Beta

×

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!

Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the i-blame-the-schools dept.

Education 489

An anonymous reader writes "Diversifying the tech industry is a prominent topic these days, with much analysis being done on colleges and companies that employ software engineers. But exam data shows the gap is created much earlier — it's almost overwhelming even before kids get out of high school. From the article: 'Ericson's analysis of the data shows that in 2013, 18 percent of the students who took the exam were women. Eight percent were Hispanic, and four percent were African-American. In contrast, Latinos make up 22 percent of the school-age population in the U.S.; African-Americans make up 14 percent. (I don't need to tell you that women make up about half.) There are some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year. No women in Mississippi or Montana took it. Seven states had no Hispanic students take the exam: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota. And 10 states had no Black students take the exam: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah. In some of these states, there simply aren't many students of any race or gender taking the test, which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities. (Indeed, no women or minorities took the exam in Wyoming—but that's because no students at all took it.) But Idaho had nearly 50 students taking it, and Utah had more than 100.'"

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Women make up more than half (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#45931493)

(I don't need to tell you that women make up about half.)

Actually girls graduate at a higher rate than boys both in college and in high school. So they make up more than half the graduates.

This is the AP Comp Sci exam (4, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45931519)

My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?
If you treat education like a cup of coffee [youtube.com] , you might be more pleased with the results.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931581)

My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

If you treat education like a cup of coffee [youtube.com] , you might be more pleased with the results.

Because education isn't about personal gain anymore. It's a business. Period. And you've become nothing more than a number. Not even a student number, just a number buried in a statistical pile somewhere that states exactly what you should expect to achieve with your over-analyzed degree over the next 50 years, to include your chances of getting married, having children, or your expectant salary down to the dollar, adjusted for your zip code.

Statistics. That unforgiving bitch no one asked to be invited that tries to manipulate all of our lives. I kind of feel bad for women here to be honest. After all, it's clear that they don't have interest in certain fields, and yet we're berating them into it with pointless statististics. Fuck that. Do what you WANT in life. You only get one shot at it, and statistics are often dead fucking wrong due to personal choice and the chaos that ensues.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 7 months ago | (#45931775)

Statistics. That unforgiving bitch no one asked to be invited that tries to manipulate all of our lives.

Statistics don't manipulate people - people manipulate people.

Seriously. I wish more people understood more about statistics, in particular their elementary application, because that would avoid much of what you're talking about. If nothing else beat into their heads two basic points. First, correlation does not demonstrate correlation. Most people here have heard that a thousand times, but it's not widely appreciated in the general population. Second, statistical behavior is not deterministic. That's the ultimate "duh, no kidding", but it's usually unappreciated. If person A belongs to group G, P(success|G) < P(success|!G), it doesn't determine whether person A will succeed.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" only applies to people who don't understand statistics and their application.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (4, Funny)

jafiwam (310805) | about 7 months ago | (#45931929)

People don't know what "correlation" and "causation" mean in the first place.

Let alone used together.

Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931947)

You forgot to mention variance around the mean.

Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 7 months ago | (#45932163)

Beat the 2 points I mentioned into people's heads, and then we can work on the fancy stuff.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 7 months ago | (#45932151)

Oops, "correlation does not demonstrate correlation" should obviously be "correlation does not demonstrate causation".

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931629)

My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

When you have a real job and all the bills are paid.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (3, Insightful)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 7 months ago | (#45932039)

From your word choices I will make the entirely stereotypical and somewhat racist assumption that you're a Brit.

Would you be cool with it if the only 18-year-old kids in Scotland who evinced an interest in one of the most lucrative career fields were the children/grandchildren of peers? Would you just be like "I guess the commoners like working for McDonald's?" Or "I guess Irish Catholics don't enjoy tech work." Because that's pretty much exactly what's happening here. The people who ran the country (and, in fact, who created the country specifically for their own benefit) were white men. We've fixed most of the worst problems, now we really pride ourselves on America's ability take anybody (that "Give us your poor" poem on the Statue of Liberty was always jingoistic BS, but that doesn't mean we don't think it should be true) whose willing to work and make them wealthy.

Tech is the career field that is most likely to take you from loser to Millionaire before your 30th birthday. And only the old nobility is taking advantage of it. Therefore everyone else wants to know why. Your explanation ("Black people and women just don't like tech work") works at a logical level, but it's identical to the reasoning white men used to explain why black people and women weren't dominating the economy in 1910; which means that it's not terribly convincing.

What I suspect is going on is a couple things:

1) The white upper-middle class is a lot bigger on college education then anybody else (except possibly Asians, but none of the states mentioned have a large Asian population). This means they send their kids to schools which have lots of AP course options, and force their little darlings to take multiple of these courses. A HS AP course not only raises your GPA, thus increasing your odds of Harvard, if you pass the test it also counts as a 3-4 credit college class. I suspect that if the AP did a survey on class status of test-takers the white working class (which is bigger then the black population in most states) would take the test even less.

Note that the way we do education in America guarantees that non-whites (and poorer whites) will have significantly less access to AP tests. You either have to pay $20k per kid per year in private education, or live in a school district with a bunch of rich people paying taxes to get your kid into a school that offers lots of AP classes. Since school districts tend only to have a handful of neighborhoods, this means to use public schools with AP tests you have to be wealthy enough to live in a very good neighborhood. It also means that in the event a cheap neighborhood ends up in a good district, it stops being cheap.

2) HS kids are obsessed with identity. The ultimate insult to any HS-age boy is to imply he's either female or gay. Girls will try boy things at that age, but not as often as they would a few years later. It's very rare for a non-white HS student to consider a white teacher a role model, but early 20-somethings will happily take a white college professor as a role model. Which means that when one racial/class group monopolizes a career field it's much less likely for HS-age kids of other groups to think they could actually do that shit. A couple years after High School the technically inclined black kids will stop thinking of programming as something that makes white guys (like Zuckerberg) rich, and start thinking of it is something they could do, but generally by the time you're 20 you're already a) in the midst of a career or b) halfway through college in a non-CompSci program.

Note that this is not just a race/gender problem. The kids of the working class white guys aren't likely to go for computer programming when they're 17 because Zuckerberg/Gates/etc. all seem a lot like NPR-listening upper-middle-class geeks and they're proud hicks. But nobody measures this shit because in the US nobody really thinks the white working class is distinct from the white upper class.

--------------------

I don't really know if there's a way to fix this that's politically possible.

You'd need to tax the entire state to pay for AP classes in poor districts, and include in the program a budget so that female engineers, white working class engineers, black engineers, latino engineers, etc. could show up in schools and point out that they do, in fact, exist and one does not lose ones female/working class/black/latino/etc. cred simply because one chooses to learn programming.

But the white upper class won't go for it because they like the system that ensures their kids get into Harvard, and really hate paying taxes to benefit other people's kids. The white working class will split because they don't think of themselves as a class that benefits from higher taxes on upper-class white people, and latinos are too busy trying to convince the rest of us that they shouldn't be deported en masse to help. Which means that thew only people actively lobbying for this would be blacks, and blacks alone don't have the votes to change the system.

Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932077)

It's very rare for a non-white HS student to consider a white teacher a role model,

And it is also rare for a white HS student to consider a teacher a role model. At that age - we were not going to be teachers.

Einstein and Edison was my role models. I did not know what they looked like, color unknown. I had only read about them in books. Books without pictures. I admired them for being smart.

In other news (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 7 months ago | (#45931497)

Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life. More on this when we talk about how women dominate professions which require high empathy and social skills.

Re:In other news (2, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 7 months ago | (#45931565)

Empathy is slightly off, in fact the positions you are talking about often like lower empathy. You are talking about a good ability to read emotions/people, like a sociopath.

Sales,HR, etc and the like. Interacting with people, but most of the time not looking out for their best interests.

In my opinion, of what little real evidence there is, it points to men being the empathetic gender.

1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.
2. Women and girls are simply not known to be caring. See high-school girls (what is the first thing that pops into your mind: caring or mean and spiteful).
3. See every female animal with a cub ever, who are known as the most cold blooded killers out there.

Re:In other news (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 7 months ago | (#45931609)

Yikes. I'm not touching that.

Re:In other news (2, Insightful)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 7 months ago | (#45931699)

1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.

How do we know that?

Re:In other news (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931741)

1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.

How do we know that?

Since you asked, here's a citation backing up the GP's assertion: A Qualitative Analysis of the Parental Influence on Psychoemotional Empathy Generation in Juvenile Female Homo Sapiens Sapiens [slashdot.org]

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931715)

Have to agree. Recently UFC started adding women's fight including championships. Now in the fight game, be it boxing or MMA, there is always a certain level of trash talk before a fight. First and foremost to sell the fight. The average schlub is more likely to buy a pay-per-view of something he thinks is a grudge match. Second, to get in your opponents head and kill their confidence. Generally after the fight all the animosity goes away. The fighters are pros and they know once the fight is over the utility of trash talk is over. Better to bury the hatchet and get on good terms with your opponent, maybe one day you will work with them as a sparring partner or end up fighting out of the same gym. But...the women...they hold the grudge! Ronda Roussey refused to shake hands and talk to her opponent after her last fight, saying Meisha Tate disrespected her family etc. The crowd was booing so loud. It just seemed like such bad sportsmanship to not give some respect to the fighter you just defeated. Sometimes the loser will rush out of the arena heartbroken at the loss, but for the winner to hold a grudge and be spiteful was just bad sportsmanship! I thought women were supposed to be all about empathy? Well, to me combat sports can show a lot about a person's real personality and what it showed of women fighters is not that good.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931943)

The men's fights are downright congenial. Sure they're trying to break eachother's body parts, but that's just what they do. End of it they're hugging, congratulating each-other... It's like "The way you shattered my nose was totally awesome, I have so much respect for you right now!"

Even the trash talking is almost friendly.

Re:In other news (1)

MacTO (1161105) | about 7 months ago | (#45932065)

Well, it is based upon stereotypes both ways. But I do agree that the professions that are typically associated with empathy simply are not.

I have a background in elementary teaching, and while caring elementary teachers are certainly sympathetic, I've encountered a number of men (and women) who could not make it because empathy got in the way. Simply put, you cannot invest too much emotion into the kids. If you do, you will both burn out and make poor decisions. The real concern is the long term development of the child (academically, physically, and socially). Sometimes that means stepping away from the immediate concerns and looking at how you can develop a foundation that will help them for the rest of their life.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931721)

Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life.

I don't know (much) about culture but concerning the gender... while it may start early in life (some would say just from the begining of it), in some cases there may be some discontinuities [wikipedia.org] along

Re:In other news (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 7 months ago | (#45931811)

Culture and culture plays a huge part as well. Look at the what most seem to think is the current 'black' culture in he US and think about how much it encourages science and technology. The problem seems to be that people don't want to bring up how dangerous is in both the short and long term as they will be thought of as racist. There is such a thing as bad cultural practices, and they can be changed fairly easily if people want to, but you need to separate it from race.

No Shit Sherlock. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931503)

I think you'll find it starts even earlier than that in the what do you want to be when you grow up department.

oh no! (3, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45931511)

Kids who are not interested in XXX dont do XXX when they get out of high school! Also, water is wet

Re:oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931999)

High school is where kids begin to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives, and women have the socially acceptable option of being housewives. That's got to be a strong lure.

Re:oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932181)

Kids who are not interested in XXX dont do XXX when they get out of high school! Also, water is wet

Very true. However, I think I speak for all of Slashdot when I say that XXX is one field where I'd prefer there not be an equal split between men and women. Please, continue to let women dominate the profession. You can have equality for men when you pry it from my warm, sticky hands!

People are different... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931529)

... and have different interests and capacities, this results in differences which people with political agendas perceive as 'gaps' and not as simply people naturally having different interests and being different from each other.

here we go again... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931533)

Its 2014, not 1992.. Why must we try so hard to get women to work in tech? I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech. Maybe they just don't want to. Just putting that out there. I'd love to see more women in tech, but don't brainwash someone into it.

Re:here we go again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931657)

I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech.

Then why are women so much less likely to enter CS than men? If there's no disproportionate influence, why is there a disproportionate response?

Re:here we go again... (1, Insightful)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 7 months ago | (#45931813)

Probably for the same reason that women are capable of breast feeding while men aren't. They are not equal. Equality under the law does not, should not, and never will mean that men and women are actually the same.

Re:here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931873)

So you think a biological factor is pushing women away from tech? Care to suggest what it might be? It seems simpler to me that the culture surrounding the tech industry is male-centric, rather than women are biologically hard-wired to avoid something that didn't exist for 99.9% of history.

Re:here we go again... (2, Insightful)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 7 months ago | (#45931921)

I think there is a high likelihood that the differing brain structure and soup of hormones/other chemicals their brains swim in may play a significant role, yes. Throwing out from consideration a known variable before the experiment because you don't want it to be true is extremely poor science.

Re:here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931995)

Our brains.
We're not wired the same way, that's one of the biological factors. Men's range of what constitutes a fine way to spend their professional life is more likely to include the horrific crunch conditions of development and programming. Half of the women in the HR cube farm where my brother works? Verbal sniping is as friendly and teamworky as you can hope to get them. They're gone at ten to five, take a supervisor aside to try and get another in trouble about once a day, and projects miss deadlines because preparing something for someone else just means they might succeed instead of you.

Men are more likely to, day by day, view a bit of overtime (if even paid more for it) as acceptable, even at the cost of time with children and loved ones. So can women, but more of us view this as a bum deal. Because it usually is unless you're getting time and a half as a blue-collar.

Re:here we go again... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931663)

I got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for computer science instead of humanities. I told that I like computer science better. His answer: "you know, some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities." It was NOT after failed test or anything like that. It was in the beginning of school year and he knew nothing about me.

How many boys got asked stupid questions like that? Girls can pick up that they are not supposed to be interested in these things soon enough. We are supposed to be clueless and kids are good in picking up such clues.

Re:here we go again... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 7 months ago | (#45931993)

I had a college prof who used to tell freshmen and sophomore programmers that clearly had no acumen in the field (male and female both) that they needed to find a new major. It was harsh, but he was usually right.

Re:here we go again... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 7 months ago | (#45932165)

A couple of key points to consider.... the first being that such a recommendation is infinitely more acceptable in college than it is in high school, and the second being that even in college, such a recommendation would generally come from that person's academic historical record, which was not the case in the above person's anecdote.

Re:here we go again... (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about 7 months ago | (#45932097)

got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for computer science instead of humanities. I told that I like computer science better. His answer: "you know, some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities." It was NOT after failed test or anything like that. It was in the beginning of school year and he knew nothing about me.

And if a daughter of mine came home from school with a story like that, I'd have been all over it, asking why teachers are discouraging somebody from taking a class about something that the student indicated a preference for. What difference should it make how good other may be compared to how hard the course might be for somebody else? Some of the people in humanities could also be very good too... should they also be discouraged from taking that class as well simply on that premise? Sure, it's definitely possible that it might not interest you as much as you had hoped in the beginning, but you'd learn that over the year as you took the class. What kind of basis would a teacher use for deciding that a student was liable to change their mind about how much interest they had in a subject when they plainly said that they liked it?

I'd be expecting an apology from that teacher to be delivered to my daughter the following day, or else I'd be wanting to see that teacher fired.

Wow.... just wow. How *DARE* that teacher suggest that you wouldn't be any good or have any significant interest in computer science just because you happen to have ovaries.

Re:here we go again... (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 months ago | (#45931871)

Because we want to get the best people. If you look worldwide, the gender balance (to pick the one imbalance your post mentions) is a lot closer to 50:50 in some countries, in others it's even more skewed. This implies that there's nothing intrinsic about women that makes them genetically less likely to want to do engineering or scientific things, there's some other cultural or social pressure stopping most of them. If we're only recruiting from 10% of the female population that, absent these pressures, would have gone into these subjects, then we can hope that it's the best 10%, but that's not very likely.

Re:here we go again... (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | about 7 months ago | (#45931963)

I wonder if there are articles on fashion industry sites lamenting the lack of heterosexual males in the fashion industry.

Re:here we go again... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#45932173)

Why don't you go and read some articles and find out?

And yes there (a) are heterosexual men in the fashion industry and (b) there is a social pressure which reduces the number. This is not a good thing.

But this is a tech website not a fashion one, so we tend to discuss issues relevant ot the tech world.

What I tell kids. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931535)

Forget the computer science - go for the biology and other hard sciences.

I have yet to hear of a hospital that offshored their medical staff or lobbied for H1-Bs.

I have never heard of any medical establishment saying, "There are no qualified Americans."

Funny. I guess all the smart Americans are going into medical.

Oh yeah, and in medical I have never heard any one say that "if you're over 30, you just don't get it."

You haven't been paying attention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931571)

There is a rather LARGE shortage...

Of my last five medical transactions, three were foreign nationals.

And there are a shortage of doctors and nurses in various states.

Now, the REASON there are shortages involve the expense of a medical degree, AND the high yearly insurance fees.

The median debt of a doctor getting out of school is $160,000. Yearly fees and insurance alone is around $32,197 just to attend.

Not very many can afford that.

Re:You haven't been paying attention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931667)

There is a rather LARGE shortage...

Of my last five medical transactions, three were foreign nationals.

And how many were on H-1B's rather than green card-holders?

Competing with immigrants isn't the problem. Competing with indentured servants is.

Re:What I tell kids. (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 7 months ago | (#45931631)

The thing is IT workers are seen as white collar jobs/glorified secretaries and firms resent having to paying them wages as very qualified workers.

Re:What I tell kids. (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 7 months ago | (#45931735)

I apologize for the formatting- for some reason the comment editor ignores my attempts to break things into paragraphs even though I have selected the appropriate options... I was an EE for 22 years, worked for some of the biggest names in the business, and in my early 40s they tried to stick me into management or marketing. I stayed in engineering and as a result, hard a hard time keeping jobs and finding successive jobs. After a couple layoffs (stock price drops $2 per share, so the brilliant CEO, who wants to look proactive to shareholders, tosses a couple hundred people out on the street, including engineers in their 40s). As an engineer I was many levels removed from the end users of the products I worked on. None of the stuff I ever worked on ever made a big impact in anyone's life. At work they were always pushing us to work more and more hours, even as benefits declined. Every time I was forced to change employers by either Dickensian working conditions or a lay-off, vacation time dropped back to next to nothing. Trying to take vacation time as anything other than occasional three day weekends resulted in management giving me the hairy eyeball. Trying to take advantage of the company-paid higher education "opportunities" got me the same push back as trying to take vacation time. All the time it was getting harder to find work, more and more H1B visas were getting the jobs. I saw the writing on the wall and went back to school for 6 years. Now I'm a dentist. I work in public health dentistry, treating mainly working poor people. Every day I relieve people's pain, repair their smiles so they can work at jobs where they have to meet the public, educate them about how to take care of their own and their children's oral health, make dentures so they can smile and chew food again, etc. Everyday my patients thank me for the work I do, sometimes with tears of joy in their eyes. At work I am treated with respect. I work a 4 day week (scheduled 10 hours per day, but sometimes takes a little longer to finish paperwork) can take vacation without anyone complaining or pressuring me not to, I have time off and an allowance for continuing education (which I must use it to maintain my license, so there is zero resistance from management). I earn about what I used to earn toward the end of my engineering career. In summary, my work is far more rewarding than engineering ever was. If I could do it all over I would have been more selective about where I worked as an engineer and would have made the career change much sooner. Finally, when I was deciding on my new career, I started with healthcare because they can't send your job to another country. I spent time with physicians and medical students and with dentists. I found the physicians and med students to be even more unhappy than I and my fellow engineers, and I found dentists to be a pretty happy bunch of people. Med school is brutal and after graduation the insurance companies really kick those guys in the nuts at every turn. That and the detailed work with the hands are what sold me on dentistry. Its very difficult to get into dental school (80+ applicants for every seat when and where I went to school), and the schooling isn't easy, but I don't think it is as demanding as medical school (I know because my wife was in med school at the time).

Re:What I tell kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931853)

Type <BR> where you want carriage returns. Two in a row will give you a space between paragraphs.

Actually it starts at conception (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45931555)

This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women.

Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

Now I am not saying women are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most women simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.

What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the gender gap in these fields? What about the lack of female lumber jacks or female coal miners or female crab fishers?

I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.

And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young men that started out with NOTHING.

Nothing is stopping women from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most men aren't wired that way either.

Statistically some men are... and while some women are... its a tiny percentage.

In any case, this gender gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy women's lib bullcrap.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931577)

Obviously because it's the evil male patriarchy keeping womyn down by brainwashing them into thinking they don't want these jobs.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931627)

Cool. Where do I sign up to be part of the evil male patriarchy?

Re:Actually it starts at conception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931683)

Check your privilege you sis scum: If you don't know then you ARE the evil male patriarchy!
</sarcasm>

Re:Actually it starts at conception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931593)

I wish I had mod points today. You said everything I wanted to say.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45931779)

That's why you're not given mod money, right there.

The Forum is afraid you'd have less time to post these pearls of wisdom.

Please, people, stop with the "I'm sorry but"s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931651)

"I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? "

Stop with the "I'm sorry but"s, mmkay?

It's so womanish. It really is.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (4, Informative)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 7 months ago | (#45931655)

A lot of the young men that dropped out of college didn't risk everything since the college they dropped out of was Harvard.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45932143)

so your argument is that women don't have rich parents?

Kindly have a point.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#45931709)

The title talks about gender AND race gaps. So let's talk about race too. But your commentary works as well for racial differences too. It's just not as popular to point it out.

"This is a sticky issue but there are differences between whites and blacks.

Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

Now I am not saying blacks are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most blacks simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.

What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the race gap in these fields? What about the lack of black lumber jacks or black coal miners or black crab fishers?

I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.

And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young whites that started out with NOTHING.

Nothing is stopping blacks from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most whites aren't wired that way either.

Statistically some whites are... and while some blacks are... its a tiny percentage.

In any case, this race gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy affirmative action bullcrap."

It' still kind of works though I kind of got a grin talking about black coal miners... I kind of thought they ALL were.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

Velex (120469) | about 7 months ago | (#45932053)

The problem with every single one of these damned threads are people like GP who start off well enough pointing to all the data that proves that male and female brains are wired differently, but then completely misses what those data are saying as you've aptly pointed out.

Those data aren't saying that women are better or worse at xyz or are biologically predestined to be interested in something or other. What those data are saying is that the brain has a gender, too. Now, if only I could get MRAs to look at their own very good data and come to a more sensible conclusion: that the male gender is not more authentic than the female gender---that anyone who does not desire living as the male gender is not somehow a commie pinko feminist. But whatever, that's another rant and I could have replied to GP if I'd wanted to post that.

However, I think you're wrong, too, because lumping women and minorities together is brain damaged at best. Minorities (including minority women) face completely different problems than white women do. In fact, at times the problems facing both groups are completely and utterly inverted.

Look at arrest rates. If you're black, you're probably going to be arrested. I know firsthand what it's like knowing that walking into a business I've never been in before might get the cops called on me for no other reason than my unusual appearance. At least for me, I can go for a little while before a store owner will realize that I'm not a womyn-born-womyn, freak out, and call the cops. I can only hope to imagine what it must be like to have a skin color that would get you refused service at the counter because of what some moron Christian believes about some story in Genesis about how their god made some guy black because he was wicked and was meant to be a slave as his punishment.

And no, don't tell me that nobody seriously believes that shit. They do. And the more the economy tanks, the more of them there are.

Now, white women on the other hand are something utterly different. This may surprise you as well, but go actually interact with some real white womyn-born-womyn and you'll see this too. Their Mothers give them all the information they need to become Mothers themselves. It's easy for them to do, and it's a guaranteed paycheck from the government, guaranteed subsidized housing, and guaranteed food on the table. As a bonus, if she can bring on enough of the crocodile tears in front of a judge, she'll even get the father's (or some other guy she was cheating on him with) wages garnished and sent her way too!

Womyn-born-womyn, by and large, know that they don't need skilled jobs for a living. This is the problem we've created by listening to the feminists and coddling womyn-born-womyn, putting them on pedistals, and letting them get away with just doing whatever the fuck they want. I won't say they don't have self-discipline; they do. These are the daughters of Mothers, and they've been given everything they need by being assigned the female gender at birth with a reproductive system on the inside.

Think about it. If we didn't force boys to get their hair cut instead of letting them wear it however they want like girls can, how would you ever tell the difference between a boy or a girl before the age of 10?

We listened to the feminists, presumed womyn-born-womyn to be damsels in distress and oppressed, despite enjoying the same socioeconomic status as men born to similar situations, and it turns out that individuals who don't need skilled jobs to afford to live and have children, won't .

That is why there are no womyn-born-womyn in tech jobs. Trans women get into these jobs just fine. What the fuck is wrong with womyn-born-womyn and why should we care? They've decided they don't need to be a part of the tech sector, and why should we force them?

Or, as I've said before, maybe we do need to force them. If I had been a womyn-born-womyn, I would have studied human languages instead. That's really where my interest lies. However, when you're assigned the male gender, we expect you to work, and that means you don't get to just do whatever the fuck you want. That means you get yourself a skill, whether you're "interested" in it or not, and you go out there and fucking make some money. Why don't we start forcing womyn-born-womyn to get skills and real jobs?

Re:Actually it starts at conception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932161)

Women aren't born with the same social-economical status as men. They make 70% of the salary as men in equivalent jobs for equivalent skills.

They are bombarded with gems such as "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" and are considered a freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture.

Take a look at Iceland. There, math is considered a girl thing and horses are considered a boy thing. Opposite of here in much of North America. (Iceland is still wrong that these things are still gendered at all, but it shows it's not wired into our brains by genetics - it's wired their by culture).

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45932185)

I didn't say that. Your strawman is not a counter argument.

You don't have a right to define my argument. That is my right. Just as I cannot define yours.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 7 months ago | (#45931711)

This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women. Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

I presume you're talking about the nature part of nature vs. nurture. Yes, there are differences, but you haven't cited any specific differences which have a causal effect on who decides to go into CS. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but waving your arm and saying that because there are differences, it must account for this difference, is a very fuzzy argument.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45931949)

The person be they male or female makes the primary choice.

And that choice is in part a factor of their gender.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

Velex (120469) | about 7 months ago | (#45932157)

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we expect anybody assigned the male gender at birth to be breadwinners and have no such expectations for womyn-born-womyn?

Why are there so many trans women in tech careers and no womyn-born-womyn? Perhaps it's something other than biology.

I believe this is a problem that feminism created for itself. Womyn-born-womyn know they don't need to learn a skill or trade in order to become Mothers, and oh how we shower Mothers as a society.

I hear in Iran, things are quite different. Maybe feminism would like it if we took some direction from them since whatever they're doing seems to be encouraging womyn-born-womyn to get into tech. Maybe we should implement the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2010 recommendation to legitimize the practice of female genital mutilation. Who knows what differences might exist because we mutilate one gender at birth and not the other; maybe we should just do both. Even the reactions womyn-born-womyn had to both the AAP's 2010 report and the AAP's 2012 male circumcision report. The AAP says, sure go ahead and mutilate little girls, and knees jerk until the cows come home. Say that men are better off circumcised, and you get a small army of womyn-born-womyn reporters smirking and nodding. After all, if we screw up when we're cutting a man's genitals and slip or wrose, he was just expantable anyway, and he probably wouldn't have been good in bed anyway, so who cares, right? It's utterly lost on womyn-born-womyn that if they hate having sex with intact men, why are they mutilating an infant instead of having this conversation with somebody they're dating?! Do these womyn-born-womyn plan to have sex with the infant?

No. It's about control. Womyn-born-womyn love that nothing as horrible as a botched circumcision could ever happen to them, and they love it. If we waited until the child was a bit older, the child might protest or the child might be aware that a part of his body that he needed was amputated and that it's not normal for his glans to constantly hurt.

That's just the beginning of all the stupid, artificial ways we've decided to create gender. Maybe it's because of the cisgender blind spot, but I don't know that I care anymore. When womyn-born-womyn are telling me that my skill with computers is because of a chemical that's not in my blood or because of a body part that's been mutilated that I'm seeking to remove entirely what should I fucking do?

Womyn-born-womyn love how things have turned out.

I don't know if they do this in Iran, but maybe we should force womyn-born-womyn to play sports that they hate whether they like it or not. Maybe we should take away their privilege of wearing their hair however they want it and tell them they're just ditry hippies if they want it to be long. I suppose I could go on.

How about if a womyn-born-womyn gets pregnant and she can't afford to provide for the child, we take the child from her instead of giving her cash and housing? That might shake up the career and life choices that womyn-born-womyn make!

None of these things has anything to do with biology and everything to do with the post-feminist culture we've created where anyone assigned the male gender at birth is expendable and womyn-born-womyn are privileged brats.

Re:Actually it starts at conception (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 7 months ago | (#45932199)

Combined with your earlier point, that's a tautology:

There are differences between men and women.
Such as?
The choose different types of work.
Why?
Because there are differences between men and women.

Nonsense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931575)

Can't force someone into something they don't have calling. Let each individual make own choices instead following some numbers on the spreadsheet.

what I found interesting... (3, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | about 7 months ago | (#45931613)

If you drill down to some of her Excel spreadsheets you'll find that the overall number of female CS exam takers was 18.5%. One might explain that by arguing that women just don't like math/science/etc. But you'll also find that 48% of Calculus AB exam takers were women. Possible explanation: you need calculus if you're planning to do pre-Med as an undergraduate and lots of women wants to be doctors. Apparently very few women want to be software devs and/or engineers. But it's not because they're unwilling to take a math class, as we can see from the rate of females taking the Calculus exam.

Re:what I found interesting... (1)

moschner (3003611) | about 7 months ago | (#45932019)

What I wonder is: How many high schools offer CS classes sufficent to prepare a student for the Advanced Placement computer science exam?

Or even how many teachers, faculty, and/or students are aware of AP CS exams?

Another thing is the cost of taking the AP exams. Who can afford to take the exam if they are not really sure it will help? For 2014 the fee for each AP Exam is $89. If a student qualifies financially, they may only have to pay $55 or $53 per exam.

This creates a financial barrier to entry that also be a factor in who is taking the exams.

is created (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about 7 months ago | (#45931617)

>"But exam data shows the gap is created much earlier"

"is created" implies that some one or some group is guiding/causing/forcing it to be so. A better wording would be "appears" or "unfolds" or "starts" something.

Wording is important.

Black bitches don't code (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931639)

This is why we can't have nice things

Skewed summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931643)

Mississippi gets thrown under the bus in the summary. Yet when you look in the excel file 2 schools were involved. Only 1 student took the exam. And they don't have results for him. I love when statistics are used incorrectly to discriminate. Especially when the statistics are supposedly being used to point out such discrimination. A skewed summary built on bad data (how does one student attend two schools) to get attention and free advertising for their college. At least they had the common sense to leave out the states that had no students take the exam. They should have calculated a minimum sample size to represent the group and thrown out all the states with less exam takers than the required sample size. Considering that not all states have the same minority ratios, They could have compared the minority ratios of those actually of test taking age and living in the remaining states proportionately on a state by state basis. To summarize the data as-is is in poor taste and will lead to poor judgments.

So what? (4, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 7 months ago | (#45931647)

This just in: different genders and ethnic groups are naturally attracted to different things.

Next we'll be hearing about how there are an inordinately high number of females in the hairstyling and beautician industry or how basketball has too many black men.

Oh, wait, no we won't, because discriminating against white males is the racism du jour.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932003)

So you'd agree, then, that our culture steers women away from high-paid tech work and toward "feminine" jobs like hairstyling?

Oh, wait, no we won't, because discriminating against white males is the racism du jour.

Where is the "discrimination" against white males? TFA only suggests that Computer Science courses should start to market towards women as well as men, and that it should count for credit towards science unit requirements.

Speaking as a white male myself, I think you're imagining this discrimination to make yourself feel persecuted. It's fucking great to be a white male in a society dominated by white males! We earn more than pretty much every demographic, get shorter prison sentences than nearly every other race, we're much less likely to be imprisoned at all for drug offences, don't get targeted by police nearly as much, and are more likely to be born to rich parents than anyone else.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932187)

A black guy (Spike Jonze) makes a movie (_Her_) about a white guy who falls in love with his cell phone.

Could that be racial profiling?

It starts at conception (5, Interesting)

jackspenn (682188) | about 7 months ago | (#45931659)

Why are we fixated on trying to artificially diversify professions?

The PC BS has to stop at some point. There are some professions and things that men prefer more than women and others that women prefer more than men.

I will give you one example of this insanity:

In the mid-nighties a friend of my parents came over all upset. She was a manager for a publisher and all except one of her editors were female. She explained that men did not have a strong desire to edit textbooks. The only male she could find that was both good and interested cost her over double the rate of any other female editor. The reason was that she had to hire him away from another employer so that she could meet a diversity requirement from some of the states who purchased her textbooks.

Well, this male editor ended up getting an even higher offer from a different publisher. As she sat at my parents table saying "Men just do not enjoy or wish to be editors as much as women do. How am I ever going to find enough men who are both good and interested in doing this job?"

It was at this point that my dad who worked in IT at the time walked in and heard this statement. He said "I have the same diversity issue at work, they would like to have more women in IT, but most women don't want to be in IT."

At this point my mom suggested the simple solution, she explained how my dad was paying good women more money than men to work in IT when he could find them and sometimes not as good women when he had nothing else. So my parents friend ended up hiring three not so good male editors and just had whatever they edited initially sent back through to other editors.

Was that fair? Was it right? No, it was what the government wanted.

People walk around saying "Diversity is our goal" or "Diversity unites us". Yeah, that last one goes up at a state office building each April, I go to their lobby just to laugh at their mini-ministry of truth.

The truth is so much simpler. Hire people who are interested in learning/growing in the areas related to their work. Don't worry about how the numbers turn out. The only reason companies worry about diversity is because of some BS forms some bureaucrats asks them to fill out. Don't let your world be shaped by this nonsense. If asked be honest, explain you do not discriminate, you only hire the best qualified.

(I agree, I do need an editor)

Enough already (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#45931673)

Men have personalities. Women have personalities. They quite often very different. They lead people into different directions in life.

Why aren't we asking why there aren't more "jocks" in science and why there aren't more "nerds" in sports? It's the SAME CAUSES.

And every time the topic comes up, it invariably results in recommendations of making an environment more comfortable for the other party. And this push ALWAYS goes one direction without fail. So here it is.

WHITE MEN: You must change everything about yourself. You are to blame for everyone else not being like you. Women don't want to work with you in your job and it's always YOUR FAULT. Black people never feel welcome or equal in your work place either and guess whose fault that is? That's right. It's your fault.

Has no one ever wondered or asked why we're only pushing to have more diversity in a white man's environment? Why it's considered wrong for there to even be a white man's environment? Why is there no push for diversity in churches? Why is there a Korean Christian church around the corner? Why aren't there more Christians and Jews in mosques? There is a long, long list of things women do which men have no interest and yet no one is pushing for more diversity in those areas.

Diversity is code for anti-white-male. Show me I'm wrong by pointing to an instance calling for diversity that isn't targetting while males?

Re:Enough already (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#45932233)

There is a long, long list of things women do which men have no interest and yet no one is pushing for more diversity in those areas.

You're really claiming there are "things" that women do that "men are just not interested in". You have no idea. Guess what: news at 11! there are social pressures on men as well as women (the modern lack of male primary school teachers is an excellent example of a bad social pressure).

Until you admit that men and women are more diverse than you believe you will be entirely blind to social pressures which stop people being what they want to be.

So, I call bullshit on your "long, long list of things" that "men have no interest in".

There is certinly more variation within either gender than the average difference between genders in essentially every measurable way: there's 3.5 billion people in each and those tails go out quite a few standard deviations with that many people.

But yet you've found a long, long list of things which 3.5 billion of the worlds population like ad no one in the other 3.5 billion likes. Oh and even better, it's completely innate!

Re:Enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932235)

Women have personalities

No they don't.

Boys and girls are different (2)

craigminah (1885846) | about 7 months ago | (#45931681)

Why do we all need to score the same or have the same fill rates in the various skilled jobs? Can't we all just agree that boys and girls are different and will excel at different things? Why does everything always have to be equal? So long as girls have opportunity to take science, math, etc. with no stigma then we've done our part.

Re:Boys and girls are different (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 7 months ago | (#45931691)

...and the various races are different as well (didn't see that part). We all (as populations) are better or worse at certain things, although individuals of any race or gender can excel at anything. Again, we need to ensure everyone has the opportunity to excel...whether or not they do is up to them.

I remain unfazed by tech social justice bullshit. (0, Flamebait)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#45931697)

In some of these states, there simply aren't many students of any race or gender taking the test, which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities. (Indeed, no women or minorities took the exam in Wyoming—but that's because no students at all took it.) But Idaho had nearly 50 students taking it, and Utah had more than 100.'"

Did you know that feminists and social justice warriors need funding for their political careers? Did you know they continue to purposefully present bad statistics [youtube.com] and rely on misleading evidence to further their political goals and funds?

You are now aware that Idaho is 93.8% white. [census.gov] and Utah is 91.8% white. [census.gov] The USA is 77% white, what's your fucking point? That minorities make up a minority? I really can't take anything else they say seriously. It's just that same old bullshit brain rot, like the wage gap myth. There are lots of sick folks in hospitals, doesn't mean hospitals make folks sick. Percentages enrolled and employed don't dictate school or employee policy. Men and women are different. [bbc.co.uk] Women and men make different choices and have different personality traits cross culturally. [wikipedia.org] Yes, I'm generalizing, that doesn't limit the choice of individuals to point out trends. Get over it. However trotting out this tripe as news is just fucking dumb.

Girls "grow up" faster than boys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931705)

Unlike boys that continue to be attracted by shiny toys until much later in their education cycle, girls are already understanding somewhere in high school that what they really want in life is a nice place called home where they can have a family and raise kids and have some sort of social life too. Working hectic hours on 6 months contracts all round the country while competing with hordes of temporary foreign workers obviously won't get them there. So they make different career choices. By 28-30 they already have a family while immature boys are still jerking over java syntax.

What test? (4, Informative)

clickety6 (141178) | about 7 months ago | (#45931755)

exam data shows...

18 percent of the students who took the exam ...

some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year ...

etc., etc. if you're wondering what the hell test is being talked about, you'll need to check the actual article to find it's the Advanced Placement computer science exam.

Re:What test? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about 7 months ago | (#45932043)

exam data shows...

18 percent of the students who took the exam ...

some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year ...

etc., etc. if you're wondering what the hell test is being talked about, you'll need to check the actual article to find it's the Advanced Placement computer science exam.

Yes, I read the article, too, and thus I think the whole thing can be thrown out. It is not appropriate to try to gather statistics about general enrollment in a discipline by the number of people who attempt to go for advanced placement in that discipline. Particularly if you are going by numbers where one of the largest states to participate had 50 whole people take the test. Many states had no one take the test, probably because they have their own standards for determining advanced placement, as probably do most school districts. It's not like there is a federal standard for determining whether a child can be in the AP computer science class.
Talk about jumping to conclusions. Only John "Correlation is Causation" Tesh [tesh.com] manages to abuse statistics more.

Re:What test? (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#45932221)

Well that makes their conclusion that the divide begins before college rather dubious, since the only reason to take the AP CS test is if the college/university you're planning to attend will give you credits for it. If they don't, you're throwing money down the drain by taking the test. (Not that I believe the divide is something caused by colleges - men and women are just interested in different things. But if you're starting from the premise that it's something caused by colleges, you can't disprove it with participation in a test based on college requirements.)

Modern languages are biased (0)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 7 months ago | (#45931785)

The biggest barrier to minorities becoming programmers is that modern languages have been designed to be efficient and understandable for white males.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, only noting that as languages have evolved, they've become less intuitive for non-core users. Women, for example, typically have no problem learning procedural programming. Pascal was a very popular training language in the 80s and 90s well understood by female students.

So while I can agree with other commenters that modern languages require a certain aptitude, this is more by design than some inherent nature. The solution is to stop a one-sized-fits-all approach and consider different programming styles for different demographics.

Segregation? Sure. But modern apps can already have various chunks written in different languages. There's scope there to use procedural (for example) where feasible.

Why, you ask? Diverse voices make a better product.

Re:Modern languages are biased (1)

Paco103 (758133) | about 7 months ago | (#45931957)

Um, what makes a language efficient and understandable for white males? I would buy your argument if it said "English speakers" - because absolutely most languages are designed for English speakers using English keywords, etc. But there are plenty of women and minorities that speak English natively, and I would argue that since these tests are all based in the US, most (not all) of the test takers (minorities and women included) probably spoke English as their native language.

So tell me exactly how we're supposed to use a different style for different demographics, and how is that not discrimination? Are you suggesting women are capable of procedural programming, but not object oriented programming? In that case, they're not allowed to work on the same projects. We'd have the object oriented server, written by white men, the procedural client, written by women, and then the functional data services, written by minorities?

This would seem to imply we should also require a different text book written in some kind of stereotypical dialect for the non-white-male in school.

This really comes down to opportunity and desire. Desire is an internal factor, and if they don't want to do it don't force them, as long as they are getting the opportunity (and yes, I realize when it comes to school there are all kinds of socioeconomic issues at play).

Re:Modern languages are biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932231)

Do women have no problem understanding functional languages?

It starts in the DNA (1)

hessian (467078) | about 7 months ago | (#45931799)

Genders, races, and social classes have different genetic makeups and hence different abilities.

It's taboo to say this. You should ask yourself why.

Re:It starts in the DNA (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 7 months ago | (#45931825)

Well, except the 'ability' isnt programming per se, but programming in Java or Ruby. Let's be clear about that. People who have difficulty speaking English don't typically have a problem with language in general.

Re:It starts in the DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932047)

Because it's a load of horseshit. Especially the "social classes" bit. There are plenty of rich idiots and talented poor people.

Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School (1)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#45931909)

It starts at birth, when they parents put pink clothes on the girl, and blue clothes on the boy.

Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932051)

I spent my first year and a half in pink clothes, as my parents -refusing to be told- were 'certain' they were getting a little girl.
Still didn't make me want to be a pretty princess, and I still ended up building PLCs

I've never seen a female pump porta-johns either. (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 7 months ago | (#45931931)

There are many ways to make money to reasons don't exist to pursue tech unless you are there purely for the tech and don't give a shit about routing around some of the social defectives in it. Men are conditioned for that sort of thing and most women are not.

  It's not nice to point that out but it's a standing joke for good reason.

Medical fields will have strong growth for a lifetime and most cannot be outsourced. A better question then why there are fewer women in tech is why anyone is in it. Some folks can make very good money but most are expendable drones.

coincidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931983)

When I went to the Lynrd Skynrd reunion concert last year the crowd was nothing but aging white blue collar dudes and their fat wives. Clearly, there is a conspiracy to keep down women and People of Color.

alaska (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45931989)

with less than 4% of its population being black and 15% of them being native, its no wonder no black people took the exam

Expert Careers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932023)

We've noticed a statistically phenomenal lack of men in the crocheting business. There are some states where not a single man has signed up for a professional crocheting course, leaving an overwhelming ratio of women to men among the industry as a whole. What can be done to improve working conditions and better enforce equality between the genders?

Goals and aspirations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932041)

I suspect that at least some of the cultural bias is about being the bread winner for a family. Want to major in music? Counselors tell boys to study Music Ed so they have a chance (albeit small) of getting a job; girls go into performance because it touches their soul. Same with other areas - engineering used to be the safe choice for boys; good jobs were available after graduation. If you were willing to take a higher risk you want for philosophy or biology and tried to get into Law or Med school.

Notice I started with "culture" bias, not race or gender. Think about census statistics [washingtontimes.com]

What test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932075)

Stupid summary fails to mention it.

Tech's gender is built in (1)

iplayfast (166447) | about 7 months ago | (#45932099)

I've had a daughter and two sons, and in my experience the tech gender is a built in thing. My daughter was the first born, and wanting to not push her into the dolls and such, I gave her a remote control car for Christmas when she was quite young. (1 1/2). She also had a doll. Guess which one got ignored.

Couple of years later, boy was born. From birth, anything with wheels was fascinating to him. Same for my second son.

Now all children have different personalities right from the beginning so my experience may not line up with yours, but I suspect that there is something natural about more boys liking tech then girls.
 

Free to choose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45932197)

This was an AP CS exam. At least in CA, CS is not required. Ergo, those students who took the test chose to take this class. Apparently, the aforementioned low represented groups, don't like CS. Shouldn't people be free to choose?

PC drool makes scientists gag (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 7 months ago | (#45932223)

Yes yes  PC nancybois whine and squirm.  Girls wear lipstick and have babies ... help men also (see Schrodinger & Einstein for details). Bantu chip stone tools and thieve bling.  What mystery? Do I have to send you a postcard?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>