Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Code.org: More Money For CS Instructors Who Teach More Girls

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the achieving-a-particular-balance dept.

Education 381

theodp writes "The same cast of billionaire characters — Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Eric Schmidt — is backing FWD.us, which is lobbying Congress for more visas to 'meet our workforce needs,' as well as Code.org, which aims to popularize Computer Science education in the U.S. to address a projected CS job shortfall. In laying out the two-pronged strategy for the Senate, Microsoft General Counsel and Code.org Board member Brad Smith argued that providing more kids with a STEM education — particularly CS — was 'an issue of critical importance to our country.' But with its K-8 learn-to-code program which calls for teachers to receive 25% less money if fewer than 40% of their CS students are girls, Smith's Code.org is sending the message that training too many boys isn't an acceptable solution to the nation's CS crisis. 'When 10 or more students complete the course,' explains Code.org, "you will receive a $750 DonorsChoose.org gift code. If 40% or more of your participating students are female, you'll receive an additional $250, for a total gift of $1,000 in DonorsChoose.org funding!" The $1+ million Code.org-DonorsChoose CS education partnership appears to draw inspiration from a $5 million Google-DoonorsChoose STEM education partnership which includes nebulous conditions that disqualify schools from AP STEM funding if projected participation by female students in AP STEM programs is deemed insufficient. So, are Zuckerberg, Gates, Ballmer, and Schmidt walking-the-gender-diversity-talk at their own companies? Not according to the NY Times, which just reported that women still account for only about 25% of all employees at Code.org supporters Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. By the way, while not mentioning these specific programs, CNET reports that Slashdot owner Dice supports the STEM efforts of Code.org and Donors Choose."

cancel ×

381 comments

Horse, meet water (3, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#45508901)

Now drink.

Re:Horse, meet water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45508917)

i only drink from the cup of cock

Re:Horse, meet water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509113)

i only drink from the cup of cock

or vagina.*

*The bushy bowl.

Re:Horse, meet water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509145)

i only drink from the cup of cock

or vagina.*

*The bushy bowl.

Bushy bowl? Who the hell sponsors that football game? Nair?

(your assumption was that this audience knows what state Vagina is. We suck at geography.)

Re:Horse, meet water (5, Insightful)

immaterial (1520413) | about 8 months ago | (#45508973)

Sorry, Billy. Can't have you in the class. It would jeapordize my bonus...

Re:Horse, meet water (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#45509491)

Funny how companies scream about too much regulation and artificial legislation, until they do the regulation and artificial legislation.

Re:Horse, meet water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509017)

Well said.
It is disgusting to penalise teachers simply because men and women are different, and have different needs and desires, disgusting.

There is no "shortfall". (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#45508923)

There is no "shortfall" of coders. There's just a glut of employers who want just-in-time employees cheap. Ones they can lay off at any time. Ones they don't have to send to training classes.

Women went into IT in the late 1990s, when it looked like a good career choice. Now it isn't, so they don't.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45508997)

I work for a company who would love to hire good coders. They pay well, hire permanently, and have no problem sending people to a few training courses.

All employees have to work on a 4 month contract first though, as a sort of test. The vast majority are useless, as is evident during that trial phase. We have no trouble finding resumes, but have significant trouble finding good coders.

The shortfall isn't in occupation, it's in talent. At least my own job security is good.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509069)

It takes a long time to become a good coder, its called knowledge capital. You work to train and retain your coders and you will have good coders.

Why are you posting as anonymous? (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 8 months ago | (#45509165)

If the place is so great then name it.

The vast majority are useless, as is evident during that trial phase.

... and ...

The shortfall isn't in occupation, it's in talent.

Talent usually falls along a bell curve. And half the programmers out there will be worse than the other half of the programmers out there.

If you're having trouble finding the good programmers then you either aren't advertising the job openings enough or there is some problem with the pay/environment/project that causes the better programmers to choose other employment.

Re:Why are you posting as anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509335)

Talent usually falls along a bell curve. And half the programmers out there will be worse than the other half of the programmers out there.

Actually, a grand majority of people are mediocre to worthless. Intelligent and skilled people are by far the minority.

Still, your suggestions have merit.

Re:Why are you posting as anonymous? (0)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 8 months ago | (#45509497)

I'm pretty sure skill is a sliding scale, not a Bell curve. That is to say, there are very few people who are experts, there are a few who are very good, there are more who are tolerable and the vast majority who are unskilled (in nearly any skill).

They want to move the mean (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45509517)

Talent usually falls along a bell curve. And half the programmers out there will be worse than the other half of the programmers out there.

And that's why employers want more training: so that the skill level that's presently a standard deviation or two above the mean can become the future mean.

Re:They want to move the mean (2)

gagol (583737) | about 8 months ago | (#45509607)

We also need more truck drivers, we should teach commercial diving in school as well! Seriously, school is about learning to live in society and with a bit of luck, seed a taste for knowledge that will drive the pupil to get knowledge bit itself, not create cheap labor to save training costs on corporations who prefers to NOT participate as much as possible in financing the education system.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 8 months ago | (#45509323)

I work for a company who would love to hire good coders. They pay well, hire permanently, and have no problem sending people to a few training courses.

All employees have to work on a 4 month contract first though, as a sort of test. The vast majority are useless, as is evident during that trial phase. We have no trouble finding resumes, but have significant trouble finding good coders.

The shortfall isn't in occupation, it's in talent. At least my own job security is good.

Maybe your 4 month contract requirement is weeding out the good coders that don't want to give up a full-time job for a 4 month test that may leave them without a job if they don't live up to some hard to quantify metric of "good enough". And apparently most people fail your test and end up out on the street after the 4 months.

A full time job is no guarantee of future employment, of course, but I doubt I'd be willing to take a contract job that "might" turn into a full time job in 4 months.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 8 months ago | (#45509499)

Maybe your 4 month contract requirement is weeding out the good coders that don't want to give up a full-time job for a 4 month test that may leave them without a job if they don't live up to some hard to quantify metric of "good enough".

Too bad I don't have mod points. That's exactly the case.

Think about EVERYTHING that a good programmer has with an average employer.
Paycheck
Medical
Dental
Vacation
And so forth.

Is the 4 month contract paying so much to offset the other disadvantages? Primarily VACATION. Because 4 months means that Christmas and such will happen if the contract starts from September through December. Which puts the ending from December through March. That's HALF the year right there.

And if the programmer has kids then summer vacation is an issue as well.

Hey, just give up on your family for 4 months while we "evaluate" you.

And hope that you and your family are very healthy during those 4 months because health insurance is expensive.

So what the "testing" is really doing is selecting for younger coders without experience who are willing to take on such contracts to build up their resumes.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509337)

You can't attract talent offering a 4 month contract-to-perm trial opportunity?!? Stop this world, I want to get off...

Re:There is no "shortfall". (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509385)

So... who do you work for? The shortfall is lack of cheap brilliant talent willing to work in substandard conditions. There are more STEM graduates than open jobs. Over 50% of IT leaves for other fields because of lack of pay and working conditions.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 8 months ago | (#45509085)

There's just a glut of employers who want just-in-time employees cheap.

I was going to make exactly the same point. I imagine what they're really after is to have such a enormous supply of suitable workers that they can get away with paying next to fuck all.

It's in their financial interest to make coding or admin just another low paid job.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (5, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | about 8 months ago | (#45509281)

I guess that they're trying to solve the mythical man-month conundrum by having women instead.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509297)

Coding != IT.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45509397)

Exactly right, they've decided that they should be able to pay their software engineers slightly above what McDonald's workers make. So they looked at McDonald's workers and determined they could be paid so little because there are so many of them... viola, we needs lots and lots of coders so there is more competition in the workforce and we can therefore pay them less. I don't know any company that's having trouble finding programers, but I know LOTS of programers that can't find jobs. The idea that this is some sort of noble cause they're fighting to help anyone but them selves is a joke.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (3, Informative)

gagol (583737) | about 8 months ago | (#45509625)

viola = raped, the word you are thinking about is voila.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (1)

mike555 (2843511) | about 8 months ago | (#45509413)

So, because you DESERVE and are ENTITLED to your "job security" and high salary (no matter your qualifications etc.), other people do not deserve a shot at it? Interesting logic. There is a shortfall. Try running a business and find some people to hire who really know what they are doing, not just call themselves programmers.

Re:There is no "shortfall". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509603)

So, because you DESERVE and are ENTITLED to your "job security" and high salary (no matter your qualifications etc.), other people do not deserve a shot at it?

Those words you emphasized (and that I further emphasized so you'd know which ones), I do not see them in parent's post. I do not even see anything implying such sentiments in parent's post.

The only person using "interesting logic" is you.

Because we all know ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45508957)

That the gender ratio of any program's enrollment is under the direct control of teachers, and they are clearly to blame if it isn't up to some group's ideals. But why merely dock the teachers pay? Why don't we waterboard them and give them jail time instead? That will solve the problem much more quickly!

How can those incentives help? (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45508967)

First of all, I too really want to see more females working in the tech industry. I think it's one of the more female friendly work environments around, especially since the experience can be so tailored to your interests.

That said, I don't see how those incentives are healthy or really help anything. I don't think everyone would enjoy or be good at coding; so incentives that make instructors coerce people into entering a programming class mean fewer spots for people who would enjoy and benefit from the class.

Instead we need to focus on efforts that get females to seek out classes like this (efforts like AppCampForGirls) , not get instructors to lure females into the class...

Re:How can those incentives help? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509039)

It would help if IT computer janitors weren't creepy nerds who refer to women as "females"

Re:How can those incentives help? (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509111)

I used that term because I didn't want to imply only grownup women. "Females" to me implies, well females of all ages... just as I would use the term male to refer to males of all ages. Since you are so wise, what is a better term? "Women" implies only adults, and the only way the problem is solved is if teenage (and younger) girls also become serious coders...

Re:How can those incentives help? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509201)

Just say women next time. Or how bout "women and girls"

Vocabulary exists for a reason (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509241)

Just say women next time. Or how bout "women and girls"

"Women" as I said is inaccurate. Strunk & White would veto your sentence expanding "women and girls" when a perfectly good english word, Female, exists to cover both terms and indeed the totality of the gender.

I fail to understand why anyone would see "female" as a creepy word unless they had some underlying issue with females themselves or were too steeped in political correctness to write well because of some absurd fear of trigger words. It's very suspicious you are not willing to attach a "real" handle even to your assertions.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509315)

It just sounds creepy. You can logically argue that it's not on slashdot but don't use it in real life or people will think you are weird.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 8 months ago | (#45509351)

I seriously don't think I would want to hang around people who think the word "female" is creepy to begin with, since they're most likely complete morons.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509361)

A) We are on Slashdot, my comment will be read on Slashdot and very probably no-where else. Writing should always be tailored to audience if possible.

B) My wife, who is not in a technical profession, does not think use of female is weird. I would use the term with anyone, anywhere, because everyone knows what the term "female" means.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509509)

Ok, ok, I give up. :) I guess you ultimately were right.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (5, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about 8 months ago | (#45509483)

It [the word "females"] just sounds creepy. You can logically argue that it's not on slashdot but don't use it in real life or people will think you are weird.

It's not the word. It's the way you say it in that Ferengi voice.

Just saying.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509633)

It's not the word. It's the way you say it in that Ferengi voice.

I guess I need to update my browser. All I'm getting is text, I don't see an option for listening to it in the other AC's voice.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509343)

It's because I'm not a faggot IT computer janitor

You can't even insult well (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509419)

As you hate gay people, we can assume you hate women equally, therefore your ability to critique my own use of terms for femailty is null and void (and NULL and nil and 0 for that matter).

P.S. Computer Janitor is one of the lamest insults I have run across in many years. Even if I were an IT administrator and not a developer, being a "janitor" for a computer is more like being a janitor in a building where you have to fight ninjas and/or pirates every day, in addition to re-arranging the structure of the building itself which changes daily and must be warped back into working order.

So calling someone a "Computer Janitor" is the equivalent of calling them a "Warrior Architect". Not exactly the put-down you had hoped for when it implies they could hospitalize you for days with a good stare and a few typed commands.

You must have had some admin work you over pretty good, computer wise, to hate them so... Good for him.

Re:You can't even insult well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509485)

As you hate gay people, we can assume you hate women equally

Your failure of imagination is noted. He clearly hates everyone equally.

Re:You can't even insult well (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509571)

Your failure of imagination is noted. He clearly hates everyone equally.

Aha! But note that my statement in no way implies he does not hate every other group also - it merely states that he hates gay people and women equally, which is a valid subset of your assertion!

You make a great point though, and I would note that includes himself (and we all know this is a he...).

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason (-1, Troll)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 8 months ago | (#45509367)

Now you're sounding like one of those near-aspies who "just has to be technically right" all the time and has to have everything be "logical"

Look when you say "the females" it makes you sound like some aspie ferengi who doesn't leave the basement. You might as well say something like:

"I do not under-stand why the hew-mon females don't become programmers"

female isn't a creepy word, but when you use it where normal non-geek non-near-aspie people would use "women", that's when it makes you sound weird.

Re:How can those incentives help? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509275)

or how about you quit being dense and accept that "females" is perfectly acceptable?

Re:How can those incentives help? (-1, Flamebait)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 8 months ago | (#45509269)

True, the correct term is 'parasites'.

Re:How can those incentives help? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#45509135)

Maybe if they could get more instructors to see the benefits of luring girls...

Re:How can those incentives help? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509171)

I hate working with women, specially after they get married. I have gotten stuck in many projects because they got pregnants then all of the sudden my workload doubles. At cruch time close to deadlines you can't count on them because they have to leave early to pick up the baby. Baby this and baby that. I rather prefer that a female be my boss than have her work as my equal in a project.

The "man" behind the curtain (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509331)

Potential FEMALE programmers - realize that this idiot is not representative of the vast majority of professionals you will encounter in a programming career.

P.S. Men go away for maternity leave too, and have to deal with picking up children. What you are complaining about is not really a gender based issue.

Re:How can those incentives help? (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 8 months ago | (#45509401)

" I think it's one of the more female friendly work environments around, especially since the experience can be so tailored to your interests."

Please explain how it is a female friendly work environment.

In my experience, a female friendly work environment has these characteristics:

1) Fixed schedule. (No)

2) Few strings (No -- tech expects you to be consonantly available even during off hours)

3) Stable (Tech is constantly changing = No)

4) Long time with one employer (Again, no ... it can happen, but tech is the opposite of a static environment)

You have the assertion it is a female friendly work environment --- I don't see in what ways this is true. Unless you see something not mentioned (or are referring to tech in a very relaxed and uncompetitive environment like government?)

Re:How can those incentives help? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45509621)

1) Fixed schedule. (No)

A fixed schedule is not friendly to anyone, especially families. I work now on a very flexible schedule and it is better in every way.

Yes sometimes overtime may be called for but I enjoyed it when younger, if you like programming it's not that big a deal.

2) Few strings (No -- tech expects you to be consonantly available even during off hours)

Not true of all jobs, if that's a problem find something where it's not true. If you are a good developer you can make that happen.

3) Stable/4) Long time with one employer

Stable also means boring, who wants a boring job? I would claim there are both male and female workers who would prefer stability, just as there are male and female workers that do not mind a more dynamic environment.

Basically the kind of people who seek all of the attributes you list probably wouldn't like programming anyway, as programming itself as work is none of those things either. So to me it's not a gender issue but just which people fit well personality-wise with the job of programming.

If Only We Had More H1-B Visas.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45508977)

We could suppress wages in the U.S. enough to hire more Americans. The talent is here. They just don't want to pay for it.

Teaching programmer? (4, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#45509015)

I don't know a single competent programmer that started programming because someone taught them how. They started programming because they wanted to.

Manipulating teachers isn't going change that outcome.

 

Re:Teaching programmer? (3, Interesting)

Sneftel (15416) | about 8 months ago | (#45509129)

You don't know a single competent programmer who just started programming just because they wanted to. They started programming because they had the opportunity to, and the support. And if manipulating teachers is effective in countering their (probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented) bias towards offering opportunity and support towards mostly boys, then it's the right thing to do.

Re:Teaching programmer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509179)

And if manipulating teachers is effective in countering their (probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented) bias towards offering opportunity and support towards mostly boys, then it's the right thing to do.

So there are anti-female punji sticks at the entrance to the computer lab, and male CS profs are actively ignoring female students?

Do tell.

I smell beta-male bullshit.

Re:Teaching programmer? (2)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 8 months ago | (#45509399)

Oh, you don't know of the time in the past, like say the 80's when a lot of Slashdotters were growing up...that the commodore 64 that was bought for them... wouldn't have been if they were girls? Or that the computer was basically "their computer" because at that time computers/video games were considered "boy toys"

yes it's better now, but there are still remnants of that thinking left.

Re:Teaching programmer? (5, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#45509245)

You don't know a single competent programmer who just started programming just because they wanted to. They started programming because they had the opportunity to, and the support.

Bullshit, I self taught myself. I had no teacher and my parents were computer illiterate, and many of the greatest programmers I know followed the exact same pattern.

And keep in mind that there wasn't the internet then, I had to learn from the few books on the subject I could acquire or borrow in the public library. Today all you need is access to a computer and to an Internet connection.

probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented

Sorry to pop your bubble, but the only documented bias that exist these days is against male students, and in every field of knowledge, not only in CS, and it is a bias reinforced by initiatives like this.

Re:Teaching programmer? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 8 months ago | (#45509347)

I agree with this. I learned to program when they got some computers in the library in school, and by the next semester I was better than the teacher teaching the course. Most of the good developers I know are the same; they didn't get into it because it was a profitable career, they got into it because they were good at it and they enjoyed it.

Re:Teaching programmer? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 8 months ago | (#45509299)

I started programming when I was 15 1/2.
I did because I wanted to.
No one supported me in it ... who and why should one?
In the end I made it my profession, but about to give it up :D

Re:Teaching programmer? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45509565)

Why giving it up?

Re:Teaching programmer? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 8 months ago | (#45509539)

Do you even know any programmers? I don't know a single one (out of dozens and dozens) who thought "hey, I wonder what I should do with my life" and picked up the idea of coding from a career fair or something. Every single one started on their own, and it's easier than ever to do that nowadays.

Re:Teaching programmer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509365)

What's worse is that there ISN'T a shortfall of programmers, nor is there evidence that an increase programmers, male or female, will directly improve the software or tech. industry at all!

The bullshit being brought up here, by supposed 'industry' figure heads, is downright absurd, bordering on disgusting. I really wish the tech. community en-masse, with sites like Ars. leading the front, op-ed these morons into oblivion on this. This NEEDS to be dealt with, with just as much fervor and coverage as SOPA!

Medical students mostly female - same measures ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509027)

Now that most medical students are female, will the same measures be taken to punish "sexist" women doctors ?

Businesses can't hire people who don't exist. (2, Informative)

flaming error (1041742) | about 8 months ago | (#45509035)

"women still account for only about 25% of all employees at Code.org supporters "

And how many unemployed female software engineers do we have who can't find work?

Businesses can't hire people who don't exist.

Re:Businesses can't hire people who don't exist. (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 8 months ago | (#45509131)

Did you miss the part about training more? It's pretty much the whole summary.

Re:Businesses can't hire people who don't exist. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about 8 months ago | (#45509355)

"It's pretty much the whole summary."
Then it's pretty unlikely I'd miss it, wouldn't you say?

Did you miss the implication of big software gender inequality hypocrisy? What the author leaves dangling as an indictment actually supports big software's effort to train more.

Re:Businesses can't hire people who don't exist. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509295)

Better question: what benefit do you get from having a 50% female work force? Does your code magically become better if an equal share of it is written by a woman? No. Good coders write good code. Gender has nothing to do with it, and I'm sick of seeing these efforts to artificially shift the demographics of a work force purely to meet some political agenda.

Great idea (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#45509053)

Penalize teachers for things they can't control. How do you as a teacher ensure that at least 40% of your students are girls? Throw out some boys that are interested in programming?

Re:Great idea (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#45509099)

>How do you as a teacher ensure that at least 40% of your students are girls? Throw out some boys that are interested in programming?

Yes. That's exactly how it works in NCLB. Identify the failing ones and pull them from the class or school before they start affecting your averages. This situation is no different.

Other Fields? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509075)

So will the same apply to nursing teachers if not enough male students enroll?

Re:Other Fields? (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 8 months ago | (#45509133)

Yes, and let's not forget to fine mechanics schools that fail to recruit "enough" females and cosmetology schools that fail to recruit 'enough' males as well.

For that matter why not just make it law that whenever people gather, for any reason, at any place, at any time, there must be exact parity between the genders.

Re:Other Fields? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509193)

For that matter why not just make it law that whenever people gather, for any reason, at any place, at any time, there must be exact parity between the genders.

You should see the admissions spreadsheet of the grad school at which I'm employed.. it's telling. 51 percent female, 49 percent male.. 50 percent minority, 50 percent Anglo.

Pussified fucking social engineering at its best. With YOUR tax dollars, white boy!

Re:Other Fields? (4, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 8 months ago | (#45509149)

Some years ago (1990s I think - it was quite a while ago anyway), the University of Washington proposed what amounted to reverse affirmative action in their teaching school with the goal of increasing the number of men going into that female-dominated area. They got slapped down pretty hard by the various women's groups, and quickly back pedaled.

What's sauce for the gander is obviously not sauce for the goose.

Re:Other Fields? (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 8 months ago | (#45509363)

There is no "reverse discrimination", only discrimination.

Re:Other Fields? (2)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 8 months ago | (#45509427)

I think you're mistaken, last I checked those sorts of programs still existed.

Am I missing something? (1)

culmor30 (2676135) | about 8 months ago | (#45509081)

Last time I checked, teachers in K-8 (or at any level) weren't responsible for recruiting students into their classes. In fact, I don't recall them having any say in the final course rosters at all. Why is it proposed that we punish them?

What does this do? (5, Insightful)

XB-70 (812342) | about 8 months ago | (#45509163)

This is sexism at its very worst. Funding one gender over another only serves to create animosity between them and suppress the gender that is not given preferential treatment. Why don't we put the funding towards researching how each gender takes up information and teach to those pedagogic methodologies? Education is one of the few areas where we have made minimal progress in the last 100 years. Students are NOT getting noticeably smarter. If we achieve the ability to learn more, faster, we all will win.

Re:What does this do? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#45509289)

More than that, why don't we accept that genders may have different interests and live with that? As long as any person of each gender has the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases with their professional lives, which is already guaranteed by law, I don't see a problem in having 90% males in Engineering and 90% females in Nursing.

Re:What does this do? (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 8 months ago | (#45509439)

You don't see a problem? Well part of the problem was this:

Dad brings home a gift for each kid, and automatically brings home the following:

Boy gets electronic toy

Girl gets nurse a doll kit

There was no asking about interests, because the societal expectations of the time. So kids with interests that weren't the norm for their gender had such interests discouraged.

Re:What does this do? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 8 months ago | (#45509647)

Why didn't the girl kick the boy in the balls and take the electronics? Obviously she didn't want it bad enough

Re:What does this do? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#45509339)

Education is one of the few areas where we have made minimal progress in the last 100 years. Students are NOT getting noticeably smarter.

Well actually, they have been getting measurably smarter. [wikipedia.org] Perhaps some of them still don't do research before forming an opinion, as exemplified by your post.

Re:What does this do? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 8 months ago | (#45509379)

I thought the intelligence increase was diet based, although I may be remembering incorrectly. Teaching doesn't increase intelligence, only understanding an problem solving abilities. Based on what I'm seeing, the school system in North America is not improving, it's getting worse.

Re:What does this do? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#45509513)

As the article linked to indicates, that is one hypothesis [wikipedia.org] , and a possible explanation. Assuming you helped to contribute to the Flynn effect (with your increased intelligence), it wasn't by an increase based in research capability, as it seems you avoid even the most basic and obvious research before opining publicly.

Blame (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509191)

.... if fewer than 40% of their CS students are girls ...

Yeah, let's blame the teachers for school girls using prick-teasing clothes instead of using mathematics, logic, syntax and computers. Rewards to third parties isn't going to eliminate the sexual double-standards.

Courses for men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509209)

Seriously, with sometimes more than 60% of enrolments to courses being female for university, where are the extra incentives and forced spots for men in say biology related disciplines (seems to me basically 90% women, mostly asian)? People should go into courses at university based on interest and competence alone. Placing women based on gender lowers the value of women in these professions because the ones that do succeed on merit might have done without merit just as well because they have tits.

Please stop (0)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 8 months ago | (#45509257)

Girls hate programming (And silly boys who program). It is in there genes it is who they are stop trying to change them.

There will only be so many girl programmers the same way there will only be so many bronies in the world.

Stop wasting your time convincing people to do things they will most likely end up regretting but by all means otherwise work to make the field as accessible as possible to all who *want* in. Quotas are the wrong tool and the wrong measure of success.

because it matters? (4, Informative)

argStyopa (232550) | about 8 months ago | (#45509263)

Really?

The politically-correct bullshit has to stop - do people REALLY believe there's a concerted effort to keep women out of coding? It must be so, because that's the only situation in which this sort of thing would matter.

What you've just told CS instructors is to MAKE SURE every last woman in their course passes, and there's a financial reward for it.

Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?

Re:because it matters? (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 8 months ago | (#45509345)

Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?

Maybe the women are more likely to tolerate being underpaid. If training more coders is an effort to keep wages down, it might make sense to train a class of people who have historically worked for lower wages.

Hypocrites (4, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#45509279)

It's easy for these assholes to talk, they were the extremely lucky ones in a winner-take-all industry which often metes out its rewards in absurd and haphazard ways.

You really want to make this world a fairer place: how about paying all your employees a decent wage, and maybe even take a cut from your ridiculously high comps? Then you might be providing an actual reason for more people to get into coding, including the ones with vaginas.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 8 months ago | (#45509473)

"It's easy for these assholes to talk, they were the extremely lucky ones in a winner-take-all industry which often metes out its rewards in absurd and haphazard ways."

Ha! You think Zuckerberg and Bill Gates just were lucky? Both had to fight tooth and nail against many competitors for several years and fend off many different challenges.

Your whole posts reeks of ignorance of history. Facebook was barely a blip on the radar in 2005. Microsoft in 1981 was certainly no monopoly and their future depended on IBM at the time --- and IBM was constantly out to try to make Microsoft irrelevant (let alone Apple and other companies wanted to knock off IBM).

You really should read some history of the fights and challenges that the builders of the top companies had to endure and their willingness to fight on the business and marketing level --- and especially meeting perceived market demand and shaping that --- is what built their respective companies.

Is he really a billionaire? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45509293)

I'm not sure that facebook boy deserves to be called a billionaire. He holds more than a billion dollars worth of (horrendously overvalued) stock, but as best I have heard he does not have a billion dollars in actual currency. He won't likely be willing - or able - to sell off his stock quickly enough to reach a net worth of $1B when the stock finally tanks for the last time when the market acknowledges that facebook has no actual business plan that can produce at that level.

Re:Is he really a billionaire? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 8 months ago | (#45509519)

"I'm not sure that facebook boy deserves to be called a billionaire ... but as best I have heard he does not have a billion dollars in actual currency."

What is an example of someone who has a $1 billion dollars in actual currency?

Furthermore, you do realize the awesome way to leverage wealth on paper is to borrow against that value --- therefore avoiding the income tax of actually selling the stock while --- simultaneously --- expensing the interest payments of loan again taxes!

Such is the way of the wealthy ...

what a load of crap (1)

John_3000 (166166) | about 8 months ago | (#45509329)

Congress probably does understand the law of supply and demand but just doesn't have the spine to resist billionaires.

As mentioned in prior notes, H-1B is unmistakeably a tool to flood the programming market with cheap labor to keep wages down.

What surprises me most, given all the high minded rhetoric one hears about helping "the developing world," is no one ever seems to mention that US immigration policies work to strip poor countries of their intelligentsia and commercial talent.

Girls like charming teachers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509359)

Charming teachers who are good at telling personal stories, like to joke around with the kids and take note of the prom and stuff like that. Not guys who are likely to be good STEM instructors.

Teachers don't enroll students (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#45509383)

Maybe those billionaires didn't go to college, or even school, because anyone who did knows teachers aren't in charge of enrollment, the school is.

So this is to punish teachers for something they can't control?

Okay, that made up my mind. (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 8 months ago | (#45509445)

By the way, while not mentioning these specific programs, CNET reports that Slashdot owner Dice supports the STEM efforts of Code.org and Donors Choose.

In that case, I guess I've no choice but to strongly oppose the STEM efforts of Code.org and Donors Choose...

Useless sexist assholes (4, Insightful)

cfalcon (779563) | about 8 months ago | (#45509447)

Sexist assholes hard at work. Ignore the skilled and dedicated boys, we're trying to something something who the fuck knows.

Useless morons. I guess we can write off code.org as being anything but shitsacks.

This is so sexist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509507)

Why isn't everyone calling it sexist? I find it discriminatory too.

This is not the solution (1, Informative)

Alex Vulpes (2836855) | about 8 months ago | (#45509511)

The problem isn't that girls are denied an opportunity to learn coding when in college. The problem is that they're denied this opportunity when they're younger, they're told it isn't for them. Here's a good illustration. [smbc-comics.com] To solve the gender discrepancy we need to go for its roots, not try to cover up the symptoms.

Well that, and there's the sexual harassment issue, but the same thing applies. Don't try to force girls into computer science; make the environment more comfortable and welcoming, and they will come on their own.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509581)

One kid is more talented, driven, has better self-taught skills, etc than another. To select which kid to teach, and which one to kick out, check what equipment they have between their legs.

Really? How on Earth can this kind of fucktarded thinking ever lead to good things?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...