Hacker News Reader

Comment by js8 | Hacker News Reader

"If governments want to increase women’s participation in STEM, a more effective strategy might be to target the girls who are clearly being lost from the STEM pathway – those for whom science and maths are their best subjects and who enjoy it but still don’t choose it"

I don't understand why we should try to make somebody choose a subject they didn't choose to do.

View on HN

> I don't understand why we should try to make somebody choose a subject they didn't choose to do.

If they didn't choose to do a subject because, for example, they had their high school teacher(s) tell them that he "does not expect female students to do as well as male students" (I have seen that happen few years back when I was still in high school), then it surely is an undertaking worth considering.

OK, so you're saying they are misinformed? Fair enough. I don't mind informing them, as long as they have a free choice and are not coerced into selecting a career that is not interesting.

However, this very much contradicts to the paradox. Why should women in countries with greater gender equality be less informed about available options?

Once question is "would does 'gender equality' mean"? The OP article doesn't say

I have observed a female student, super talented in math/programming (IMO/ICPC), to choose finances instead, as a teacher (male) was once saying to her that programming/math don't pay well and have low prestige and finances give easier, secure life. I can't say I had much sympathies to her choice after that, experiencing first time typical female stereotypes about mostly caring about money.

Most people care mostly about money. If the only reason you didn't appreciate her making that choice was because she was a woman, then you are sexist

I was upset she was wasting her talent going purely after money (she was a winner of math/programming competitions). And men are often way more idealistic, willing to endure hardships for ideas instead of cashing out whenever possible. She ended up programming in the end due to job market, but could have achieved way more than working for Accenture-type companies on BS assignments.

What are you on about? Are you unaware that the finance industry is dominated by men? That generally men are more wage earners and women are more homemakers, so men have more pressure to economic success than women?

Not in my country (Europe), much less sexist to what I hear about US. Maybe you are talking about NYC?

> then you are sexist

As somebody that spent significant amount of time mentoring females, getting such a blank statement from a random person on HN feels absolutely motivating to continue to do so. Thanks!

I think the logic here is a nontrivial portion of the women who "fall out of the pipeline" do it for reasons other than lack of enthusiasm for the subject. If indeed there are girls who want to pursue math/cs but run into extrinsic obstacles that put them off, we should try to identify what those obstacles are.

Imagine a subject only sociopaths are willing to take. I see good reasons why the society might want to change the framework so that even non-sociopaths take that subject.

Now, neither men nor women are sociopaths, but they are different. They have different behaviour towards risks, on average, among other things. That gives reasons for the society to work on having both genders in every subject.

The next sentence is: "If we can understand their motivations, then interventions can be designed to help them change their minds." I imagine there is a non-coercive way to try to understand the reasons, and use that to inform counseling of students.

This is so incredibly condescending. People need "counseling" because they don't choose what you think they should choose?

How about just respecting people's choices??

Where I come from, it is extremely standard for high school students to receive friendly counseling about what they want to pursue in college. Most young people I know do not sit in isolation deciding what to do with their lives, without discussing it with any adults.

There’s a difference between helping someone make a decision and actively trying to change their decision.

You’re turning it around, this is not about disrespecting personal choice, but rather to identify conditioning factors that effectively force out women that would have otherwise taken that path.

Nope, you are turning it around.

The data from the article shows that women aren't "forced out", but rather that when external forces are removed they prefer to do other things.

Take a women who is a talented programmer and enjoys programmer, but chooses not to work as a programmer because she is sick of constant sexual harassment. Should we respect her choices or design interventions?

> Take a women who is a talented programmer and enjoys programmer, but chooses not to work as a programmer because she is sick of constant sexual harassment. Should we respect her choices or design interventions?

Nice strawman you are doing here. You're implying women aren't choosing STEM careers because of sexual harassment which is a complete lie. Your assertion is backed only by your misandrist ideology who sees men as harassers. But facts don't care about ideology facts are facts and you chose to live in a lie.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

Often the reason motivating people to make statements like this is that they assume a systemic reason as to why a given group are not choosing a particular choice. An illustrative example would be asking why fewer men participate in cheer squad. The answer is derivative of the context - maybe football recruits more vigorously and has masculine traits which appeal more to young men. The follow-up question, if we were looking to have more boys in cheer, would be to ask what can we do to appeal more to those traits or appeal to things which no other activity satisfies.

The quote proposes looking at the context within which girls who show aptitude choose not to pursue STEM and see if there is anything the government, who wants more women in STEM, can do to facilitate this. It isn’t about removing the choice, it is about making a particular choice more appealing by better understanding the fundamental drivers behind particular choices.

My sister when to STEM instead on another field, because of campaigns. She hates herself for doing that, even now at 38 years old. It’s entirely probable that encouraging women to do things they stubbornly wouldn’t choose otherwise is making a generation of depressive mothers.

What does she hate about it?

The answer I usually hear is "an encouraging environment in college didn't prepare me for the abuse I faced in my career".

Maybe to offset effects of intractable factors like female representation in media, traditional careers of older female figures in family etc.

These facetors aren't limited to geographical boundaries and hence could affect the populace of countries with both low and high HDI equally.

You got this wrong.

First of all, what we choose for our career is depending on many external factors, it can be people putting you off your interest but also someone helping you to learn more about it.

An important fact you're missing here, girls are lost from the STEM pathway in their early teenage years. https://it-online.co.za/2017/03/07/teenage-girls-fall-out-of... Teachers not thinking they could do STEM, parents who have other ideas for their kids (I include boys, if my mom had her way I wouldn't be a programmer) and friends who think STEM is just for stupid nerds.

well making Engineering and Science careers as well rewarded and give them the same social status as say the Law, Medicine are might help.

Those young women with triple A's beloved of headline writers come exam time are making a rational decision not to go into a field where they are badly paid.

Are women more status-seeking than men?

Are women more money-seeking than men?

It seems to me that the assumptions which gave rise to your comment would imply that Wall Street traders should be dominated by women. Why is this not the case, in your opinion?

Would increasing the pay and status of a job increase, or decrease the percentage of women?

Should CEOs be paid more to increase their percentage of women?

Well Traders do have this barrow boy image medicine or law has a much higher "social" status in the UK and I bet the USA also

Why do you suppose women dominate primary school teaching? Is it because it’s too high status and too well paid?

It is a pink ghetto and traditionally pre compulsory education was performed by women and was on the very few profession open to women pre 20th century

the same social status as say the Law, Medicine are might help

Don’t forget the impact of offshoring/outsourcing. Male or female, I couldn’t in good faith recommend tech as a career choice for any young person right now. Go into something that has to be delivered in person and/or is protected by regulators. If I were young now I’d be looking at a skilled trade - a good tradesman or woman makes as much or more than most programmers, esp if they become a foreperson or other supervisory role.

Engineering and Science careers are quite competitive with law and medicine. That's why these fields aren't filled with male AND female failed lawyers/doctors.

Nope a senior lawyer or doctor gets paid far more on average that an engineer or STEM PHD

...and the working conditions are generally...sub-par.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com