On the power of stereotypes on girl participation in STEM

Post Reply New Topic

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/girls-computer-science/

I think with classrooms that are still mostly boys, the gender identity will stick.

unless it's a required course.

Anyway, i care about this a bit because i have nieces who are super smart. Two of 'em are 8 years old (different parents).

One of them is already nerdy. They have a "snap circuits" set and she has memorized just about every circuit they can build with it. when she was 6.

Her dad is a programmer, and is fond of pointing out the historic female programmers to her. Ada Lovelace, Admiral Grace Hopper of the US Navy (Creator of the first programming language (COBOL), first woman to achieve the rank of admiral in the US Navy), Jean Bartik, Margaret Hamilton, etc.

Programmers are mostly male. But many of the greatest programmers of all time were women.

I don't think the classroom environment matters in this case, unless it's dramatically different in different states than it is in Iowa. Teachers mostly just decorate their rooms how they want to, many with cat posters that say "believe", their isn't a gender war happening. Students don't usually actually visit classrooms until they actually go to that class. It's not like they think about the classes they want to take and then visit the classroom to see if it's gender appropriate. This study they did was dependent on showing the children their future classroom and then getting their opinion. It's actually showing that women are biased against Com Sci itself because they think it is geeky, but when they see the regular classroom they become less biased against it. This is a problem with preconceived notions, not the actual classrooms themselves. This isn't going to change overnight, it's going to a long process of mothers teaching their daughters what is culturally acceptable for them to be interested in. It all begins with the parents of the previous generation. Maybe touring children to see classrooms of their future classes actually is a beneficial idea that will speed up the process.

So girls don't participate in STEM at the same rate because its too "geeky", well then maybe they should go be a waitress or cashier somewhere then, why is there there this pressing need to get dullards in the field? It's such a stupid article, girls would like STEM if we made it seem more like 'The Big Bang Theory'? No wonder why that show is the bane of the existence of so many on the internet. I'm going to school right now and a woman is my teacher right now, she's great but I can tell you I don't think she ever cared whether or not somebody thought the job was cool enough. Looking at my class it is mostly guys, it fairly diverse background but it is without a doubt it is "geeky" and I'd say there is couple more than just me on the spectrum, the whole geeky thing kind of comes off as an indirect insult towards me and the guys in these STEM classes so maybe the problem is what what women find attractive? The environment couldn't be further from misogynistic btw, most these folks need to be asked to speak up when spoken too. You can't really politk STEM because in the end it is primarily merit based and the results speak for themselves.

I basically agree with Jacoby. I think the whole "get more girls interested in STEM" campaign is mostly a waste of time. I was a girl who became interested in STEM as a teenager and then majored in Physics and studied Computer Science as well. It wasn't because of irrelevant, superficial nonsense like geek stereotypes and female role models; it was because I was interested in the subject matter. With the amount of work it takes to succeed in STEM, interest in the subject matter (along with some minimal level of cognitive ability) is the ONLY thing that is going to assure that girls and young womyn get in STEM and stay there. The flamboyant "science is cool" presentations that are about nowadays may spark a bit of interest, but they are not going to sustain dedication to a major or career in STEM once these youngsters get to college and find themselves slaving over calculus and differential equations for hours on end. The motivation to pursue STEM MUST come from within.

Furthermore, someone who bases their academic interests on stereotypes, lack of role models, lack of female representation, and whatever other "issues" the "girls in STEM" campaigns target is quite possibly lacking in the reasoning skills necessary to succeed in STEM. I can understand that kind of behavior from children, but these kids have years to grow up before they reach high school and college age. A college-aged student with that mindset just might be too immature to handle a STEM major.

Yeah.

Most STEM jobs are mental drudgery, so you MUST really be self-motivated to do STEM.

In college, there are "weeder classes" wherein:

1) The professors tell you "This is not the path to getting rich", "You can do so much better" .... etc.

2) Certain classes are made especially time consuming. They assign you exceptional amounts of lab work to see if you have the motivation to work day and night to get it done, or this was not right for you, and you are "weeded out". This is why engineering school is five years long for many students.

It seems to depend on the focus of the school, for some fields.

Chemistry for example - if you're at a big pre-med school, they assume you don't REALLY need to know that stuff.

Other schools where they expect to produce doctoral candidates in chemistry, yeah, the first year is designed to kick your ass and make sure you really wanted to learn it.

I'm not aware of computer science programs like that. If anything, the guys i know who were CS majors who had already been into computers in high school didn't even bother showing up to classes for the first few semesters. They just checked the professor's web page for assignments and emailed them in.

So the reason girls don't choose STEM is Star Wars?

I'm not sure what I find worse. The suggestion that young women make important decisions based on frivolous decoration objections or that they seem to want to take their decisions away from them.

CS is a liberal arts major at most colleges, so it's substantially easier than engineering school.

Generally, for the CS liberal arts degree:
-advanced math is not required
-can take advanced liberal arts classes in place of technical classes (e.g. can generally substitute four semesters of a foreign language as credit, and avoid four semesters of technical classes)

Where I work presently, they want to see at least two semesters of Calculus on an applicant's college transcripts (Calc I and Calc II), and typically, this alone will disqualify many CS grads.

Article: Why this woman dropped out of Temple’s computer science program
"For example, Temple’s computer science program still requires Calculus 1 and 2. It turns a lot of students off and isn’t really necessary to become a developer, Shi admits".
http://technical.ly/philly/2015/05/12/c ... a-refford/

How do you know this? The "science" in the name wouldn't make much sense if the degree was generally a liberal arts degree.

Lolwut?

Yes, it requires the least math of the hard sciences.

I have been working in software since the 90's. I've known hundreds of programmers. From webmonkeys to coders who write chip-level firmware, device drivers, kernel code, network protocols, you name it.

From coders who use an oscilloscope and a graphing calculator to test their software to the ones that just compile and cross their fingers.

I would agree that the calculus itself is not necessarily required for most programming jobs. For most programmers - the people writing business rules systems and website back ends - it won't come up.

However, if they want to move above that level, it's actually really important that they have taken their data structures courses, algorithms courses, etc.

And they do need SOME math to actually hack their way through that.

So yes, they should have to take and pass those calculus courses.

Most sciences including "computer science" are assigned to the liberal arts college on the university/college.

For example, at the "University of Michigan", the CS students are assigned to the LSA ( liberal arts college).
http://cs.lsa.umich.edu/

That means their program requirements are based on the liberal arts college and not the engineering college (where they definitely would have to take Calc I and Calc II and NOT get credit for say non-technical classes like foreign languages).

The Temple University example prior was a Technology college, so they required Calc I and Calc II.

So you have two types of CS grads:

- type I: more liberal arts orientated, perhaps knows Java, and some data structures has 20 credits of advanced philosophy, 24 credits of Spanish, 8 credits of cultural awareness

- type II: more technical orientated, takes most of the technical subjects, but knows less philosophy and doesn't know Spanish

My employer is leery that the first type might not have enough technical knowledge, so they have the Calc I and Calc II rule.

I don't think that is why they required calculus at all. I've attended two typical public universities that require CS majors to take calculus. This is standard as far as I know.

Wait a second...this is the university discussed in the article?
http://www.temple.edu/academics/schools-and-colleges

This isn't a technology college.

If you know that the hard sciences are classified as liberal arts majors, then you must know that it makes no sense to say that a major is "substantially easier than engineering school" because it is a liberal arts major. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry are not substantially easier than engineering.