Born for it – How the image of software developers came about(martinfowler.com)
martinfowler.com
Born for it – How the image of software developers came about
http://martinfowler.com/articles/born-for-it.html
9 comments
"My 2 cents about why women are underrepresented in software industry is that not too many of them are interested in the beginning.
One big drive of male programmers, according to my observation (hundreds of samples), are video games, myself included."
I think you are drawing a false statistical conclusion here.
The basic hypothesis you are making is: "In the population of women, there is a lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males". "This hypothesis is based on sampling my coworkers, and the general population".
Let's take as given that the statistical aptitude for programming in the general population is much lower than in the population of professional software engineers. Basically, if all of the women you've met and are using as a basis for your hypothesis are not your co-workers, then you are sampling from completely different sets.
If we presume you are familiar with n women (and they are picked randomly from the general population) then yes, it is very likely that they have a lower aptitude for programming than the set of your male colleagues. But this lower aptitude would apply to any random set picked from the general population irrespective of sex, or any other factor.
" it is the early stage education system to introduce programming to wider range of people"
Yes, this.
One big drive of male programmers, according to my observation (hundreds of samples), are video games, myself included."
I think you are drawing a false statistical conclusion here.
The basic hypothesis you are making is: "In the population of women, there is a lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males". "This hypothesis is based on sampling my coworkers, and the general population".
Let's take as given that the statistical aptitude for programming in the general population is much lower than in the population of professional software engineers. Basically, if all of the women you've met and are using as a basis for your hypothesis are not your co-workers, then you are sampling from completely different sets.
If we presume you are familiar with n women (and they are picked randomly from the general population) then yes, it is very likely that they have a lower aptitude for programming than the set of your male colleagues. But this lower aptitude would apply to any random set picked from the general population irrespective of sex, or any other factor.
" it is the early stage education system to introduce programming to wider range of people"
Yes, this.
That is not what I saying.
Basically hypothesis: back in the day, programming is niche and needs self-motivation -> More boys were interested in video games -> Became programmers latter.
And if you really read through my post, the sampling is here not to be about women programmers...it is about gamers population in male programmer.
Basically hypothesis: back in the day, programming is niche and needs self-motivation -> More boys were interested in video games -> Became programmers latter.
And if you really read through my post, the sampling is here not to be about women programmers...it is about gamers population in male programmer.
Yeah, I think my sampling does not reflect what you originally said. I think I need to refresh on my statistics before trying any back-of-the envelope sampling next time.
>>is that not too many of them are interested in the beginning.
>lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males
How did interest turn into aptitude?
>lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males
How did interest turn into aptitude?
"How did interest turn into aptitude?"
Sorry, poor choice of words. I mean 'A quality which increases the likelihood of being employed as a programmer'- this is just not interest, though. But yeah, not a deeply insightful comment, given I tried to play with back of the envelope statistics and ended up with a low quality scheme myself.
Sorry, poor choice of words. I mean 'A quality which increases the likelihood of being employed as a programmer'- this is just not interest, though. But yeah, not a deeply insightful comment, given I tried to play with back of the envelope statistics and ended up with a low quality scheme myself.
> My 2 cents about why women are underrepresented in software industry is that not too many of them are interested in the beginning.
Women were once the majority of programmers.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...
edit: my 65 year old mother is the only reason why I'm a programmer today. Well, that and William Gibson.
Women were once the majority of programmers.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...
edit: my 65 year old mother is the only reason why I'm a programmer today. Well, that and William Gibson.
>Gamers are overwhelmingly MALE.
This used to be true for decades, but by now the majority of people who play computer games are female. Social games and mobile games were a game changer in this regard. It will be interesting to see how that affects interest in programming in the future.
This used to be true for decades, but by now the majority of people who play computer games are female. Social games and mobile games were a game changer in this regard. It will be interesting to see how that affects interest in programming in the future.
Yeah, but people aren't tweaking the autoexec.bat files and frigging around with virtual memory settings, tweaking drivers and dealing with crazy work-arounds for their social smartphone games, the way a lot of us did cutting our teeth on PC games.
I picked up a tremendous amount of various computer trivia digging around making games work, and basically internalized a lot of debugging techniques before getting out of short-pants, so to speak.
I picked up a tremendous amount of various computer trivia digging around making games work, and basically internalized a lot of debugging techniques before getting out of short-pants, so to speak.
So maybe it is reversed: the fact that you don't need to tweak autoexec.bat any more draws more females to the gaming?
Maybe - getting DOS games to run on weird PC clones back in the day was really only an activity fit for masochists - or ten year old boys that reaaaally wanted to shoot some demons or play Warcraft...
The other thing is, if gaming is the gateway drug, for a lot of people the next step is modding, level design, botting, etc. The more black-boxy games are, the harder that is.
The other thing is, if gaming is the gateway drug, for a lot of people the next step is modding, level design, botting, etc. The more black-boxy games are, the harder that is.
True, especially for Facebook games. Majority of them are female. Though hardcore PC gamers and console gamers are still male in majority.
Yes, I am a nerd. Yes, I am socially awkward, and I did start programming around 10. And here is yet another article pointing out that all the fun I'm having in my career now is something that should make me feel ashamed or guilty. "People like you are the reason why women won't program! Why can't you go to a bar like everyone else?"
I know it's my own bias, but no one was writing articles for me when I was "sticking out like a 'sore thumb'" in HS for being smart and nerdy instead of cool.
I totally agree that there's a problem of disrespect towards those who are new (apparently more if they are women), and I'm cool with focusing on fixing that. But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.
</rant>
I know it's my own bias, but no one was writing articles for me when I was "sticking out like a 'sore thumb'" in HS for being smart and nerdy instead of cool.
I totally agree that there's a problem of disrespect towards those who are new (apparently more if they are women), and I'm cool with focusing on fixing that. But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.
</rant>
I don't think the author intends for anyone to feel guilty at all.
The article's conclusion is more along the lines of: "We're a self-selected group in the programming world now and we often unconsciously project messages that make others who have the potential to diversify the group feel cut out based on metrics that actually have no relevance to their ability to execute programming tasks well"
Highlighted by the often off-hand comments like "oh you don't know that?", "this is so easy!" etc. I think it's more about messaging to let people know "Hey you don't have to be like me and love video games, have made your own arduino project, be active on github, and all that noise to be a good programmer"
The article's conclusion is more along the lines of: "We're a self-selected group in the programming world now and we often unconsciously project messages that make others who have the potential to diversify the group feel cut out based on metrics that actually have no relevance to their ability to execute programming tasks well"
Highlighted by the often off-hand comments like "oh you don't know that?", "this is so easy!" etc. I think it's more about messaging to let people know "Hey you don't have to be like me and love video games, have made your own arduino project, be active on github, and all that noise to be a good programmer"
"And here is yet another article pointing out that all the fun I'm having in my career now is something that should make me feel ashamed or guilty"
The article does not state anything like that. Unless you have kids and are actively stopping your daughter from using a computer.
'But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.'
If there is a societal bias from stopping people trying things they might be actually good at based on their sex organs I see that as a problem.
It's not about categorizing being a nerd as 'good' or 'bad'. It's being aware and negating filters based on obsolete stereotypes.
The article does not state anything like that. Unless you have kids and are actively stopping your daughter from using a computer.
'But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.'
If there is a societal bias from stopping people trying things they might be actually good at based on their sex organs I see that as a problem.
It's not about categorizing being a nerd as 'good' or 'bad'. It's being aware and negating filters based on obsolete stereotypes.
I think you missed the point completely.
No one is out to make you feel guilty; one of the questions the article brings up is questioning how you, as a seasoned / skilled developer are handling less-seasoned / less-skilled developers.
No one was writing articles for you when you were sticking out like a sore thumb for ... so that's kinda like an angry toddler screaming 'it's not fair mom'.
About that sticking out like a sore thumb in HS. How about being smart and not nerdy in HS? Then you get shunned by 2 groups of people: the nerdy smart ones and the not-nerdy 'dumb' ones. I'm glad we're seeing people writing about this.
No one is out to make you feel guilty; one of the questions the article brings up is questioning how you, as a seasoned / skilled developer are handling less-seasoned / less-skilled developers.
No one was writing articles for you when you were sticking out like a sore thumb for ... so that's kinda like an angry toddler screaming 'it's not fair mom'.
About that sticking out like a sore thumb in HS. How about being smart and not nerdy in HS? Then you get shunned by 2 groups of people: the nerdy smart ones and the not-nerdy 'dumb' ones. I'm glad we're seeing people writing about this.
I don't deny that there is some history in the current representation of programmers but I don't buy that socially awkward white males are somehow oppressing diversity in general as some would suggest. When they supposedly aren't, it's a brogrammer problem and blatant sexism. Everyone wants to find someone to blame.
Granted this was 9 years ago, but when I was in computer engineering we had a few classes with only 1 female. All the nerdy types flocked to her and were very inclusive with team projects.
I'm a partner in a 6 yr old business and I've just recently started to see more women programmers. Most of my job postings would get zero female applicants. However, my last 2 engineering hires were women that came through our internal network and they've been excellent.
Account managers and project managers - generally women applicants. Engineers = male nerds of all types. I welcome more female engineers but it's challenging to hire them if there aren't enough and they don't apply.
EDIT: spelling
Granted this was 9 years ago, but when I was in computer engineering we had a few classes with only 1 female. All the nerdy types flocked to her and were very inclusive with team projects.
I'm a partner in a 6 yr old business and I've just recently started to see more women programmers. Most of my job postings would get zero female applicants. However, my last 2 engineering hires were women that came through our internal network and they've been excellent.
Account managers and project managers - generally women applicants. Engineers = male nerds of all types. I welcome more female engineers but it's challenging to hire them if there aren't enough and they don't apply.
EDIT: spelling
I don't think the article was really putting socially awkward white males to blame. I believe it tried to say that the diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job. And this accumulated over time reinforcing the notion until recently that it's sort of a no girls land. I can't help but feel that you're kinda shifting the blame when you say that there are just not enough female candidates otherwise you'd be perfectly happy to hire them and of course you would be. Maybe the problem really is in the way career possibilities are presented to children from early on. My brother is a programmer with years of experience - he got a pc when very young that I really didn't have access to and he was making fun of me when I got into a coding job because I it didn't really suit me, even though I have a CS degree. That doesn't mean he is to blame, it's just how we are brought up. Arts and humanities go girls, STEM go boys.
diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job
Based on... which facts exactly?
Edit: As far as I can see, the picture is that there's a bunch of socially inept males that some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay.
This is utterly ridiculous, no matter which amount of social science "evidence" you put into it. I'll be retired by then, but I'm pretty sure enough time will put this crazy notion to rest.
Based on... which facts exactly?
Edit: As far as I can see, the picture is that there's a bunch of socially inept males that some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay.
This is utterly ridiculous, no matter which amount of social science "evidence" you put into it. I'll be retired by then, but I'm pretty sure enough time will put this crazy notion to rest.
"some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay."
While some may claim this, it is not stated in the article at all and I don't think this is a mainstream opinion. Also the article actually gave detail about this shift in targeting with the SDC recruiting procedure - and it is clear it was about optimising the work environment - and not to exclude women. This also coincided with the rise of the PC which was targeted at boys - again because they thought they would increase their profits, not because they don't like girls messing with the boy hobbies (it even sounds ridiculous). As I mentioned in my first comment, what we have as a result is not everyone gets equal exposure to computers in similar conditions based on their gender and hence fewer women end up interested in the field.
While some may claim this, it is not stated in the article at all and I don't think this is a mainstream opinion. Also the article actually gave detail about this shift in targeting with the SDC recruiting procedure - and it is clear it was about optimising the work environment - and not to exclude women. This also coincided with the rise of the PC which was targeted at boys - again because they thought they would increase their profits, not because they don't like girls messing with the boy hobbies (it even sounds ridiculous). As I mentioned in my first comment, what we have as a result is not everyone gets equal exposure to computers in similar conditions based on their gender and hence fewer women end up interested in the field.
The "detail" is so vague as to not deserve that name. Give me a ten minutes description of the described environment and I will give you a dozen alternative explanation to the especulation presented in the article.
This is no more than coach psicology.
This is no more than coach psicology.
shadowy powers carefully select
I don't think anyone's claiming that.
I don't think anyone's claiming that.
Actually, that is exactly the claim.
For example, the book "The Computer Boys Take Over" quoted all over in TFA claims that the drive to "professionalize" programming and make it more "engineering like" was specifically to drive women out, after men found out the profession was gaining status and money in the late 70ies and early 80ies.
Which is ridiculous on so many fronts, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. And of course makes me not give too much credit to anyone basing their argument on that book.
For example, the book "The Computer Boys Take Over" quoted all over in TFA claims that the drive to "professionalize" programming and make it more "engineering like" was specifically to drive women out, after men found out the profession was gaining status and money in the late 70ies and early 80ies.
Which is ridiculous on so many fronts, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. And of course makes me not give too much credit to anyone basing their argument on that book.
Oh, fair enough, I understood a different thesis from the article (of a self-reinforcing stereotype among employers).
This is a blame game. It's tried on individuals. When they reject accusations, there's the "you are biased even if you don't realize" and then the "you are a tool in the hands of an oppressing society". If you can't convince, at least seed the doubt.
Have you seen what happens when there are no employers? Open source projects, I mean. It's qualified then as a "toxic culture" with "ambient pressure", "terrified women" and so on.
There is a handful of nonsense viruses that survive and flourish in the interwebs, concepts that are instantly rejected as absurd but have enough followers to keep then alive for years. Either you detect them early or you will be pushed by peer pressure (until the fad goes away).
Unfortunately the clear feeling that something is totally wrong and backwards (like EU defending Samsumg right to push its crap instead of Google apps) fades very quickly to propaganda.
Have you seen what happens when there are no employers? Open source projects, I mean. It's qualified then as a "toxic culture" with "ambient pressure", "terrified women" and so on.
There is a handful of nonsense viruses that survive and flourish in the interwebs, concepts that are instantly rejected as absurd but have enough followers to keep then alive for years. Either you detect them early or you will be pushed by peer pressure (until the fad goes away).
Unfortunately the clear feeling that something is totally wrong and backwards (like EU defending Samsumg right to push its crap instead of Google apps) fades very quickly to propaganda.
> "you are biased even if you don't realise"
Yes. For example, I looked at some online "implicit bias" test from some well-respected university. Well, started to take.
One of the first questions was whether I associated "black" (in general) with sports. I do. It was obvious that answering truthfully was going to dramatically up my "implicit bias" score.
But I don't do this because I am biased, I do this because my lived experience tells me this association is a true reflection of the world. I was on my high school's track team. In a school that was (guessing) >90% white, I was the only white guy on the sprint relay team. When going to the next level (county championships), I was the fastest white guy in the 200m that I competed in. I was also the only white guy (came in 4th of 6) in the 200m finals. Or look at the running competitions in the Olympics. Bias my ass.
Aaaand...it doesn't apply to individuals. When I see President Obama, I don't think "sports", I think "President of the United States", and "amazing speaker" and "says things like 'that makes no sense' when people make no sense". And
But I guess "reality = bias" these days.
See also: "Stereotype Inaccuracy: A Belief Impervious to Data"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/st...
Yes. For example, I looked at some online "implicit bias" test from some well-respected university. Well, started to take.
One of the first questions was whether I associated "black" (in general) with sports. I do. It was obvious that answering truthfully was going to dramatically up my "implicit bias" score.
But I don't do this because I am biased, I do this because my lived experience tells me this association is a true reflection of the world. I was on my high school's track team. In a school that was (guessing) >90% white, I was the only white guy on the sprint relay team. When going to the next level (county championships), I was the fastest white guy in the 200m that I competed in. I was also the only white guy (came in 4th of 6) in the 200m finals. Or look at the running competitions in the Olympics. Bias my ass.
Aaaand...it doesn't apply to individuals. When I see President Obama, I don't think "sports", I think "President of the United States", and "amazing speaker" and "says things like 'that makes no sense' when people make no sense". And
But I guess "reality = bias" these days.
See also: "Stereotype Inaccuracy: A Belief Impervious to Data"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/st...
> All the nerdy types flocked to her
Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?
Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?
This is still blaming nerds for something they really can't do anything about.
There's really a gap between "scientific surveys" and the terrain I've seen. In my last project as contractor there were 9 male/developers and 4 females with a management title. The meantime-to-management I've seen is 2 years after graduation for women, 7 years for males. All 15% females of my 150-student class are now in management positions, 10 years after IT master's degree, and only 50% of the male students. If a women really wants to know what discrimination is, just step in as a male.
I've left companies where I wasn't promoted and created my startup 3 years ago. Sounds like my skills weren't the problem: I'm doing better than seasoned product managers who left the same company and created startups in my field, so as a developer I'm better at product management than my previous employer foresaw. But it sure seemed very important to my previous employer to promote a female team lead.
There's really a gap between "scientific surveys" and the terrain I've seen. In my last project as contractor there were 9 male/developers and 4 females with a management title. The meantime-to-management I've seen is 2 years after graduation for women, 7 years for males. All 15% females of my 150-student class are now in management positions, 10 years after IT master's degree, and only 50% of the male students. If a women really wants to know what discrimination is, just step in as a male.
I've left companies where I wasn't promoted and created my startup 3 years ago. Sounds like my skills weren't the problem: I'm doing better than seasoned product managers who left the same company and created startups in my field, so as a developer I'm better at product management than my previous employer foresaw. But it sure seemed very important to my previous employer to promote a female team lead.
Maybe it made more sense for the business to have you as a developer writing code and her as a manager rather than you as a manager and her writing code?
Then it wouldn't be a problem that there are few women writing software, wouldn't it? Because .. maybe it just makes sense?
No that is NOT my opinion, I just want to highlight the logic flaw I see here. You cannot say that the same thing (underrepresentation) is a problem in one case and not in the other, that's just .. weird.
No that is NOT my opinion, I just want to highlight the logic flaw I see here. You cannot say that the same thing (underrepresentation) is a problem in one case and not in the other, that's just .. weird.
[deleted]
Well he ended up leaving, so they didn't get him as a developer either. That's a significant catch 22 in a lot of these companies.
There's no path for promotion beyond "developer" without becoming a manager, but then you're not doing the work you're great at, so there's a disincentive to promote you, but the developers want to have career growth, so they get restless and eventually leave the company for a different one, usually getting a salary boost but possibly still being stuck as a 'developer' because they saw no advancement at their previous company.
I'm struggling through a similar situation now, although I have project management and team lead experience, I was never officially promoted because they were small companies and didn't want to bump my salary (or believed they had a flat heirarchy and "titles were meaningless").
There's no path for promotion beyond "developer" without becoming a manager, but then you're not doing the work you're great at, so there's a disincentive to promote you, but the developers want to have career growth, so they get restless and eventually leave the company for a different one, usually getting a salary boost but possibly still being stuck as a 'developer' because they saw no advancement at their previous company.
I'm struggling through a similar situation now, although I have project management and team lead experience, I was never officially promoted because they were small companies and didn't want to bump my salary (or believed they had a flat heirarchy and "titles were meaningless").
It's 3 companies. Truth is, I don't mind having them as managers as long as promotion is fair and as long as I learn how to become a manager. Which I didn't either.
Yes, we clearly need to tell nerds they can't interact with females, because...
...help me out here. Because nerds are icky?
...help me out here. Because nerds are icky?
Perhaps the label "creepy", which some argue is disproportionately reliant on the attractiveness of the subject rather than what they say or do.
So true. There was a funny skit on SNL where Tom Brady and another guy said the exact same things and Tom was welcomed while the other guy was creepy and hit with a lawsuit.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassme...
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassme...
Not in this case. I was friends with her. I never witnessed anything disrespectful and she spoke regularly with most of the classmates. Perhaps flocked was a bad word - but let's just say it was obvious that she was getting a lot of attention initially for the fact that she was the only female.
Assuming they were being creepy or coming on hard to her because they took interest is just wrong. I think it could be intimidating for some women in a similar situation but that's normal if you're extremely outnumbered. I was offered a job at a women's fashion company once. It was a little intimidating with the sheer number of beautiful women, the different culture and the tiny tech team. I didn't take the job because they didn't have a proper budget, not because I felt women were making me uncomfortable. They weren't.
When you're around a lot of similar people, it's refreshing to work with someone with a different background. People are naturally curious. Did some talk to her because they thought she was cute? Perhaps, but that's not a crime. My point was that I don't believe male programmers are exclusive of women and programmers are merit-based people at heart. They want to work with women. There's just not many of them.
This is just my experience, but I've been in several industries and the only thing I've ever witnessed in tech was one guy who was mildly creepy with another female employee and she was friends with him. In other industries like hospitality and real estate - they are tightly controlled by men and there's a lot of obvious sexism and I've seen several sexual harassment claims. Yet, there are a lot more women in them than tech.
Assuming they were being creepy or coming on hard to her because they took interest is just wrong. I think it could be intimidating for some women in a similar situation but that's normal if you're extremely outnumbered. I was offered a job at a women's fashion company once. It was a little intimidating with the sheer number of beautiful women, the different culture and the tiny tech team. I didn't take the job because they didn't have a proper budget, not because I felt women were making me uncomfortable. They weren't.
When you're around a lot of similar people, it's refreshing to work with someone with a different background. People are naturally curious. Did some talk to her because they thought she was cute? Perhaps, but that's not a crime. My point was that I don't believe male programmers are exclusive of women and programmers are merit-based people at heart. They want to work with women. There's just not many of them.
This is just my experience, but I've been in several industries and the only thing I've ever witnessed in tech was one guy who was mildly creepy with another female employee and she was friends with him. In other industries like hospitality and real estate - they are tightly controlled by men and there's a lot of obvious sexism and I've seen several sexual harassment claims. Yet, there are a lot more women in them than tech.
Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?
Is is unimaginable that this might not? Maybe because it was made respectfully and in a friendly manner? Could the fact that the person telling it didn't mention any rejection mean that this was the case? Why are we talking in questions all the time?
Is is unimaginable that this might not? Maybe because it was made respectfully and in a friendly manner? Could the fact that the person telling it didn't mention any rejection mean that this was the case? Why are we talking in questions all the time?
All the nerdy types flocked to her and were very inclusive with team projects.
That woman would have had to question why the nerdy types were so keen to include her. There's a huge difference between a motive of "Let's invite someone to our team because they're a great engineer" and "Let's invite someone to our team because they're hot and they might agree to date me once they really know me".
Being keen to include someone is great if it's for the right reasons.
That woman would have had to question why the nerdy types were so keen to include her. There's a huge difference between a motive of "Let's invite someone to our team because they're a great engineer" and "Let's invite someone to our team because they're hot and they might agree to date me once they really know me".
Being keen to include someone is great if it's for the right reasons.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
That were my thoughts too .. if they had ignored her "You see, nerds ignore women and make them feel unwelcome", now "see, they are creeps, that makes woman feel unwelcome" - and if you ask "what is your solution?" "They should behave normal." which is the most useless answer ever. If I ask ten people about normal behaviour in a given situation I get ten answers and if I drill a bit further more like 40 answers, almost all probably starting with something like "Well, in this context .." or "If you frame it this way .."
One could almost think that human behaviour is complex, but only almost .. everything is black and white, go on, nothing to see here. /s
One could almost think that human behaviour is complex, but only almost .. everything is black and white, go on, nothing to see here. /s
Human behaviour is complex, but that doesn't mean there aren't some basic universal truths that will always help. Things like "Don't treat every attractive person you meet as a potential sexual partner. Use behaviour appropriate to the context you're meeting them in. An engineering class is not a social gathering."
> Human behaviour is complex, but that doesn't mean there aren't some basic universal truths that will always help
I thought that too once, then I learned that not everyone thinks people should have access to adequate food, shelter and medical care. I've since stopped from assuming anything when dealing with humans. People never cease to amaze me in their sheer capacity to be abyssimal to each other.
(Warning, potential topic derailment lies ahead ..)
I thought that too once, then I learned that not everyone thinks people should have access to adequate food, shelter and medical care. I've since stopped from assuming anything when dealing with humans. People never cease to amaze me in their sheer capacity to be abyssimal to each other.
(Warning, potential topic derailment lies ahead ..)
On the other hand, just because the solution is unclear, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
Certainly, but almost everything can be redefined as a problem, because almost everything can be a problem. In a given context.
For a problem you need a problem definition or things get very murky, very fast and you end in "just do the normal thing" territory, which is what I wanted to highlight with my comment above.
For a problem you need a problem definition or things get very murky, very fast and you end in "just do the normal thing" territory, which is what I wanted to highlight with my comment above.
Exactly.
I'd love to see an experiment where they put one female in a class of men of various backgrounds and aspirations. Perhaps: liberal arts class, Ag class, business class, etc. and see what happens.
I'd be willing to bet that the engineering class would be the most respectful.
I'd love to see an experiment where they put one female in a class of men of various backgrounds and aspirations. Perhaps: liberal arts class, Ag class, business class, etc. and see what happens.
I'd be willing to bet that the engineering class would be the most respectful.
I don't disagree with the thesis of the article, but the creators of the ENIAC were given no mention and they skipped right to the 'computer girls' as if they were fully responsible for it's genesis.
Because the article isn't about the ENIAC at all. It's about how programming transitioned from being a menial (and thus women's) job, to a prestigious (and thus male) job.
Programming was a 'women's job' at the time because men were intended for combat. It's exactly the same reason women were working in factories which, in peacetime, was traditionally a men's job. This is not to say that it was right, but at the same time it wasn't due to lesser ability... it was because they were still at home and not delivering the munitions whose trajectory they were calculating.
I would like to add that suggesting that the majority of programmers were/are the 'majority' (in a societal sense) in the west is also disingenuous. It seems a bit self-serving for the author to not mention that technology, even at the time, was a place where many homosexual but otherwise 'socially-awkward, white, male programmers' thrived and made incredible bounds. If you think women suffered from marginalisation in the 40s and 50s (they did)... imagine being a homosexual.
Whether the article is about the ENIAC or not, you need to consider all facts when you make a factual statement, even if they do not serve your thesis.
Edit: sorry if I'm a bit passionate about this... I wrote my grade 5 speech on the ENIAC and I've always held the men and women who designed and operated it in incredibly high esteem. Some crazy old man said something once about 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and I feel that is very relevant when discussing the ENIAC.
I would like to add that suggesting that the majority of programmers were/are the 'majority' (in a societal sense) in the west is also disingenuous. It seems a bit self-serving for the author to not mention that technology, even at the time, was a place where many homosexual but otherwise 'socially-awkward, white, male programmers' thrived and made incredible bounds. If you think women suffered from marginalisation in the 40s and 50s (they did)... imagine being a homosexual.
Whether the article is about the ENIAC or not, you need to consider all facts when you make a factual statement, even if they do not serve your thesis.
Edit: sorry if I'm a bit passionate about this... I wrote my grade 5 speech on the ENIAC and I've always held the men and women who designed and operated it in incredibly high esteem. Some crazy old man said something once about 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and I feel that is very relevant when discussing the ENIAC.
The facts don't back this up the assertion that this was an inherently transitory effect. Women fell out of computer science starting 1985, and hasn't gained any year since.[0]
Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still aren't.
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still aren't.
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
> and sadly still aren't.
I have to disagree with you. I'm from Africa, and I can point you to many African programmers.
Maybe in your country where blacks is a minority(?) you don't see black programmers. But in the last 10 years of my programming career. I worked next to black competent peers.
I have to disagree with you. I'm from Africa, and I can point you to many African programmers.
Maybe in your country where blacks is a minority(?) you don't see black programmers. But in the last 10 years of my programming career. I worked next to black competent peers.
You're right. I did make a US centric statement. I think in my university career there was never more than 2 in my department in one year, and 1 of them was an African international student.
Can confirm.
I am one of 2 white people in my dev team. We have one Indian and one Asian. The other 15 devs are all black.
I am one of 2 white people in my dev team. We have one Indian and one Asian. The other 15 devs are all black.
I don't know if I should be disturbed or amused that you were willing to say "And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks?" under your real name.
It says a great deal about your motives when you speak facetiously about the struggle of others as if it's just a trump card to be used in debate. I could digress into a rant about academics here but I'll hold my tongue and let you use your imagination.
It says a great deal about your motives when you speak facetiously about the struggle of others as if it's just a trump card to be used in debate. I could digress into a rant about academics here but I'll hold my tongue and let you use your imagination.
My point was that it sucks for all oppressed groups, but trying to say, "yeah but this other group has it worse," or even, "but why isn't this other group mentioned" isn't helpful to any group.
It's like showing up at an event to fight cancer, and complaining that and heart disease isn't getting its due. Yes, heart disease is important too, but that's not why we're here.
It's like showing up at an event to fight cancer, and complaining that and heart disease isn't getting its due. Yes, heart disease is important too, but that's not why we're here.
What I questioned is why the author misrepresented who actually developed the ENIAC through vague wording and omission. You can be wrong on the details and still ultimately be right.
I wasn't trying to start a 'who has it worse' pissing contest, I was pointing out that making a broad generalisation about all white men is discriminatory and unfair... a bit ironic for an article discussing discrimination against women. There are people in all ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations and classes that have faced adversity, you can't use someone's demographic to determine how much. Turing probably looked like your average socially awkward, white, male programmer up until he was chemically castrated and killed himself.
Using the term 'socially awkward' seems more like a schoolyard taunt than an unbiased description of a demographic... especially when similarly alienating treatment is what caused many to want an escape and persue computers in the first place. The shallow see awkwardness, but others recognise it as the detachment and eccentricity that often accompanies intellect.
Showing up to an event to fight cancer will have null effect unless you're doing research or dropping off a cheque anyway, so what's the harm in bringing up heart disease while you're there?
I wasn't trying to start a 'who has it worse' pissing contest, I was pointing out that making a broad generalisation about all white men is discriminatory and unfair... a bit ironic for an article discussing discrimination against women. There are people in all ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations and classes that have faced adversity, you can't use someone's demographic to determine how much. Turing probably looked like your average socially awkward, white, male programmer up until he was chemically castrated and killed himself.
Using the term 'socially awkward' seems more like a schoolyard taunt than an unbiased description of a demographic... especially when similarly alienating treatment is what caused many to want an escape and persue computers in the first place. The shallow see awkwardness, but others recognise it as the detachment and eccentricity that often accompanies intellect.
Showing up to an event to fight cancer will have null effect unless you're doing research or dropping off a cheque anyway, so what's the harm in bringing up heart disease while you're there?
In 1985 programming wasn't considered prestigious at all. It started after the first bubble (2000). The free software that partly made the bubble possible was almost exclusively written by male volunteers, many of whom likely had low social status.
Even today, many male OSS progammers have low status. Women in general (there are counterexamples) know this perfectly well and thus shun work in open source.
Don't tell me that it's about their treatment in OSS. Men treat each other badly in OSS, if anything, women are treated more politely (if they appear ...).
Even today, many male OSS progammers have low status. Women in general (there are counterexamples) know this perfectly well and thus shun work in open source.
Don't tell me that it's about their treatment in OSS. Men treat each other badly in OSS, if anything, women are treated more politely (if they appear ...).
There are plenty of menial jobs dominated by men these days, somehow nobody talks about them.
Reading articles like this is so strange for me because I have such a hard time understanding the perspective.
To give some background, I started in the late 80's and early 90's in Canada. There were very few womon in my CS program (I recall it was 5 our of 140 in the graduating class), but even still in my early career, I was never on a team without women. I would say that between 10-20% of the programmers I worked with were women of various cultural backgrounds. That's not a huge percentage, but compared to the numbers graduating it was quite high.
In the first 15 years I worked as a programmer I can only think of a single female programmer that wasn't particularly competant. Everybody else was excellent. I often had conversations with them about why they got into programming and the vast majority of women I worked with said the same thing: programming was the best way to get into management. They felt that every other avenue was blocked by the old boys club and that as a programmer there was no ceiling. As such, these programmer often came with other skills that those of use who were just looking for the new technical hotness (myself included) did not have. I think eveybody I worked with highly valued that diversity.
This is not to say that there weren't women who were just in it for the programming. I met several women in the course of my early career who had very similar interests and abilities to myself. It's just that in the companies I worked in 80-90% of the men would be obsessive-compulsive technophiles and 80-90% of the women would be level-headed get-the-job-done types. Those women usually did very well and were promoted quickly (and the technically-minded ones struggled to get into management, just like the technically-minded men).
Fast forward a couple of decades and I find the landscape seems different. At my present position we have yet to hire a single female programmer. The thing is that nobody applies. When we do get female applicants they often look excellent and I think we have given job offers to every women we have interviewed. Usually they are good enough that we try to stretch our budget to get them. We have been overbid (by a substantial margin) with every single female candidate. So while it seems like the available female candidates are still of high quality, they are in much higher demand than 20 or 30 years ago.
On the other hand, I have noticed a dramatic shift in the types of male applicants we get. Like I said, 20-30 years ago male programmers were often fit the stereotypical mold (in my experience -- YMMV). These days I would say that more than half of the applicants we interview have very little interest in programming outside of it being a high paying job. So you get some cultural mismatches. You end up with the old guard saying things like, "You're not a real programmer" when they are talking to someone who is cutting and pasting stuff from stack overflow. Of course, we used to say the same thing to the guys who were cutting and pasting from MSDN or passing off GNU software as their own. It's just that having the alpha dog barking at the pups to get them in line was the normal way of working.
I wonder if in the midst of this cultural change, women are getting a bit lost. On the one hand you are getting a lot more men coming into the field who are not technical primadonnas. So it is easy for a lot of women who get interested in programming late in life to identify with those men the most. However, I think along with that cultural change we get a lot of baggage. The old boys club gets sucked in along with it. Where I used to hear women tell me how great the computer industry is because there was no ceiling, now they tell me that they are actively and often blatantly discriminated against. At the same time, they see the technical alpha dogs barking up a storm and think, "I don't want to get anywhere near that person".
I suppose at the end of this long (and I guess pointless) rant, it's just one more perspective. I really wish more women would get into the field because I miss working with women. There seems to be huge demand too. I hope we can get over this cultural speed bump and make it happen.
To give some background, I started in the late 80's and early 90's in Canada. There were very few womon in my CS program (I recall it was 5 our of 140 in the graduating class), but even still in my early career, I was never on a team without women. I would say that between 10-20% of the programmers I worked with were women of various cultural backgrounds. That's not a huge percentage, but compared to the numbers graduating it was quite high.
In the first 15 years I worked as a programmer I can only think of a single female programmer that wasn't particularly competant. Everybody else was excellent. I often had conversations with them about why they got into programming and the vast majority of women I worked with said the same thing: programming was the best way to get into management. They felt that every other avenue was blocked by the old boys club and that as a programmer there was no ceiling. As such, these programmer often came with other skills that those of use who were just looking for the new technical hotness (myself included) did not have. I think eveybody I worked with highly valued that diversity.
This is not to say that there weren't women who were just in it for the programming. I met several women in the course of my early career who had very similar interests and abilities to myself. It's just that in the companies I worked in 80-90% of the men would be obsessive-compulsive technophiles and 80-90% of the women would be level-headed get-the-job-done types. Those women usually did very well and were promoted quickly (and the technically-minded ones struggled to get into management, just like the technically-minded men).
Fast forward a couple of decades and I find the landscape seems different. At my present position we have yet to hire a single female programmer. The thing is that nobody applies. When we do get female applicants they often look excellent and I think we have given job offers to every women we have interviewed. Usually they are good enough that we try to stretch our budget to get them. We have been overbid (by a substantial margin) with every single female candidate. So while it seems like the available female candidates are still of high quality, they are in much higher demand than 20 or 30 years ago.
On the other hand, I have noticed a dramatic shift in the types of male applicants we get. Like I said, 20-30 years ago male programmers were often fit the stereotypical mold (in my experience -- YMMV). These days I would say that more than half of the applicants we interview have very little interest in programming outside of it being a high paying job. So you get some cultural mismatches. You end up with the old guard saying things like, "You're not a real programmer" when they are talking to someone who is cutting and pasting stuff from stack overflow. Of course, we used to say the same thing to the guys who were cutting and pasting from MSDN or passing off GNU software as their own. It's just that having the alpha dog barking at the pups to get them in line was the normal way of working.
I wonder if in the midst of this cultural change, women are getting a bit lost. On the one hand you are getting a lot more men coming into the field who are not technical primadonnas. So it is easy for a lot of women who get interested in programming late in life to identify with those men the most. However, I think along with that cultural change we get a lot of baggage. The old boys club gets sucked in along with it. Where I used to hear women tell me how great the computer industry is because there was no ceiling, now they tell me that they are actively and often blatantly discriminated against. At the same time, they see the technical alpha dogs barking up a storm and think, "I don't want to get anywhere near that person".
I suppose at the end of this long (and I guess pointless) rant, it's just one more perspective. I really wish more women would get into the field because I miss working with women. There seems to be huge demand too. I hope we can get over this cultural speed bump and make it happen.
> At the same time, they see the technical alpha dogs barking up a storm and think, "I don't want to get anywhere near that person".
I was going to write something about self-selection in the field, but I think you have made a more important point there. The technically competent loudmouths attract attention, as well as a disproportionately large audience. For pretty much anyone looking from the outside it appears as a kind of cheerleader-driven mob mentality. And we are surprised that the industry actively repels people who do not fit into this mold?
This also has become a perverse selective trait. The women in the industry are those who entered and remained despite of the atmosphere. Some ignored it, some adapted to it, some even encouraged it. But all of them have had their reasons to continue working in the field. And due to the otherwise repelling selection bias, they are generally way above the mean as far as skills and competence go.[+] As much as dread to quote from Ender's Game, I think Card nailed it: "Your only option is to be so good that nobody can ignore you."
Our engineering is currently 30-odd strong, and we are lucky to have attracted six women so far. We must be doing something (or likely many somethings) right.
+: Of the 5 best systems engineers I have met over the past ~20 years, two have been women. They hold the spots #1 and #3, respectively.
EDIT: turned footnote-asterisk into a plus sign to prevent unintentional italics.
I was going to write something about self-selection in the field, but I think you have made a more important point there. The technically competent loudmouths attract attention, as well as a disproportionately large audience. For pretty much anyone looking from the outside it appears as a kind of cheerleader-driven mob mentality. And we are surprised that the industry actively repels people who do not fit into this mold?
This also has become a perverse selective trait. The women in the industry are those who entered and remained despite of the atmosphere. Some ignored it, some adapted to it, some even encouraged it. But all of them have had their reasons to continue working in the field. And due to the otherwise repelling selection bias, they are generally way above the mean as far as skills and competence go.[+] As much as dread to quote from Ender's Game, I think Card nailed it: "Your only option is to be so good that nobody can ignore you."
Our engineering is currently 30-odd strong, and we are lucky to have attracted six women so far. We must be doing something (or likely many somethings) right.
+: Of the 5 best systems engineers I have met over the past ~20 years, two have been women. They hold the spots #1 and #3, respectively.
EDIT: turned footnote-asterisk into a plus sign to prevent unintentional italics.
So what percentage of male programmers that you worked with were excellent?
Obviously there is a range of abilities. I would say that all except one person I know at the very top end of the range were male. If I extend the range down to where I would include the women that I previously called "excellent", I think that would include about half of the men I've worked with. Basically, good solid developers who could be trusted to get things done, knew enough to know what they did and didn't really understand, and could find out the things they didn't understand in a relatively short time frame.
So for the women I know, the distribution seems to be compressed and shifted to the right a bit. I have absolutely no idea if that matches with other people's experience. Or, indeed, if my experience with male workers matches their experience.
So for the women I know, the distribution seems to be compressed and shifted to the right a bit. I have absolutely no idea if that matches with other people's experience. Or, indeed, if my experience with male workers matches their experience.
I was wondering if your experience backed up the theory I've heard that men are happy to be average programmers but women who aren't excellent don't stay in the profession. Sounds like it does.
The idea that some people are born for some things is very prevailent. Usually, it is called "talent" and nobody cries foul. As a completely tech-unrelated example: Art schools usually ask you for a portfolio when you apply to show that you are "talented" in art, which would be as if I needed a certificate as a doctor to study medicine. Sometimes these things seem to be accepted, sometimes not. Weird.
The problem with the "talent" hypothesis is that it's self enforcing. People mirror extremely strongly the people around them and only the most strong willed can ignore this effect. If there is any reinforcement from the external environment of negative bias this will affect the outcomes of training in any discipline or art.
There isn't any scientific metric for artfulness so art schools can use any gauge they feel like to filter out prospective students.
There isn't any scientific metric for artfulness so art schools can use any gauge they feel like to filter out prospective students.
And the opposing viewpoint, the "blank slate" hypothesis is completely untenable. Steven Pinker wrote a big book on it, and even if you just read the introduction and maybe the first chapter it will become obvious how ridiculous the idea is...and it doesn't get any "better" for the BSH afterwards.
See also: "Anyone who thinks psychological sex diffs are wholly learned has lot of explaining to do" https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachme...
See also: "Anyone who thinks psychological sex diffs are wholly learned has lot of explaining to do" https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachme...
I understand that people of Asian descent are overrepresented by a factor of 5.3x at Google and that people of European descent are underrepresented by a factor of 0.87x at Google, but I think the author goes too far by attributing this to malice on behalf of the Asians. Clearly asians could be doing more for the rest of us, but I don't follow the authors subtle undertone that this is their fault. What do you guys think?
I'm not sure that there is an undertone that it's their fault. At best, it's because Asians value school and mathematics more and Google prefers high GPA and ability to solve mathematical and algorithmic problems. I suspect there are also a lot of Asians in the world and Google will pull talent from other countries.
To continue your analogy:
"I'm not Asian, so I'm not good at math, but perhaps if I were Asian I could be. Those guys do math all the time and they love it; its impossible for a Caucasian guy like me to be any good at it. I spent 10 hours on my calculus work and Li did it in 30 minutes and got a higher grade. I'm just not Asian."
To continue your analogy:
"I'm not Asian, so I'm not good at math, but perhaps if I were Asian I could be. Those guys do math all the time and they love it; its impossible for a Caucasian guy like me to be any good at it. I spent 10 hours on my calculus work and Li did it in 30 minutes and got a higher grade. I'm just not Asian."
Google doesn't really select for high GPA.
Maybe they don't select for high GPA but students with high GPAs in high school presumably have a higher chance of getting into a top 10 college and I imagine Google prefers students from top schools
I think they only care if it's your first (or maybe second) job. After that, experience is more important.
I'm curious as to whether or not this is objectively true when measured. It doesn't have to be intentional, but a reputation for that (which it certainly had at one point) could have the equivalent effect.
Naw, they just select for advanced degrees from God-tier schools, something those C students just happen not to be able to reach for.
> I understand that people of Asian descent are overrepresented by a factor of 5.3x at Google and that people of European descent are underrepresented by a factor of 0.87x at Google, but I think the author goes too far by attributing this to malice on behalf of the Asians.
The linked article [1] literally does not even contain the word "Asian". Am I missing something here?
[1] http://martinfowler.com/articles/born-for-it.html
The linked article [1] literally does not even contain the word "Asian". Am I missing something here?
[1] http://martinfowler.com/articles/born-for-it.html
I read it as race being used as a stand-in or counter-example to that of gender. It's a point you have to think about, it provokes conversation rather than being an argument that stands on its own.
The point could have been delivered more clearly then. Instead it came off as an odd non sequitur that seemed to be about an entirely different article.
Considering how underrepresented minorities, whether Asian or otherwise, are in management and IT in the Western world, I would not start crying foul over this small irregularity. If anything Google needs more different minorities if anything, for instance Latinos and Blacks.
> If anything Google needs more different minorities if anything, for instance Latinos and Blacks.
This is a much bigger problem than just the software industry in the US. I'm a Navy veteran, as a nuclear reactor plant mechanic. I remember being shocked in MEPS (the enlistment and entry processing center for all branches of the armed forces) by the number of black men enlisting in the Army and Marine infantry - it's much higher than the local population would suggest. But of the roughly thousand or so people I worked with as Nukes in the Navy, I can recall only one black man. The trend is just as strong in college. While I'm working as a software engineer today, my degree isn't in CS: its in Mechanical Engineering. The same trend applies there, too. I've worked with a grand total of one black engineer professionally, and he was an intern! There is a serious problem in this country with our failure to attract black and latino talent to engineering. Its pretty frustrating to see all the media attention focused on bringing women into CS, while almost zero attention is being focused on the lack of black and latino engineers.
I can't point to any single factor that is driving this trend. But it must happen in High School or earlier, since it's already totally broken by the time folks are graduating HS.
This is a much bigger problem than just the software industry in the US. I'm a Navy veteran, as a nuclear reactor plant mechanic. I remember being shocked in MEPS (the enlistment and entry processing center for all branches of the armed forces) by the number of black men enlisting in the Army and Marine infantry - it's much higher than the local population would suggest. But of the roughly thousand or so people I worked with as Nukes in the Navy, I can recall only one black man. The trend is just as strong in college. While I'm working as a software engineer today, my degree isn't in CS: its in Mechanical Engineering. The same trend applies there, too. I've worked with a grand total of one black engineer professionally, and he was an intern! There is a serious problem in this country with our failure to attract black and latino talent to engineering. Its pretty frustrating to see all the media attention focused on bringing women into CS, while almost zero attention is being focused on the lack of black and latino engineers.
I can't point to any single factor that is driving this trend. But it must happen in High School or earlier, since it's already totally broken by the time folks are graduating HS.
Engineering, from my recollections, had probably the highest wash-out rates of any major when I was in college. It sure looks like a huge part of that is because of the math requirements - a lot of engineering programs throw you in the deep end right at the beginning, with calculus and differential equations, and then you're pretty much hosed in the subsequent coursework if that doesn't click, or you come in woefully unprepared. And overwhelmingly, high schools do a piss-poor job of teaching mathematics to a level that would prepare someone to hit the ground running well enough to survive the initial stages of an engineering major and get through to the interesting stuff. AP Calculus students from top high schools struggle mightily with it, Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if you never mastered, or even were exposed to those concepts at weaker schools.
Computer science isn't much different. All the math coursework hazing is why I have a history degree and a minor in CS - the minor let you take all the interesting stuff, without the 4-5 semesters of poorly taught, mostly useless math department coursework.
Computer science isn't much different. All the math coursework hazing is why I have a history degree and a minor in CS - the minor let you take all the interesting stuff, without the 4-5 semesters of poorly taught, mostly useless math department coursework.
> engineering programs throw you in the deep end right at the beginning
I started as a EE. My diff EQ professor literally did the stunt "look to your left, look to your right, of the three of you, only one will pass my class." I was the only caucasian to pass, but I made a D, and rather than re-take the class I decided that EE wasn't for me.
There was only one way to ace that class, and that's to live inside it. I have a very good mind for math, but I was also interested in lots of other things: music, theater, philosophy, humanities, business, politics. The same semester I had made a D in Diff EQ I had also taken a Phil 101 (Logic) class which I aced. I was also a walk-on in a play that semester.
The dean of the engineering school called me to his office to tell me I wasn't the sort of student the EE program was looking for. I left and got an MIS degree, where I could develop as a much more rounded student.
Looking back some 30 years later, I realize now that the dean was literally telling me that they don't want well-rounded EE students. He was literally telling me, in spite of being in the top 1/3 of my class (math-wise) the very fact that I wasn't willing to forgo Logic and my theater activities to become a better calculus student made me a misfit. The whole point of making Diff EQ so amazingly difficult was specifically to weed out those who did anything but study Diff EQ.
So in the end, I made the right decision for myself and my career. And I've learned a healthy suspicion of companies that tend to exclusively hire ace engineering students.
I started as a EE. My diff EQ professor literally did the stunt "look to your left, look to your right, of the three of you, only one will pass my class." I was the only caucasian to pass, but I made a D, and rather than re-take the class I decided that EE wasn't for me.
There was only one way to ace that class, and that's to live inside it. I have a very good mind for math, but I was also interested in lots of other things: music, theater, philosophy, humanities, business, politics. The same semester I had made a D in Diff EQ I had also taken a Phil 101 (Logic) class which I aced. I was also a walk-on in a play that semester.
The dean of the engineering school called me to his office to tell me I wasn't the sort of student the EE program was looking for. I left and got an MIS degree, where I could develop as a much more rounded student.
Looking back some 30 years later, I realize now that the dean was literally telling me that they don't want well-rounded EE students. He was literally telling me, in spite of being in the top 1/3 of my class (math-wise) the very fact that I wasn't willing to forgo Logic and my theater activities to become a better calculus student made me a misfit. The whole point of making Diff EQ so amazingly difficult was specifically to weed out those who did anything but study Diff EQ.
So in the end, I made the right decision for myself and my career. And I've learned a healthy suspicion of companies that tend to exclusively hire ace engineering students.
Eh, those math and science Computer Science required classes I haven't found to be too useful after getting my degree (exception: discrete math and linear algebra). It was definitely a struggle to get through them, though, and I found math and science to be easy in high school, so I probably wasn't as well prepared.
But even though I breezed through it in high school, my classmates didn't, even the AP courses. So I'm not sure how much that could be ramped up. I do think at least discrete math could be taught earlier, though.
But even though I breezed through it in high school, my classmates didn't, even the AP courses. So I'm not sure how much that could be ramped up. I do think at least discrete math could be taught earlier, though.
[deleted]
America is not an equal system, money matters. It's a vicious cycle. If you're looking for one factor, I think it's dollars and cents.
>If anything Google needs more different minorities if anything, for instance Latinos and Blacks.
Why?
I think equal opportunity is a better goal than equal representation. Forced equal representation can quickly deteriorate to racism/sexism.
Inequality in the name of equality.
Why?
I think equal opportunity is a better goal than equal representation. Forced equal representation can quickly deteriorate to racism/sexism.
Inequality in the name of equality.
I seriously don't think there can be anything such as equal opportunity. As there is bias at every part of the hiring process. Equal representation means that more or less wealth is being directed far and wide to people that represent all groups. Having money means having power to affect policies and politics as well as economics.
So for creating any sense of equality in society it's a fact that there needs to be more or less equal representation. Yes there is IQ disparity which probably decreases chances further of finding elite employment. But there are outliers in every population, enough to create equal representation.
So for creating any sense of equality in society it's a fact that there needs to be more or less equal representation. Yes there is IQ disparity which probably decreases chances further of finding elite employment. But there are outliers in every population, enough to create equal representation.
You can segment the human population in any way and assign equal power to each of these groups. Why segment the population by race?
Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.
Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.
In regard to the US, the obvious answer is that some races were literally oppressed on that very basis for decades/centuries.
That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering?
EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a rhetorical question or what. Regardless...
That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering?
EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a rhetorical question or what. Regardless...
The problem is that reparations in the form of equal representation hurt people that have nothing to do with the original oppression. It is a zero sum game.
The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country.
Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators.
What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.
The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country.
Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators.
What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.
No, an individual's circumstances cannot be determined by their skin color. Forcing a company to take a candidate that is objectively worse than others with different skin colors or genitalia is stupid and makes everyone else bitter when they realize the incompetence.
Government sponsored education for the unprivileged is much better than the ham fisted bandaid of making companies match percentages of different segments.
Government sponsored education for the unprivileged is much better than the ham fisted bandaid of making companies match percentages of different segments.
Forcing employment would be a rather extreme attempt at a remedy, but the graph here[0] illustrates rather nicely a problem that race-blind attempts at fixes will run into. What works in one environment may not work in another, and their are dramatically different environments for different races in the USA.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black...
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black...
Jobs are not for spreading wealth to different groups. If that's all Google was doing it wouldnt need any of the employees to come into the office. Companies hire people to provide services, not to be an open hand waiting for money.
No one said that, you are putting words into my mouth. Obviously any employer should hire people best qualified for the job, but there are literally thousands of people to choose from. One aspect of the choice is that it affects wealth of the individual and thereby people that are socially close and related to the individual.
cb18(6)
Programming is a dead end job, mostly for immigrants. What you want is an MBA.
You wouldn't have Facebook, Google, Hacker news, Twitter or even Internet without programmers.
Built by suckers!
My 2 cents about why women are underrepresented in software industry is that not too many of them are interested in the beginning.
One big drive of male programmers, according to my observation (hundreds of samples), are video games, myself included. It is stereotyping, but it is statistically significant. Gamers are overwhelmingly MALE. That is the a big reason that I got to know different parts of computer hardwares, collecting parts from markets and assemble them, and eventually being thrown into this industry. As to girls, they may not have same level of motivation as the boys had. It was in the days, when computer programming was still kind of niche profession and by no means had that much of influence as it cast on the society today, so self-motivation is important.
Fundamentally, if we want to really solve the gender issue in this industry, it is not the duty of those established software companies to force reverse sexism to artificially inflate the gender ratio, it is the early stage education system to introduce programming to wider range of people. Once it becomes universal parts of people's curriculum, the problem will be there no longer.
Disclaimer: Male, Asian, not born in US, but works here.