11–20 of 102 posts
Begging pardon, but is this not the wrong group of people to ask this question? Shouldn't we be asking women who didn't pursue computer science, not women who did?
I read all these responses with interest. The only strong opinion I hold is that we should accurately represent the thesis that we are discussing, even if it means we need to use more words to describe it. Mr. Regis didn't argue that women don't pursue computer science. He didn't say that it surprises him when some of the top computer scientists are women, he didn't say it surprises him when a woman has great interest in computer science. He made a ratio argument - that he believes that about 20% of the top computer science students and scholars will be women.
The sad thing is, I believe there's plenty to discuss, argue, even rightly object to in that thesis. But we must not claim that he said women can't be, or won't be computer scientists. He said the opposite - that some of the top computer scientists will and should be women. If someone believes that 20% of the elite computer scientists will be women, does that mean a woman in a class should worry that this professor doubts her competence or commitment?
This isn't a purely rhetorical question. If you deeply believe the main reason that women are less represented in computer science is because women ace powerful social deterrents, and that in the absence of these deterrents the percentage of women in CS would rise dramatically (far above 20%), then it could follow that a professor who openly states that 20%/80% represents the natural equilibrium must only be a professor who fails to see the issues that women face - and that this disqualifies him from a leadership position in a top computer science department.
Begging pardon, but is this not the wrong group of people to ask this question? Shouldn't we be asking women who didn't pursue computer science, not women who did?
Begging pardon, but is this not the wrong group of people to ask this question? Shouldn't we be asking women who didn't pursue computer science, not women who did?
You didn't read the article. The women are responding to an essay about why women don't want to code. As women who do want to code they're exactly the right people to ask.
> The women are responding to an essay about why women don't want to code. As women who do want to code they're exactly the right people to ask.
How are they "exactly the right people to ask"? They're the exact opposite! Can you see the backwards logic in your comment? If you want to know why someone's doing or not doing something, ask them, not the people who chose opposite.
The Seattle Times did a nice job here of presenting viewpoints from women Computer Scientists at different points in their careers.
The headline reads: "A UW professor argued that women don’t want to code. What do women computer scientists have to say?"
The sub headline reads: "Six women computer scientists from the University of Washington respond to an essay about why women don’t pursue computer science as often as men."
In some ways, I think that misrepresenting these headlines can be harmful. A young woman considering CS who reads the headline might conclude that a professor at UW things that women, across the board, are uninterested in the CS major. If she reads the sub-headline, she might conclude that he believes that fewer of the top students will be women, but that certainly some of them will be.
I can't say that the second is welcoming, but it's a very, very different statement from the first.
Can anyone make a summary. I tried to skim quickly but I couldn't see any real reason. Thank you
I read through the responses. It appears all disagree with Stuart Reges. The first few responses disagree, a couple toward the end go farther and discuss the harm that occurs when someone expresses this opinion. One essay does insinuate that perhaps he should lose his leadership position for expressing this opinion. I read all these responses with interest. The only strong opinion I hold is that we should accurately…
A similar thing happened w/ the Google Memo when so many prominent media outlets (as well as commenters all over the Internet, including here at HN) attacked it for saying things it never said before the accusation was changed to "well, it was based on bad science". By the time it got to that point, the conversation sort of dissipated, and I didn't get to hear much debate about the science.
I don't have an opinion in either case, but it does seem like one side is consistently doing the misrepresenting. And it leaves me (a more-or-less neutral observer), suspicious: after all, why would you resort to misrepresentation if you're confident in your position?
Can anyone make a summary. I tried to skim quickly but I couldn't see any real reason. Thank you
The first essay is a bit high-level, but the second lays out some pretty specific, straightforward ways that women get the short end of the stick in the CS field:
> It is more common for men to get credit for collaborative work than women, something I experienced when a student wrote in a publication draft that an idea of mine originated with a collaborator — even though progeny of the idea had never been discussed.
If you don't care enough to read that far and then assume that this means there's no "real reason", I think that's the definition of willful ignorance.