy at one place asked me to get him coffee, and when I explained that wasn't my job, he said I was "too hot to be a programmer." I was not flattered.
And then there are the message boards where hoards of young men post their opinions about women being intrinsically incapable of hacking. You have to have a really, really thick skin to be a woman in this line of work.
For years, I was the one&only technical woman in the different companies I worked for. That can be very difficult, especially in a start-up environment where (depending on the culture), the atmosphere can be as sexually charged as a college dorm. I've had supervisors hit on me & grope me at parties. Another boss told me he was going to replace me with a nice, docile set of Geisha programmers, or sell me into white slavery if the start-up folded. The new sales guy at one place asked me to get him coffee, and when I explained that wasn't my job, he said I was "too hot to be a programmer." I was not flattered.
And then there are the message boards where hoards of young men post their opinions about women being intrinsically incapable of hacking. You have to have a really, really thick skin to be a woman in this line of work.
I suppose that despite the relative lack of women studying computer science at universities (I didn't), universities do tend to be ideal places to find kick-ass women doing both the job thing and the family thing. That sounds great to me, and I think I'd much prefer baby talk over the geeky alternatives.
Only one person on our eight-person team has kids. As for the others, I'm not sure if some of them have ever been on a date. Dealing with frustrated young men is... frustrating in and of itself. I'd just like to see some more balance and worldliness from my coworkers.
Despite the lack of other women, I have been lucky to be in a pretty egalitarian workplace. I generally feel respected, and many of our executives are women. That said, I have had less than tactful coworkers take a two minute break near my desk to stare at my chest and stuff snacks in their face, like it was some kind of show. That was fun. (<-sarcasm)
Only one person on our eight-person team has kids. As for the others, I'm not sure if some of them have ever been on a date. Dealing with frustrated young men is... frustrating in and of itself. I'd just like to see some more balance and worldliness from my coworkers.
Despite the lack of other women, I have been lucky to be in a pretty egalitarian workplace. I generally feel respected, and many of our executives are women. That said, I have had less than tactful coworkers take a two minute break near my desk to stare at my chest and stuff snacks in their face, like it was some kind of show. That was fun. (<-sarcasm)
We're an agile workplace, so every day we have several meetings
Is that what agile is about, multiple meetings every day? That would drive me nuts. How can you concentrate on problems in that type of environment? I don't mind social interaction but that seems over the top.
Is that what agile is about, multiple meetings every day? That would drive me nuts. How can you concentrate on problems in that type of environment? I don't mind social interaction but that seems over the top.
My team consists of 13 contributors, wich is knd of large for an agile team. In order for the team to function, we all need to be completely invested in high-bandwidth communication, and we need more meetings than a 3-5 man team.
For us, this means at least the stand-up every day. There are frequent code and technical design reviews, at least 2-3 times a week. Requirements clarification will typically involve 1-2 meetings a week with the partner, to ensure we're on the right track. Add on the bi-weekly demo and iteration planning, and you're looking at more than one meeting a day. Not all of the developers are required to attend all of the meetings, but because I'm the ranking dev/technical lead, I need to go to most of them.
Also, almost half our team is offshore, so I spend plenty of time drafting emails. If communication and human interaction is your bag, this is a pretty good place to be. That said, I tend to freak out once a month or so, and lock myself in a dark room with the code base for a week. Somehow, I still manage to be the single largest contributor to the project....
For us, this means at least the stand-up every day. There are frequent code and technical design reviews, at least 2-3 times a week. Requirements clarification will typically involve 1-2 meetings a week with the partner, to ensure we're on the right track. Add on the bi-weekly demo and iteration planning, and you're looking at more than one meeting a day. Not all of the developers are required to attend all of the meetings, but because I'm the ranking dev/technical lead, I need to go to most of them.
Also, almost half our team is offshore, so I spend plenty of time drafting emails. If communication and human interaction is your bag, this is a pretty good place to be. That said, I tend to freak out once a month or so, and lock myself in a dark room with the code base for a week. Somehow, I still manage to be the single largest contributor to the project....
Somehow, I still manage to be the single largest contributor to the project....
Rock on, that much interaction would kill me. I am not a people hater but I just couldn't deal with all of that. Somehow you do it though; my hat is off. {EDIT: Congrats and good luck with the twins.}
Rock on, that much interaction would kill me. I am not a people hater but I just couldn't deal with all of that. Somehow you do it though; my hat is off. {EDIT: Congrats and good luck with the twins.}
[deleted]
That's too bad. (I'm male, btw.) Where I work, on an Agile team, we have lots of social interaction. We try to pair with a different developer every day. Each story card (requrement) we implement involves much back-and-forth conversaction between us (the developers) and the users (or more often, but not always, their "representatives" - the Business Analysts).
Aside from that, I don't think D & D has come up once the whole time I've been on that team (3+ years). Between being busy with the work we're doing, and the rest of the world's events to discuss, there's no time for games. Politics. The stock market. Parenthood. (Non-parenthood for the single guys and girls too.) Professional sports. Dumb jokes. Etc.
Aside from that, I don't think D & D has come up once the whole time I've been on that team (3+ years). Between being busy with the work we're doing, and the rest of the world's events to discuss, there's no time for games. Politics. The stock market. Parenthood. (Non-parenthood for the single guys and girls too.) Professional sports. Dumb jokes. Etc.
I also work on a quasi-agile team. We do pair programming, but we often get assigned to the same pair for weeks or months at a time. It's sort of like being in an arranged marriage. I've told management time and again that this doesn't turn out well, to no avail.
Granted, pair programming does offer interaction. The hours go more quickly while pairing. However, I often prefer to work alone when I can, so that I can have some semblance of privacy and personal space in our bull-pen work environment.
I have to say that the recent financial turmoil and U.S. election have lead the conversation away from D&D, the latest video game, or the plots of Star Trek episodes. It has been a welcome change of pace. We have dumb jokes, too. The puns, ohhh the puns. ;)
Granted, pair programming does offer interaction. The hours go more quickly while pairing. However, I often prefer to work alone when I can, so that I can have some semblance of privacy and personal space in our bull-pen work environment.
I have to say that the recent financial turmoil and U.S. election have lead the conversation away from D&D, the latest video game, or the plots of Star Trek episodes. It has been a welcome change of pace. We have dumb jokes, too. The puns, ohhh the puns. ;)
To be a good programer we need to insulate our mind from rest of the world.
I believe women cannot efford to do this by nature (due to mother's role etc)
Math.
j/k :-)
j/k :-)
Statistics FAIL.
>Yet women have achieved broad parity with men in almost every other technical pursuit. When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent in 2004-5 from 39 percent in 1984-85,
Women have achieved "broad parity" in one other science and engineering field: biology (pre-med). This accounts for a large number of bachelors degrees in science, but it does not account for a large number of technical pursuits.
(Actually, women also make up a largish chunk of math majors at schools which don't offer math education as a separate degree. )
CS looks a lot like most other math heavy science fields, like physics, electrical/mechanical engineering and operations research.
>Yet women have achieved broad parity with men in almost every other technical pursuit. When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent in 2004-5 from 39 percent in 1984-85,
Women have achieved "broad parity" in one other science and engineering field: biology (pre-med). This accounts for a large number of bachelors degrees in science, but it does not account for a large number of technical pursuits.
(Actually, women also make up a largish chunk of math majors at schools which don't offer math education as a separate degree. )
CS looks a lot like most other math heavy science fields, like physics, electrical/mechanical engineering and operations research.
I think it boils down to a couple of factors: (1) women, understandably, loathe asking men for permission to do things, and (2) if they want to have children, they can't take nearly as many risks in their early years.
Item 1 essentially rules out mainstream corporate environments, which are still the nasty, vulgar, dumb white boy's world they've been for centuries. It also makes VC-backed startups uncompelling, because although startup engineers and VCs are more refined than mainstream corporates, VCs are still mostly men.
Moreover, most people want to have children, and while men who want to have kids can wait until their 50s, women can't. This means that men can take more risks when they're young, and it's why, for example, academia is unappealing: it's a career where you need someone's permission (tenure) to start your adult life, and usually don't get it until your late 30s.
A lot of the very-smart women who would be entering computer science choose, instead, to become doctors, because medicine's a much better career from this perspective. 1. The risk is low. 2. If you're good, you don't have to ask anyone for permission. (This isn't true in tech; you still need VC.) 3. You have pretty much free rein over whether or not you want to be rich and work long hours, or moderately wealthy with a relaxed work schedule.
Item 1 essentially rules out mainstream corporate environments, which are still the nasty, vulgar, dumb white boy's world they've been for centuries. It also makes VC-backed startups uncompelling, because although startup engineers and VCs are more refined than mainstream corporates, VCs are still mostly men.
Moreover, most people want to have children, and while men who want to have kids can wait until their 50s, women can't. This means that men can take more risks when they're young, and it's why, for example, academia is unappealing: it's a career where you need someone's permission (tenure) to start your adult life, and usually don't get it until your late 30s.
A lot of the very-smart women who would be entering computer science choose, instead, to become doctors, because medicine's a much better career from this perspective. 1. The risk is low. 2. If you're good, you don't have to ask anyone for permission. (This isn't true in tech; you still need VC.) 3. You have pretty much free rein over whether or not you want to be rich and work long hours, or moderately wealthy with a relaxed work schedule.
Uh, maybe, but as a female software engineer, I can tell you I'm doing ok on the cusp of my thirties with one kid & two more currently baking. I have my labor-of-love python project on the side, which may or may not ever get backing, and another startup I'm working on with my partner. If I don't get around to launching a company until I'm 40, that's cool, too.
However, as far as the attitudes of men, particularly men without families, or with families they have completely foisted off onto their wives, you are correct about the nasty, dumb, vulgar stuff.
However, as far as the attitudes of men, particularly men without families, or with families they have completely foisted off onto their wives, you are correct about the nasty, dumb, vulgar stuff.