Women in Tech: I can learn more. And so can you
blog.fogus.me
blog.fogus.me
I'm always in a strange spot with these posts, because I don't so much disagree as take a completely different angle. Any discussion of the relative scarcity of women in science needs to consider the risks of a career in science.
I wish Phil Greenspun's infamous "women in science" article were a little less caustic, because it really does provide a pretty remarkable explanation about why women in particular, but people in general, might want to avoid science as a career.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
A less provocative but very data-driven study by the RAND institute found that the American aversion to science careers (at the PhD level) is rational and market driven.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
The whole thing is very complicated. A career as a research scientist is very different from trying to start a tech company, so we're talking about a very wide range of issues.
I also want to make it clear that "science is a terrible career" doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the scarcity of women. It's one thing to claim sour grapes for yourself, it's another thing entirely to tell someone else not to worry because the grapes are sour.
However, I do think the general context is meaningful - that any discussion of women in science need to include the possibility that science is a poor career choice compared to other options available to highly intelligent, academically motivated, hard working people, men and women.
"In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student — who was randomly assigned either a male or female name — for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109
Graphs summarizing the results are here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/...
I'm not holding my breath though. On the topic of women, Hacker News is a depressingly conventional community.
[EDIT: true to expectations, this comment got downvoted. Better find another community that actually values a frank discussion about real problems in our society.]
From experience, the last thing most women in tech actually need or want is feminist dogma.
Such a confusing mess seems counter-productive if you're trying to objectively solve a puzzle. But it will benefit you immensely in terms of experience and empathy. You can still disagree with people, just don't dismiss them.
Regardless, maybe it simply doesn't have an explanation. You see, humans (and yes, women are humans) have herd mentality. And just like we get financial bubbles, maybe we get gender bubbles, with different genders doing different jobs. There is no "why", just like there is no why you rolled 1 on dice.
In the book Butterfly Economics, there is a famous experiment described. You have an anthill, and you place 2 heaps of food at the same distance from it. The ants normally leave pheromone trail, and basically decide where to go partly based on the trail (that is, decisions made by other ants) and partly independently of it. What happens?
Intuition would suggest that ants will divide 50/50 between the two food heaps, or very close to that. However, in the real world, the ratio of ants taking the food will fluctuate wildly, with up to 80/20 ants going to one heap. Then it may swing the other direction, and so on.
Absolutely. Damn those privileged Black and Hispanic men in tech!