Steps that make the profession as a whole less biased against women, might also help to encourage more women to major in CS.
High stakes testing, unrealistic workloads, research professors who don't grok humans and incredibly cliquey ethnic divisions exaggerated by lots of foreign students.
"Women aren't interested in programming, so none of them go into programming professionally.
Why don't women go into programming professionally? Because they aren't interested."
Separate out whether women are interested from whether women are being forced out for other reasons (harassment, gender imbalance in the field, etc).
IF women aren't interested in programming, THEN none of them go into programming professionally.
IF women don't go into programming professionally, THEN they aren't interested."
I have 2 better questions to ask:
1) If fewer women than "the ideal" are interested in STEM, then why is that?
2) Why do we think a perfect 50/50 ratio across all fields is "the ideal," when "nature" might not deem it so? (note: this is NOT an "argument to nature")
Come on.
Positive (for males) gender prejudice in a wide array of higher-status, better-compensated jobs drawing men disproportionately elsewhere. Which is kind of a mix of both of your options.
Opportunities were limited for women. Don't assume that computing was the first choice career for those women.
Even had the Navy not had gender-restricted roles, the only reason Dr. Hopper got an exemption from physical requirements she did not meet was her strong background in math and physics that qualified her to fill the need for the computation project.
Gender bias aside, she would never have gotten to command an aircraft carrier.
I find it insufficient to answer the question of whether sexism is the problem. Computer programming used to have a lot more women -- why did that change? If it was changing interest, what is the source of the gender imbalance in the change in interest? Certainly, the perception that there was gender bias in the field arose while the rate at which women were participating was dropping from its high -- was gender bias in the field part of the cause of disinterest?
Very long ago, computer programming was seen as being like typing and/or secretarial work. It was seen as being unmanly. Compare with nursing and kindergarten teaching.
A woman might get assigned to invent COBOL instead of being in charge of an aircraft carrier.
Well, we got rid of the sexism. Happy now? Hmmm, guess not.
Anyway, in the 17 years I've been doing this on and off, I have met precisely 1 female boilermaker. And nobody cares.
What I don't follow is why is gender imbalance in other industries seen as a problem but we never see any serious attempt to get more women in to the construction industry.
Why does anyone care there are differences in numbers of men and women in various industries? Things change over time, fashions change. I think approaching these issues from the "we must correct this imbalance" is incorrect reasoning.
And, lastly, if we do manage to level the playing field, what will gender identity become?
A quote form the film Trainspotting: One thousand years from now, there will be no guys and no girls, just wankers.
I'm willing to posit that strong gender roll identity is crucial for a healthy and resilient culture.
Software is eating the world, there's so much work to do, and a thought that anyone that could be a programmer isn't for some silly reason, is very unpleasent.
I have yet to see a valid study showing this. Instead, I've seen numerous studies that have not mentioned that a 'computer programmer' included employees whose job consisted of transferring punch cards and tapes. Obviously these jobs are no longer required.
The only statistics that show even a tiny bit of proof for your argument come from Soviet based nations that did have a higher percent of women in actual programming positions
The graph[1] that is usually shown is highly misleading, because it compares CS with "physical sciences", and law, but does not include engineering. If you add engineering, it all makes a bit more sense[2].
Also, you seem to be approaching this from the angle of "can we prove that it isn't sexism" (which is the common approach). It seems that the correct approach is for those who claim that it is sexism to make the case, which after looking at the evidence I think they absolutely have not. (I used to think it was, but that was because I bought the narrative without looking at the evidence).
And the narrative is strong. For example, the link to the percentage of women decreasing with the discipline becoming more engineering like is known. However, the explanation then shifts to "the men in CS got together and decided to make the discipline more engineering-like expressly in order to keep the women out". Seriously??
[1] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding_wide...
[2] https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/7/005/06b/02d/33fe648.jpg
How so? I feel exactly opposite is true. I'm successful developer with over 10 years of commercial exp with masters degree from technical university and in wildest dreams I wouldn't call myself engineer without laughing even though I have it written among other things on my diploma. I feel more like artist, craftsman or repirman.
We don't get to blame supply until those numbers match.
This alone might account for the difference in percentages there, assuming there's some hidden "adversity event" that caused the attrition.
Perhaps (speculating here), men handle rejection from jobs better because they handle rejection from the opposite sex better (due to years of honed experience) :O
It sounds sexist to say "grow a pair," but perhaps we need to teach women more confidence somehow.
I personally find this fascinating--a biological basis carries with it a possibility of pharmacological treatment for those wanting it, and perhaps the design and validation of nonpharmacological approaches for those who don't or third parties seeking to reduce bias.
IIRC, there are a couple experiments in rat models along the lines of: put a male or a female rat in the same cage as an aggressive, territorial rat. The male rats are back to normal within hours-days. The female rats take days-weeks. IIRC some sort of neuronal transcription factor or something is thought involved.
Can track down a review if anyone's interested.
When a person decide to take up a job that is not typical for their gender and goes against ones gender identity, that decision might not bring the same confidence that someone taking a job where 80% of the people around are of the same gender as the person. That lower confidence get then translated into higher drop rates.
That is nowhere near what I encountered in my large engineering school. CS101 was probably 33% women, but after a month, we were down to about 15%. By the 4th year, maybe 10% at best.
From what I can see based on many of the millenials I now interview, there is a huge difference in degrees based on school, much more than before. It seems like many low tier schools are pumping out degrees in any field as long as they've paid the inflated tuition. I don't consider a CS degree that didn't require a few semesters of calculus, algorithms, learning C and assembly to be valid. But it appears this is now common for these 'CS lite' degrees.
By your logic, I should hire 2 men, because dividing that candidate pool in half leaves the women at "less than half of a person". Equivalently, I should leave it up to a coin flip, which has an expected value of E(two men).
But why? Since we have already established that the candidates are in all other respects equal, why shouldn't I choose the candidates that I think will do my company the most good: bring in the most diverse perspectives, life experiences, and skill sets?
Of course it is a simplified example. And maybe you think that expressing an interest in diversity in this fashion is "reverse sexism". But I think it is a clear win for my company, a clear win for women everywhere, and I don't care if it isn't a clear win for men -- we win often enough anyway.
No we haven't. We've established that the candidates are all people you want to hire. That doesn't mean you have no preference between them. It would be really weird if ten candidates all seemed equally competent.
And if you can rank them, ~2% of the time there'll be two women at the top, ~36% of the time there'll be a man and a woman, and the rest of the time there'll be two men.
> men were getting advanced to the next round 1.4 times more often than women. Interviewee technical score wasn’t faring that well either — men on the platform had an average technical score of 3 out of 4, as compared to a 2.5 out of 4 for women.